Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 304

Thread: Suppressive Fire

  1. #41
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I don't think we had M32s in use back then, and certainly not any ELRP ammunition that would have made the experiment truly beneficial.

  2. #42
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    The majority opinion here seems to be that the only suppressive fire that really is effective is that which nearly kills the enemy, which is to say aimed fire that barely misses the mark. Spray-and-pray makes sense for the first minute or so of a meeting engagement, but after that fire control needs to be asserted, not always easy to do in the noise and confusion. The distinction is to shift to disciplined fire at known or suspected enemy locations, not to fire indiscriminately in a general direction.

    During my day in the Field Artillery we had "Immediate Suppression" fire missions, High Explosive rounds with Variable Time fuzes (HE/VT) fired at enemy Anti-Tank Guided Missile positions. The idea was to make the ATGM gunner flinch during his aim. That was back in the DePuy FM 100-5 days of the Fulda Gap scenario.
    Last edited by Pete; 12-13-2010 at 12:36 AM. Reason: Add HE/VT.

  3. #43
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Spray-and-pray makes sense for the first minute or so of a meeting engagement, but after that fire control needs to be asserted, not always easy to do in the noise and confusion.
    I don't even think we can realistically say that the first minute makes sense.

    I think one of the reasons why people are having a hard time getting their head around the concept of the IAR is due to our notion of not just suppressive fire, but how we see it factoring into our TTPs.

  4. #44
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    There's an exception.

    A small unit might be suppressed and rise at command for a few mad seconds before one after another switch to normal suppressive fires (or run to next cover or whatever).

    The sudden and probably unexpected volume of fire in combination with the acoustic effect (especially if the previous suppressive fire was quite ammunition-saving) can have a lot of psychological effect for a short time and break the previous suppression.

    Such a response would likely not require the normal degree of accuracy for suppression.

  5. #45
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Fuchs is IMO correct, there is a case for a mass of

    rapid -- not necessarily automatic weapon -- fire in some ambush counteraction or surprise situation. However, in my observation, there's no 'rule of thumb' as to when and where to use the technique. Each situation and terrain set poses variables. For example, in a jungle setting, a turn into the ambush positions and rapid semi-aimed (never spray and pray -- so jcustis is also right IMO) and an assault will often be beneficial. If, however, you have a really competent enemy, they will have anticipated that if your forces use it as a technique of choice and will have mined or otherwise prepared to prove that's not always a smart choice.

    Won't work too well in urban combat. Or in some cases in the mountains. Equally obviously, trying that in the desert or any open terrain -- or in deep snow -- will put you at some risk...

    Immediate Suppression by Artillery can be still used, it isn't necessarily for ATGM crews alone. Conducting a good aerial, ground or just a map reconnaissance and establishing targets at likely enemy positions along a your movement route long predates ATGMs. It is really effective, particularly in those big open areas and the Arctic or heavy snow though not so much in Cities, Jungle or dense woods...

    METT-TC...

  6. #46
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Not sure if it is still the case, but for our recon platoons it was SOP for the first man in a contact to empty a mag on full auto in the general direction, after that everyone went to semi.

    A few excerpts from “Sleeping with your ears open” by Gary Mckay, about Australian SAS in Nam.

    Page 43:
    The amount of ammunition carried by the SAS on patrol in Bornea was far less than they carried in Viet Nam, as the threat of enemy contact was far greater in the Viet Nam campaign. Because there was little chance of resupply once a contact started, the troopers used to carry whatever they thought they would need to get out of trouble.
    It goes on to say that a 5 man patrol would typically have one 203/M16 and perhaps two more M16s. At least two guys would carry a select fire SLR with 30 shot mags. These
    gave a very good initial burst of fire in a contact and gave the SAS patrol considerable firepower for a five-man group. An SAS contact drill often sounded like a 30-man platoon in contact when they opened fire instead of just five men.
    One member mentions 240 to 250 rounds carried for the SLR and some 400 for the M16.

    Page 97 (just thought I’d add this bit)
    One member says:
    The SLR was actually designed with a holding open device so that on the last shot of the magazine it held open and so you could carry out an immediate action drill really easy, but that’s no good for a parade ground, you can’t have people messing around on the parade ground like this. So, the hierarchy of the Australian army [and the NZ and I think also the UK] said remove the pin. Our armourers put a pin where it was supposed to be..
    Page 187:
    The expression that ‘bull#### baffles brains’ is very true in the SAS notion of throwing as much lead at the enemy to get him to keep his head down while the patrol took off. The other thing that also helped was the reports from the weapons. The 7.62 SLR was a noisy beast which didn’t go bang, it went boom! […] when you get these beasts firing on automatic and in unison, the noise level was dramatic.
    As one member recalls:
    …and if you had those bloody SLRs on fully automatic, firing a 30-round magazine, and if the flash eliminator was taken off it, you would think, ‘####! What have I hit here?’ Because it sounded heavy, and fast, and automatic, and it would just make old Charlie think, ‘####, I’ve hit something big here’ and it would stop them, rather than race in and try to take you out. Because they think they have hit so much firepower, it’s at least a bloody company, and by that time we’ve got ourselves on a back bearing and ####ed off out of there. But, once that first magazine was gone, from then on that was our rules, you fired well aimed, single shots.” “…if you’ve got three SLRs on fully automatic with a 30–round magazine, s##t flies everywhere.
    I’d say that this would work well in very close terrain, at very short range. Beyond that it would probably be a waste of ammo for rifles.

    I have linked this article some time ago and do it again because I think it makes for an interesting read. Its ‘Bang on target’ on page 139.
    Also note the ‘role of the infantry’ early on. Hehehe.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 12-13-2010 at 07:51 AM. Reason: Replace italics text with quotes
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    There's an exception.

    A small unit might be suppressed and rise at command for a few mad seconds before one after another switch to normal suppressive fires (or run to next cover or whatever).

    The sudden and probably unexpected volume of fire in combination with the acoustic effect (especially if the previous suppressive fire was quite ammunition-saving) can have a lot of psychological effect for a short time and break the previous suppression.

    Such a response would likely not require the normal degree of accuracy for suppression.
    Lets return to the basics and then move on from there, yes?

    First we have the standard stuff where there is some distance between our troops and the enemy. Remember fieldcraft and fire control orders?

    The type of fire variations are:

    Deliberate. (1 shot every 6 seconds) used for long range or
    sustained engagements.

    Rapid. (1 shot every 2 seconds) most commonly used type of
    fire. Ideal for keeping the enemies head down while not using
    excessive ammunition.

    Burst. (2-3 Round bursts on automatic) Used for close range
    engagements or where a high volume of fire is necessary. (Probably issued to the LMG group only)

    Watch and Shoot. Used when the commander wishes members
    of the section to fire at any enemy they see at the given location
    without further instruction.

    The heavy firing would involve contacts at close to very close range (< 50m). Then actually you would be carrying out the applicable encounter action drill

    But then if ambushed one does not go to ground in the killing ground but uses maximum fire together with movement to either assault the enemy or to get the hell out of Dodge.

    If trapped in the open as it seems often happens in Afghanistan the use of smoke to cover yourselves from direct view may well be a better bet than emptying a magazine into the general direction of the enemy fire.

    And remember... when in doubt check the manual.

  8. #48
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    The type of fire variations are:

    Deliberate. (1 shot every 6 seconds) used for long range or
    sustained engagements.

    Rapid. (1 shot every 2 seconds) most commonly used type of
    fire. Ideal for keeping the enemies head down while not using
    excessive ammunition.

    Burst. (2-3 Round bursts on automatic) Used for close range
    engagements or where a high volume of fire is necessary. (Probably issued to the LMG group only)
    I've never been comfortable with these. I find GRIT, "Group, Range, Indication," useful, but not T= type of fire. If you see the enemy, in the are indicated, fire in what ever way you can to kill him. Rate is irrelevant. When you can't see him any more, stop firing.
    So:-
    Watch and Shoot. Used when the commander wishes members of the section to fire at any enemy they see at the given location
    without further instruction.
    is basically all you need.

    The only other fire control order I want is for someone to actively suppress an identified enemy position. So "Charlie Team, 200, left corner of house, be prepared to suppress that trench. Await my command."

    And remember... when in doubt check the manual.
    Some of us have issues with the manual!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    rapid -- not necessarily automatic weapon -- fire in some ambush counteraction or surprise situation. However, in my observation, there's no 'rule of thumb' as to when and where to use the technique. Each situation and terrain set poses variables. For example, in a jungle setting, a turn into the ambush positions and rapid semi-aimed (never spray and pray -- so jcustis is also right IMO) and an assault will often be beneficial.
    Yes in the main but... IMHO you can't leave it to commanders down to fire team level to figure it all out in the heat of the battle.

    For guidance we look to the Brits:

    From Land Operations Part 2 - Jungle (code 70736 - part 2) we get:

    Immediate Action Drills Troops moving through close country are likely to encounter the enemy very suddenly at very short range. To ensure that they react immediately and sensibly and to give the commander time to carry out a quick battle appreciation, immediate action drills must be laid down to allow for contact with the enemy from any direction. The drills must be:

    a. Simple So that they can be clearly understood by every man and carried out automatically without any further orders.

    b. Immediate So that the enemy is caught off balance and the the initiative is regained or exploited.

    c. Aggressive In order to inflict the maximum casualties and retain or gain the initiative.
    Working from this base the Rhodesians formulated/developed/refined Encounter Actions as follows:

    The Encounter Actions

    1. It is important to note that although encounter actions are usually taught on a section basis, they can be adopted for use by a platoon. These actions are applicable to the varied forms of terrain and in all cases normal infantry minor tactics or section and platoon battle drills usually apply after the initial contact. These encounter actions are a sound framework on which leaders at all levels should build as their experience dictates. it should be remembered, however, that no action, drill or order will achieve success unless the leader and men have practiced them to a stage of instinctive action, reflex and immediate reaction to firm and confident initiative on the part of the leader.

    2. If a patrol is accompanied by persons who have little or no knowledge of encounter actions, e.g., guides, informers, surrendered terrorists, etc., the patrol leader should keep them strictly under control and in his view. These persons should be briefed as thoroughly as possible before the patrol starts. It may prove as well to rehearse encounter actions for these persons or even for inexperienced troops before a patrol moves out on operations.

    3. Encounters with enemy could fall under one of the following headings:

    Situation A. The initiative is with the military forces (terrorists seen first). Reaction: Immediate ambush.

    Situation B. The initiative is split between the military forces and the enemy (simultaneous sighting). Reaction: Immediate offensive action.

    Situation C. The initiative is with the terrorist (military forces are fired on with small arms or are ambushed). Reaction: Immediate offensive action to an enemy ambush.
    Read more here

    With (combat) experience commanders can develop and refine this drills to suit local conditions (enemy and terrain). And by experience I mean experience and not only having been on the receiving end of the odd angry shot.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I've never been comfortable with these. I find GRIT, "Group, Range, Indication," useful, but not T= type of fire. If you see the enemy, in the are indicated, fire in what ever way you can to kill him. Rate is irrelevant. When you can't see him any more, stop firing.
    So:- {Watch and Shoot}
    is basically all you need.
    I point I suggest is for the commander to decide what is needed (in terms of fire power) and issue a specific fire control order accordingly... to prevent the troopies just doing their own thing.

    The only other fire control order I want is for someone to actively suppress an identified enemy position. So "Charlie Team, 200, left corner of house, be prepared to suppress that trench. Await my command."
    That is a different type of fire control order - being DELAYED, have no problem with that.


    Some of us have issues with the manual!
    And yes with some good reason.

    I would however suggest that the manual is designed as a training aid so that when in a time of mobilisation your canon fodder can at least be given stock standard good basic training.

    I would suggest that the manual never be allowed to become negotiable among the current operational units where a handful of 20-30 year olds with a few tours and a handful of contacts suddenly know it all - and want to rewrite the script.

    In my time the closest I came to giving a formal (as per manual) fire control order was to the CAS pilots. What I and most others did often (probably due to range of contacts) to indicate a target or area where we wanted fire to be concentrated was the use of "watch my tracer" and "watch my strike". (Were these of Brit origin?)

    So at the right level and in the right place, yes, certainly the manual needs to be reviewed and revised and updated.

    Now back to the fire control issue. I remember that the aim of the whole exercise is to win the fire fight. That is what the commander must achieve. He has some leeway in how to achieve this. But allowed a free for all firing frenzy is not one of them.
    Last edited by JMA; 12-13-2010 at 10:47 AM.

  11. #51
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
    I have linked this article some time ago and do it again because I think it makes for an interesting read. Its ‘Bang on target’ on page 139.
    Also note the ‘role of the infantry’ early on. Hehehe.
    It certainly was an interesting read, as I've heard much more disapproval over full-auto in an M16 than praise for it.

    I personally think that a 7.62x51 rifle would be better for jungle fighting, although I suspect I'm in the minority. My rationale is that the 7.62 will penetrate dense vegetation better than the 5.56, and would thus provide a greater killing/suppressive effect.
    Last edited by Blah; 12-13-2010 at 12:46 PM.

  12. #52
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    What I and most others did often (probably due to range of contacts) to indicate a target or area where we wanted fire to be concentrated was the use of "watch my tracer" and "watch my strike". (Were these of Brit origin?)
    I strongly concur. "Watch my tracer/strike" is about the only form of fire control order you actually ever hear veterans mention.
    I remember that the aim of the whole exercise is to win the fire fight. That is what the commander must achieve. He has some leeway in how to achieve this. But allowed a free for all firing frenzy is not one of them.
    Again I strongly agree. Fire must be controlled. Very simple ways of controlling fire seem to have substantial merit over complicated ones. I really only want the troopies to engage targets they can see, or engage at a rate that stops the enemy moving or sticking his head up. Slow, fast, stop is all you really need.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  13. #53
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    The Bundeswehr has a fetish with pointing directions with a straight arm.I've always laughed about that. I wonder how such a stupid thing developed.

    We even do it when nobody of relevance can actually see the gesture.

  14. #54
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    "Watch my tracer/strike" is about the only form of fire control order you actually ever hear veterans mention.
    Seems to be a common theme in accounts of SOG one-zeros.

    Fire must be controlled. Very simple ways of controlling fire seem to have substantial merit over complicated ones.
    Heard a funny story about a Mike Force SF NCO who once stood up during a fire fight and ran down a line of Montagnards yelling, "No, no, no, bang, bang, bang - yes, yes, yes, bang.....bang.....bang."

    I reckon sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  15. #55
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I strongly concur. "Watch my tracer/strike" is about the only form of fire control order you actually ever hear veterans mention.
    Actually, there is a Youtube video of Canadians in a firefight in Helmand and you can hear one of the section commanders calling out a target indication. In the first 10 seconds here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_S9P1kMNuM

    We worked a lot on verbal target indication in training and the most effective way was for section commanders to christen the ground frequently. "Big grapehut", "orchard" - in Pl patrols I'd give these over the PRR.

    Of course, the first time my platoon got engaged was by a guy with an RPG and the only guy who saw it was the guy with the Minimi, so it was tracer indication for that one!

    M-203 smoke is awesome as well for both ground and air support. Just fire a round and tell the Apaches they're cleared hot.

  16. #56
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default It's an effort to preclude ambiguity and confsuion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The Bundeswehr has a fetish with pointing directions with a straight arm.I've always laughed about that. I wonder how such a stupid thing developed.
    We have the same dictum but it isn't followed very well...

  17. #57
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    With a Spencer armed unit it may have happened ...
    By the way, the inventor of the Civil War Spencer rifles and carbines, Christopher Spencer, took his tube-feed idea one step further circa 1880 when he invented the pump-action shotgun. Winchester wasted no time and came up with its own model a few years later. Spencer's invention is still with us.

  18. #58
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    23

    Default Hmm...

    Would you guys disapprove or approve the use of full-auto in rifles during Vietnam? Considering that that article quoted above states that the line of sight was often not much more than 5 meters in front of them, and that many engagements were around 15 meters.
    Last edited by Blah; 12-14-2010 at 03:58 AM.

  19. #59
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Thoughts...

    Quote Originally Posted by Blah View Post
    It certainly was an interesting read, as I've heard much more disapproval over full-auto in an M16 than praise for it.
    As a Reconnaissance Platoon Sergeant in 1966, I enforced a firm no automatic fire rule for that reason. No problems once I bounced a Steel Helmet off one guys back in a firefight because he violated the rule...

    I personally think that a 7.62x51 rifle would be better for jungle fighting, although I suspect I'm in the minority. My rationale is that the 7.62 will penetrate dense vegetation better than the 5.56, and would thus provide a greater killing/suppressive effect.
    I very much agree but would note that the 7.62 was a big problem for the little Viet Namese. For most western troops, the 7.62 would be a better pick in heavy vegetation for the reason you mention.
    Would you guys disapprove or approve the use of full-auto in rifles during Vietnam? Considering that that article quoted above states that the line of sight was often not much more than 5 meters in front of them, and that many engagements were around 15 meters.
    First, I would disapprove -- full auto fire is only rarely effective and therefor rarely beneficial. Techniques always have to be adjusted to operating modes and METT-TC. That adjustment must be constant, you've got to assess each day and change modes when appropriate..

    Secondly, the linked article must be analyzed with caution. The Australian Area of Operations was unique in several respects and the Australian and US Armies had differing operating philosophies.. Note that most of their contact were in ambushes or reactions to them -- negligible 'hot LZs.' Most American units had different experiences, more helicopter assaults, fewer ambushes and more meeting engagements.

    I read that article last year and I understand what they say -- but I have reservations about their conclusion. Strong reservations. Much depends on the enemy and the terrain / vegetation but as a general rule, massive volume fire in several varieties of all that are in my observation rarely as effective as a smaller volume of accurate fire -- accurate not being one shot, one kill but fire directed very near the proper target. One problem with the high volume of fire folks is that most of that fire will go in places where no opponent is located. It's wasted. If it's automatic, about 2/3 of it will be high...

  20. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I strongly concur. "Watch my tracer/strike" is about the only form of fire control order you actually ever hear veterans mention.

    Again I strongly agree. Fire must be controlled. Very simple ways of controlling fire seem to have substantial merit over complicated ones. I really only want the troopies to engage targets they can see, or engage at a rate that stops the enemy moving or sticking his head up. Slow, fast, stop is all you really need.
    I believe we are 99% in agreement.

    I would suggest that controlled firing into likely cover as practiced in the Drake/Cover shoot often will cater for the RPD gunner lying low and waiting for the right moment to engage. (note I said controlled)

    I must admit I watch many of the videos on YouTube of Afghanistan fire fights/contacts in horror where there seems to be a distinct lack of control in all respects. (Where have all the hard ass'd sergeants gone?)

Similar Threads

  1. Moving the Rhod. Fire Force concept to Afghanistan?
    By JMA in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 196
    Last Post: 08-15-2011, 10:05 PM
  2. Fire with Fire
    By IVIaedhros in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 08-09-2010, 12:16 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 05:39 PM
  4. Friendly fire death was preventable: government report
    By marct in forum The Coalition Speaks
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 05:57 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •