Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 301 to 304 of 304

Thread: Suppressive Fire

  1. #301
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Good questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus View Post
    Has anyone here experienced incoming suppressive fire? Did it work?
    Yes to the first question, depends to the second...

    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.

    Terrain, vegetation, urbanization also have an impact. A well trained unit dispersed to 100m intervals in the desert isn't much of a target and will react rapidly to fire; a poorly trained element, bunched up a few paces apart OTOH will likely take some casualties and thus be deterred. Yet that same crew in an urban area with lots of cover may do much better. In jungle or heavily wooded areas training becomes quite important due to lack of visibility and thus control is very difficult -- people have to know what to do and others must rely on one to do the right thing at the right time.

    METT-TC and training, yet again...

  2. #302
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    19

    Default incoming suppressive fire and the short initial high volume theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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?

  3. #303
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    It's possible to train very quick semi-auto 7.62NATO fire (with rifles such as SLR and G3) in order to emulate the short-range firepower of the full auto setting. It only takes a quick index finger with 'quick fire muscle memory' for this.
    I've seen this with a .22 semi-automatic (the only semi-autos available to civilians in Australia). It was impressive - the volume was impressive, we didn't consider accuracy. Now you mention it, it was so fast it makes me query the necessity of full-auto (although I do take Ken's point that soldiers should have the option for those rare situations where auto is desirable).

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The real full auto advantage only comes into play when you're in an indoor firefight at distances where a compact submachinegun would have been first choice. The SLR has an excessive length for indoor use and has the Sterling as partner, thus the Commonwealth armies didn't lose much by ditching the full auto option.
    And, since carrying both a rifle and a submachinegun is a pain, why not combine them into an M4 or Steyr AUG?

    Speaking of which, I have discovered that:

    The [Steyr AUG] features an Spz-kr type two-stage trigger (pulling the trigger halfway produces semi-automatic fire, pulling the trigger all the way to the rear produces fully automatic fire) and a safety mechanism (cross-bolt, button type), located immediately above the hand grip.
    And, while we're on the topic:

    Some versions have an ALO or "automatic lockout", a small projection at the base of the trigger. This was first included on the Irish Defence Forces variant of the rifle, and soon after, the Australian Defence Forces variant. In the exposed position the ALO stops the trigger being squeezed past the semi-automatic position. If needed, the ALO can be pushed up to permit automatic fire.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_AUG

    Presumably this does give soldiers the option then of auto fire, but stops panicking newbies from unintentionally firing on full auto.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Special forward-visible tracers were developed for .50" machine guns in World War 2 for bomber defences. The point of the concept was exactly their unnerving effect on fighter pilots.
    I wonder if the pilots actually found it unnerving. Presumably they did, since it seems likely to me they couldn't otherwise know they were being shot at. On the ground though it might just tell the Taliban where you're shooting from.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 06-10-2011 at 07:35 PM. Reason: Fix quotes for Wiki text

  4. #304
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus View Post
    Has anyone here experienced incoming suppressive fire? Did it work?
    Yes and yes... but only for as long as the initial tempo of fire is maintained.

    Meaning that what suppresses is a high volume of accurate fire that forces those on the receiving end to get their heads down. Such an initial high volume of suppressive fire is seldom maintained and it petters out into what is called a "lull in the battle". This lull will come for sure and when it does the commander must have a plan to maneuver his men out of their current position (in anticipation that the enemy will shortly attempt to close with and kill you) and into a new position of improved tactical advantage. If you fire back you will just get more of the same.

    We have discussed it somewhere here before and that is what is effective suppressive fire. For unblooded troops what they consider as effective fire in their (collective) first contact most likely won't be considered as such after some combat experience. It takes a little while for troops to become more discriminating about the quality of incoming fire. This problem is insurmountable under general mobilization conditions and there are many records from various wars where "raw" newly deployed units were specifically targeted as they are considered soft targets. Effective and realistic "battle inoculation" training (that which the health & safety nazis won't let you conduct) is what is required to prepare soldiers for battle and improve their ability to accurately read and interpret battle conditions from the get go.

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
  •