I'm sure I repeat myself, but I cannot resist:

You should usually avoid giving your position away to a really dangerous opponent (= not Taliban).

A competent enemy will rarely be visible + identifiable at long ranges (and if so, he'll still be no easy, stationary target).

Long-range rifle fire is more inaccurate in a firefight and tends to require more ammo = more weight.

5.56 mm at 400+ m distance isn't exactly powerful. A soft torso armour vest + clothes + pouches and their content = bullet can do at most a smallish injury.

It's 100% predictable that harassing fires at long range will lead to a more careful enemy, and thus cancel your opportunities of observation at long range. It's better to harness superior discipline in order to enforce caution without enemy harassing fires and to prohibit own harassing fires in order to preserve the value of observation.

Skilled infantrymen are a scarce resource in an army. Their availability should not be risked in petty harassing fires that are 100% non-decisive. They should be kept ready for actually useful, decisive actions.


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.



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.