Suppressive Fire

[Compost]

Two articles by CWO3 Eby were published in the Marine Corps Gazette during 2004. The articles - summarizing trials for effective employment of platoon crew-served and individual weapons in CQB - are not currently retrieveable via the Gazette index. Versions available elsewhere on the web either lack tables or have poorly formatted tables. Attached (hopefully) is a fair copy formatted in Word.

Interesting to note that current USMC planning for its Infantry Automatic Rifle is apparently focussed on using the IAR as a replacement (rather than as a complement) for the LMG/M-249 with suppression to be provided by the M-240 and other heavy crew-served weapons.

[Compost]

Two-part item in almost original format.

[William F. Owen]

Just some basics to tighten the discussion:

a.) Suppression is action which causes the enemy not to act through fear of being harmed.
b.) So a sniper rifle can suppress just as well as a machine gun, given a specific context. It is effectiveness versus efficiency.
c.) As an action, "Killing" is what best delivers suppression. Not shooting.
d.) Suppression is not a viable action within itself. You suppress the enemy so as you can do other things, - of which killing him should be top of the list.

All very obvious, but I hope that helps.

[Rex Brynen]

Just some basics to tighten the discussion:

As usual, straight to the point. You'll never make it as an academic, Wilf

[Kiwigrunt]

Spud reminded me of the existence of the Australian Army Journal in another post. The latest one is not available online yet but the first article in the July one would support this:

As usual, straight to the point. You'll never make it as an academic, Wilf

[Pete]

As usual, straight to the point. You'll never make it as an academic, Wilf.

Wilf is no fan of Liddell Hart's "indirect approach."

[JMA]

Wilf is no fan of Liddell Hart's "indirect approach."

Can't think why, its a good read.

[William F. Owen]

As usual, straight to the point. You'll never make it as an academic, Wilf

Don't want to be an "Academic". I just want to be useful.

[jcustis]

No Tuk, the standard arrangement is not like that. That construct was used during experiments only, as the IAR concept was worked through out At 29 Palms. Eby led that experimentation effort.

[Pete]

Up 500.

Say again last transmission. That's awfully high for a height-of-burst correction, over.

[Tukhachevskii]

No Tuk, the standard arrangement is not like that.

Knew that, but thanks anyway.

That construct was used during experiments only, as the IAR concept was worked through out At 29 Palms. Eby led that experimentation effort.

Ok. So it was just a one off. I just wondered how the logistics of something along those lines would work. Very interesting implications though. Thanks again for the clarification. Although I do wonder wether it wouldn't have been a better idea to run an experiment with two platoons, one using the LMG/SAW mix as per Eby and another replacing the LMG section with a HE projector equipped section, say with M32s or some such. The percentages of hits for no. of rounds fired really opened my eyes (i.e., do soldiers really need to be carryign huge amounts of ammo for such miniscule hit rates- yes, I know, suppression isn't just about hitting the target- when surely SHOCK would be better, in which case HE is the way to go?)

[JMA]

Just some basics to tighten the discussion:

a.) Suppression is action which causes the enemy not to act through fear of being harmed.
b.) So a sniper rifle can suppress just as well as a machine gun, given a specific context. It is effectiveness versus efficiency.
c.) As an action, "Killing" is what best delivers suppression. Not shooting.
d.) Suppression is not a viable action within itself. You suppress the enemy so as you can do other things, - of which killing him should be top of the list.

All very obvious, but I hope that helps.

Good stuff.

[Ken White]

Two-part item in almost original format.

Thanks for posting it.

[Tukhachevskii]

Ok. Admittedly, I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick (it's a habit) but there's stuff I don't quite get. Perhaps it purely an editorial thing but the tables and the text are confusing me.

Using a gunner and assistant gunner for each LMG became a variant on the LMG FT. This variant allowed the LMG to be manned and enjoy the same benefits as a medium or heavy machinegun. Rather than merely carry extra ammunition and a spare barrel, the assistant would load, direct impacts, help move the gun, and observe for maneuver encroachment on the gun target line. (See Table 2.)

Billet Weapon

3d FT Leader M16A2
SAW M249
SAW M249
A-SAW M249
Table 2. LMG FT: Variant 2.

So, does the above mean that the assitant SAW/LMG gunner is also armed with a SAW/LMG?



Secondly,

The third platoon in each company consolidated their LMGs at the platoon level; i.e., the platoon organized itself into two rifle squads armed with test variant ARs, and the nine LMGs were placed into an LMG section.

Am I to undertand that in the LMG section/squad there are only four men not armed with SAWs/LMG (thre TL and a SL). If so who is helping to load and carry the extra ammo for this section/squad's SAWs/LMGs?

Overall I was quite impressed, it's almost a USMC version of Wigram tactical principles.