Dan Morris
Member
Back in another life....1964, I was trained to do accurate aimed fire. As I am still here, ...42 years later, it must have worked!
JMO
Dan
JMO
Dan
Spray and pray, or aimed shots in "real" combat?
- Thread starter The Real Hawkeye
- Start date
- Status
haven't been in war, but i have played a lot of paintball. by the time you get set on something and take your sweet time making sure your right on, you get popped by 3 paintballs. The only difference is i can wash off and jump in the next game. I think i would be a spray and pray kinda guy.
1911 guy
Member
Suppressive fire isn't "spray and pray".
If you're rattling lead into every shrub and bush, you may not be keeping your enemy at bay. Suppressive fire has to be close enough, as Vern Humphrey said "slamming into their cover and ricocheting off the parapet", to be of any use. Fire landing thirty feet away isn't going to keep me from sticking my neck out. Pinging around the rock I'm hiding behind will.
If you're rattling lead into every shrub and bush, you may not be keeping your enemy at bay. Suppressive fire has to be close enough, as Vern Humphrey said "slamming into their cover and ricocheting off the parapet", to be of any use. Fire landing thirty feet away isn't going to keep me from sticking my neck out. Pinging around the rock I'm hiding behind will.
Lebben-B
Member
Enemy exposures are fleeting, particularly in an urban area. Just because you took fire from only one BG in one window or doorway does't mean that that's the only BG in the building. So supressive fire is used on that floor/section of the building to allow the assaulters to get into a position to take down the building, if necessary. And "Pray and spray" is a poor nick-name for supressive fire. All shots should be aimed, if not at a definite target then at an area of suspected/expected activity as directed by the TL/SL/PL. More precisely, supressive fire is a form of area fire.
Mike
Mike
Here's another feeble thought. Nobody has mentioned light conditions..or lack thereof. A long time ago, in the delta of Vietnam, a lot of contacts happened at night. A platoon would split into two sections and go off under cover of darkness to preselected ambush locations and setup for the night.
Now...in those days only snipers had starlight scopes mounted to their M14's. The rest had M16's, M40s, an M60...all with iron sights. Try taking your rifle shooting at night with iron sights. Try some thick overgrown area, away from any city lights. Try a night with little or no moon or in the pouring rain. At best what you are doing is pointing, not aiming. It helps to have a tracer round every few in your magazine though.
By the way, in those days first contact wasn't made by shooting. First contact was made by claymore, then shooting. Particular enphasis was given to the M60 machinegun. The M60 gave a comforting meaning to "spray".
Now...in those days only snipers had starlight scopes mounted to their M14's. The rest had M16's, M40s, an M60...all with iron sights. Try taking your rifle shooting at night with iron sights. Try some thick overgrown area, away from any city lights. Try a night with little or no moon or in the pouring rain. At best what you are doing is pointing, not aiming. It helps to have a tracer round every few in your magazine though.
By the way, in those days first contact wasn't made by shooting. First contact was made by claymore, then shooting. Particular enphasis was given to the M60 machinegun. The M60 gave a comforting meaning to "spray".
The Real Hawkeye,
I think your conclusion concerning the hypothetical scanario is quite accurate. The employment of .22 rimfires in this way is quite cost effective in general terms. .22 ammunition is cheap and can be plentiful on hand. Two people alternately shooting and loading could put up a very effective barrage out to moderate ranges. Pistols with plenty of spare mags could be equally effective at shorter distances.
pcf
The thread topic concerns the employment of small arms. Counting bullets is a measure of efficiency in enemy dead for small arms rounds expended.
While heavy shell fire and bombs have doubtless been a significant morale killer in warefare, it is noteworthy that people like Capt Herbert McBride wrote in his account of WW1 that the greatest morale killer was aimed rifle fire.
--------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
I think your conclusion concerning the hypothetical scanario is quite accurate. The employment of .22 rimfires in this way is quite cost effective in general terms. .22 ammunition is cheap and can be plentiful on hand. Two people alternately shooting and loading could put up a very effective barrage out to moderate ranges. Pistols with plenty of spare mags could be equally effective at shorter distances.
pcf
Most of those general casualties were the result of morter, shell and bomb fragments.
The thread topic concerns the employment of small arms. Counting bullets is a measure of efficiency in enemy dead for small arms rounds expended.
While heavy shell fire and bombs have doubtless been a significant morale killer in warefare, it is noteworthy that people like Capt Herbert McBride wrote in his account of WW1 that the greatest morale killer was aimed rifle fire.
--------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
James and Vern's comments are well made. Low on the ground made me less of a target.The 20 round magazines (we loaded 18 per mag) did not keep the profile up. We operated deep in the Central Highlands. Ours was a free fire area. Our CO, Capt Militon Daugherty taught us fire discipline.It was his third tour in Nam as the first two were as a Senior NCO w/SF. Knowing when not to shoot was as important as knowing when to. Our 60 gunners were very disciplined in their firing. I was blessed to be in a company of excellent officers. I was a draftee and a PFC but learned from the Old timers quickly. Byron http://4id-dragoons-nam.us/947.html
your right, you should always take well aimed shots. but there is a thing called "suppresive fire" where you just point and shoot off a bunch of rounds to make the badguy go for cover. this gives you time to moove and or waid for him to pop up so you can put one in his head.
thats why we invented full-auto weapons.
thats why we invented full-auto weapons.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Unaimed "suppressive fire" isn't.
Would you cower in terror until the enemy killed you, because a few rounds passed over your head? Of course not!
Rattling off rounds in the general direction of the enemy may make our guys feel better, but it has no effect other than that.
Suppressive fire to be effective must be killing fire. It only suppresses if you force the enemy to choose between immedate death or staying under cover.
Automatic fire from bipod mounted machineguns directed at the immediate area around a suspected target is effective. Tripod mounted machineguns, properly used, are very effective. But full automatic fire from hand-held weapons is useless.
And all fire is meant to kill. If it isn't, it's just wasted ammunition.
Aimed shots are generally taken on the traditional open battlefields, unless laying down suppressive or covering fire. However, in jungle or densely covered environments, spray and pray tactics are used because the enemy may not be visible and aimed shots are just as good as unaimed, sprayed shots.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Virtually all of my fighting has been in jungles. I made it a policy to charge soldiers $50 for firing an M16 on full auto.
I trained soldiers to visualize "the box" as I explained in an earlier post. The box is the target -- the top of the box is the limit above which the enemy cannot be, the bottom is the limit below which he cannot be. Try lying down, and you'll see the box is usually two to four front sights high.
The ends of the box are the right and left limits. Place closely spaced aimed shots into the box, and you're killing. If you see signs of enemy -- a bit of haze, dust, brush moving, shoot at that. Shoot carefully all around it -- you'll find a body or a blood trail there after the fight.
I trained platoon leaders and squad leaders to control fire, and we practiced it. We got very good at killing.
The Grand Inquisitor
Member
Spray and Pray versus aimed fire is pretty relative based upon situation and load out. If you have a PKM with a full drum, and three belts and there is a group of Mujahedin swarming you, it sounds like a good idea to lay down as much suppresive fire to slow them down, allow for a hasty retreat, and, if you're lucky, hit someone.
But, if you have and AK74 and you're on a ridge over looking a small Muj base camp, you'd be better off firing careful aimed shots to hopefully ensure at least one or two hits/kills versus laying down 2 or 3 mags of ammo, giving up your groups position, and starting a pitched battle without wounding anyone.
It's all a matter of situation- I don't buy in to the whole "lone wolf, one shot one kill" sniper fantasy, but a trained maskman with a PSL, SVD, or M14/21 can do wonders for his company at 250-500 yards. Being a good shot also applies to being a machine gunner - firing your PKM or SAW wildly without trying to keep on target is just going to get you killed or waste alot of ammo and barrels.
But, if you have and AK74 and you're on a ridge over looking a small Muj base camp, you'd be better off firing careful aimed shots to hopefully ensure at least one or two hits/kills versus laying down 2 or 3 mags of ammo, giving up your groups position, and starting a pitched battle without wounding anyone.
It's all a matter of situation- I don't buy in to the whole "lone wolf, one shot one kill" sniper fantasy, but a trained maskman with a PSL, SVD, or M14/21 can do wonders for his company at 250-500 yards. Being a good shot also applies to being a machine gunner - firing your PKM or SAW wildly without trying to keep on target is just going to get you killed or waste alot of ammo and barrels.
Was McBride referring to fire from the average rifleman or from snipers? Recall that the Germans had specialists - snipers - in play for some time before the Brits figured out there was a specific reason, and not just bad luck, for the "plague of head wounds".
im not talking about just blindly shooting anywhere. just taking less time on your shots and being more aggressive on the trigger. if bullets are flying in your general direction, and you have cover, you WILL take it. unless of course you have been trained to ignore your basic instincts.
dont laugh, but i play woods paintball and people dont think normally when theyre under fire. aggressiveness andmental games are the real ultimate battle tactic, most people get so scared when they get charged that they forget that they can fight back. if i even shoot in their general direction, they hide.
Vern Humphrey you are one of the few people here that have seen combat, and i respect that. im just telling you my ideas and experiences.
dont laugh, but i play woods paintball and people dont think normally when theyre under fire. aggressiveness andmental games are the real ultimate battle tactic, most people get so scared when they get charged that they forget that they can fight back. if i even shoot in their general direction, they hide.
Vern Humphrey you are one of the few people here that have seen combat, and i respect that. im just telling you my ideas and experiences.
Vern Humphrey
Member
If it doesn't kill, it doesn't suppress. And you can't run away any faster than they can chase you.
If you have a machinegun, use controlled bursts at known or suspected enemy locations.
MNgoldenbear
Member
Come now, Hawkeye, how can you NOT have AT LEAST ONE 10/22 lying around somewhere? Get with the program!The Real Hawkeye said:
When I joined D Co, 3/8th Inf,4th Inf Div, I knew I was in the worst of conditions. I was thankful so many were old timers in my platoon. Recently I was able to meet with the prior platoon sgt of my platoon which was on his third tour.What he instilled in 3rd platoon carried on when I left the field.When Capt Daugherty took over, it was natural not to consider full auto, it was a non issue. The link I placed in my last post gives a brief description of March 5,1969. In the last few years we have been finding each other and most of all Capt Daugherty.
Cosmoline
Member
Spray and pray as I think of it is UNAIMED wild firing in the general direction of what you think might be the enemy. It's a stupid waste of ammo. Supressive fire is aimed and coordinated shooting at a particular position, usually to keep the enemy pinned down while bringing a tank, artillery or airstrike in to destroy them. They are two very different things.
The best example of "spray and pray" firing I can think of comes from a film shot during the Tet Offensive, where one US soldier is lying in a ditch holding his rifle over his head and blindly shooting at a tower about 300 yards away. All that sort of thing does is tell the enemy exactly where you are.
The best example of "spray and pray" firing I can think of comes from a film shot during the Tet Offensive, where one US soldier is lying in a ditch holding his rifle over his head and blindly shooting at a tower about 300 yards away. All that sort of thing does is tell the enemy exactly where you are.
Lebben-B
Member
Preach it!
The Real Hawkeye
member
Yeah, I know, blasphemy. I used to have one, but sold it years ago. Have a Taurus semi auto .22 now. Like it almost as much.
Diomed
And I would feel the same way. When a plane drops bombs or artillery shells fall there is are elements of random chance. If someone lines up their sights on you and sends a bullet directly at you - things are alittle more certain.
The British army has had many a harsh lesson in a number of major conflicts - many of them repeats.
----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty,org
http://ssunitedstates.org
IIRC McBride simply referred to it as aimed rifle fire. Someone with their sights lined up and planted on you, as it were.
And I would feel the same way. When a plane drops bombs or artillery shells fall there is are elements of random chance. If someone lines up their sights on you and sends a bullet directly at you - things are alittle more certain.
The British army has had many a harsh lesson in a number of major conflicts - many of them repeats.
----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty,org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Last edited:
LAK -
Interesting, since (if I remember correctly) most non-artillery related combat wounds and deaths came from machine gun fire, not rifle fire. I'd have to check to be sure on that, though.
Considering aimed rifle fire had been giving them complete freakouts fifteen years earlier, it is pretty perplexing that it would be a continuing problem in WWI. (I guess I find the simplistic "Machine guns!" explanation comforting somehow.)
Interesting, since (if I remember correctly) most non-artillery related combat wounds and deaths came from machine gun fire, not rifle fire. I'd have to check to be sure on that, though.
Considering aimed rifle fire had been giving them complete freakouts fifteen years earlier, it is pretty perplexing that it would be a continuing problem in WWI. (I guess I find the simplistic "Machine guns!" explanation comforting somehow.
)Diomed,
Incidently, on the subject of the rifle in battle; while he seems best known for his fiction, Arthur Conan Doyle's work, The Great Boer War is an excellent read. A very good balance of the more technical aspects of the fighting - along with the political and other aspects of the war.
One of the best IMO.
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Incidently, on the subject of the rifle in battle; while he seems best known for his fiction, Arthur Conan Doyle's work, The Great Boer War is an excellent read. A very good balance of the more technical aspects of the fighting - along with the political and other aspects of the war.
One of the best IMO.
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
- Status
