This study sounds very flawed. It sounds like they had visible targets they were trying to suppress and the simulator lowered the target if the shot(s) are close enough.
So, some points;
1. It seems their ‘suppression algorithm’ is kind of made up. Where is the scientific basis to what results in suppression? In a firefight auditory exclusion and tunnel vision are common. In this state a target might not even know rounds are whipping by in close proximity.
2. If you see the target you shoot to kill it. What this study seems to show that if you miss close enough the target is suppressed. If you can see the target and you are in the effective range of your weapon system you should be killing the target (hitting it) not suppressing it. You don’t suppress visible targets, you destroy them. You suppress enemy positions or suspected positions but if you have a visible target you take well aimed rounds to kill it. This study seems to promote the idea that several ‘close’ (misses) rounds are better than one well aimed hit. That’s a bad idea. It’s like the old ‘how many times do you shoot an enemy soldier’. You shoot them until they are not visible or they have been clearly eliminated as a threat.
2. Ok, one LMG is more accurate than another, big deal. Rate and volume of fire are a factor. Say your company is attacking an unseen platoon in a tree line. You know they are there but you do not have a clear target. If you have a clear target see para 1 above. So you let loose with the mgs. To the guy in the tree line that just got sprayed by a 100 round belt, he doesn’t care about the 99 bullets that didn’t come near him. He cares about the one that kicked up dirt right next to his head.
3. Trying to simulate para 2, did they have 30 of these sensors hidden in a tree line? Sounds like they didn’t. Trying to determine suppression with one guy firing at one target is worthless. And if the target is visible you kill it.
It really seems like they are talking about individual marksmanship and giving suppression credit for multiple near misses. The goal is to shoot the enemy when they present a visible target not miss and keep them pinned after they take cover. In the study these are not dynamic targets; if you ‘suppress’ them they stay in the same spot. They don’t low crawl to the flank and roll your trench up with grenades ‘Band of Brothers’ style.
Forgive me if this has been posted before.
Villers-Bocage Vidéo on YouTube
A couple of questions;
1. In the beginning, the couple of impacts around the British artillery piece. I think that’s indirect fire; thoughts?
2. Towards the end, the scene with the knocked out Tiger I in an urban setting. That hole in the back of the turret; is that an armor penetration? And what probably made that big a hole?
Forgive me if this has been posted before.
Villers-Bocage Vidéo on YouTube
A couple of questions;
1. In the beginning, the couple of impacts around the British artillery piece. I think that’s indirect fire; thoughts?
2. Towards the end, the scene with the knocked out Tiger I in an urban setting. That hole in the back of the turret; is that an armor penetration? And what probably made that big a hole?
civdiv got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Fire suppression from small arms discussion
civdiv got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Interesting video; Villers-Bocage I believe
civdiv got a reaction from umlaut in Interesting video; Villers-Bocage I believe
