Suppressive Fire

[Blah]

Greetings SWC,

Infantry tactics has always been a topic of interest to me, and here has always been a certain aspect that has been of particular interest me. As you can probably guess from the thread title, that aspect is suppressive fire.

I've read about the value of suppressive fire in an attack in order for the maneuver element to close in and destroy the enemy. I have little doubt regarding the validity of such a statement.

There is one particular point I'm having some difficulty wrapping my head around however, and it has to do with what I believe is the US doctrine on the matter. I believe the US instructs its infantry to fire in the general direction of the incoming during a contact with the enemy in order to suppress them.

The problem in my mind arises with the fact that suppression is psychological in nature, therefore, what if the individual(s) receiving said suppressive fire simply... don't keep their heads down. I imagine that the more disciplined the soldier, the more accurate the fire would need to be in order to successfully suppress them.

The way I understand it, there are two facets to suppressive fire: volume and accuracy. I have no doubt that both in tandem are the most effective means of suppression, but I cannot help but feel that accuracy is the more effective of the two.

While the threat of being hit with a stray bullet is ever present when one is taking a high volume of inaccurate fire, would not the discipline soldier realize that being "pinned down" is a more long-term danger against an enemy of similar capabilities, as it allows the enemy to freely maneuver. Not to mention making him a ripe target for indirect fire. Therefore, would the disciplined soldier not will himself to be unsuppressed?

Accurate fire on the other hand, is a significant danger. A near miss has a reasonable chance of turning into a hit within the next 1 or 2 rounds. As the threat to his life is more immediate if he stays exposed, he has an incentive to take cover over remaining unsuppressed.

I feel that there is a danger in the mere firing of one's weapon without effect as well. Firing your weapon makes you more visible to the enemy through your muzzle flashes If the enemy is not suppressed, then you have just presented him with a (more) visible target.

Which brings us back to the US... What I've gleaned from the testimonies of soldiers returning from Iraq/Afghan is that many of the riflemen carry around 500-600 (some have claimed as many as 1000) rounds of 5.56 ammunition with them on patrols, not to mention all of the other munitions and equipment they have to carry. This seems awfully excessive to me, and I wonder if this is due to the nature of their approach to suppression. I wouldn't be surprised if "firing in the general direction of the enemy" works on the insurgents there, however I wonder if it would work if the US were to face a similarly capable military.

Of course, I have never been in combat, nor do I claim to know what it's like, so everything I've just written could be a load of garbage for all I know. In that event, I apologize. Regardless, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the matter.

Thank you for reading, hope my thread is to the standards of this fine forum.