Talk:Suppressive fire

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Example

The last 2 points in the example are not about suppressive fire but about fire and movement. I dont think they should really be in it.

the PKM shouldn't be in the list for weapons used, it's a GPMG, not a SAW

Merge from Spray and pray

The article spray and pray is simply about derogatory references to suppressive fire—these articles do not cover two different encyclopedic topics. They should be merged under this title. —Michael Z. 2007-06-25 23:47 Z

I disagree. Supressive fire is done with the single objective of denying them their ability to break cover and attack. Spray and pray is a tactic used when the location of the enemy isn't known, the attacker is inadequately experienced, or the target's too far away or moving too fast to effectively be aimed at. Two distinct concepts. Should be kept separate, but linked. Kevin 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "spray and pray" isn't really an encyclopedic topic, there are no references—not so much as a dictionary definition. You have written a very specific definition of "spray and pray", referring to it as a "tactic", without citing any references. This is original research, and I question your definition.

Spray and pray is shooting at the enemy without seeing them, or without the expectation of doing significant damage, which can include with the intention of suppressing them. At best this warrants a note in the real topic suppressive fire, and perhaps a mention in reconnaissance, where recce by fire is discussed. —Michael Z. 2007-07-25 20:18 Z

'Spray and Pray' is the method of firing a rapid firing weapon with no accuracy such as the Sten Gun. Please avoid the term in "suppressive fire" and put it in the piece on the Sten Gun. The technique mentioned by other correspondents of firing in locations where you THINK the enemy might be and hoping they'll prove it by firing back at you is called 'reconnaisance by fire'.

Definitely needs to be merged. 'Spray and Pray' is not deserving of its' own article and, at best, should have a little tid bit on the suppressive fire article.

DISAGREE WITH MERGE - The two are very distinct. Perhaps Spray and Pray should be amended, but Suppressive fire is a conscientious action taken to affect a tactical situation, usually in support of other elements. For example, one squad may lay down suppressive fire so that another can maneuver to an enemy's flank. 'Spray and Pray' typically refers to a desperate measure, taken in response to unfavorable conditions. In fact, 'spray and pray' may well describe the response of someone who is being suppressed: Because you can properly engage your enemy (because they are suppressing you), you simply 'spray and pray'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.65.226 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchowen 02:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merge: "Spray and Pray" is barely worthy of an article for one, and it is not the same as suppressive fire. Suppressive fire refers to a specific purpose - to prevent opposing forces from taking any action, such as returning fire. A machine gunner providing suppressive fire does not "spray and pray"; suppressive fire is actually directed fire. A soldier who "sprays and prays", on the other hand, might not be able to achieve point fire or suppressive fire. Additionally, while "suppressive fire" and "reconnaissance by fire" are military tactics, "spray and pray" is not. In most usages I have seen, "spray and pray" refers to simply firing a weapon without aiming regardless of whether an actual target is in sight. --Scottie_theNerd 05:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree suppressive fire, as already mentioned, is different compared to "Spray and Pray" as one is directed and organized and the other is usually not. Also, what they are supposed to achieve are different. "Spray and Pray" is a tactic used by the inexperienced and are usually desperate attempts to hit the enemy; Suppressive fire, on the other hand, is an organized attempt to prevent the enemy from returning fire, or at least "suppress" them --Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 07:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supprisive fire is a theory totally unrelated to what some would call sparay and pray, I would also go as far to say the current article fails to explain the basic tenants of Machine Gun Theory, as prectised by any specialised Directfire Support Weapons Platoon or, more specifically a Sustained Fire Machine Gun Platoon, and is more focused on the one round, per second, per meter thoery more related to section cover fire. Beaten Zones, cones of fire, fire theory and catches should take precidence, with Spray and Pray/panic mag assigned a lesser, designated article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.154.2 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Consider adding the Brécourt Manor Assault to the 'see also' as an example of suppressive fire in action. Muuon (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressive fire is common in any assault. Brécourt Manor is not an exceptional example of it. --Scottie_theNerd 22:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought. Muuon (talk) 09:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible plagarism, unreferenced source

A lot of the article at this point is near verbatim from [|this unreferenced source.] 204.214.148.1 (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NationMaster is a Wikipedia mirror. Drunken Pirate (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is one of three types of fire support"

With the other two being...? – Guinsoo ^(Talk) 11:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes what are the other two? The link doesn't explain World.without.dave (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view?

Almost all of the acticle is about the englishspeaking world, that should be fixed or a "this article deal primarily with the English-speaking world and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject" tag should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.97.158 (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vague defintion

The article says that suppressive fire is "fire that degrades the performance of an enemy force below the level needed to fulfill its mission". Doesn't that describe every kind of fire, aside from target practice? If some soldiers shot their enemies and killed them, wouldn't that fall under this definition? I always thought that suppressive fire was fire intended to restrict enemy movement by making a certain area too difficult to enter. For instance, if the enemy is behind a fortification, you might fire continuously off to the side of that fortification, so that the enemy cannot enter that space without a high risk of casualties. Sonicsuns (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]