Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
I'm sure I repeat myself, but I cannot resist:
...
Long-range rifle fire is more inaccurate in a firefight and tends to require more ammo = more weight.
...
My conclusion is that the firefight at long ranges (300+ m) should be left to designated marksmen with suppressor (= no flash), expert camouflage and some spacing to the rest of the team AND to mortar fire missions.
I agree with all you say, including these two statements -- however, both those deserve caveats.

The first on the basis that its veracity is a matter of training. Truly well trained troops can provide accurate fire up to 500m easily IF they have a weapon that makes that worthwhile. IMO, they should have such a weapon, others will differ. There are times when such fire is necessary, times when it is not. See remark below.

The second is unquestionably desirable in most circumstances, however, for many reasons it is not always possible. See remark below

Remark: Armies, regrettably should always train for the worst case. If they can perform adequately in bad situations, they will perform superbly in lesser fights.
Again, it shows that small wars with their marginal capability opposition press conclusions onto standing armies that would be totally wrong in a great war setting.
We can -- as always -- totally agree on that that. We, the US, are picking up some bad habits to add to those from Viet Nam that we still have not shed...