Suppressive Fire

[Markus]

After a fair amount of exposure in differing terrain, climates and with different opponents -- as well as with US and other units of varying quality and experience and with varied weapon mixes -- the quick answer is yes but usually only briefly.

Once the initial shock passes most units so engaged will work their way out of it one way or another. Generally, a small volume of accurate fire suppresses (I prefer 'deters' because it really doesn't suppress or stop for much time...) while a large volume of inaccurate fire will not. Any volume and accuracy level works against poorly trained or inexperienced troops; as they become better trained or more experienced, any volume and accuracy will often barely cause them to break stride.

Thanks Ken. This is interesting because the general sense I get from this thread in its entirety is that suppressive fire should be used only as a very brief initial response, to be replaced quickly by aimed fire.

Like a Mad Minute - nobody here seemed to use that term - at first contact, lay down suppressive fire, which is necessarily fire that is relatively unaimed (you might not know exactly where the fire came from - which seems likely to me), perhaps firing bursts into likely spots according to the Mad Minute idea, then switch to aimed fire, which might mean not firing at all for a very long time if you can't see anything, but probably means manoeuvring (which I define as "sneaking up in an organised way to where you think you'll have a good position from which to deal with the enemy").

Rather than "Suppressive fire - doesn't", as the saying does, it is more accurate to say that suppressive fire does but only temporarily.

The advantages of this is that an initial burst of suppressive fire:

• puts the enemy at a temporary psychological disadvantage
• gives you a psychological boost (which may not be necessary for veterans but they're not the category I'm worried about)

Switching to aimed fire:

• reduces the danger to civilians
• permits better manoeuvring(?)
• commands the respect of the enemy
• actually suppresses better than suppressive fire (as someone here pointed out - I think it was in About Face or Steel My Soldiers' Hearts that I read how a single sniper tied down a whole battalion for hours)
• is more likely to hit the enemy
• conserves ammunition

So the answer is not an either/or but rather the judicious blending of the two.

Any criticisms?