Direct, Indirect, Suppressive, Grazing and Flankin
Direct, Indirect, Suppressive, Grazing and Flanking Fire Oh My!
The differences between direct, indirect, suppressive and grazing fire and flanking fire.
What they are, their pros and cons and when should you do it.
OK. I'm sure some of you out there have heard these terms before in some movie or heard someone use the term before but few actually know the difference between the terms. Not only do they sound snazzy but they actually have a specific meaning and specific uses.
So let me begin to tell you what they are before we break them down;
Definitions in a way;
Direct Fire - shooting at a target/tango with the most direct method...from point A to B with no holds barred. Just drop the SOB if you can.
Indirect Fire - this method is kinda like lobbing a mortar or artillery fire at an target area. It's meaning is more used while using larger weapons of mass destruction. It is sometimes referred to as harassing fire...as in piss off folks at night when everyone wants to get some sleep but in the small arms world, it does have it's uses too.
Suppressive Fire - is exactly what it sounds like. You want to suppress the bad guys with an overwhelming amount of firepower to keep their heads down.
Grazing Fire - is harder to describe but it actually has dimensions...approximately from 6" up off the ground to about 3' high. This term is usually used to describe what a machinegun or semi-auto can do. It is highly associated with Suppressive Fire and I'll tell you why in the breakdowns.
Pros and Cons
Direct Fire
Pros - it gets to the bad guy the quickest way possible to send them into the Void.
Cons - some folks confuse Suppressive Fire with this and will expend a lot of ammunition to get a hit. I argue that well aimed direct fire will always be good suppressive fire.
Indirect Fire
Pros - when it comes to artillery units, mortars and some small arms fire, it will negate your Tangos off the board by the bunches.
Cons - you may expend too much ammo for a single hit. As in, would I be more effective by throwing a grenade at one tango in a room or multiple tangos in the room? Now imagine a CBU/Clusterbomb Unit being dropped on 10 guys rather than 100 guys. I don't know about you, I want to maximize my damage not the other way around. In reference to harassment fire, it will keep the other side guessing playing blind dodgeball but statistics have shown in our wartime history that all you'll do in the grand scheme of things is merely keep your tangos up at night. With enough nights sleep lost, I'm sure it'll also affect their day in the long run. However, it has been shown that indirect fire can help negate a Tango off the tactical board.
Suppressive Fire
Pros - if done correctly, it will keep your opponents guessing, keep their heads down and you'll be able to move or deploy a flanking team to finish them off. The 4 F's come into play. Find'em, Fix'em, Flank'em and Finish'em!
Cons - you will expend a lot of ammo and if done poorly, you will merely get your team killed off while expending more ammo for nothing.
Grazing Fire
Pros - if you are laying down this fire at your enemies in a suppressive manner...especially in a prone position, your rounds may miss but that bullet will still fly into another target beside them, through them or behind them. Imagine shooting a MG at a wall of Communists cresting over a hill like a GI during the Korean War. You'll hit many but the rounds that initially missed will most likely strike someone behind it.
Cons - you will expend a lot of ammo. If that doesn't concern you then I'd say that you haven't been in a furball yet and the only thing you served was yourself at the buffet. MG teams usually carry 2500+ rounds that an infantry squad would split up. That means your $hit gets heavy quick and you'll expend it quickly in a dynamic furball.
It's Uses[/u]
Direct Fire is used as it's defined. Find the most direct means with your weapon to finish off the tango. Imagine you're on a guard tower. You shoot at someone and get a hit. They go down, simple. If you don't hit'em then the bullet just goes into the dirt. Sometimes it's referred to as point fire.
Indirect Fire is used mostly with larger weapons. As you read about Fatal Funnels above you read about my use of indirect fire weapons and assigned specific TRP's/Target Reference Points on a map. These TRP's are then coordinated into a concentrated area of known enemy activity in an AO/Area of Operations without getting tunnel vision on one or two tangos. My goal is to dispatch as many tangos within a known area of operations without getting specific with the use of artillery, mortars, air support...hell, anything that will kill them. An artillery battery is preferred but slingshots would not be refused in a furball.
Suppressive Fire as I explained is exactly that. Imagine you're in a group of four guys. You and another guy shoot well aimed shots at a tango. You keep their heads down while two go to the tango's side/flank. They're not aiming at them but at you which gives your "B" team a great opportunity to smoke them. Now imagine four squads doing the same against an enemy squad, then four platoons against one platoon, four companies doing the same against the other, then battalion, regiment, division and army. This is how the pros do it but it all boils back down to the individual fire team and it's members.
Grazing fire is by far my favorite cause if I gotta pop rounds at someone, I don't really give a $hit then. At least when I was soldiering or contracting. As I said, it's intent is to give the shooter the ability to take out targets and even if they miss, the round will probably pop someone behind them, through them or behind them. Unlike shooting at a tango from a tower, we'd shoot from the prone position and it'll maximize our round to possibly pop the Tango behind them. Dimension wise, it's about 6" - 3' high out to 700 meters.
All the terms are related to one another but I will still argue that good, well aimed direct fire is both great grazing and suppressive fire. I hope that clears a few things up for you guys.
Flanking Fire is the ability to hit your target area that is not within your Tango's attention and field of fire. Hitting them from any oblique angle to maximize devastation and destruction against your target.
Pros - If it's done the way it's supposed to be, flanking fire against your Tango/s will be the last definitive thing that you'll have to do. It is the preferred way to negate a individual, team or unit off the board.
Cons - If this is initiated without establishing a good base of fire successfully suppressing your Tango or they are in a geographic area that they know how to defend. Then you will be the loser by losing your flanking team.
Flanking fire for the lack of better terms is a more concentrated use of grazing fire that I described above. Imagine you're a GI fighting in the Korean War in '51. As you freeze with your buddies awaiting the charge you hear the North Korean bugles blare out it's charge command. You see a horde of North Korean soldiers come over the hill about 5 or 6 feet apart and you and your team unload on them with M-1919 MG's, M-2 .50's, M-1's, M-1 Carbines, BAR's, 1911's and Greaseguns. This would demonstrate the usage of direct & grazing fire.
Imagine that you've isolated a group ahead of you and your platoon or squad has established a good base of fire to keep their heads down. This is suppressive fire. Imagine that this North Korean squad is pinned behind a fallen tree and returning fire sporadically back at the base team but otherwise pinned and both their flanks are open.
Once this is established, we send out a small flanking team to go to the side of these North Koreans. All those guys behind the tree a few feet apart now are now essentially behind one another and our flanking team opens fire and they are taken off the board. This is flanking fire in it's best definition.
Flanking a tango or a team of tangos is not hard but it's not easy either especially with a team of two persons or more. From the above fiction you can clearly see how we establish direct, grazing and suppressive fire. Flanking fire can be done as a small team or individual but there is an element of a ruse. You have to establish a concentrated base of fire against the Tango suppressing them and make them think that there are valid threats from that side. Meanwhile the individual or small team can sneak to a flanking position before the Tangos confusion clears. Within that time frame is when flanking fire would succeed if you were working by yourself or a small team. In my experience, flanking as an individual is suicide. Underestimating one's tango is the biggest mistake.
Let's go back to our squad of North Koreans behind that tree. Now let's say those are American GI's instead. Then imagine that the right side is a wall of dirt or rocks. Think about how our GI's are returning fire. Without getting very fancy in it's explanation, our GI's know that the enemy is in front of them and their right side is reasonably protected from small arms fire. They also know that their left side is open and from behind is open.
Now think from the Tango's POV. They can see that one side of the GI's flank is closed off but one side is open and it wouldn't make sense to go behind them most of the time because then the flanking team would be shooting at them as well.
So let's go back to the GI's again. Let's imagine our squad in the situation written above. They know that their left side is open. Hence they would be very conscious to that and would keep an eye out and since they're smart, they would use the Fatal Funnel that I've written about to their benefit taking out the North Korean flanking team and then winning the firefight by reversing the strategy against our fictional North Korean counterparts.
However; once you limit geographical restrictions to your benefit in a defense, it will hamper your progression in an offense.
Think about how warfare was conducted in castles 300 years ago. Although great in defense, they always fall and it limits the defenders to a locality with the inability to move offensively. Hence those star shaped defensive forts are just a thing of history now. Now think about it in a small scale and squad warfare.
Depending on circumstances, timing and ability to do the above techniques...how would you employ things to survive the day? Even a pistol versus pistol firefight in a one on one engagement would have these same principles.
Think and survive the day.
Just as a side note; I played a video game based on WWII combat called brothers In Arms. It had a West Pointer Retired Army Lt. Colonel advising them on squad level fire tactics and he did a great job. It will show you in a video game format how to establish a base of fire and give the player options on how to flank in a small arms world. If you want to understand this article better, why not have some fun and try it out. Just find any brothers In Arms game and have a ball.
The differences between direct, indirect, suppressive and grazing fire and flanking fire.
What they are, their pros and cons and when should you do it.
OK. I'm sure some of you out there have heard these terms before in some movie or heard someone use the term before but few actually know the difference between the terms. Not only do they sound snazzy but they actually have a specific meaning and specific uses.
So let me begin to tell you what they are before we break them down;
Definitions in a way;
Direct Fire - shooting at a target/tango with the most direct method...from point A to B with no holds barred. Just drop the SOB if you can.
Indirect Fire - this method is kinda like lobbing a mortar or artillery fire at an target area. It's meaning is more used while using larger weapons of mass destruction. It is sometimes referred to as harassing fire...as in piss off folks at night when everyone wants to get some sleep but in the small arms world, it does have it's uses too.
Suppressive Fire - is exactly what it sounds like. You want to suppress the bad guys with an overwhelming amount of firepower to keep their heads down.
Grazing Fire - is harder to describe but it actually has dimensions...approximately from 6" up off the ground to about 3' high. This term is usually used to describe what a machinegun or semi-auto can do. It is highly associated with Suppressive Fire and I'll tell you why in the breakdowns.
Pros and Cons
Direct Fire
Pros - it gets to the bad guy the quickest way possible to send them into the Void.
Cons - some folks confuse Suppressive Fire with this and will expend a lot of ammunition to get a hit. I argue that well aimed direct fire will always be good suppressive fire.
Indirect Fire
Pros - when it comes to artillery units, mortars and some small arms fire, it will negate your Tangos off the board by the bunches.
Cons - you may expend too much ammo for a single hit. As in, would I be more effective by throwing a grenade at one tango in a room or multiple tangos in the room? Now imagine a CBU/Clusterbomb Unit being dropped on 10 guys rather than 100 guys. I don't know about you, I want to maximize my damage not the other way around. In reference to harassment fire, it will keep the other side guessing playing blind dodgeball but statistics have shown in our wartime history that all you'll do in the grand scheme of things is merely keep your tangos up at night. With enough nights sleep lost, I'm sure it'll also affect their day in the long run. However, it has been shown that indirect fire can help negate a Tango off the tactical board.
Suppressive Fire
Pros - if done correctly, it will keep your opponents guessing, keep their heads down and you'll be able to move or deploy a flanking team to finish them off. The 4 F's come into play. Find'em, Fix'em, Flank'em and Finish'em!
Cons - you will expend a lot of ammo and if done poorly, you will merely get your team killed off while expending more ammo for nothing.
Grazing Fire
Pros - if you are laying down this fire at your enemies in a suppressive manner...especially in a prone position, your rounds may miss but that bullet will still fly into another target beside them, through them or behind them. Imagine shooting a MG at a wall of Communists cresting over a hill like a GI during the Korean War. You'll hit many but the rounds that initially missed will most likely strike someone behind it.
Cons - you will expend a lot of ammo. If that doesn't concern you then I'd say that you haven't been in a furball yet and the only thing you served was yourself at the buffet. MG teams usually carry 2500+ rounds that an infantry squad would split up. That means your $hit gets heavy quick and you'll expend it quickly in a dynamic furball.
It's Uses[/u]
Direct Fire is used as it's defined. Find the most direct means with your weapon to finish off the tango. Imagine you're on a guard tower. You shoot at someone and get a hit. They go down, simple. If you don't hit'em then the bullet just goes into the dirt. Sometimes it's referred to as point fire.
Indirect Fire is used mostly with larger weapons. As you read about Fatal Funnels above you read about my use of indirect fire weapons and assigned specific TRP's/Target Reference Points on a map. These TRP's are then coordinated into a concentrated area of known enemy activity in an AO/Area of Operations without getting tunnel vision on one or two tangos. My goal is to dispatch as many tangos within a known area of operations without getting specific with the use of artillery, mortars, air support...hell, anything that will kill them. An artillery battery is preferred but slingshots would not be refused in a furball.
Suppressive Fire as I explained is exactly that. Imagine you're in a group of four guys. You and another guy shoot well aimed shots at a tango. You keep their heads down while two go to the tango's side/flank. They're not aiming at them but at you which gives your "B" team a great opportunity to smoke them. Now imagine four squads doing the same against an enemy squad, then four platoons against one platoon, four companies doing the same against the other, then battalion, regiment, division and army. This is how the pros do it but it all boils back down to the individual fire team and it's members.
Grazing fire is by far my favorite cause if I gotta pop rounds at someone, I don't really give a $hit then. At least when I was soldiering or contracting. As I said, it's intent is to give the shooter the ability to take out targets and even if they miss, the round will probably pop someone behind them, through them or behind them. Unlike shooting at a tango from a tower, we'd shoot from the prone position and it'll maximize our round to possibly pop the Tango behind them. Dimension wise, it's about 6" - 3' high out to 700 meters.
All the terms are related to one another but I will still argue that good, well aimed direct fire is both great grazing and suppressive fire. I hope that clears a few things up for you guys.
Flanking Fire is the ability to hit your target area that is not within your Tango's attention and field of fire. Hitting them from any oblique angle to maximize devastation and destruction against your target.
Pros - If it's done the way it's supposed to be, flanking fire against your Tango/s will be the last definitive thing that you'll have to do. It is the preferred way to negate a individual, team or unit off the board.
Cons - If this is initiated without establishing a good base of fire successfully suppressing your Tango or they are in a geographic area that they know how to defend. Then you will be the loser by losing your flanking team.
Flanking fire for the lack of better terms is a more concentrated use of grazing fire that I described above. Imagine you're a GI fighting in the Korean War in '51. As you freeze with your buddies awaiting the charge you hear the North Korean bugles blare out it's charge command. You see a horde of North Korean soldiers come over the hill about 5 or 6 feet apart and you and your team unload on them with M-1919 MG's, M-2 .50's, M-1's, M-1 Carbines, BAR's, 1911's and Greaseguns. This would demonstrate the usage of direct & grazing fire.
Imagine that you've isolated a group ahead of you and your platoon or squad has established a good base of fire to keep their heads down. This is suppressive fire. Imagine that this North Korean squad is pinned behind a fallen tree and returning fire sporadically back at the base team but otherwise pinned and both their flanks are open.
Once this is established, we send out a small flanking team to go to the side of these North Koreans. All those guys behind the tree a few feet apart now are now essentially behind one another and our flanking team opens fire and they are taken off the board. This is flanking fire in it's best definition.
Flanking a tango or a team of tangos is not hard but it's not easy either especially with a team of two persons or more. From the above fiction you can clearly see how we establish direct, grazing and suppressive fire. Flanking fire can be done as a small team or individual but there is an element of a ruse. You have to establish a concentrated base of fire against the Tango suppressing them and make them think that there are valid threats from that side. Meanwhile the individual or small team can sneak to a flanking position before the Tangos confusion clears. Within that time frame is when flanking fire would succeed if you were working by yourself or a small team. In my experience, flanking as an individual is suicide. Underestimating one's tango is the biggest mistake.
Let's go back to our squad of North Koreans behind that tree. Now let's say those are American GI's instead. Then imagine that the right side is a wall of dirt or rocks. Think about how our GI's are returning fire. Without getting very fancy in it's explanation, our GI's know that the enemy is in front of them and their right side is reasonably protected from small arms fire. They also know that their left side is open and from behind is open.
Now think from the Tango's POV. They can see that one side of the GI's flank is closed off but one side is open and it wouldn't make sense to go behind them most of the time because then the flanking team would be shooting at them as well.
So let's go back to the GI's again. Let's imagine our squad in the situation written above. They know that their left side is open. Hence they would be very conscious to that and would keep an eye out and since they're smart, they would use the Fatal Funnel that I've written about to their benefit taking out the North Korean flanking team and then winning the firefight by reversing the strategy against our fictional North Korean counterparts.
However; once you limit geographical restrictions to your benefit in a defense, it will hamper your progression in an offense.
Think about how warfare was conducted in castles 300 years ago. Although great in defense, they always fall and it limits the defenders to a locality with the inability to move offensively. Hence those star shaped defensive forts are just a thing of history now. Now think about it in a small scale and squad warfare.
Depending on circumstances, timing and ability to do the above techniques...how would you employ things to survive the day? Even a pistol versus pistol firefight in a one on one engagement would have these same principles.
Think and survive the day.
Just as a side note; I played a video game based on WWII combat called brothers In Arms. It had a West Pointer Retired Army Lt. Colonel advising them on squad level fire tactics and he did a great job. It will show you in a video game format how to establish a base of fire and give the player options on how to flank in a small arms world. If you want to understand this article better, why not have some fun and try it out. Just find any brothers In Arms game and have a ball.
11 年 前