Re: Suppressive fire?

**Coridon** · 01-24-2007, 12:36 AM

Rick wants the Corner Shot!!!

**Rick_the_new_guy** · 01-24-2007, 07:58 AM

Yeah, that's what I am talking about.

Or maybe something with a bendable barrel, sort of like a straw that you can change angles on.

_______

For real though.

Feel free to call me a coward or a rouge warrior, but if taking fairly close fire and my job is to suppress, not going to stick my head up in order to get a good shot. I'll try to exploit the cover I have and settle with less accurate supression of the enemy while keeping me safer.
Now if there is some way to mount the gun so that it does not go anywere, forget about it. I am so going to going to keep my body out of view while suppressing fire.

**Evil Koala** · 01-24-2007, 08:30 AM

That weapon is not currently in service, nor do they do any type of training involving blind firing around cover. Suppressive fire is still aimed fire.. Peek out from your cover and take your shots.

**Dslyecxi** · 01-24-2007, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Rick_the_new_guy

Feel free to call me a coward or a rouge warrior, but if taking fairly close fire and my job is to suppress, not going to stick my head up in order to get a good shot. I'll try to exploit the cover I have and settle with less accurate supression of the enemy while keeping me safer.
Now if there is some way to mount the gun so that it does not go anywere, forget about it. I am so going to going to keep my body out of view while suppressing fire.

Suppressive fire only works if the enemy thinks you have a chance of hitting them. Blind-firing is not going to inspire such thoughts, but instead will waste ammo and telegraph your position to any nearby bad guys.

**Rick_the_new_guy** · 01-24-2007, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dslyecxi

Suppressive fire only works if the enemy thinks you have a chance of hitting them. Blind-firing is not going to inspire such thoughts, but instead will waste ammo and telegraph your position to any nearby bad guys.

We are not seeing the same thing.

This scenerio involves laying prone with a M249 and behind some cover.

What I am describing sacrifices accuracy for your own saftey. A situation were those doing the supressing are actually taking some hostle fire. They cannot let up their suppressive fire because they are responsible for providing cover for a large movement of men/women.

They duck their head down every now again (because the are scared and their reflexes are getting the best of them). They would also, raise their head up to make sure their aim does not get too far off (friendly casualties).

Of cource if the enemy continues with their suppresive fire and pinns them down, they have no choice to stay down and hope the team they are providing suppressive fire for does not get waxed.

Vision is just one way of aiming. Propreoception plays a huge role also. My tehcnique involves the propreoception mechanism to do most of the work.

I sort of feel like I am in the Twlight Zone here.

**Dslyecxi** · 01-24-2007, 08:33 PM

Rick, I *seriously* doubt that anyone would fire a machinegun in such a fashion. If you are prone and taking so much fire that you think "ducking your head" while still firing is a good idea, you're already suppressed.

I have never read or seen anything that would indicate that what you're advocating would be done or would be even a remotely likely thing to happen in such a situation. From personal experience, the difference between "laying prone with a 249 and firing with good sight alignment" and "laying prone with your head down and your finger on the trigger" is that the first might actually result in you killing someone, whereas the second is just plain silly and would both waste ammo and endanger friendly forces.

In any case, you can duck your head in ArmA whenever you want - just look down.

And, again, as I said... suppression fire only works if the enemy thinks they're going to get hit if they stay where they are/stick their head up/etc. The situation you're describing has "you" already suppressed. The enemy clearly is not, and they're not going to suddenly get suppressed because you're spraying wildly in their direction (which is what unaimed MG fire is at any kind of distance).

**Rick_the_new_guy** · 01-24-2007, 10:30 PM

The problem is that we differ in how accurate the fire needs to be in order to suppress the enemy.

We agree that the more accurate the fire, the better they will be suppressed.

However, there are variables. Such as:

A. The courage and mental toughness of those you are suppressing.

A veteran unit would require more accurate suppressive fire. Your way would work well here and get the best results. What I am describing would not be as affective, and indeed perhaps be detrimental to the team by causing friendly casualties and wasting ammo.

B. A cherry unit you are trying to suppress would require less accurate suppressive fire. Not having been baptized by fire before, they would be more likely to be pinned down more easily. The problem is, you do not know if you’re going up against a cherry unit or not.

C. Those doing the suppressive fire are not taking fire themselves. Not being shot at would allow the person to focus on their job at hand. Your way would be perfect here. Accurate suppressive fire is what is needed. My way would not even be considered because I feel pretty good about my chances of getting wasted over keeping the enemy suppressed.

D. Those doing the suppressive fire are taking fire themselves. As we know, this can come in varying degrees. Random bullets shot from hundreds of meters away that seem terrible close, all the way to pinpoint accuracy, thus causing the one originally doing the suppressive fire to be pinned down or wounded/killed as they courageously continue the suppressive fire they chose is more important than preventing an injury of their own person.

E. How close are friendlies to the suppressive fire? The closer the friendlies, the more accurate the fire needs to be.

F. How much ammo do you have? Less ammo requires more accuracy.

G. How close is the one doing the suppresing to the enemy they are suppressing? The closer they are, the less accurate they need to be, assuming friendlies are not at risk. The closer, the more the crack of the rifle or pistol gets their attention and possibly suppresses them. Furthermore, the muzzle flash is intimidating also.

H. Are those you are providing suppressive fire behind you or in front of you? If in front of, more accuracy is needed. If behind you, less accuracy is needed.

_______

Clearly there are two extremes.

At one end of the spectrum are super great conditions were the person doing the suppressive fire has virtually a zero percent chance of being shot.
Here the person uses their vision more than anything else to provide very accurate suppressive fire.

On the other end of the spectrum the person is nearly pinned down by suppressive fire themselves. The person has two options:
1. stop providing suppressive fire and stay down. Here, their person and weapon are safe from harm.
2. Continue suppressive fire. Here, their person and weapon are in harms way.

Let's say the continue
In order for them to have any hope of getting any fire off they will need to expose their body as little as possible. Here their vision is gone and they depend on their other scenes. They also lack the ability to see their enemy moving around with out their ability to see them.

Let us assume their friendlies are behind them and the enemy is in front of them. Essentially, they are in-between the two units. My technique has merit here because the biggest thing at risk here is the weapon being exposed to the fire, not the person’s skull as they try to aim better and provide more accurate fire. Granted a bullet could bounce of their gun and strike their person.

Here is an illustration. The person is providing suppressive fire for themselves.

Granted this is not a complete goat blank for them. So they are not at worse end of the spectrum but fairly close. Clearly, exposing their person would be very risky.

Sadly, I could not find any actual reading material or Military footage. Instead I have about the least credible source: A damn movie, lol.

At minute 02:15 it is illustrated.

Notice how the person uses their hearing and situational awareness and instincts to judge when the best time to suppress them.

Here, they desperately need to try something to prevent their enemy from moving forward or flanking their position. They rely on the sound of their gun discharging in the direction they believe the enemy to be to get the job done. They are not interested in accuracy at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l80Mn4PWj_U

Finally, the illustration shown can actually be done in game right now. However, I would still like the ability to duck my head and raise my arms up in game in order to keep providing decent fire from a fairly safe position. This would also work well if a wall is higher than your person.
Of course accuracy recieves a huge penability when this happens.

PS, thanks for tip on ducking.

**Dslyecxi** · 01-24-2007, 11:57 PM

The problem is that we differ in how accurate the fire needs to be in order to suppress the enemy.

Are we talking about a theoretical world where the AI cares about suppression, or are we talking about a potential multiplayer force-on-force encounter? If it's the latter (and that's the only one that makes sense, considering that the AI does not understand suppression at the moment), you need to put the fear of being hit in the enemy's mind for them to actually get suppressed. This means you either have great accuracy and small volume, moderate accuracy and high volume, or low accuracy and very high volume.

If the enemy is "green" and unskilled, why would you be taking fire? Put a few accurate bursts towards them, kill one or two with your accurate fire, and voila - they're suppressed. On the other hand, they might just go to ground and keep firing at you if you merely put a few inaccurate bursts in their direction. You must make someone believe that they will be shot/killed to suppress them. I've said it before, but I think you're discounting just how important it is. It is very foolish to think that blind firing with a machinegun is going to be either effective or realistic. I don't really want to get into a discussion of the physical reasons for why it's a bad idea, as they're out of the scope of games for the most part (what games actually model stock weld or proper buttstock placement?).

Sadly, I could not find any actual reading material or Military footage.

I think this says it all. There's a reason you've never seen any footage or reading material regarding this. It's a very, very bad idea. I have never once heard anyone recommend doing this in a real-world situation, it puts your teammates in danger and wastes your ammo. Precision fire trumps "spray and pray".

On the other end of the spectrum the person is nearly pinned down by suppressive fire themselves. The person has two options:
1. stop providing suppressive fire and stay down. Here, their person and weapon are safe from harm.
2. Continue suppressive fire. Here, their person and weapon are in harms way.

Get fire superiority or get down. If you are suppressed and trying to fight your way out of it on your own, you're not taking advantage of the fact that you're part of a team. If a squad gets pinned down by effective fires, they don't have very good odds at suppressing an enemy which already knows it has acheived suppression and now has very good firing positions and excellent visibility on your team's cover or concealment. In that case, you need to either pull back (pop smoke, leapfrog out of there if possible) or call in another squad to help you. Or CAS, or whatever is available.

Sorry, but I still disagree with you on this point. I wish I could mod this in to show you just how bad it would work against any team with even a shred of cohesion and combat ability.

**Rick_the_new_guy** · 01-25-2007, 12:20 AM

I tried to explain the grey areas in order for you to understand that vision and good accuracy is not completly needed to supress the enemy in every situation, and I failed.

What I am talking about is inbetween classical suppresive fire, and pray and spray; but again, I failed to convince you of this.

At the end of the day, I have to yield to your military background and knowledge.

However, just because something has never been done before does not mean it cannot work.

**Vitriol** · 01-25-2007, 01:06 AM

Although I hate to see two memebers go at it this has been an informative thread. Now shake hands! > |

**Wimpinator** · 01-25-2007, 02:15 AM

Back in my competitive paintball days I saw situations like this from time to time. A new player would inevitably just stick his gun out and start firing blindly or with VERY poor accuracy. That player was always the easiest target because they lost situational awareness when performing this maneuver.

**Rick_the_new_guy** · 01-25-2007, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Wimpinator

Back in my competitive paintball days I saw situations like this from time to time. A new player would inevitably just stick his gun out and start firing blindly or with VERY poor accuracy. That player was always the easiest target because they lost situational awareness when performing this maneuver.

Whimp, what you are describing is one person spraying and praying. Suppressive fire is not involved in what I just read. Good point about losing situatioanl awarness without using vision to see the enemy though. Got to have team work to look out for flankers.

I guess I need to work on my writing skills and how I go about explaning things.

**BigGaayAl** · 01-25-2007, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Dslyecxi

Rick, I *seriously* doubt that anyone would fire a machinegun in such a fashion.

Have you ever seen African rebels fighting? They just run around, firing everywhere just to scare/get lucky. I've also seen muslim rebels fighting in this fashion. They just stick their gun out blindly from behind cover and let it rip, they don't need to aim because Allah will do that for them

. Then they get bombed by a jet or something, but the point is these tactics are often used in real life, only not by well trained men.

Granted, probably no regular army does these things, but plenty of rebel forces do.

**Rick_the_new_guy** · 01-25-2007, 03:19 PM

Here is a more credible illustration.

The SEALs performing the covering fire are not waiting to SEE the enemy before they attempt to suppress them, instead they are using sheer volume to intimidate the enemy, and SITUATIONAL AWARNESS. Individual their accuracy is top notch because they have their guns trained in a manner were recoil causes the least amount of accuracy lose. As a collective unit they are SPRAING this double canopy jungle in a GENERAL DIRECTION they believe the enemy to be concentrated in.

While this illustration is more creditable than Sara Conner’s act of suppressing the enemy, it is still not exactly wait I have tried to describe.

What I am trying to explain Al, is in-between the video footage in this post and what you just described.

The Problem is, in those kinds of conditions the camera man is laying prone and only thinking about covering his on arse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lsc_X7ls8o

**Dslyecxi** · 01-25-2007, 04:19 PM

Have you ever seen African rebels fighting? They just run around, firing everywhere just to scare/get lucky. I've also seen muslim rebels fighting in this fashion. They just stick their gun out blindly from behind cover and let it rip, they don't need to aim because Allah will do that for them . Then they get bombed by a jet or something, but the point is these tactics are often used in real life, only not by well trained men.

Yes, I have seen that kind of “fighting”. Since it is not something that a trained person would do, and is completely ineffective, I see no real reason to make it something that a player can do. Even if you could do it as a player, it would have little if any effect on even the most inexperienced human players. If the AI does it, that’s fine, but even the most basic ArmA players know better than to try to use such a (lack of) “technique” to accomplish something. Why waste precious coding time implementing a feature that any intelligent player would not use?

The SEALs performing the covering fire are not waiting to SEE the enemy before they attempt to suppress them, instead they are using sheer volume to intimidate the enemy, and SITUATIONAL AWARNESS. Individual their accuracy is top notch because they have their guns trained in a manner were recoil causes the least amount of accuracy lose. As a collective unit they are SPRAING this double canopy jungle in a GENERAL DIRECTION they believe the enemy to be concentrated in.

What you linked is a break-contact drill in which there are using area suppression fire and coordinated movement to maintain accurate and aimed area fire on the enemy location and suppress them while moving away to break contact. It is an actual real-world no-kidding useful tactic, and I’m all for doing that. We’ve done it in our ShackTac sessions in the past, and it works well.

What I am trying to explain Al, is in-between the video footage in this post and what you just described.

The Problem is, in those kinds of conditions the camera man is laying prone and only thinking about covering his on arse.

I will be very interested in seeing a video or document that describes a real-world situation where trained soldiers used such a technique as what you described.

Thread Tools

Display