Wait, fire superiority, or sound superiority? I've been lucky enough to have stayed a fat and happy civilian my whole life, but it'd never occurred to me that "loud pipes saved lives" on the battlefield
. At least with what little experience I have on gun ranges (long story that's actually kinda short) being down range of gun fire was not nearly as loud as I'd expected, but the supersonic crack seemed "all around" compared to the distance-muffled muzzle pop, if that makes any sense. I always assumed a suppressed weapon firing supersonic ammunition would both keep the enemy's head down (since he'd likely know what that sound meant) and also obscure the position of our side. But the benefit would be both less ear damage/stun/flash/recoil for our guys, which seems like a near total win. I guess if the squad LMG/SAW
wasn't suppressed you'd gain back your noisemaker.
Perhaps a linear comp as opposed to flash hider would be the best solution of all; not as quiet as a suppressor, but with every other benefit?
I agree, that suppressed sub- or near sub-sonic SMGs would not have the "Wow" factor of the noisy M4 flash hider. You'd have your foes lookin' around going "sure are a lot of mosquitos out here, buddy...buddy?"
Then again, perhaps the lack of "terror" from quiet long arms is precisely why conscript Russian soldiers maintained disciplined ranks to the point of total annihilation against Finnish M31's in the Winter War. Later on, German MGs would have them fleeing back into their own machinegun fire as deserters. Entire advances were cut down by precise, open-bolt 9mm gun fire (the Finns had SMGs set up like LMGs, with a gunner and loader to keep him stocked and firing) across No Man's Land. Also, Finnish snipers...helped
TCB