-
01-29-2007, 11:17 AM #61
Re: Suppressive fire?
Dslyecxi,
From the Wiki on the .50 BMG:
I was under the impression that the Geneva Conventions prohibit the deployment against infantry of rifles with a round diameter greater than .3 inches? I found nothing in any Wikis about this.The round was conceptualized during WW1 by John Browning in response to a requirement for an anti-aircraft weapon.
I've also heard many first-hand accounts, admittedly regarding the M16 - not the M249, from people saying that it's very difficult to hit targets beyond 500m. Your own words to the effect that the M249 is effective on point targets to 650m and only accurate against 'area targets' at 1000m, would seem to confirm these claims, would it not?
Thank you for the clarifications on the other items.A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek
"$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."
-
01-29-2007, 12:54 PM #62
Re: Suppressive fire?
The M16 family (M16A1, A2, and M4) sucks at anything over 200 meters in real life. There are several key factors to remember when understanding why. Most do not carry any optics on their rifle; hence it is hard to clearly see anything past 200. With optics you my get lucky and hit something at 400 but you are pressing your luck. The ammo is not the best either; the standard ball is not match grade and is not designed to go that far. If you are the deadliest shooter you will still have a spread of at least 10 inches at 300 meters. Even the best match grade sniper rifles using 7.62 are over 2-3 MOA (Minute of Angle or simply spread grouping) inch at @ 300 meters. As for the SAW, it is a piece of crap that you would be hard pressed to do anything accurately with, optics or not. Plus it is highly susceptible to jams which make it even worse.
As for suppressive fire itself, it is still a highly accurate technique of laying down cover where the enemy is known to be. Suppressive cover is designed to be used to allow members of your team to bound forward to a better position to engage that know enemy. The suppressive fire is helpful only if you know exactly where the enemy is. The people that are laying down suppressive fire basically shoot and engage the enemy and than move forward themselves while the team ahead of them covers their move. Blindly firing is worthless in any scenario and not realistic. You only carry so much ammo (240 rds for rifle and 600 for machine guns in real life and in game) so it is important to conserve how much you waste.
Enough of the detailsThe Meek shall inherit the earth..... after we're through with it!
-
01-29-2007, 03:44 PM #63
Re: Suppressive fire?
Ah, interesting. I hadn't heard that before. It's been awhile since the M2 has been used in an anti-aircraft role, but it's understandable that back then (and in WWII) it was seen and used as a viable option.Dslyecxi,
From the Wiki on the .50 BMG:
Quote:
The round was conceptualized during WW1 by John Browning in response to a requirement for an anti-aircraft weapon.
This is a myth.I was under the impression that the Geneva Conventions prohibit the deployment against infantry of rifles with a round diameter greater than .3 inches? I found nothing in any Wikis about this.
There are a lot of factors that come into play when firing at extended ranges, and ArmA (as one example) does not really model them all that well. The USMC rifle qual has one stage where you're firing prone, loop sling, 10 rounds in 10 minutes against a 500 meter distant standing silhouette target. Expert shooters typically hit 9 or 10 out of 10 times with ironsights, but that's not really a great measure of combat performance - lots of things change in combat. You may have a magnified optic (ie ACOG), you'll have on an Interceptor vest, LBV, helmet, etc. Your posture will play a big part - prone is great, supported is also great. Unsupported, you're not going to hit anything at such a range. You'll probably also be tired, so that won't help. Those factors contribute towards how easy or difficult it is hit something at such a range, and honestly, the M16 is more accurate than your average shooter, so it's not like it's holding anyone back in that department. Terminal ballistics are a different question, but since you stated accuracy and not terminal effects, we don't have to go into it.I've also heard many first-hand accounts, admittedly regarding the M16 - not the M249, from people saying that it's very difficult to hit targets beyond 500m.
The big difference between an M16 and an M249 is that the 249 has a bipod built-in, and it's a machinegun. If you have good aim and can get a burst off at a target 700 meters away, you have a significant chance of hitting them, and it's higher than with an M16. The number of rounds put downrange for each burst increases your PK (probability of kill). One issue is that the M249 is a light (both classification and weight) machinegun, and it tends to jump around more when firing than the M240 (a medium machinegun). This makes it harder to be accurate at ranges, but it certainly does not rule out the possibility. You won't be sniping people like you can in ArmA (which has issues with how it models recoil), though.Your own words to the effect that the M249 is effective on point targets to 650m and only accurate against 'area targets' at 1000m, would seem to confirm these claims, would it not?
On to TheBigC...
I disagree.The M16 family (M16A1, A2, and M4) sucks at anything over 200 meters in real life.
This has changed dramatically in the last several years, and it's not that terribly accurate of a statement nowadays. Actually, it's not terribly accurate to say that it's "hard to clearly see anything past 200" in any case.Most do not carry any optics on their rifle; hence it is hard to clearly see anything past 200.
If I (and many, many, many other Marines) can hit a target at 500 meters with irons, I'm pretty sure I could do the same at 400 meters with an ACOG. All it would require would be a bit of support to rest the rifle on.With optics you my get lucky and hit something at 400 but you are pressing your luck.
It may not be match grade, but it's typically shooting 1MOA at close range (say, to 100 meters) and something in the realm of 2MOA at 300 meters. This results in about a 6-inch spread at 300 meters, not 10 inches. 500 meters will likely see a 10-inch spread, though. This is assuming M855 ammo. Go up to something like Mk262 in a DM rifle and you're going to get even better accuracy. In any case, your comment about it "not being designed to go that far" isn't really accurate.. The ammo is not the best either; the standard ball is not match grade and is not designed to go that far. If you are the deadliest shooter you will still have a spread of at least 10 inches at 300 meters.
No, this is wrong. A match-grade sniper rifle firing match-grade 7.62mm can get sub-MOA accuracy. Meaning, 0.5MOA to 0.75MOA.Even the best match grade sniper rifles using 7.62 are over 2-3 MOA (Minute of Angle or simply spread grouping) inch at @ 300 meters.
The jamming may well be an issue, but it's not a "piece of crap that you would be hard pressed to do anything accurately with".As for the SAW, it is a piece of crap that you would be hard pressed to do anything accurately with, optics or not. Plus it is highly susceptible to jams which make it even worse.
-
01-29-2007, 04:28 PM #64
Re: Suppressive fire?
hello,
More fuel to the fire....
Regarding a few posts back.
I have seen, and will have a quick look for, footage of the Vietnam conflict, where american troops point thier rifles over a barrier (above their heads) and empty an M16 mag.
(Not from a film like FMJ, where there is a similar scene)
So "trained" troops have done this, but without knowing exactly which troops they were, how well they were trained, morale and the whole situation therey were involved in it's difficult to judge how often this was used.
Rather than a suppressive fire, it's a way off saying to the enemy "don't get too close you MIGHT get hit"
Although if I saw a target doing this action I'd say they are supressed themselves.
Rgds
LoKArrakis - Dune - A Filmbook
-
01-29-2007, 04:42 PM #65
Re: Suppressive fire?
I would not argue that in a controlled environment that a M16 is a decent weapon at the range; yes 500s meter is highly impressive off iron sights. Something that is enhanced by optics, which so many lack today. But in the environment you see it today, it is simply not the best and it is outdated.
As for the sniper rifles, there are several different platforms that each one performs totally differently. Some are better than others, so that is weapon specific. I still believe the SAW is a horrible gun, hence that is why there are several alternatives coming out/ out already. The gun never performed as expected and can not live up to its 7.62 cousins.
I am not trying to get into a debate about guns, rather interjecting about suppressive fire which this thread was started about……..The Meek shall inherit the earth..... after we're through with it!
-
01-29-2007, 05:02 PM #66
Re: Suppressive fire?
Good discussion.
I enjoy the following article. I'd like to work up a few loads using Sierra 77 grain MatchKing bullets and see how well they fare on paper.
Black Hills' Mk 262 Mod 1
How our improved 5.56 stacks up against its peers
By: David Fortier
A specialized 5.56 load developed for use in the Mk 12 sniper rifle, the Mk 262 Mod 1 has proven very effective in combat.
When a five-man Special Forces team looking for Scuds in Iraq ran into a reinforced Iraqi infantry company, the future looked grim for the Americans. Facing overwhelming odds, it was quickly decided that three men armed with sniper rifles would cover a hasty retreat back to the LZ. With these odds death--or worse--seemed certain.
Yet the ensuing firefight did not go as the Iraqis had planned. Rather than being overwhelmed, the three Americans instead put down a hail of highly accurate rifle fire. Advancing against this murderous wall, entire sections of Iraqi infantry were simply cut down. Screaming and rattling away with their Kalashnikovs on full auto, they were knocked from their feet by carefully aimed shots. When staggering losses finally broke their spirit, the surviving Iraqis either threw down their weapons or simply ran away. Scattered about lay the bodies of 167 of their comrades. The Iraqi dead lay in mute testimony to the Americans' tenacity and marksmanship skill.
With the criticism of poor terminal performance leveled by many on the 5.56x45, you would think those 167 Iraqis were cut down by 7.62mm M14s. Such was not the case. They fell to 5.56 Mk 12 sniper rifles firing 77-grain Mk 262 Open Tip Match ammunition. Developed to offer increased accuracy, range and improved terminal performance over the standard 62-grain M855 load, the Mk 262 has performed quite well in actual combat. This impressive combat record has stimulated a great deal of interest among civilian shooters, so we thought we'd take a look at this load and its Russian and Chinese counterparts.
The Mk 12 series of sniper rifles is capable of providing both precision fire and full-automatic support fire. It’s a surprisingly accurate weapon. The Mk 12 is a collection of parts assembled for the Navy and is not now for sale.
When work was undertaken on what was to eventually become the Mk 12 series of sniper rifles it was understood from the outset that a better 5.56 load would be needed. Standard M855 ball was deemed unsuitable due to its accuracy criteria. Manufacturing specifications for this load only require it to shoot into four MOA from 100 to 600 meters. For use at 600+ yards a projectile with a higher ballistic coefficient was desirable to reduce drop and wind drift. The question was how to make the 5.56 into a viable 600-plus-yard cartridge.
While competition shooters, or "yellow glasses," are often scorned by the tactical crowd, they laid the ground work in this regard. Loads using 75-, 77- and 80-grain HPBT match bullets began to dominate service-rifle competition in the late 1990s. One company that was at the forefront of loading extremely accurate and consistent 5.56 match was Black Hills Ammunition. Its 5.56 match was so good, from lot to lot, that it had contracts from all the armed forces rifle teams. This was quite a testimony to both Black Hills and its workers. So Black Hills was contacted about the specific needs and requirements the military had for this new 5.56 combat load.
Testing was undertaken using a variety of projectiles and powders, with the goal being enhanced accuracy and terminal performance at extended distances. At first a 73-grain Berger Open Tip Match bullet was selected, but this was later changed to a 77-grain Sierra MatchKing. Rather than being loaded to commercial .223 Remington pressures, this ammunition was loaded to higher 5.56 NATO pressures to enhance performance. The resulting load was very similar to match ammunition loaded for the Army Marksmanship Unit for use in competition.
The Mk 12's ammunition evolved and was eventually type-classified as Mk 262 Mod 0 and Mod 1. The primary difference between the two is the addition of a cannelure to the Mod 1 projectile to prevent bullet setback during feeding.
Both terminal performance and accuracy of this ammunition are markedly improved over M855 ball. Each lot is tested for accuracy by firing 10, 10-shot groups at 300 yards. The average group size is between two and two and a half inches. Due to the way the 77-grain Sierra MatchKing behaves in soft tissue, this load offers dramatically increased terminal performance compared to the M855--while still being Land Warfare-legal. The downside is that penetration is not as good as the M855 round.
Without a doubt, the Mk 262 Mod 1 has proven very effective in actual combat. It's capable of excellent accuracy out to 700+ yards if you can call the wind. Terminal performance is a noticeable step up from M855 ball. While it was originally intended for use in the Mk 12 series, its enhanced terminal performance has led to it being used in M4 carbines as well. Basically, it's a desirable commodity being used by whatever troops can get their hands on it.
The Mk 262 Mod 0/1 ammunition is based on lessons learned by competition shooters using the 5.56 at 600 yards.
-
01-30-2007, 07:18 PM #67
Re: Suppressive fire?
Firing blindly over your head is not a tactic I was ever taught. It cannot be considered supressive fire if the rounds are not on target. Firing blindly from an unstable platform wastes ammo and gives away your position and most likely you'll attract fire. What you are essentially doing is firing the rifle unsupported which isn't pointing correctly in the vertical or horizontal (it's a guess) and then has the added reduction in accuracy from poor support for recoil.
Supressive fire is semi-accurate/accurate fire onto the target area to deny the enemy a chance to manouvre or retaliate so you can move your forces in a position to dominate or relocate. Blind firing does not count here and to code it into the game seems pointless to a degree - I agree though that it would be great to have the option to be able to have these things available to us
Jex.

-
01-30-2007, 07:25 PM #68
Re: Suppressive fire?
I regularly use totally unaimed fire. Not as suppressive fire though, but as a distraction when others are flanking the very enemy I'm distracting (in bf2).
What it's like to play online games as a grown-up:http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-i...e_gaming/1.jpg
"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!"
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
(Einstein, both)
***I will be in India 14 dec till end of januari***
-
01-31-2007, 06:12 AM #69
Re: Suppressive fire?
I don't think SF works particularly well in BF2 as people aren't afraid of dying since they can come back to life 15 seconds later. However, in BF2 it isn't unaimed fire as you are firing from the crosshair meaning you have an idea of where you bullets are going. This is a lot different from sticking your gun around the corner, without you looking and letting rip with it. In fact, I would say why not use more accurate shots on the enemy in BF2 if you want to keep there attention as you may get some of them in the process
Jex.

-
01-31-2007, 08:47 AM #70
Re: Suppressive fire?
I use this in fact when I am at disadvantage but still want to keep the enemy's attention, for example when you have an smg, and want to distract a sniper that is so far away that you have no chance of taking them out. I will usually even be moving while doing this, because the sniper from the example will take me out if I take time to aim. Therefore in the situations I'm thinking of, my fire will be totally unaimed. The objective is to use muzzle flash and noise to keep the enemy zeroed in.
Is this too much off topic?What it's like to play online games as a grown-up:http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-i...e_gaming/1.jpg
"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!"
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
(Einstein, both)
***I will be in India 14 dec till end of januari***
-
01-31-2007, 09:15 AM #71
Re: Suppressive fire?
I think it's valid but I don't think it would work in AA as you can't side step that quick in the game. I think if you try that tactic in AA, you'll get yourself killed.
Jex.

-
02-09-2007, 07:52 AM #72
Re: Suppressive fire?
The match king is a hollowpoint! I thought them thar were restricted by one of the Hague conventions...
Your mouse has moved, please restart windows for the change to take effect.




Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)









Bookmarks