So what is the role of full auto in small arms combat?

[davek]

I've been thinking about it. In most action movies it's about trying to hose down your opponents and usually missing.

In real life combat, what purpose does it serve?

Here's what I think...but it's probly wrong, so somebody please correct me.

It only serves a purpose in maneuver type combat. Basically, when using full auto, it's not so much about actually hitting anything as it is keeping the other guy's heads down while you and/or your buddies are moving around trying to out flank or out maneuver or run the hell away.

Whether or not this is correct...where does the three round burst fit in? Seems to me (again, I don't really know any better) that the three round burst actually is primarily about hitting what you're aiming at. Sort of counteracting the pucker factor of combat so that your aim doesn't have to be all that precise.

So could someone educate me?

[walking arsenal]

I've often wondered the same thing. It seems to me that most of us can make a decent mess of things for the other guy with semi auto fire as is. I was once told when i asked about the purpose of full auto that it was "expensive noise".

[ID_shooting]

you pretty much got it, suppresive fire is the phrase you are looking for. Same for three-round burst.

[Arc-Lite]

OK...consider this...your on the receiving end, of a 8, or 10 or 15 round burst, what do you do ? you hide !!! doing so, your no longer in the fight. you don't know noise till you have been in a fight for your life. If I face auto fire, I want auto fire.

[P95Carry]

Indeed - suppressive fire has to be name of the game - as a primary factor.

That said - in skilled hands and 3 rnd burst fire mode - any of the enemy had better get the heck out the way - because things can get kinda lethal.

Perhaps the most spectacular effects are when ''the hoardes'' approach - at which point suppressive quickly can become --''mowing em down''.... folks are gonna get hit!

[Lee Lapin]

Some of the writings of S.L.A. Marshall indicated that soldiers who had automatic weapons were more likely to fire them in combat, and soldiers close to someone firing an automatic weapon were more likely to fire as well. Marshall got a lot of attention for his research and writing on the infantryman in combat in WW2 and Korea. Certain aspects of his research have subsequently been called into question (that's putting it mildly), but for some time after Korea his work had a great deal of influence in US military circles. And one thing he indicated was that only a relatively small percentage of US soldiers actually ever fired their weapons in combat.

Well, military leaders WANTED soldiers to fire their weapons in combat, so if having a rattle gun made them do it, then by cracky as many soldiers as possible would get rattle guns. Thus came the M14 and the subsequent M16, both capable of full auto fire.

See:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dstripbooks%2526field-keywords%3Dmen%2520against%2520fire%2526results-process%3Ddefault%2526dispatch%3Dsearch/ref%3Dpd%5Fsl%5Fov%5Ftops-1%5Fstripbooks%5F4388869%5F1/002-4240955-6694465

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03autumn/chambers.htm

And many other sources...

lpl/nc

[DarkKnight01]

Yes as stated one of the purposes is for suppressive fire... But dont discount all soldiers as not being able to hit anything with full auto... My father an ex green beret has a full auto AR-15... ive seen him put a magazine in a paper plate at about 75 yards full auto without letting up... a few flyers but most all were nicely grouped on the plate... so with enough practice which he had more than a little over in vietnam during his 3 tours, one can learn to control full auto... and how to single fire when on full auto... etc.

[LeonCarr]

Unless you are faced with a "human wave attack" type situation, IMO full auto fire is mostly for wasting ammo.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[Texian Pistolero]

I think that basically,

you need to evaluate your ammo supply.

If you got it to burn, then BURN IT!

But, in most cases, you will not, so it's semi.

Yet, I have recently read "War as I know It" , by Gen George S. Patton,

and he basically wanted infantrymen to REALLY cap off the outgoing rounds.

His basic idea was that generals sweat blood to put U.S. fighting men in position to shoot at the bad guys,

so,

SHOOT AT THE FRIGGIN' BAD GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!

[benEzra]

The first full-auto personal arms (submachineguns) were made for CQB, the first selective-fire assault rifles were made to allow them to fill in for subguns in CQB, and the only place you see full-autos used by police is for CQB (SWAT and such). I think you could make a good case for CQB being the primary application of full-auto personal weapons (as opposed to full-power machine guns, which are a different animal entirely).

[Sam]

Essentially you use it to supress enemy fire while you break contact.
You also use it to pin them down while you outflank them or till you can get some artillery or a bomb or two on them.
You can kill people with full auto fire but pinning them down and keeping them under cover is what it's about. Then you get the big stuff on them or sneak around back let 'em have it.

Sam

[Double Naught Spy]

Having full auto small arms is all about giving soldiers an option to have full auto on demand as needed. Just because the option is available does not mean they will need it or choose to use it.

I am surprised about the limited benefits noted here.

Full auto most certainly isn't just for suppressive fire. As noted, it is good for dealing with waves of attackers. Other uses include...

Firing on concentrated groups of the enemy as might be found in trenches (Tommy guns were also called "Trench Brooms."

Raking enemy vehicles with fire when single shots can't do the job.

Providing shotgun effect of bullet scatter at distances much greater than could be attained with actual shotguns.

Intimidation - the sound of full auto guns reflects a lot of firepower. If the enemy doesn't have comparable firepower, they will feel disadvantaged.

---

So where does the 3 round burst come in? This would be in select fire, but such a selection can be obtained by shooting in full auto by short duration trigger pulls. Three round bursts basically help assure that the intended target will go down and go down faster and can do so more often than single shots.

[MikeIsaj]

The three round burst comes in because an M-16 on full auto is very hard to control. I forget the numbers but it is an incredibly fast rate of fire. Most people cannot control it enough to keep a burst below 6 - 8 rounds without a lot of frequent practice. The three round burst is much easier to control.

Suppression fire is the most common use of auto fire. Mowing down hoardes hasn't been a much needed skill since probably Korea. We just don't fight wars that way anymore.

[1911 guy]

is indeed the name of the game. Accuracy is negligible in full auto as the muzzle climbs and the weapon recoils. Recoil an an M-16 is almost non-existent, but the muzzle climb is considerable. Your first round will be aimed fire, the rest merely in the general direction of the target. If I were hitting moving vehicles, etc., the 16 would hardly be my first choice. The M-60 (now being replaced with the M-240 G) steps up to that job well.

[Jenrick]

One additional thought: IRC most data indicates that it requires somewhere between 10-20 thousand rounds fired between casualties on the battlefield. Full auto puts those rounds downrange quiet a bit first.

Marshall and Grossman both took a look at soliders either not firing or firing without aiming. If the data indicates that the majority of soliders aren't aiming, then the more lead in the air the better your chances of hitting something by pure luck.

-Jenrick

[voilsb]

Full auto and/or burst has an application in a MOUT environment, where many of your shots are not aimed, but rather fired while point-shooting. This allows you to put three or four less-than-perfect shots in your target, rather than getting killed before you can get one well-aimed shot off.

It also has an application when dealing with concentrated groups of enemy, like when trench clearing, and for plunging fire and putting a large mass of ammo on an area target, as mentioned by Double Naught.

Full-auto is also useful when being overwhelmed, for instance when reacting to a near ambush.

[rwc]

most data indicates that it requires somewhere between 10-20 thousand rounds fired between casualties on the battlefield.

Does anyone know if this is holding true in Iraq?

[Jeff White]

Full auto fire is useful when you make an unexpected contact and you want to gain fire superiority and maybe convince the enemy that he's run into a much larger force then he has. It's also used when breaking contact and in the opening moments of an ambush.

Most units have SOPs to fire an initial volley at the maximum rate of fire then slow down to a slower rate with everyone but machine guns and SAWs firing on semi-auto.

MikeIsaj,
I have to disagree with you. The M16A1 is very easy to control on full auto. A little practice and anyone can squeeze off 2 and 3 round bursts.

Jeff

[mrhuckins]

It is my understanding that the primary role of the 3-round-burst is to conserve ammo. I was in the army when the M16's were full auto, and I can tell you from experience, that you can burn up a 30 round mag with ferocious quickness on full auto. Plus, those Colt AR15's are freakin Jam-o-Matics!! Pieces of crap if you ask me. You put 100 rounds through it without a jam between cleanings, and your lucky. We used to keep break free handy, so we could squirt it in the action when those beasts started acting up. Even when the weapons were full auto, we were trained to fire off 3 round bursts.

[PzGren]

In the West German army the UZI manual in my times said it is shot in short bursts or semi auto mode. Even the UZI is very controllable in short bursts, its main superiority is the ease of hitting something as you are moving.
It is shot from the shoulder if you are not on the move and the 32rd mag is empty in 3 seconds on a careless blast.

Every soldier that could not hit a mansized target at 25m did hit it with the UZI. Subguns are usually portrayed in a very wrong way, in their mag capacity and the way it is shot. You do not need to pull the barrel around like crazy with a tough face, the burst will usually spread out by itself.

[MaterDei]

"Most units have SOPs to fire an initial volley at the maximum rate of fire then slow down to a slower rate with everyone but machine guns and SAWs firing on semi-auto."

I never saw any SOPs that dictacted when full auto was appropriate. Use of full auto is usually mission specific (with a few exceptions). What I mean by that is when small units start training for a specific mission they will run rock drills and walkthroughs. During those, you will discuss who and when anybody should be firing on full auto.

I taught light infantry tactics in the Army for 4 years and generally speaking full auto is only used when you're in a world of hurt. A near ambush, as already pointed out, would be a good example. During MOUT when the exact location of an enemy in a room is unknown and no friendlies or noncombatants are expected, you would enter firing full auto (after having tossed in frags first).

Finally, when firing an FPF ( http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/f/02036.html ) full auto is very appropriate.

Other than that, full auto is generally not the proper course of action. Even 'machine guns' such as the 249 or M2 or M60 are fired with bursts, and not on full auto except in certain instances. It conserves ammo, increases accuracy and extends barrel life.

fwiw, 3 round bursts are NOT full auto.

[1911 guy]

I'm not sure what the numbers are for this current war overall, but there was an incident recently in Afghanistan in which two of our snipers (area was so target rich the spotter was shooting, too) took 79 targets with 76 rounds from SPR's. Lemme see, thats 1.034 rounds per dead taliban. I'm sure that's not the norm, but i'm also sure it levels the numbers out a little. :evil:

[Blackburn]

IRC most data indicates that it requires somewhere between 10-20 thousand rounds fired between casualties on the battlefield. Full auto puts those rounds downrange quiet a bit first.


That's BECAUSE of full auto.

In the revolutionary war, it was something like 20 rounds per casualty.

[Texian Pistolero]

Remember,

"fire superiority" is often as much or more psychological as physical.

If your team makes A LOT MORE noise (through full auto),

than the bad guys,

IF the bad guys are less than seasoned troops,

they will often break and RUN,

and you win FOR FREE!

If they are seasoned soldiers,

they will try to concentrate on your full-auto dudes and kill them.

They can turn the intimidation around,

("turn the beat around", disco dudes!)

and make your dudes afraid to fire full auto.

The NVA was trained to do this.

(SOG teams in Vietnam found there was a downside to using silenced weapons in a firefight. BECAUSE they were silent, they were not scaring the bad guys into backing off.)

Hence, a common IAD (for small unit patrols) is to fire the first mag full auto, coordinated with other team members, as in the Australian peel, but on the SECOND mag (reloaded), you go semi to nail the point targets and conserve ammo.

Maybe you scared them off on the the first mag, or maybe not.

Or other option, have one (or more) designated dudes stay full auto while everybody else spots and nails the point targets.

[Arc-Lite]

Texian....amusing read.

[sm]

Psychological -

Lee Lapin , Jeff White brought up some great points.

I recall the concerns of the amount of rounds fired. So if rounds are fired, the psych is such others will shoot.

The receiving end of full auto has to wreak havoc on psych and moral...which is good. Not to mention enemy being "supressed" is good for the good guys.

Now I tend to disagree in regard to "silence". In what I have read,had related to me from those that have served in harms way...Having someone "pick off" folks from afar, is quite effective. You dare not move, your pysch is affected, You cannot shoot what you cannot "see"...demoralizing, fear....

Our own Gary has shared stories of sharpshooters,even tho the sound was heard - not knowing from whence is a bad feeling...

Just my thoughts

[harvester of sorrow]

an M-16 on full auto is very hard to control. I forget the numbers but it is an incredibly fast rate of fire. Most people cannot control it enough to keep a burst below 6 - 8 rounds without a lot of frequent practice.

Actually, my agency has standard M4A1 rifles, but most agents only shoot them once every three months when they qualify. What I've found as an instructor is that most people will automatically shoot two round bursts, even when the course of fire calls for three round bursts. You have to tell them to shoot more rounds, or they won't get them off and they'll eat the points. And, like any other law enforcement agency, we pretty much reflect the public at large as far as interest in firearms is concerned: a small number are interested, but the majority aren't particularly.

[Jeff White]

MaterDei said;
I never saw any SOPs that dictacted when full auto was appropriate. Use of full auto is usually mission specific (with a few exceptions). What I mean by that is when small units start training for a specific mission they will run rock drills and walkthroughs. During those, you will discuss who and when anybody should be firing on full auto.

You never saw a platoon or company TAC SOP that covered rate and distribution of fire, what kinds of contact that it was even permitted to fire automatic, what signals squad and team leaders used to control the rate and distribution of fire? Never saw anything like, "When executing the squad combat drill when unexpected contact is made all soldiers will fire their first magazine at the maximum rate of fire into the area the team leader has identified with tracer fire. Soldiers will then drop down to the sustained rate of fire (semi-automatic)"? I knew some units that went so far as to specify giving every other man a downloaded magazine so that the entire squad/platoon didn't run out at once and cause the fire just to drop off to nothing while everyone changed magazines.

In my platoons, the only time full auto fire was permitted were making contact either a chance unplanned contact, a meeting engagement or the intitial moments of an ambush, breaking contact, final protective fires and when engaged in certain CQB tasks like clearing trenchlines and buildings.

Texan Pistolero said;
(SOG teams in Vietnam found there was a downside to using silenced weapons in a firefight. BECAUSE they were silent, they were not scaring the bad guys into backing off.)

This is true. When you make unexpected contact in close terrain you want to make the enemy think he's run into a much larger force then you really are. That will make him think twice (hopefully) about charging in and counter attacking. The noise of the large volume of fire helps with that. Suppressed weapons have their uses, but if you're part of a 4 to 6 man patrol and you just made contact with a platoon or larger, you want him to think he just ran into a company sized element.

This may be blasphemy to many on this forum. But you often place a high volume of fire into an area you think the enemy might be hiding in. You often don't se the enemy, if you did it would be easy. You see maybe some brush moving or a muzzle flash or the rounds that are coming in at you are impacting on one side of the brush you're in, giving you some idea of where the enemy is at. The Army even produces a large target called a landscape target that a squad all shoots at. The silhouttes are barely visible among the scenery. The idea is to get everyone used to putting aimed fire into an area instead of at a specific target. This also goes back to Marshall's research where many of the soldiers who didn't fire their weapons told Marshall that they never saw a target. This exercise is meant to help over come that.

Jeff

[B.FRANKlin]

In the real world, drills don't count. It's not always feasible to shoot aimed fire when being shot at.
Here is a good question. When full-auto is needed, why not hold the weapon sideways to utilize muzzle "climb" to full advantage?
Convert a problem to an advantage; aim right of center and let the muzzle "climb to the left to "mow down" the enemy in shorter bursts, thus killing more with less waste of ammo. The sub-gun should still feed and eject properly. This would be a better psyche-out than just more noise.
Any reasonable reasons why this would not work?

[zahc]

I can easily understand the role of full auto fire on a battlefield. As unapplicable to real fighting as it is, paintballers have known all along.....accuracy through volume works.

Shoot, shoot, never stop, shoot where you think they are or where you think they might be moving to or where you think they might be thinking about sticking out. In paintball we use firing to control the other team and get our guys where we want them on the feild so they CAN actually see the other team and used controlled fire to mark them. Sometimes we score eliminations in the process, but that's not the real point. It's about intimidation and fire superiority.

[PMDW]

The three round burst comes in because an M-16 on full auto is very hard to control. I forget the numbers but it is an incredibly fast rate of fire. Most people cannot control it enough to keep a burst below 6 - 8 rounds without a lot of frequent practice. The three round burst is much easier to control.

Have you ever fired an M16?

[RevDisk]

In real life combat, what purpose does it serve?

Ideally, to kill the enemy.


I rarely would suggest using full auto on a typical assault rifle. You can fire nearly as quickly in semi (unless you're spraying and praying), more control, more accurate. They overheat rather quickly also. Just my way of shooting. Maybe some people are more accurate in FA than semi.

Belt feds are typically used for suppressing fire so that your guys can get into position to shoot the bad guys with more accurate fire. But, if the oppertunity presents itself...

[Langenator]

I read an interesting bit on the use of full-auto, especially with MGs, in Iraq.

It seems the hajjiis, when involved in a direct fire fight (meaning they're exchanging gunfire with our boys, as opposed to planting bombs or other such nastiness) have a tendency to break contact when our guys brought machineguns, especially M240s and M2s, into the fight. This knowledge has been used two ways"

-for convoys, getting the machineguns into the fight means you can make the enemy run away and you can unass the AO.

-Marines looking to kill the enemy would keep the machineguns in reserve, simply trading rifle fire until they could get artillery or air support to send the bad guys to meet Allah.

[MikeIsaj]

"Have you ever fired an M16?"


A few times. I was a Marine for eleven years. For seven of those eleven years I was a range coach/instructor on basic qualification ranges, combat ranges, scout/sniper ranges, and machine gun ranges. I have fired tens of thousands of rounds through the M16A1 and the A2. I have also coached hundreds of new Marines in firing M16A1's in their first auto fire. My opinion is based on that experience.

My experience with people who have never fired any auto fire, is that they have a hard time controlling the weapon in every aspect. It is a fire discipline that is entirely different than the way you fire on the qual range and they have to override a lot of habits that we've trained into them. Mostly they have a light trigger control that needs to be changed for auto fire. The slow squeese that they have been taught now needs to be a quick tug. Also they are taught to develop a firing position that allows the weapon to "rest" on their body and for auto fire we want them to hold the weapon firmly. My experience of personnally firing M16s in full auto as well as coaching hundreds of others in doing the same is that it is a difficult weapon to control, compared to an M14, or even an M60. Most of that comes from the fact that it is a very light rifle, it just doesn't have the mass to absorb the recoil, requiring a greater effort on the shooters part.

The question was about full auto fire in combat. My answer was specific to that question. The abilities of a recreational shooter who has spent much time learning and perfecting technique is irrelevent. The full auto shooter in combat is going to be a young soldier between 18 and 20 years old, with very little experience shooting in general and even less full auto trigger time. Most likely he has had some limited "fam-fire" exposure and some classroom discussion of theory. These guys are young and inexperienced. By their very nature they are more high strung and tend to get caught up in the energy level of full auto shooting. Numerous threads on this forum, echo the thrill and exhileration of full auto fire. They then go out on the range and get to fire maybe a hundred rounds full auto. This is enough to ensure they aren't surprized by the experience but not enough to instill any kind of expertise.

[Texian Pistolero]

Back in the mid-70's there was at least the theory that some soldiers in a squad were designated AR riflemen. (in addition to organic M-60's) There was a technique where the M16 was fired form the prone with a detachable plastic bipod at the front of the barrel. The soldier pulled down on the front of the sling, creating isometric tension that greatly reduced muzzle climb.

This would work quite well in a defensive perimeter covering an assigned arc of fire.

We did fam fire on this in basic training, but it wasn't mentioned too much at the unit. The plastic bipod looked like an easy item to lose when assaulting by rushes.

[CAS700850]

This was a matter of some discussion back when I was at West Point. Back then, the M-16A2 was just coming out, hence the debate of full auto vs. burst. The two schools of thought were that if needed for suppression or counter-ambush, there was no substitute for full-auto. On the other hand, the burst people said that burst fire increased hit probability, while at the same time reducing the waste of ammo by soldiers who would simply fire full-auto under stress.

Now that I'm involved with law enforcement, I see it differently. Full auto is seen by many as a legal liability, in terms of too many flying bullets to account for. Burst fire is seen as better, because of fewer bullets flying around. the good guys are happy with either, and the really good guys are fine with semi-auto as well. For that matter, one of the best prefers a cut-down Remington 870.

[johnnymenudo]

I think everyone is discounting the lethality of these weapons. In a CQB situation a carbine dumps lead into the target at an alarming rate, making the shoot until they are down concept a heck of lot more idiot proof. Even in an 308 or 223 you can always get at least 2 or 3 rounds on target even if you let the muzzle climb. Aim at a torso with a full auto and even if you let it rise, you will usually see a line of fire up and to the right but several rounds will make target. Thats a good thing.

JM

[hjaeger]

CQB is a major application for full-auto.

Let's say you're on patrol in Iraq. Your group dismounts and enters a building to investigate some local issue, let's say an Iraqi with considerably more than the 1 AK and 100-odd rounds of ammunition that the Coalition troops consider normal or acceptable for an Iraqi household. You check out the area, and no sign of the building's occupant(s) is found; your patrol secures the site and prepares to leave. As you're jogging through the main hall, a cellar door bangs open two meters ahead of you, and an indigenous-appearing individual with tatty body armor pops out, shouts something you have no time to comprehend, and brings up his aging yet clean HiPower. At this point, you're taken relatively off-guard; you've got an extra bag of mixed 7.62x39 and magazines that were found in the house looped over your shoulder- it's weighing you down and you're slightly off-balance. You can, however, bring up your HK MP5A4, which you do, reflexively thumbing the selector to automatic. You manage to get your sights blurrily over his COM, and quickly pull the trigger as he has his BHP still 15 degrees below the horizontal. Your left hand has a loose grip on the front of the magazine, your right on the pistol grip; you squeeze off a total of 4 rounds, two of which enter his lower abdomen, one his sternum, and one that flies over his left shoulder.

Full-auto is useful in this situation, as it gives you an extra amount of "breathing room" when you can't bring the thing to your shoulder and do a perfect double-tap. A shotgun could accomplish this same purpose, as others have pointed out. So, when you're approaching uncertain factors when you may have little time to react, the ability to put out a larger field of fire is certaintly of use.

[Jeff White]

hjaeger,
What's an MP5A4? It must be a model of the MP5 I'm not familiar with. You must have some of the biggest hands around if you can bring up your HK MP5A4, which you do, reflexively thumbing the selector to automatic. I've always found the MP5 safety/selector to be be very unergonomic. I've even seen a few attempts at extending them to make it possible to use them and keep a firing grip.

You go on to say;

You manage to get your sights blurrily over his COM, and quickly pull the trigger as he has his BHP still 15 degrees below the horizontal.

How does a blurry sight picture reconcile with this:

Full-auto is useful in this situation, as it gives you an extra amount of "breathing room" when you can't bring the thing to your shoulder and do a perfect double-tap.

If you couldn't get your weapon to your shoulder, how did you get the blurry sight picture?

Then there is the issue of the range involved. You say;

As you're jogging through the main hall, a cellar door bangs open two meters ahead of you, and an indigenous-appearing individual with tatty body armor pops out, shouts something you have no time to comprehend, and brings up his aging yet clean HiPower.

But at that range, this is the best you can do?

Your left hand has a loose grip on the front of the magazine, your right on the pistol grip; you squeeze off a total of 4 rounds, two of which enter his lower abdomen, one his sternum, and one that flies over his left shoulder.

Two meters is approximately 78 inches. That's almost close enough to touch, in fact if you're moving towards this guy, you've most likely run into him and changed it into a hand to hand fight fight before you ever brought your MP5A4 into action. You'd almost have to be moving the weapon upwards like you were going to strike him under the chin with the muzzle in order to put one over his left shoulder that that range.

Then there is this:

Full-auto is useful in this situation, as it gives you an extra amount of "breathing room" when you can't bring the thing to your shoulder and do a perfect double-tap. A shotgun could accomplish this same purpose, as others have pointed out. So, when you're approaching uncertain factors when you may have little time to react, the ability to put out a larger field of fire is certaintly of use.

How does a shotgun accomplish the same purpose in CQB? The pattern is barely wider then the bore at those ranges. Infact most CQB is done at a low ready position where you're looking over the top of your weapon. You only have to move it a couple of inches to see theough the sights and put out aimed fire. Hammers, double taps and the non-standard response are the most used methods of engagement and they are all semi-auto techniques.

Jeff

[johnnymenudo]

You guys are way overanalyzing this. Try this. Next time you go the range with your carbine, pretend the targets are capable of firing back at you. Switch to semi auto and pull the trigger as fast as you can and empty the magazine into the targets. At what point do you feel you have hit the target with enough lead to neutralized the threats? Now switch to full auto and do the same.

JM

[Jeff White]

johnnymenudo,

How are we overanalyzing this? The idea is to hit your target. Hit probability goes down when you shoot on full auto. There is also the little thing that most CQB type situations, even in the military these days are closer to a SWAT operation then they are to Stalingrad. That's not even taking the fratricide issues into consideration.

Nope in my opinion, full auto fire has very limited uses. That's not based on over analyzing things it's based on experience.

Full auto is a lot of fun. And it has it's uses, but it's not the preferred method of engagement in most situations. At least not in any of the Infantry units or police tactical teams I've been involved with.

Jeff

[Texian Pistolero]

I'm not sure if any one has yet stated the obvious, but fire discipline (the control of precious ammo), is a PRIMARY if not THE MOST PRIMARY job of the small unit leader.

When you run out of bullets, all you got is a gub (gun used as club.)

Our recent endeavors in the Middle East are something of an EXCEPTION, where most soldiers are not THAT far from a vehicle that totes LOTS of backup ammo, whether Bradley, hummvee, whatever.

This IS an exception!

In most military conflicts, soldiers have been limited to what they carry on their bod, resupply has been uncertain, and may not happen before your team are overrun.

In Granada, the SEAL team that rescued the British ambassador were down to their last mag, and they were shooting single shot with scopes.

Very similar, the SF team in Gulf War One that was extracted under fire after killing about 200 Iraqi militia, were down to their last mags.

Ammo conservation is a VERY important part of the job!

[entropy]

Jeff, the MP5A4 is the fixed stock, four-postion lower variant of the MP5. (Safe, Semi, 3rd. burst, Full) I trained with the three-position MP5SD, and had no problem keeping to 3 rd bursts on that, as with the M16A1. (never liked the A2's selector. I rarely used full anyway, but it was nice have it there.) 'Reflexively thumbing the selector to automatic' Hats off to you, hjaeger. That's a longer thumbing than the 3 positions, and like Jeff, I found them a bit awkward to do, had to release firing grip to do it.
Mike Isaj, I partially agree with you, poorly trained troops will bypass semi as if it wasn't there, then whip the muzzle around like Rambo, because that's how TV taught them to do it. Hell, I was tasked with teaching Army REMF's to shoot effectively, not Marines, and I managed to get through to some of them. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink, eh? BTW, the cyclic rate of the M16A1 is 600 rpm. Like DarkKnight01's Dad, I too had no problem keeping 28 rds. (A correctly filled 30rd mag.) on the head of the sillhouette targets, although I didn't practice this past 50 meters. Not sure if I could do it now, haven't fired any FA in a few years. :o
And to answer johnny menudo, the answer is: Two. One quick one to COM to stun him enough for the aimed head shot. Pretty much sums up how I'd handle hjeager's scenario also, with a short burst replacing the single round COM.
And to address the original question 'So what is the role of full auto in small arms combat?' The thread wandered towards the weapons getting snaller and smaller, so with the reminder that small arms does include SAW's, LMG's, GPMG's, and HMG's, as well as select-fire rifles SMG's, the answer is, in words of Gen. Patton, "To make the other SOB die for his country!" :evil:
Supressive fire is about 90% of it, with CQB and psychologial intimidation being the remainder.

[johnnymenudo]

Jeff - the reason I say people are overanalyzing it is because I have read all the posts. LOL. I disagree with your interpretation of the usefullness of full auto fire in combat. Sure the hit probability goes down, but unless I am reading you wrong, that is per round fired - not hit probability in the whole scenario. So saying that you might only score 20% out of the 30 rounds fired is still saying you hit your target 6 times. On the battlefield at long distances full auto is fairly useless. But up close with multiple assailants I think it is a pretty fine tool to have at your disposal. Now if I am reading you wrong or interpreting your statements incorrectly I apologize in advance. I do think the backlash against full auto is because of pray and spray, and the fact that in vietnam M-16s were used as noise makers. In capable hands it works well. I have full auto experience but admittedly not as much as some on this board. This is just my opinion.

JM

[Jeff White]

JM,
Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. And discussing them is what makes the board fun. :)

I do have to say that I think you've got things backward. Full auto is often at it's most effective at longer ranges. You can even use a properly sand bagged light to heavy machine gun to engage targets that are in defilade. In fact the Army and Marine Corps still publish Firing Tables for the 7.62x51 and .50 BMG.

A map, an M2 compass, some aiming stakes and a GFT and you can place effective fire on targets you can't see at some very long ranges. A couple mils adjustment on the T&E and you can change the size and shape of the beaten zone.

You're correct in that full auto fire is a fine tool to have at your disposal, but just like any other tool you have to know when and how to use it....The right tool for the right job.

Jeff

[pete f]

fire discipline is inversly tied to distance from resupply. Lots of ammo shoot lots, long way to get more ammo make every shot count.

I used to live accross the alley from a old guy who was Uncle Kenny to the whole street, he served on PNG and Iwo Jima in WW11, His stories about having to carry every round through the jungle on hills so slippery inthe rain that if you lost your footing you did not stop till you hit bottom or one of the trees the soldiers would drop to act as a stopper to prevent guys from going over cliffs. He talked about trying to carry three cans of fifty cal up a hill to where they were going to set up an ambush of a jap road, only to end up having to carry the ammo up three times because he never got all the way up without sliding down. He also talked about on Iwo Jima as hard as it was, the one mistake the japanesse made was letting them land and set up a beachhead, he said the second day all that was unloaded was ammo and food. So when the battle started they were fed and loaded with ammo. They would get shot at from a cave, everyone and the machine gunner would start shooting and a couple of guys would run up and toss a satchel charge or a few grenades in the hole nad then move on.

Full Auto is a great option, just like having a suppressed weapon at times is a great weapon, or a 155 MM sitting there waiting for you to say when.
even 1918 BARs are controllable off hand if you have some experience, just shorten up the left hand and let that muzzle hang, 20 rounds in 5 seconds or less all in the COM of a fbi target at 100 yds

[johnnymenudo]

Jeff,

I was only referring to carbines and military issued small arms like M-16. Basically handheld weapons. Tripods, sandbags, and full auto attached to tanks, planes, and helicopters don't count. ;)

JM

[shep854]

Another purpose, touched on by Jeff White, is "recon by fire", especially for mech troops with lots of ammo. This involves shooting up suspicous areas to try to provoke an enemy response, such as tripping an ambush early.

[Sam]

I am so down on Full Auto for the common troop that I had riot locks installed on most of the weapons in the unit.

Folks that I thought could make good use of automatic fire had a weapon capable of it. Most of the kids NO.

As late as 1 Nov last year they were still available through supply. Suspect you can still get them if interested. No I don't remember the NSN

Sam

[Grump]

IMO (non-combatant and all that but a "student" of the art), the best role for fullo-auto fire in any engagement at all is to make the OTHER GUY run out of ammo first so I remain safe.

Let them shoot FA, I'll stick to SA and a few hammers now and again.

Remember the story of the Arizona Highway Patrol trooper who faced down a guy with an UZI. Engagement was from the door to the rear bumper or maybe a few feet more. 32 rounds of 9mm lost to 4 rounds of .357 Mag from a revolver. As reported in USA Today in the early 1990s, complete with breathless ogawd comments about the BGs being "better armed" than the cops...really?

[IZinterrogator]

When discussing full auto and burst, you shouldn't forget all the guys on convoys. Full auto/burst increases the odds of a hit when moving at high speed while bouncing around in the back of a truck. It also simplifies the problem of how much to lead (actually the opposite when you are moving) your target. All soldiers going to Iraq are trained at home station and Kuwait in this technique. You might say we are now fully trained in the art of drive-by shootings. :D

[Sleuth]

Full autos are really area weapons, not point weapons. They are used to deny an enemy the use of a road, trail, gully, or other area, or to engage bodies of troops. IIRC John Browning was asked to increase the dispersion (spread of bullets) of one of his machineguns to increase the 'beaten zone".
When training my agents to use our 3 shot burst AUGs, the bigest problem was getting them to pull the trigger hard and hold it back long enough for the gun to fire 3 rounds.

Most of us come from a 'point weapon' background, and so I see people measuring how good they are with a belt fed MG by trying to hit single sticks of dynamite at 200/300 yards. Try blocking a trail with a 1919A4, or engaging multiple targets at 400 yards with a BAR. Fire single shots, and you are unlikely to hit more than one. Fire a burst, and you can get multiples.

So, if you broaden your outlook, you can see the use of full auto fire in more traditional conflicts. Our present war is more like one huge, contining SWAT action - close range, multiple officers (troops), most in built up areas.

[RevDisk]

Most of us come from a 'point weapon' background, and so I see people measuring how good they are with a belt fed MG by trying to hit single sticks of dynamite at 200/300 yards. Try blocking a trail with a 1919A4, or engaging multiple targets at 400 yards with a BAR. Fire single shots, and you are unlikely to hit more than one. Fire a burst, and you can get multiples.

When I went for my Schutzenschnur badge, I had to fire single or double rounds through an MG3 (basically, same weapon as an MG42 used during WWII).

A good MG'er needs to be able to fire very small bursts AND area suppression. It's easy to hose an area down, and sometimes that is required. However, WWI tactics are not in common usage anymore. Mass waves are simply not used very much these days. "Wall of lead" is sometimes needed, sometimes not. (It's rather fun, actually.) Accuracy is still important. Not benchrest style accuracy, but "good enough" accuracy to quickly hit a man sized target out to 300m.


So, if you broaden your outlook, you can see the use of full auto fire in more traditional conflicts. Our present war is more like one huge, contining SWAT action - close range, multiple officers (troops), most in built up areas.

Urban combat is not quite the same thing as civilian SWAT operations. Civilian SWAT teams are intended to be used against American citizens, and thus should be trained to do the least amount of damage necessary. (ie, not firing 120 bullets at someone in a residential area.) The focus should be on arresting, not killing. Yea, if you need to light someone up, you light someone up. But it should be the exception rather than the rule.

Military urban combat training is designed around the bad guys having extensive amounts of toys. Assault rifles, light MG's, RPG's, etc. Also, military urban combat folks have to deal with folks that don't mind dying in order to kill soldiers AND happen to be heavily armed. Buddy of mine got shot three times near the groin by a 10 year old. The kid knew what he was doing, and fully expected to die but was willing to do so in order to kill an American.

[Vern Humphrey]

When I was a company commander in Viet Nam, firing an M16 full auto was an automatic Article 15 offense, and would cost you $50.

Automatic fire, to be effective, must be restricted to true machineguns -- at least with a bipod, and preferrably with a tripod.

[RevDisk]

When I was a company commander in Viet Nam, firing an M16 full auto was an automatic Article 15 offense, and would cost you $50.

Automatic fire, to be effective, must be restricted to true machineguns -- at least with a bipod, and preferrably with a tripod.

Amen. I always hated full auto through assault rifles. Wasteful and ineffective.

[Fletchette]

Unless you are faced with a "human wave attack" type situation, IMO full auto fire is mostly for wasting ammo.

I have heard about such attacks, most notably during the Korean War. Does anyone know of any photos or combat footage of such an attack? It seems so unreal to someone like myself.

[Vern Humphrey]

Unless you are faced with a "human wave attack" type situation, IMO full auto fire is mostly for wasting ammo.



I have heard about such attacks, most notably during the Korean War. Does anyone know of any photos or combat footage of such an attack? It seems so unreal to someone like myself.

"Human wave attacks" are mostly a creation of the media. During WWII in the Pacific there were a few so-called "banzi" attacks, most notably on the Bloody Ridge on Guadalcanal, on Saipan, and on Attu in the Aleutians. On Saipan, the attack was preceeded by singing and shouting, and the attackers were clearly drunk.

In Korea, the Chinese used a version of Soviet tactics and attacked en echelon -- that is, with two elements forward and one element to the rear following them, the latter strung completely across the front.

This deployment was duplicated at each level -- a regiment put two battalions up front, one deployed across the rear. The battalions had two companies up, one in the rear. The companies had two platoons up, one following in the rear. This deployment gives dispersion in depth and at the same time allows concentration if the lead elements are slowed -- the following elements simply run into them and rerinforce them.

The way to deal with attacks of this type is with tripod-mounted machineguns delivering grazing fire more or less parallel to the front, and with dead space identified and covered with mortars and artillery.

Spray-and-pray from hand-held weapons doesn't do much of anything for you.

[Curare]

3 round burst was implemented to conserve ammo and increase hit probability.

FA fire can be "walked" onto target, and can be suppressive.

So what if you hit a BG with 4 rounds out of a 10 round , FA burst? Is that any better than the COM double tap?

Aimed shots and ammo conservation are paramount.

[Vern Humphrey]

3 round burst was implemented to conserve ammo and increase hit probability.

The 3 round burst was implemented as a bureaucratic compromise between Department of the Army civilians and the Marine Corps. The Corps wanted seim-auto only.

FA fire can be "walked" onto target, and can be suppressive.

FA fire can run your magazine dry before you get on target.

So what if you hit a BG with 4 rounds out of a 10 round , FA burst? Is that any better than the COM double tap?


My experiece is you hit him with zero rounds out of a ten round burst, or out of any burst -- look at the quote about walking fire onto the target. FA means "I doan use no steenkin' sights."

[IZinterrogator]

FA means "I doan use no steenkin' sights."Ever tried to use a machine gun when fire conditions preclude the use of tracers? I always used the sights, tracers or not.

[Jeff White]

FA means "I doan use no steenkin' sights."

Spoken like a person with little to none personal experience with full auto weapons.

Jeff

[Vern Humphrey]

Spoken like a person with little to none personal experience with full auto weapons.


Spoken like a professional soldier, with more than two years of combat experience, including service as a company commander in combat (A/1-61 Infantry.)

Spoken like a man with two Purple Hearts and three Bronze Stars, who has personally used every weapon we had at the time, from the M2 carbine, M1 rifle, M1918A1 BAR, M14 (in sniper rifle guise), M16A1, M60 Machine Gun, and M2 HB Browning.

In my company, people who fired an M16A1 on full auto got an automatic $50 fine.

[Jeff White]

Vern,
I don't understand the context of the sights comment then. The only unsighted fire I ever was taught or later taught was Quick Fire/Quick Kill. I am not aware of any other program where you didn't use the sights.

True machine guns, with the aiming stakes, range cards and T&E mechanisms certainly are aimed.

Jeff

[Sleuth]

Ah, Vern, I take it that the 'not using sights' comment was directed at those who learned how to shoot full auto by watching Rambo movies. Thus, the comments about that line should not be directed at you, but those who think they can hose down the target area.

I was in Federal Law Enforcement, and have some trigger time on full autos. We too reached the 'burst' compromise. Internal Affairs wanted full auto, the rest of us wanted semi, so we got 3 shot burst. Turned our rifle magazines from 30 rounders into 10 rounders, so to speak.

I truly feel 3 round burst is for those who are only partiall trained. With proper instruction, your 'burst control' is in your mind and your trigger finger.

And thank you for your valorous (and valuable) service to our country.

[Texian Pistolero]

Vern and Jeff,

After getting many bodacious and righteous posts from both of you dudes

over many months,

I suspect that,

as the Struther Martin character expressed it in "Cool Hand Luke",

"what we have HERE,

"is a failure, to communicate!".

[Vern Humphrey]

Ah, Vern, I take it that the 'not using sights' comment was directed at those who learned how to shoot full auto by watching Rambo movies. Thus, the comments about that line should not be directed at you, but those who think they can hose down the target area.


Performance degrades dramatically under stress -- pick a dozen shootings at random, and you will find that in most of them the shooters perform at a very low level, compared to their range scores.

When using full auto, most people will instinctively adopt a spray-and-pray approach. In any case, what is the tactical utility of full auto fire from hand held weapons? I've asked that question from literally thousands of people and no one has been able to articulate a tactical need for it.

[PzGren]

The tactical use of full auto from a sub gun, or what Germany calls it; a machine pistol, is to use it while on the move. In short bursts, administered from a well trained and highly motivated individual, it can be used with devastating effects.

[Vern Humphrey]

The tactical use of full auto from a sub gun, or what Germany calls it; a machine pistol, is to use it while on the move. In short bursts, administered from a well trained and highly motivated individual, it can be used with devastating effects.

I've been shot at and hit, and I've been shot at and missed. Being shot at and missed is not "devastating."

[GGraff]

One big advantage is in Close Quarters Combat. At close range you can put 3-5 rounds on target real fast .....and keep them center mass.

[Vern Humphrey]

One big advantage is in Close Quarters Combat. At close range you can put 3-5 rounds on target real fast .....and keep them center mass.


The best men I've ever known with a submachine gun admit -- when cornered -- they could actually perform better on semi-auto.

[Gordon]

On a bipod or tripod with a belt! :cool:

[PzGren]

Yes Vern,

being shot at and being missed is not devastating but the Germans got one hit out of eight shots the last time they were at war.
How many were it in Vietnam for the US forces?

[PzGren]

The Germans were trained to be soldiers during the Third Reich from earliest youth, just like in the old Rome, Sparta, or among the Mundugumor in Africa.

You have now China having youth brigades were they learn to shoot airrifles that are copies of the AK. Diszipline cannot be put into a soldier by yelling at him or threating, or even punishing him. All fire diszipline will be forgotten, all threats and punishment will not be important when surviving the next minute is crucial.
It is more than training, it is mind conditioning. Why was the Waffen SS feared, why are the Ranger and Seals feared? Or the SAS? The members were chosen for the strengths of their minds and their diszipline to function with controll over pain and fear.

[caz223]

Well, if you are moving and your targets are moving, you stand a much better chance of hitting them by point shooting 3 round bursts in a close range situation. Again, that only works if you AND your targets are moving.
Like fighting your way out of getting closed off, or trying to cut off an opponent's retreat, cutting a line open, skip-firing, etc.

[Vern Humphrey]

being shot at and being missed is not devastating but the Germans got one hit out of eight shots the last time they were at war.


Check out how much ammuniton the Germans manufactured and shot up during WWII. If they got one hit out of eight shots, then they obviously killed every single American, British, Canadian, French and Soviet soldier -- and all their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren as well. :cool:

And that ain't even counting artillery, air, tanks and land mines.

[entropy]

but the Germans got one hit out of eight shots the last time they were at war.

Maybe the snipers. I highly doubt the MG34/42 crews had such a hit ratio. :rolleyes:

[captain obvious]

I'd never heard about the full-auto fine idea; in fact a family friend of mine, who went through basic shortly after Vietnam, said that the instructors (Vietnam vets) told them [unofficially, of course] to switch to "rock and roll" as soon as fighting started.

Just what I had heard.


And were it not for FA, what would all those "beirut offhand" shooters do with themselves?

[Vern Humphrey]

I'd never heard about the full-auto fine idea; in fact a family friend of mine, who went through basic shortly after Vietnam, said that the instructors (Vietnam vets) told them [unofficially, of course] to switch to "rock and roll" as soon as fighting started.

Just what I had heard.


The noise of full auto fire is comforting, but the effectiveness is poor.

In 1968, a patrol from A-4/12 CAV sprung an ambush prematurely when a Kit Carson Scout opened fire too soon. Everyone went full auto, and everyone ran dry at the same time. Score -- 3 Americans killed, no NVA.

[Too Many Choices!?]

To HOPEFULLY stay alive long enough to complete your mission and go home :banghead: ...

If that is through suppression and then artillery, suppression followed by a tactical ambush, or direct point fire on a target in full-auto or semi-auto mode, the purpose full-auto fire(and ALL TYPES OR FIRE),as stated before is," To make the other SOB Die for HIS COUNTRY:evil:", so that U don't have to :neener: ... :D

[Vern Humphrey]

To HOPEFULLY stay alive long enough to complete your mission and go home

My personal experience has been that if you expend all your ammo in spray-and-pray, your life expectancy will be very, very short.

the purpose full-auto fire(and ALL TYPES OR FIRE),as stated before is," To make the other SOB Die for HIS COUNTRY

Again, my personal experience has been that full-auto fire from hand-held weapons (rifles and sub-machineguns) rarely helps the other SOB die. It sure knocks the leaves out of the trees, though.

[chino]

I've been shot at and hit, and I've been shot at and missed. Being shot at and missed is not "devastating."

Sir, do you mind recounting the incidence whereby you were shot and hit?

[Vern Humphrey]

Sir, do you mind recounting the incidence whereby you were shot and hit?

Just south of LZ Nancy in '69. I had sent out platoon-sized patrols into the "bowl" (either a meteor or volcanic crater -- I never knew which). We got in about 18 men (returned wounded, R%R, etc.) after the patrols left, so I formed an ad hoc platoon under the First Sergeant and sent him out to deliver them by APC, and called the patrols back to the crater edge road.

As he was coming back, he ran into an NVA column crossing the road. He ran over a couple of them with his track. Then the fight started. I called the patrols and had them come in from one side, while I loaded up the CP and mortars and started down the track at high speed. We turned a right angle bend, saw a beaten zone in the road, and I told the driver to run through it.

As we reached the four embattled APCs and slewed around, an RPG-7 it the front of the track and blew me out and down the ridge. I crawled back up and was trying to get the radios working when I thought about how I had crawled into the position, so I started throwning grenades down the slope. (I had a whole case on the floor of the command track.)

I couldn't pull the pin on one grenade, and looked down. I noticed something moving whenever I pulled, and there was a lot of blood on my fatigue jacket. It turned out my collar bone was poking out each time I pulled. Not until then did I realize I had been hit.

After the fight, I came out and got patched up and went back. A couple of weeks later, we hit an anti-tank mine and the track rolled over. Everything that was healing got re-broken.

[Lucky]

I think it's kind of you to share with us, everyone else in this thread too,

Thank-you.

[Vern Humphrey]

I'm merely recounting -- "sharing" would be a very painful experience for those I shared with. :eek:

[jfruser]

Semi has a place: Aimed fire

FA has a place: Suppresive fire*, CQB

Mechanically-limited 3RB is an abomination. It is neither fish nor fowl, adds unnecessary complexity, and is more difficult to hit with than either FA or SA, IMO.

* To include drivers & TCs shooting on the move

[Lucky]

JF I think there was a thread with a video where a guy was at his house with a shotgun, and police were talking him into surrendering, and he went for a walk just as the SWAT team was sneaking up the side of his house. Long story short the SWT guy on point shot him a few times, but it looked really fast. And with an MP5 it seemed controllable, so maybe in that situation 3-round burst worked OK. It seemed like he pulled the trigger 3 times, as quickly as one would in semi-auto, but hit 9 times.

Vern - Thx, in that case feel free not to share too much!

[carebear]

Used to have a terrible time with my SAW gunners getting them to actually fire long enough bursts.

You get used to semi-fire with the rifle and when you switch to the gun (and figure out the trigger) you have half an MG range going <crack-crack, crack-crack, crack-crack>

Sure it's accurate, but it's no way to burn off all the belted 5.56 at the end of the fiscal year. :evil:

[Vern Humphrey]

FA has a place: Suppresive fire*, CQB


Fire that doesn't hit doesn't suppress. Case in point, the ambush at Suoi Cat in '67. ACAVs (.50 Cal with armor protection in the TC hatch and two shielded M60s) drove the length of the ambush twice -- and RPG gunners stood up to return fire. Only a single ACAV survived.

The smart thing would have been for the ACAVs that got out of the killing zone to fire down the line from a stationary position, and deploy riflemen.

Used to have a terrible time with my SAW gunners getting them to actually fire long enough bursts.


The M249 is a dedicated automatic weapon -- and I assume they were using the bipod. But what's wrong with 2-round bursts?

[chino]

I served in the infantry in Singapore. During my time we used the locally-made M16A1 (called M16S1).

The only time we were ever allowed to fire full auto is when clearing a room.

[carebear]

Vern,

Nothing I guess. In each recon team we had one, maybe two depending on the team leader's preference, guns out of the 6 Marines. I was trying to get them used to opening up the rate of fire a bit to give them a chance to achieve (perceived anyway) fire superiority for breaking contact.

I figured there wasn't much chance of winning a shootout against most odds on a chance contact so they needed to get the enemy to go to ground so they could run. Sounding like 6 rifles wasn't, to my mind, going to do that.

As far as offensively, I used to use single or double shots from the shoulder when I was the SAW gunner, much more than that and I found it hard to control the gun while moving. I was always a fan of finding stuff to brace it on, I hated going prone and having to get up again.

It's kinda weird, I think the SAW is the wrong weapon for the AR role, but I did like having it handy.

[Z_Infidel]

Interesting thread.

There is a passage in the book "Black Hawk Down" in which Paul Howe describes a situation where he switched his CAR15 to full auto before engaging a couple of enemies at close range. While this one incident obviously doesn't provide a complete analysis of the matter, it is an interesting example based on the action of an experienced operator.

[Vern Humphrey]

In each recon team we had one, maybe two depending on the team leader's preference, guns out of the 6 Marines. I was trying to get them used to opening up the rate of fire a bit to give them a chance to achieve (perceived anyway) fire superiority for breaking contact.


Here's an interesting question for you -- why is the 6-round burst standard for machineguns? (Hint: it's related to the frontage covered by an infantry company in the defense.)

Here's the answer -- the standard maximum frontage was established in the early 20th Century by none other than John H. Parker (that's "Gatling Gun" Parker, the early expert on tactical use of machineguns.) From early days, the ration of machineguns has been 6 per company (although the organization of those guns varied considerably.)

When you put 6 machineguns on the ground, you can cover 1500 yards with grazing fire. Hence the company with 6 guns can defend 1500 yards.

Now, about 25 years ago, the Infantry School noticed a descrepancy between the doctrinal grazing range of the machinegun and the ballistic tables. They did some research -- right back to Parker's writings -- and found that the idea was to use the gun on the tripod with the T&E mechanism. The T&E mechanism was manipulated while firing -- the gun would be elevated a few clicks on one burst, then depressed the same number for the next. That "stretched" the grazing range to the doctrinal figure. It took 6 rounds to cover this manipulation -- hence the 6-round burst.

[Fletchette]

Interesting thread.

There is a passage in the book "Black Hawk Down" in which Paul Howe describes a situation where he switched his CAR15 to full auto before engaging a couple of enemies at close range. While this one incident obviously doesn't provide a complete analysis of the matter, it is an interesting example based on the action of an experienced operator.

Indeed. I have wondered about situations like this. Would a .308 semi be more effective? There seems to be controversy (still) over the effectiveness of 5.56mm on unarmored combatants, thereby necessitating several hits to bring an enemy down. A .308 is not so controversial. In addition, in the "Black Hawk Down" scenario a .308 ball would be effective in penetrating combatants that are behind each other (as often happens when they are closely packed).

I also seem to remember reports of combat in Rhodesia (or was it another African country about 15 years ago) where the rebel forces fought the government very effectively with semi FN FALs against full auto goverment troops.

FA clearly has its place, but that place maybe tripod mounted weapons with adequate ammo supply and not as individually carried weapons.

[Vern Humphrey]

FA clearly has its place, but that place maybe tripod mounted weapons with adequate ammo supply and not as individually carried weapons.


Bingo! You win the cigar! :D

[8Balls]

- Supress enemy fire while you break contact (before you run like hell and set a land speed record)

- Supressing fire when attacking without fire support (suicide)

- Clearing trenches

- Very close quarters. (Inside houses for example)

- When you are ambushing enemy and open fire

[Vern Humphrey]

- Supress enemy fire while you break contact (before you run like hell and set a land speed record)

- Supressing fire when attacking without fire support (suicide)

- Clearing trenches

- Very close quarters. (Inside houses for example)

- When you are ambushing enemy and open fire


For dedicated machineguns, yes.

For rifles, no.

Suppressive fire doesn't suppress if it's just spray and pray.

At the Joint Readiness Training Center, they can prove live-fire that semi-auto is better for clearning trenches and houses -- because they videotape and record results.

In an ambush, you need to kill, not scare people. Semi-auto only is the way to go for rifles.