When did war transition from soldiers aiming at the enemy and hitting them to soldiers just magdumping in the general direction of the enemy?A soldier in WW1 with a bolt action rifle and a 5 round magazine had to actually aim during his trench assault. By WW2 you had soldiers spraying SMGs at each other. Vietnam MACVSOG guys were going into combat with 50 magazines. GWOT guys were shooting 10,000 rounds for every enemy killed. Ukraine footage has Russians and Ukrainians shooting whole magazines blindly around corners and rooms. When does it end?Has anyone tried shooting less but actually aiming?Is there a war where one side had guns with less ammo and better marksmanship and ended up being more effective?
>>64644362As soon as a bullet whips past your head…you cannot lay down accurate fire. The more fire they enemy throws at you, the less calm you will be. So the only recourse is to throw more lead at them. The last 200 years has shown is, the one capable throwing the most is more likely to win.
>>64644362>soldiers aiming at the enemy and hitting themNever actually happened. They just shot less and hit less frequently.
>>64644362No, never. The side that blasts more ammo down range suppresses the enemy more completely, meaning they are then susceptible to being destroyed by artillery, air support, or being flanked and shot in defilade by enemy infantry moving under the cover of supressive fire.
>>64644362>When did war transition from soldiers aiming at the enemy and hitting them to soldiers just magdumping in the general direction of the enemy?Since the very beginning of firearms you mouth breathing nigger hider.
>>64644362>A soldier in WW1 with a bolt action rifle and a 5 round magazine had to actually aim during his trench assault.Yeah but there were mass assaults of those guys. Like take 10,000 guys across a frontage of a few kilometers launching a coordinated attack at once with massed artillery fire.https://youtu.be/Ciq9ts02ci4
>>64644362>A soldier in WW1 with a bolt action rifle and a 5 round magazine had to actually aim during his trench assault.Not really, before getting to the trench it was "try not to get hit" and after it was "stab/whack/pummel the guy in front of you". Pistols and eventually SMGs and shotguns became commonplace because aiming was just not working out. Machine guns and tanks in the latter part of the conflict were also essential and those were volume of fire weapons.Prior to that linear warfare barely had any aiming, even after rifling became a thing, it was only in the intervening years when needle guns and single shot breachloaders were the primary weapon that individual accuracy was somewhat favored, and even then line infantry and rate of fire were still favored. Arguably, it has always been the case that volume of fire has been favored over individual marksmanship, requiring only sufficient accuracy to make good effect of your volume of fire.Also WWII wasn't just SMGs spraying, the LMG/GPMG came to the forefront of infantry tactics even outside of german tactics, and things like semi-auto rifles offered definitive advantages.Having superior precision definitely helps, but that's often backed up by others suppressing the target, allowing you to make the shot.
>>64644486btw an interesting tactic in that film is grenade spam at 1:06. George Orwell wrote about something similar in Homage to Catalonia that they'd assault trenches by getting close at night and then spamming grenades over the parapet, which sounds a lot like videos I've seen of trench warfare in Ukraine.
>>64644362Volume of fire enjoyer. I miss my c6
>>64644493Anon spamming grenades over the parapet has been a favorite tactic since grenades were invented. There's even a popular 17th century song about it.
>>64644362Dakka won
>>64644362HOLY SHIT WHAT IS THIS CAPTCHA?!?!?Anyway, ever since logistics became less and less of a problem, ammo became less valuable in the sense that you could 8 times out of 10 just get more. However I'm no general so I wouldn't know
In wwii in basic they trained to not shoot at anything unless you can see it to conserve ammo, then when they got to the field the guys told them to forget that and shoot at anything as they can always get more ammo
>>64644565>namefag filtered by the most basic of IQ testspottery
>>64644433>>64644459>>64644489>volume of fire suppressed the enemyIt doesn't though.I've seen plenty of combat footage from Afghanistan and it's literally just a bunch of people standing behind their MRAPs laughing and joking while the taliban ineffectually shoot a machinegun at them from over a mile away. No one is hitting anything and then the afghans get bombed from above the cloud level by a plane they can't even see.>you need to suppress the enemy so you can shoot them more accuratelyWhat? So they hide in cover and don't expose themselves? Surely you want them moving out in the open brazenly exposing themselves precisely because they're not suppressed. Then you can hit them with accurate fire.I always think back to Travis Haley in the battle of Najaf with his Mk12 SPR. He was the only guy on the roof with a scope and he said on the 20th anniversary he shot 100+ people because they were all 400m out dancing around shooting AKs ineffectually at the rooftop. You don't hear dozens of M249s and M240s burning through belts of ammo in that gunfight, it was precision vs an enemy who were spraying and praying.
>>64644362>A soldier in WW1 with a bolt action rifle and a 5 round magazine had to actually aim during his trench assault.The guys in that trench weren't so limited, at least until the "aimers" corpses stacked high enough in front of the gun that they could be used for cover.
>>64644832>Guys, I saw combat footage where the side with armored vehicles and airstrikes dominated some villagers with AK's who were too scared to get within a mile of the enemy, I think we should revamp small arm doctrine based on that....
>>64644362With consealment, cover, and undulating terrain, only very few has a clear shot on the enemy if they knew where it is coming from. Everyone else just contribute to shooting that bush and window. Eventually someone in the platoon pulls the kill shot or throw in the right amount of explosives at reasonable distance and that is it.
>>64644832Sniper bros know they are glass cannons and mostly a psychological weapon. “muh 100 kills” just means you were fighting retards. When it comes to actual military campaigns, you need people willing to close the distance with the enemy. No beach, fortress, or city has even been effectively defended or taken by snipers. When the lines are static, snipers are awesome. Otherwise a machine gunner is going to be more useful 99% of the time.
>>64644832>Surely you want them moving out in the open brazenly exposing themselves precisely because they're not suppressedWe're assuming a level playing field here, the enemy is competent, knows where you are and is shooting at you. If you don't suppress them then you're liable to get dinged when you poke out of cover. The side who can more effectively suppress their opponent, then maneuver (if needed) and destroy their target wins. Any scenario that starts with the enemy in the open and completely unaware is retarded.>ineffectually shoot a machinegun at them from over a mile awaythat's not suppression, and has never been suppression. yes no shit some tard behind cover who way outranges their opponent can kill a bunch of ooga boogas with shot to shit rifles acting like clowns, but that's not how peer warfare goes. If you're up against a competent enemy with equivalent equipment, unless you catch them out in the open, suppression and maneuver are what wins battles.
>>64644362>When did war transition ... ?>A soldier in WW1 with a bolt action rifle and a 5 round magazine had to actually aim >By WW2 you had soldiers spraying SMGs at each other.It seems you have answered your own question.
>>64644362>When did war transition from soldiers aiming at the enemy and hitting them to soldiers just magdumping in the general direction of the enemy?People have been "firing in the general direction of the enemy" since the dawn of projectile weapons. We saw it with bows and slings too.>>64644827>namefag filtered by the most basic of IQ testsPeople are complaining not because the new ones are "hard" but because they broke the 4chan X extension for a lot of people.
>>64644362>When did war transition from soldiers aiming at the enemy and hitting them to soldiers just magdumping in the general direction of the enemy?Circa 1610.
>>64644832>machinegun at them from over a mile away.anon
>>64644916I'm not even talking about snipers necessarily, just the whole concept of soldiers mindlessly spraying their rifles on full auto for potentially very little benefit.>>64644944If the enemy wildly shoots 1000 rounds over the top of your head and you instead keep your cool and aim at him and shoot him then you win. If you just blindly shoot back on full auto then you also just miss and achieve nothing. How can people be suppressed by someone who they know isn't aiming but shooting full auto from the hip without even knowing what they're shooting at. It's like a guy in a fist fight doing kung fu poses while standing 10m away from you.>>646449619mm has an effective range of like 100m and basically can't kill you unless you get shot directly in the heart or brain. German and Soviet soldiers probably unironically shot entire magazines worth of SMG ammo into each other in the ruins of Stalingrad.
>>64644486not forgetting the water cooled machine guns used as indirect fires with million round barrel counts.
>>64644362Sniper fire is one of the most effective methods of suppressing the enemy because nothing makes you keep you crouched down behind cover like the head of a guy near you exploding, even if you know the sniper can do this only once or twice a minute.The higher likelihood of the fire hurting the unprotected enemy the greater the suppression, both accuracy and volume of fire help in that regard, as well as weapon power.
>>64644832>dumbshit civilians with aks get slaughtered in the open at 400m by a single guy with a scoped m16you are literally reinforcing the argument of suppression and maneuver
>>64644991>shooting full auto from the hipyou have to stand up to do that and are probably in the open so you're dead in the first exchange of fire. people have told you but you don't believe them so you're just constantly rephrasing your scenario in order to be right. you're wrong. your scenario of 'full auto fire' is just some guy basically shooting at the sky. because you're an idiot who refuses to listen. winning the fire fight depends of volume of effective fire. effective fire is fire that gets close enough to the enemy to make them keep their heads down. you think it's an afghan retard shooting from beyond the effective range of their weapon and you believe you know what you're talking about, and you've decided that's what everyone does. probably just fuck off already, you're making yourself look like an idiot.
>>64644991>9mm ... basically can't kill you unless you get shot directly in the heart or brainYea, bro. Let me shoot you in the gut with a 9mm and see how your survival odds are with WWII medical care and CASEVAC, especially on the Russian front. I'll even let you pick between German and Russian medical care, I'm sure it'll make a difference.
>When did war transition from soldiers aiming at the enemy and hitting them to soldiers just magdumping in the general direction of the enemy?
>>64644362it doesn't have to be a choice soon.
>>64645077Archers have been doing this since antiquity, hell slingers were doing this even further back, and our ancient ancestors were chucking spears together in groups
>>64645092https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQvBZKsdAAc&t
>>64644433>I am a bitch and cant stay calm under durressChecked
>>64645006https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V94naZMW4k4Watch this short on youtube of a SAW gunner shooting full auto from the hip in Afghanistan and then getting roasted by his own SGT for wasting ammo. He didn't 'suppress' shit.
>>64644971>People are complaining not because the new ones are "hard" but because they broke the 4chan X extension for a lot of peopleI use that 4chanX and it works fineAnd there are multiple posts of chimps literally asking how to solve the captchaIt's like watching people faile the Mensa at question 1 and moaning about it
>>64644362False equivalency. This isn't a dichotomy nor are the two mutually exclusive. The ideal is a force which simultaneously possesses both volume of fire AND accurate fire capability. That said in the absence of being able to pick both, volume of fire more or less always wins (at least for ground combat, air power I think the dynamic is skewed more heavily in favour of accuracy over volume and even then it's more about accuracy vs cost vs effect per cost)
>>64644362there is a lot of retardation to unpack here>When did war transition from soldiers aiming at the enemy and hitting them to soldiers just magdumping in the general direction of the enemy?it never did>A soldier in WW1 with a bolt action rifle and a 5 round magazine had to actually aim during his trench assault.this is not what happened in WW1. WW1 was overwhelmingly about volume of fire, snipers are 'memorable' due to how iconic they are but ultimately had a negligible impact on the battlefield compared to massed artillery + machine gun fire>When does it end?when the cost of accuracy becomes less than the cost of volume for the same effect, which ultimately is highly situational. there's no one-size fits all, sometimes you're gonna need accuracy but pretty much all the time you're gonna need volume>Has anyone tried shooting less but actually aiming?In an ideal world sure, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand that 1. suppressing your enemy is a different thing to immediately killing your enemy, and 2. if we're talking about ground combat, aiming accurately while under heavy fire isn't like in videogames>Is there a war where one side had guns with less ammo and better marksmanship and ended up being more effective?this has almost never been the deciding factor in which side was more effective in a war. I guarantee you any example you cite where "muh volume of fire was beaten by accurate fire" has more to do with one side being disproportionately more competent as a fighting force overall than with who was better at aiming. more importantly, the scenario you describe here would be more appropriately phrased as "is there an ENGAGEMENT where one side had guns with less ammo and better marksmanship and ended up being more effective", because this is ultimately a tactical question, not a strategic question (which asking about a whole "war" implies). Fundamentally I don't think you have a very good understanding of what war is.
>>64644991I think your understanding of guns comes from videogames and movies rather than by actually studying modern infantry tactics and combat experiences
>>64645092>>64645094This ammo will bring back the 3-burst mode to the AR platform.>>64644362Had been answered by >>64644459>>64645216>cost of ammo>cost of precisionLook up EXACTOhttps://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/extreme-accuracy-tasked-ordnanceThere were successful proofs of concepts in 2012. Silence since. Either not feasible, or secret wunderwaffe.
>>64645216I'm not talking about snipers, I'm talking about individual infantry engagements. Your regular soldier had 5 rounds in his bolt gun and he had to make them count. I highly doubt a German soldier in a trench facing hundreds of French charging at him would just blindly magdump his 5 rounds into the masses of troops, he would be aiming down the sights to make his rounds count before they got close enough to start throwing grenades and bayonet fighting.You keep saying you somehow can't aim when you're being shot at. Why? What's stopping you from aiming when someone happens to be blindly shooting ineffectually into the sky hundreds of metres away from you because they have no idea where you are?I'll use the example of the Anglo-Boer War from 1899-1902. The British had a lot of trouble with that war because although they had machineguns and artillery, they faced guerilla attacks by farmers who were good shots.
>>64645272>I highly doubt a German soldier in a trench facing hundreds of French charging at him would just blindly magdump his 5 rounds into the masses of troopsThe bolt-action rifle wasn't doing the heavy lifting in WW1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_08And the bongs had a shooting exercise that was literally magdumping several mags, for the reason of suppression.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute>You keep saying you somehow can't aim when you're being shot atBecause most people would prefer not to be shot at, I understand it's a rather spooky experience.>What's stopping you from aiming when someone happens to be blindly shooting ineffectually into the sky hundreds of metres away from you because they have no idea where you are?Nothing. But, as has been pointed out several times already, that's not what suppressive fire is.>The British had a lot of trouble with that war because although they had machineguns and artillery, they faced guerilla attacks Guerrilla warfare is difficult to counter. No fucking shit.
the more you use, the fewer you losesimple as
>>64645338>The bolt-action rifle wasn't doing the heavy lifting in WW1Artillery inflicted 50% of casualties and you're still not addressing my argument that having only 5 rounds means you aim more.>Mad MinuteNotice how the test involves hitting targets not just blindingly shooting into a berm?>that's not what suppressive fire ishttps://youtu.be/g8sa8QFNEGI?si=9Vvm40FgMZoQi3t4&t=281Tell me precisely what this guy is shooting at? He may as well be hunting geese in the next grid square.
>>64645272> I highly doubt a German soldier in a trench facing hundreds of French charging at him would just blindly magdump his 5 rounds into the masses of troops, he would be aiming down the sights to make his rounds count before they got close enough to start throwing grenades and bayonet fighting.I mean yeah? but that's just not how things go, you're conjuring up these hyperspecific scenarios in order to retroactively justify accuracy vs volume when you're misinterpreting both. The scenario you describe for instance is incomplete, you're not mentioning the artillery going off everywhere, the machineguns firing in both directions, the fact this german soldier would be taking fire himself, the fact that cutting down charges was primarily the job of artillery and machineguns rather than individual riflemens', etc. You need to take a step back. Stop assuming you're correct and then looking for reasons to say you're correct - look at the reality on the ground and then DECIDE whether you're correct in light of it. >You keep saying you somehow can't aim when you're being shot at. Why? What's stopping you from aiming when someone happens to be blindly shooting ineffectually into the sky hundreds of metres away from you because they have no idea where you are?are you 15? google "suppression" lmao>I'll use the example of the Anglo-Boer War from 1899-1902. The British had a lot of trouble with that war because although they had machineguns and artillery, they faced guerilla attacks by farmers who were good shots.the issue with the boer war isn't that the british had trouble with farmers "who were good shots", the issue with the boer war is that it was a messy counterinsurgency in general you fucking cretindid you get all of your history from youtube and r/historymemes? what a monstrous oversimplification of history
>>64645390>>64645390>still not addressing my argument that having only 5 rounds means you aim more.NTA but are you trying to say that we should be giving soldiers less ammunition so that they're incentivised to aim better? fuck me I pray you never go into any kind of management role
I can't wait for the americans to wake up and see how fucking stupid this thread is lmao
>>64644509song name?
>>64644991>9mm has an effective range of like 100m and basically can't kill you unless you get shot directly in the heart or brain. German and Soviet soldiers probably unironically shot entire magazines worth of SMG ammo into each other in the ruins of Stalingrad.this thread has to be bait you guys can't let this guy get away with this shit surely lmao
>>64645390>Artillery inflicted 50% of casualtiesAnd guess what caused the other 50% of casualties? (Hint: it wasn't "accurate" bolt-action fire)>you're still not addressing my argument that having only 5 rounds means you aim more.Aim more? absolutely. but the effectiveness was the fact that it was several hundred bolt action rifles firing downrange at the same time, providing *volume*, much like the machineguns were.>Notice how the test involves hitting targets not just blindingly shooting into a berm?Notice how it's a test, and not actually a use-case? it's meant to prove they can actually do it.>Tell me precisely what this guy is shooting at?He is firing down a potential hostile avenue of approach, denying the enemy that terrain and forcing them into cover, allowing mobile fire elements (his squadmates) to move to a more advantageous position and take down the hostiles.Also notice how this differs from your earlier scenario of>blindly shooting ineffectually into the sky hundreds of metres away from you because they have no idea where you areAs he's: 1) not shooting blindly into the sky 2) at most a hundred meters away from what he's shooting at, and 3) has a clear idea of the general area the enemy is at.>>64645418You joke, but I remember reading about that being proposed unironically.
>>64645272>What's stopping you from aimingnothing, people just don't want to do it.listen kid, you can tell soldiers as much as you want to to stick their heads out of cover and take aimed shots even though there's a fucking machinegun shooting at them, they're not going to do it. if you try and make them, they're going to fucking shoot YOU.if everyone was fearless then yes, you could balls your way through suppressive fire because it's largely not accurate. and you're right that the suppressive effect of fire is reduced if it's inaccurate, or rather that the more accurate the fire the greater its suppressive effect. but the point is that if you try and make me stand out in machinegun fire i am going to say no. what are you going to about it, LT? the MPs are back at base, and we're all the way the fuck out here.
>>64645410>>64645418>>64645421>>64645434>>64645450Why are you fucks DEFENDING shooting at nothing? Why can't you aim your M4?Would you prefer someone shoot 30 rounds over the top of your head or 5 rounds within 1 foot of you? I'd be suppressed if someone could see me hiding behind a rock and kept pinging accurate fire off the rock, not if they were shooting thousands of rounds at head height above me.
>>64644362I dunno but I have seen videos of soldiers looking like absolute pros, holding their rifles over their heads or out in front and laying suppressive fire.
>>64645475OP is falsely equating "volume of fire" with "ragheads hipfiring their AK at you from half a mile away". we're not defending shooting at nothing, we're defending suppression as a concept and volume of fire as an enabler of that suppression you mongoloid
>>64645495op, faggot as usual, thinks he'll keep it together or even counter suppress a competent machine gunner before a flanking element kills himmany such non-combat faggotrons post on nu/k/grim
>>64644362unaimed shots have always been the default in waraiming is for scouts, snipers, and designated marksmen
>>64644362OP gets paid by Sig.>>64644484Yes. Remember that armies largely felt ritled muskets were not worth it, as the MUCH faster and easier loading of smoothbore muskets gave a critical advantage in rate of fire while being acceptably accurate within 100 yards.It's only when things like the Minié Ball allowed you to load a rifled musket with the same swiftness and ease of a smoothbore that this really changed, and even then it was vital to overwhelm your enemy with more firepower.>>64644489Subguns just barely got to showcase that in WW1 because the war came to an end.For the vast majority of grunts in that big mess of a war, a handgun was the best CQB weapon they could hope to have.Made a big impression anyway, of course.
>>64644827It's easy, it's jusk jankily implemented.For instance, it just told me that I passed the captcha and was good to go, but then said I mistyped it.
>brass in WW2 are forced to realize that volume of fire is actually important as fuck and that subguns are a good and inexpensive way to help that>(you know, after trying to pretend WW1 didn't already demonstrate that)>ergo Hugo Schmeisser was fucking right all along>only major power to refuse to realize this was Imperial Japan, who were much worse at warfare than Italy on a good day>Japs gets their colons repeatedly roflstomped before the atom bombs are even on the table>Western forces later studying infantry combat engagement records from WW2 and Korea discover a strong recurring theme>that whichever side had the most ammo with them and could keep putting it out against the enemy would most often come out the victor>not every single time, but more often than not, clearly it's VERY important>also that soldiers who weren't snipers would rarely take shots past 200yds>virtually never to 300yds or further>thus the ideal ideal infantry weapon isn't a long range rifle OR a subgun>rather something that fits inbetween>you know, Hugo Schmeisser was involved in such ideas during the second war as well
>>64644994That works until it doesn't, do you think you'll get the luxury of seriously taking out even a squad with one shot every few minutes, that they're going to just stay put until you've worked through them all?
>>64645658Prove me wrong.
>>64645682You'll run away and then start spewing your drivel again in another thread tomorrow. Why should i?Advocating for wartime trash soversized smgs with no future or potential has already become the position of mentally ill subhumans.
>>64645679>That worksGlad you agree that sniper fire is extremely effective at suppressing even large formations of enemy infantry.
Everyone here is a mentally ill retard/bread
OP when Siege Of Plevna
>>64645475Indoor 25 yard flat range only user confirmed.
>>64645568I don't have that problem, so the change has been funthe real issue is that some bastard near me keeps doing sus shit so I get constant temporary rangebans>hint hint, jannys
>>64644362Most recently? late WW1. the Stormtroopers figured out how to take advantage of the fact that people tend to duck down when machine guns are fired in their general direction, and pioneered modern fire & maneuver tactics.
>>64644362ProTip: Volume of fire has ALWAYS been the name of game in set-piece actions. That is precisely why musket units developed drill.Your WW1 example leaves out a key piece of the trench warfare reality: Crew-served, water-cooled, belt-fed machine guns.Assault troops relied on artillery to soften up the target. This rarely actually worked, so when the barrage lifted, defending soldiers went to work with machine guns and mowed down the aggressors piece-meal.Unit on unit combat is rarely turned on accurate rifle fire. It's nearly ALWAYS about suppressing effectively enough to let the industrial shit (artillery, machine guns, bombs) do work.
>>64645425Bri'ish Grenadiers, come on anon
>>64644362When our doctrine changed from us duking it out to us corralling an enemy into a specific location so we can finish them off with arty or airplanes.
>>64645171>I use that 4chanX and it works fineThe userscript works fine; people still using the extension are stuck, unable to post whenever it says "verification not needed."
