firing on concealed positions..

From: chubbybob <bob_at_...>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:05:40 +0100

dardman said

But we usually don't fire into the woods unless
> there are enemies firing from the outskirts, its a little cheesey.
> Darius

       There is nothing cheesey at all about this tactic.. Read "mailed
fist" and "crocodile". these are written by guys who served in churchill gun
tanks and churchill flamers during world war II.. Both stress strongly
during an advance against defended positions, the absolute necessity of
hosing any greenery or cover in sight with mg fire.... Anything that could
hold an infantryman with an MAW was a target.. Any other action was
potentially suicidal... Suppressive light weapons fire against potential
concealed positions was the order of the day not "cheese"
Furthermore in the absence of confirmed targets, planned artillery fire
against wooded skylines that could conceal AT weapons or artillery observers
was also a standard tactic.. More weight of fire was poured on empty
woodland during WWII than on any defended position...
        Any unit with a secondary weapon or infantry weapon should be
allowed to fire suppresively into woodland to their front or flank...
Regards artillery however, this is best handled by calling it map fire and
allowing artillery batteires a preplanned fire plan against topographical
targets until opportunity or observed targets are available.. (normal
artillery real life practice..)

          Bob DeAngelis
Received on Fri Nov 03 2000 - 13:05:40 UTC