Lasers won’t make noise and aren’t moving a physical mass that would create sound as it passes by.
Lasers won’t make noise and aren’t moving a physical mass that would create sound as it passes by.
You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah, a large part of suppressive fire is that the enemy doesn’t want to be randomly wounded.
And ironically, some armies are moving away from it because they’ve realized that suppressive fire isn’t super effective in modern urban warfare. When you’re trying to “suppress” someone in a building, there’s a good chance that they can just relocate and continue firing before you have a chance to move up. Your suppressive fire is suddenly aiming at the wrong area and isn’t doing anything.
Instead, some armies (like the British armed forces) have started focusing on quality over quantity. Turns out, when every shot has a good chance to turn you to paste, you’re much more inclined to stay in cover. Even when you’re not being actively suppressed, knowing that they have a dozen scoped 7.62 rifles trained on your location means you’re hesitant to even peek your head out. They don’t need to burn through ammo to keep you suppressed, and the suppression is more effective. The occasional “hey we still have rifles aimed at you” warning shot is enough to keep them behind cover.
How does this tactic work when counting for light machine guns?
specifically a SAW or 240B. Which as I understand is the largest enemy casualty producing weapon carried by a U.S. army member.
I don’t know if it really counts as suppressive fire or just overwhelming fire power at that point
Those are more of an area denial weapon. Less "suppressing fire" and more "oppressing fire"