Suppressive fire - What is it really?

Training Training and Tactics
1

Suppressive fire is a term that is used a lot when discussing gunfights and engaging the enemy. But what does it really mean? Is there a common understanding of the term?

After the recent discussion on the M27 IAR, I recieved a PM from one of the participants who wanted to continue the discussion we had in that thread, re M27 vs. SAW. I want to use one part from that PM as a base line for discussion, as it represents what I feel is an improper use of the term suppression. This is followed by my reply.

The statement:

Accurate fire on a point target is not suppression

My reply:

The part I emphasized in bold is what I disagree with.

We use the term suppression to describe the effect that our fires is having on the enemy. It has nothing to do with volume or how a target is engaged; point or traversing/searching fires.

The effectiveness of our fire is measured by the enemies actions and/or fire effectiveness:

-Enemy fire reduces in intensity or ceases completely
-Enemy is forced to take cover and/or displace
-Enemy is position is silenced; wounded or killed
-Enemy is forced to pull out

This of course applies to each individual squad’s sector of fire, and the platoon’s sector.

Depending on the actions of enemy troops, you might have to increase rates of fire to achieve the effect; mass fires on specific positions or use other weapons available to the Squad (40mm, recoilless rifles etc).

The main advantage of a SAW, or LMG, is it’s ability to keep up a sustained rate of fire; ie reduced time not shooting due to mag changes. It will of course be advantageous over a magazine fed weapon when it comes to traversing/searching fires.

The use of traversing fire or searching fire is primarily used to deny the enemy access to axis’ of advance or firing positions, ie your ridgeline or a gully, river bed etc. In my experience it has little to do with suppressing enemies. This use of weapons should be directed by the SL. We usually give fire commands, dictating type of fire:

-Standard fire: 10 rounds per minute for rifle, 25 for the SAW

-Rapid fire: 30 rounds per minute for the rifle, 100 rounds for LMG

-Assault fire: 60 rounds per minute for rifle (bursts), 200 rounds for LMG (Assault fire is a rarely used command)

This is further broken down to either a time limit, or specific ammunition amount.

We also dictate wether to engage known, likely and/or hidden enemy positions.

An example; “ALPHA, rapid fire in your sector against known and likely targets, 60 rounds, on my command!”

We have two fire teams per Squad, ALPHA and BRAVO set up identically:

3 HK416s, to include:
-Grenadier with M320 40mm (AG-HK416 is the name we use)
-One DM with 3x magnifier
1 Minimi

We also have a weapons squad per platoon equipped with MMGs, MG-3 at the moment, and a Heavy Weapons Platoon per company.

We never use suppressive fire or covering fire as part of squad fire commands; the PL uses those commands to describe the effect he wants achieved, to either facilitate movement, maneuver or a final assault on a fox hole or firing position. The SL needs to decide how to achieve this effect, by utilizing neccessary weapons and resources, and giving the appropriate fire command.

Suppression needs to affect enemy troops, therefore the fire needs to be accurate. Suppression also needs to be maintained over time, so fire discipline is key.

This is from a Norwegian perspective, so YMMV. However, I do think that suppression is often assumed to mean a high volume of fire, and I don’t believe that is correct.

2

From the bible AKA FM 01-02 Operational Terms and Graphics

suppress – 1. A tactical mission task that results in temporary degradation of the performance of a force or weapons system below the level needed to accomplish the mission. (FM 3-90) 2. One of the five breaching fundamentals. The focus of all fires on enemy personnel, weapons, or equipment to prevent effective fires on friendly forces. The purpose of suppression is to protect forces reducing and maneuvering through the obstacle and to soften the initial foothold. (FM 3-34.2) See also breaching fundamentals. (See page A-6 for symbol.)

suppression – (DOD) Temporary or transient degradation by an opposing force of the performance of a weapons system below the level needed to fulfill its mission objectives. See FM 3-90.

suppression of enemy air defenses – (DOD) That activity which neutralizes, destroys, or temporarily degrades surface-based enemy air defenses by destructive and/or disruptive means. Also called SEAD. See FM 6-20-60.

suppressive fire – (DOD) Fires on or about a weapons system to degrade its performance below the level needed to fulfill its mission objectives, during the conduct of the fire mission. (Army) Any engagement that does not have a definite or visible target. Firing in the general direction of a known or suspected enemy location. See also fire. (FM 3-22.9)

3

Never in my forum readings would I have thought that ‘suppressive fire’ was a debatable term. Without any manuals in front of me, I can most easily say that suppressive fire is a self-defined term. Fire that suppresses. What it suppresses and to what extent is mission task defined I would say.

I think this is kind of a ridiculous argument, but I will say that on a technicality, I agree with the individual that you quoted. Accurate fire on a point target is not suppressive fire. By the manuals I have learned and taught from, the duty of the basic rifleman is to close distance with the enemy and engage point targets with accurate fire. The most basic and intuitive duties of the automatic rifleman to provide suppression for the riflemen to maneuver. Now, no one says that a point target shall not be engaged with a suppressive weapon, or an area target not engaged with a point weapon.

So it stands to reason, and I agree, that a belt fed M249, with greater ability to provide sustained fires, would be a better weapon for suppressing a target. So , yes accuracy is important. But I happen to believe that volume is an inherent aspect of suppressive fires. Otherwise we wouldn’t issue those darn heavy machineguns that are so cumbersome that they simply must be replaced with nice and svelte autorifles from Germany. :smiley:

Apologies for the barney style. Hope that my .02 makes some sense.

4

I actually wrote the following quite some time ago on another subject;

Supressive fire is a technique that permits maneuver. Suppression is not really a measurable data point, as it is a psychological event of an unseen enemy. I would argue that suppressive fire that penetrated the piece of cover the enemy was using and resulted in bullets going into badguys would be more effective than suppression that was only effecting the outside of the barrier. A bullet that plows through light vegetation with less deviation of trajectory would also provide more effective suppression. Many people mistakenly believe that suppression is an acoustic phenominon; it is not, it is a visual and tactile experience.

Suppression is simply a technique used to enable another task. Achieving fire superiority or suppression is not the end-state, it sets the conditions to move, maneuver, breach, target, close, communicate, etc, that cannot be accomplished with a significantly sized force if all the badguys are shooting at you without incurring excessive casualties.

Effective suppression is read not in ammunition expenditure or noise volume; it is read by effect on the ability of the enemy force to effectively engage or decisively move. The most effective suppression ends with an enemy force unable to perpetrate violence, most preferably measured in the EKIA line. Don’t forget that if you are simply suppressing, you are by nature unable to see the enemy (otherwise you would be killing them). A savvy enemy will quickly realize that they are being effectively suppressed and form an appropriate course of action in response. This can be movement, reorganization, indirect fires, or maneuver unit tasking. A supporting/suppressing unit is generally working from a fixed position, which can be vulnerable to assault from an angle other than direct front. Of course there are all kinds of security and mitigating actions/tactics to be employed to protect the base of fire/support by fire/suppressing unit, but the fact remains that focusing on volume of fire alone as the key to suppression and fire superiority is not staying in pace with the advancements of contemporary tactics and assumes the enemy is of the lowest functional capability.

5

I would say that accurate fire on a target can be suppressive. The question is what the goal is. If a squad is ordered to supress a machine gun nest accurate fire on target will achieve that goal either temporarily or permanently. Compare this to routing out an enemy position - then you won’t stop until there is no way the aforementioned machine gun nest will be operational again.

I’m trying to imagine a unit commander reprimanding a soldier for using accurate fire (if he’s able to) on a target while trying to suppress it, “no damnit - I only want you to scare them a little.”

6

“Accurate fire on a point target is not suppression its destruction and obviously the most prefered type of fire.”

A little more of the quote in order to give context. Changes things when you read the whole sentence…

I will concede that destruction is a form of suppression but common usage in my sphere of the US military considers suppression a type of fire that is not targeting the individual but rather the area that the individual is in because the individuals exact location is not known.

7

So, nick84 and KG_mauserman, what volume of fire is neccessary to ensure effective suppression?

Rounds that do not influence the “ability of the enemy force to effectively engage or decisively move” are not suppressing anything.

I thought F2S’ post was great.

8

This.

9

Volume of fire in itself is not suppression, volume of fire in proximity to the target is suppression.

The Brits did some work on the subject and their analysis is the following the 40mm HV AGL fire could suppress people at a miss distances of 59 ms, .50 BMG at 24m, 7.62mm at 6m and 5.56mm at 3m. With small arms rounds, it was the volume of the supersonic ‘crack’ which made the difference

10

Huh?

What study is this? Where can it be found.

Noise on a stupid booger eater might be supression.

Noise on a fighter is likely just noise.

11

I think that those “suppression miss distance” numbers are hugely optimistic, when dealing with battle hardened fighters.

The supersonic crack has to be pretty close to have an effect.

12

I believe that the most successful suppression (minus actual hits on target) is achieved when the damage potential of the fire is seen/felt by the enemy; effects like cinderblocks shattering, rocks and dirt being showered from strike, trees thumping and splintering, holes appearing in the backside of vehicles, etc.
Distant second is bullet crack, though it can be disorienting at first.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

13

KG_mauserman, what volume of fire is neccessary to ensure effective suppression?

Is this a real question? Just in case it is… Every situation is different and it will depend on a myriad of factors. What kind of possition is the enemy in, how well trained are the enemy, how motivated are the enemy, how experienced is the enemy ect. ect to infinity. It may take one round or it may take millions. Again it is all situational dependent. I’m pretty sure you know this as reading your posts you come across as very well informed.

Rounds that do not influence the “ability of the enemy force to effectively engage or decisively move” are not suppressing anything.

I would call this a tautology. If you define suppression as something that influences the enemy in a negative fassion then what your saying is that rounds that do not suppress the enemy are not suppressing the enemy. I concur.

I’m a little fuzzy as to where this thread is going now.

14

It seems to me that we spend (borderline waste) way to much time making a debate out of stuff that is self evident! This time could be put to much more practical and effective use.

Suppressive fire is not a magic number or formula that can be analyzed and applied to every mission that experiences contact. It’s simple, you unleash a volume of fire impressive to the devil himself that is so violent and intense the tango’s that initiated contact curl themselves behind their cover and completely regret their actions. I’m not going to use “just enough” firepower to suppress. Every individual that can effectively engage, will effectively engage until we gain ultimate and total fire superiority. Then we will continue this volume of fire as another element maneuvers on the enemy that is still hunkered behind their rock, frozen.

15

You guys are sort of proving my point, though.

If your default reaction to contact is to “unleash hell on earth”, and by that I mean a high volume of fire, without some sort of effect measurement and then adjusting rates of fire accordingly, then you are wasting ammo. Eventually you will run out.

I do not believe that there is a set number of rounds needed to suppress an enemy. That has been my point all along. You can tell that you have suppressed an enemy based on the factors described in my post, or in F2S’ post. The inability of the enemy to affect you with either fire or movement. Not by how much we shoot.

Reference our use of fire commands; the PL states his intention to the SL’s; either covering fire or suppressing fire. The SL’s then decide how to accomplish that task by issuing rates of fire (standard, rapid, assault) and at what targets (known, likely, hidden).

Suppression also needs to be kept up, again reinforcing the need to limit ammunition expenditure when suppressing targets. 1 well placed shot at 5-6 second intervals can be just as effective as a full mag in 5 seconds. This also gives you time to observe your sector.

As for your comment about my statement being a tautology; you clearly misunderstood my point. My point is that in order to suppress an enemy, the fire has to be accurate. If it is not accurate, the suppressive effect will be minimal or zero.

I think this propensity to blast away is a result of not focusing on full spectrum operations in the last decade.

16

I have never heard anything even remotely this detailed shouted out in a firefight. Squad tactics aren’t really my lane though.

17

ADDRACs are an essential part of properly managing assets in an engagement. Not always necessary, but someone that is commanding a unit needs to actually be commanding the elements under his charge as necessary. Building a gunfighter is but a small part of the overall equation.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

18

Now to what I orginally said that you disagreed with. I claimed that shooting at point targets was not the same as shooting at an area target. When shooting at a known point target I can observe the results of my fire. I can watch the target go down, run away, or what ever. When providing suppressive fire on an area target I don’t (usually) observe the bad guy go down. I may reduce or eliminate the fire coming from that area but I don’t stop firing until I recieve the command to lift fire because I don’t know if I have eliminated all the bad guys or not.

Do you still disagree with this? I think at this point we are starting to split hairs. I’m betting the real problem may just be a different understandings of the same terms.

19

How about this:

Suppression is a tactical task, not a technique.

Suppression is achieved when whatever you are suppressing is unable to fufill it’s mission. This can be achieved kinetically or nonkinetically but for the purpose of this thread we are talking about kinetic fires.

So what achieves suppression is whatever makes the person being suppressed think if he will face dire consequences if he continues to fulfill his mission.

What technique achieves suppression is totally METT-TC dependent.

A large volume of overhead fire could suppress an enemy for a short time until he realizes he is not being shot. But maybe all you need is to suppress for 15 seconds to allow for a rocket shot.

A single sniper team could suppress a large formation in the open firing at a very slow rate of fire but achieving hits. If the formation is disciplined it wil maneuver out of the danger area, if it is not it will remain suppressed indefinitely.

The point is suppression is a tactical task. In order to achieve suppression fires must achieve effects. There is no universal perscriptive technique to achieve this effect. What works on one formation may not work on another. What works for a short period of time way not work for a long time. War is an art not a science.

20

It appears to me that Arctic1 is taking KG_mauserman’s IM out of context in the partial sentence posted, in the quote itself and the concept of accurate, deliberate, deadly fire on a point (rather than area) target vs. suppressive fire. For suppressive fire to be suppressive fire, it must have the desired effect, which is already qualitatively defined in several ways in this thread and noted in the OP.

What KG_mauserman was discussing, originally in the other thread and subsequently in the IM, was the difference between being able to identify, target, fire on, and observe effects on a threat vs. the need and ability to effectively suppress targets not readily ID’ed or on point targets upon which effects of fire cannot be precisely observed outside of a perceived suppressive effect. It appears that when KG_mauserman refers to suppressive fire, he is referring to effective suppression, which involves a degree of accuracy to be effective, and is not simply a mindless practice of noise making. Accurate fire, in the sense that he intended it, meant fire capable of destruction of the target:

“Accurate fire on a point target is not suppression its destruction and obviously the most prefered type of fire.”

Basically, deliberate, accurate fire that kills or permanently neutralizes the point threat is different than suppressive fire, which enables units to do all of the things F2S mentions in order to achieve the first point or break contact. KG_mauserman is not arguing that suppressive fire does not involve a relative degree of accuracy.

As Keydet08 and others point out, there is no one quantifiable definition or method for suppressing point or area targets. However, there is the intended effect, which is, by definition, effective suppression. If fire does not suppress, it is not suppressive, and is irrelevant to the back and forth in this debate.