Suppressive Fire

[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.

[Ken White]

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

from that airburst.

[Pete]

I guess that's what they mean when they say you should stay flexible. I never went into the "Adjust Fire" mode with that type of round before.

[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?)

[jcustis]

I don't think we had M32s in use back then, and certainly not any ELRP ammunition that would have made the experiment truly beneficial.

[Pete]

The majority opinion here seems to be that the only suppressive fire that really is effective is that which nearly kills the enemy, which is to say aimed fire that barely misses the mark. Spray-and-pray makes sense for the first minute or so of a meeting engagement, but after that fire control needs to be asserted, not always easy to do in the noise and confusion. The distinction is to shift to disciplined fire at known or suspected enemy locations, not to fire indiscriminately in a general direction.

During my day in the Field Artillery we had "Immediate Suppression" fire missions, High Explosive rounds with Variable Time fuzes (HE/VT) fired at enemy Anti-Tank Guided Missile positions. The idea was to make the ATGM gunner flinch during his aim. That was back in the DePuy FM 100-5 days of the Fulda Gap scenario.

[Blah]

Would you guys disapprove or approve the use of full-auto in rifles during Vietnam? Considering that that article quoted above states that the line of sight was often not much more than 5 meters in front of them, and that many engagements were around 15 meters.

[Pete]

With a Spencer armed unit it may have happened ...

By the way, the inventor of the Civil War Spencer rifles and carbines, Christopher Spencer, took his tube-feed idea one step further circa 1880 when he invented the pump-action shotgun. Winchester wasted no time and came up with its own model a few years later. Spencer's invention is still with us.

[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.