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?
Bookmarks