what's the secret to winning firefights?

>>35110281
Gorila Warfare.

maneuver warfare

>>35110281
clean your gun the previous lull

>>35110281
Don't get shot, shoot the guys shooting at you.

File: 1477628068650.png (861KB, 947x675px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 947x675px

>>35110281

Near constant access to air support.

American infantry when left to their own devices has very little staying power in direct action.

CAS

Shoot the badguys, don't get shot.

>>35110326
What would happen if hypothetically two fighting parties had access to near constant air support and none of them could gain total air superiority?

File: 562409415607892062130654.gif (2MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x180px

>>35110310
but what if intel is bad?

File: DJJgMiFUIAAOuHS.jpg (29KB, 960x498px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 960x498px

>>35110281
Send more bullets than you receive.

File: IMG_0773.jpg (109KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 500x600px

>>35110326

If you could afford to support a platoon with JDAMs everywhere they go why wouldn't you?

I get where you're going with it, I just get assravaged when I hear the "x are tougher than US infantry" argument. No one marvels at the fact that a country can field an infantry so well equipped, well trained, and fully supported that they profession is practically safer than driving on a highway.

Why risk lives when you've got infinite dollars? That's an amazing apparatus.

File: pgL_EP-10013_009.jpg (2MB, 2800x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2800x2000px

>>35110378

In a perfect world one of them would gain air superiority. The one that does has the higher chance of winning the battle. I don't really know exactly what would happen though, as there hasn't been a war fought were one side didn't have air superiority in modern times.

If we were just making a hypothetical and made it so neither side could get air superiority, I think the side that better manages the fight (managing terrain, equipment, and men) would have better odds of winning. There are a lot of factors that go into a "modern" battle nowadays though. its not really just "shoot at them, they shoot back, rinse and repeat." For instance, in a single battle the biggest factor could be who's disabled and where. If you can shut down all supplies of the enemy and trap them, you can essentially just wait them out while you receive support from the rear.

File: 1313697781437.jpg (1MB, 2040x1329px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2040x1329px

>>35110281
Volume of fire and flanking.

>>35110281
Getting the first shot off

>>35110385
information warfare

Air superiority

Getting shot at? Keep your head down and let big guns soften them up

File: Islamic_Front-Syria-USSR_SA-8_9K33_SAM.png (495KB, 1096x642px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1096x642px

>>35110497
There have been plenty of battles without air superiority in modern time. Arguably most modern conflicts have seen no effective CAS at all, even in 2008 most Russian strikes were "drop some bombs in roughly some area were the enemy might be near".

>Syria: SyAAF most useless at air support. RuAF better but limited in numbers. There is one group with a handful of SA-8 Osa drove off SyAAF from their airspace.
>Ukraine: Virtually no air support after early attempts resulted in losses.
>Armenian–Azerbaijani: No air outside of a couple Israeli made sucide drones.
>2008: RuAF suddenly remembers Georgia exists, drops whatever dumb bombs were sitting in a nearby warehouse into a Georgian field and loses a recon bomber.

Air support only works for nations who have both spent the money to make it work and are either no facing any opposition or willing to take the losses. This is fairly uncommon outside of the US bombing goatfuckers.

>>35110281
being american

>>35110385
Buy AMD

>>35110641
Kek

fire and maneuver is not a secret. it's simple tactics that have to be understood, practiced exhaustively, and implemented flexibly.

some people just do it better than others, and those people are often westerners.

whoever has the best small arms

>>35110281
that dude is fucked out

>>35110512
That's still general GI doctrine really, winning the firefight and closing in to finish off anyone left alive.
What confuses me is that this will work in situations we dictate (I.E. Canadian Forces suggest only attacking with 3 to 1 in numbers) due to the fact the enemy isn't normally capable of fighting back nearly as well. But what happens if SHTF and we fight someone of equal strength? The sheer firepower we can bring down on each other guarantee's crazy casualties for both sides.
You'd hope there's some more optimal tactics being devised than hoping your opponent isn't capable of punching back just as hard.

>>35110733
>But what happens if SHTF and we fight someone of equal strength

JFC m8, read a book written after ww1 sometime.

The whole fecking point of maneuver war is that you are running around so that, despite equal numbers over the whole scenario, you can concentrate more dudes at one point, locally. And the enemy is trying to do this too.

THEN, the 3:1 ratio comes into play because you want 3 elements in an assault. The overwatch/suppression group, the assault group, the exploitation group.

>>35110281
fire superiority + tactical superiority typically = winning

Unless the enemy planned something special for you that somehow trumps all that. A whole lot of HE for example.

>>35110281
Trombley?

>>35110733
Whoever asserts air/water/sigint superiority first or more totally will likely win.

If your troops have fire support then they beat the opponents without it. Infantry is a minor casualty source compared to anything mechanized.

File: its fucking magic.png (17KB, 1014x611px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 1014x611px

>>35110733
hurr you go, I even made a shitty mspaint!

unfortunately suppression effects are not modeled, but you get the idea.

>>35110281
Basically who can shoot the other guys first

>>35110378
Then it would quickly dwindle to no-one having air support because the pilots would be to busy trying to hit each other with bombs rather than spend ammuntion on ground troops.

Why do you job when you can Bomb Joust?

>>35110378
>what are famous cold war jokes

Two generals are sitting in Paris having coffee, one American, one Russian. One turns to the other and says, so who won the air war?

The hard counter to air superiority, you see, is parking tanks on their runways.

Hard to do if you are a goat herder in bumfuck ME and the opposition is the USA, an ocean away; much easier if you have zerg tier armor numbers and need to cross from one side of germany to the other.

>>35110874
In your shitty mspaint, whats stopping the red arrows from doing what the blue arrows are doing.

>>35110281
more shooting less dying

File: sisko.jpg (82KB, 705x530px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 705x530px

>>35110281
Shoot the other motherfuckers before they shoot you.

>>35110961
Absolutely fucking nothing, except intel, communications, speed, logistics, terrain, morale, and operational level requirements. METT-TC.

You know...all the shit that actually wins wars but isn't easily quantized by armchair critics. Tactics, operations, strategy even.

File: 1492271295518.gif (1000KB, 368x208px) Image search: [Google]

1000KB, 368x208px

>>35111000
ayyy this guy gets it!

>>35111000
But it still boils down to the part where two forces of similar competency wind up either never engaging or a relatively quick succession of moves.
I might have initially worded it poorly but from how I see it, a modern war really wouldn't last long whatsoever since there's no real great way of bogging down your opponent if you lose the iniative unless you're willing to engage in guerrilla warfare and turning your cities into rubble.

>>35111050
your right thats why all wars now are proxy using insurgents

>>35110281
Shoot, move & communicate.

>>35110281
gas the kikes, race war now

File: 1475607040757.png (1MB, 1600x1211px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1211px

>>35110281
kill everything that isn't you, and remember...you are already dead so you might as well die well

>>35111050
> a modern war really wouldn't last long whatsoever

no shit. It will be about 2 months, +/- a month, as seen in...most modern high tech wars.

But you don't seem to understand post-ww1 defense either. It's not about bogging down, its about trading space for time.

In the defensive aspect, the defenders lay an ambush, kill the enemy scouting elements, pull back to the next set of positions (not literally the next set, that's a different unit; they leapfrog, or they'd be overrun by vehicle speeds), and repeat. Infantry with mines and ATGMs feature prominently, this goes back to ww2.

The offensive version is cold war deep battle. Find some bridges. Obviously the enemy knows you will bomb the bridges to delay their troops so they have to bunch up so you can hit them with pre-planned artillery. So (obviously) they will build up engineers at alternate routes, the main route, reinforcements farther back out of range, log depots, etc. So you preplan arty on their alternate sites and vector aircraft to their log depots, so that when they eventually establish a crossing, their bridgehead will run out of initiative, momentum, fuel and ammo and get #rekt by your counterattack.

Guerilla warfare is just another name for light infantry btw. If the enemy is properly prepping likely ambush points with arty and suppressing tank hunter teams with arty, light infantry is in for a massacre. Of course, arty is a logistical hog and there's never enough to go around, so commanders have to prioritize, leading to the time-honored dynamics we call "tactics n shit."

>>35110378
It would grind to a halt and devolve into trench warfare like in Ukraine

File: VC & ARVN face to face COMMENT.jpg (603KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 1200x800px

>>35110281
>be the one that starts it
>where you choose
>when you choose
>with your guys having home-field is a plus
>your guys knowing what they're doing more than OPFOR
>good commo
>having QRF/reinforcement while your OPFOR immediately lacks one.

>>35110385
Write a report about it and said you went there but found nothing.

>>35110281
>what's the secret to winning firefights?

Not sending good men to do what good high-explosive can do better....

>>35110281
You can't have fire without movement or movement without fire. Do only one of these and you'll fucking die.

File: Goncern.png (6KB, 253x199px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 253x199px

>>35110641

kek

>>35110281
kill the other guy

>>35110378
Artillery would eviscerate both of them.

Obviously not counting crazy equipment or long range shooting, if paintball has taught me anything it's that an individual needs a combination of stealth,speed,and savagery(commitment to action). Communication as a team. Don't rely on the cowards in the group. Movement in unfamiliar territory is preferable in an environment the other team doesnt know we'll enough. Coordination over automation.

>>35113935
>if paintball has taught me anything

The fuck out of here with your paintball faggotry....

>>35110541
Alex?

>>35110378
what is a dog fight dumb fuk

>>35112020
I feel like that this is the only correct answer. Close quarters combat for months on end at Donetsk airport.

>>35110281
Fire suppression and cover advance

File: 1502081705478.png (96KB, 277x296px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 277x296px

>>35115025
in english we calling it leapfrogging

File: Rule1.jpg (41KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x400px

>>35110281
there a few rules you should be aware of

File: Rule 2-500x400.jpg (56KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x400px

>>35115035

Nothing, if you kill your enemies, they win.

>>35110281
Fire suppression while someone orders in strikes from off site bombardment.

File: Rule-03.jpg (52KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 750x600px

>>35115041

>>35110281
A nitrogen cooled barrel and the ability to fire continuously for an hour or so.

>>35110281
Overwhelming firepower.
>Find
>Fix
>Finish

>>35110281
Having the most diversity.

>>35110281

https://youtu.be/OZ6dDlqye9Q?t=410

"On my first combat exercise in basic training I asked my sgt. 'what is the most important aspect to winning a firefight'. He replied almost immediately 'fire superiority'".

>>35110281
>what's the secret to winning firefights?

initiating contact

>>35110281
Comfy seating.
Think about it.

>>35110928

>The hard counter to air superiority, you see, is parking tanks on their runways.

Wouldn't they just pull the aircraft back to bases in Britain?

>>35110326
Correct.

Fire support from ground vehicles and choppers> air support> everything else

Find, fix, flank, finish

>>35110281
>what's the secret to winning firefights?

aggression and speed combined with discipline, drill and basic established doctrine for fire and manoeuvre

>>35110281
Being western. It's more effective than you might think.

>>35110281
Bring friends

>>35115808
this. first one to get eyes and start firing is usually the victor

>>35111712
/thread

>>35114382
It may be kinda faggy, but it's at least a decent way to simulate squad level tactics. Moreso than jacking off on some Tunisian embroidery enthusiast discussion forum

File: IMG_3918.jpg (32KB, 326x279px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 326x279px

>>35110695
Eyyyyyyyyyyy

>>35115749
Signed,

Air Force

>>35110295
90% of the time, This.

File: back to pol with you.jpg (136KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 546x700px

>>35111712

>>35116004
>it's at least a decent way to simulate squad level tactics

No, it's not.

Just like using that garbage miles, it teaches bad habits that will just need to be broken in a real fight.

>>35110928
>parking tanks on runways
Air superiority is how you beat armor

>>35116792
white power

File: 2017-08-07 (1).png (1MB, 1437x1073px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1437x1073px

>>35111772
good ass show

File: Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. H.jpg (61KB, 720x397px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 720x397px

>>35110281
Panzerkampfwagens

>>35110281
Reducing engagement distances while maintaining cover and fire superiority, good comms, fluid movements, good supplies and logistics, good morale, clearly defined objectives

>>35110281
Shoot your standard- issue colt m1911 like Han Solo

surprise
that's literally the only thing that wins combat
if what you're doing surprises the enemy, you win
whether that's shooting first, manouvering better than they expected, being more accurate, whatever
if they didn't prepare for it, you win

>>35110281
always be either moving, shooting, or communicating.

>>35110281
Always Be Closing (with the enemy)

>>35117287
>that's literally the only thing that wins combat

Nope.

Surprise gives you the first free shot, but if you don't knock a motherfucker out with that free shot, he can come back and kick your ass.

The with nukes

>>35110378
It would drag on until one side's artillery got into range of the far side of the battle space and started reminding people before planes they created 99% of the damage and won wars.

>>35110961
I typed up about nine versions of this, each a sprawling multi-post string of TL:DR, but the short version is this.

The commander must be smarter, think faster, or be more informed then the other guy.

The fighters must be well trained, hardened, and loyal enough to follow his orders to execute the action at 'chess game' level as they are in the middle of combat.

The enemy must be manipulated in a thousand ways, ultimately tricked into appearing exactly where you want them to before you magic trick where half your forces pops up right on top of them from the flank and rear.

And ultimately, 'Allah decides the outcome of battles'. Or God, or Luck, or whatever. Cause none of this will fall perfectly into place and random events like the a commander getting his head blown off by a stray round or the map didn't show this fucking 5' fence in the middle of the field or your flankers broke off to chase a fleeing unit instead of advancing into the enemy position can and will bring the most well rationalized and thought out plans to a screeching halt. Then it's about being able to adjust and see the openings as they appear from your much more human perspective, or often just which side has more ammo, better aim, and/or bigger balls.

>>35117146
Say that in public fagot.

>>35117353
That doesn't always work out.

One of the most brilliant battles in history involved Carthage 'retreating' in the face of their roman enemies advance and then the romans realized they had actually let a straight line in front of them become a circle around them.

>>35117728
And to add to that, most of this is kind of bullshit these days since we don't fight like that very often. The days of sending an infantry regiment into a city with armored backup to burn out a battalion of defenders probably aren't coming back. We just bomb the living shit out of the city and send in the grunts to plant a flag and say it's ours now.

A scenario of two of those regiments hunting each other in the county outside the city is even less likely.

We tried it with Vietnam to a point, it devolved into 'wander around the jungle until you got shot at, if you kill more guys then they do we call it a win'.

>>35110281
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXyg8dnhtPk

>>35117840
>Fallujah didn't happen

mmmk

>>35110281
Logistics.

>>35110281
Aggressive, willful action. PPPPP (P5). Fire and Maneuver. Everything else is just a force multiplier.

>>35110492
You have to admit though, it is quite funny seeing burgers get so defensive over it.

File: cum.jpg (54KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1280x720px

So, let's say X country has a civil war, both sides have similar equipment.
>southern US type geography
>no tanks
>proppeler aircraft
>emphasis on armoured vehicles and infantry
>no help from foreign powers
>plan is to take as much territory as possible
>smuggling guns is not difficult
wich side would fare better and ultimately win?

>>35119243
How the fuck would someone answer your question if you didn't name sides at all

File: meximarines.jpg (73KB, 720x593px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 720x593px

>>35119345
Allright then, didn't want to mention them so there wouldn't be favoritism.
Northen Mexican Secesionists vs Mexican Army.

File: Rules of Gunfighting.jpg (86KB, 720x585px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 720x585px

>>35110281

File: bigboi.png (716KB, 804x631px) Image search: [Google]

716KB, 804x631px

>>35110281
God, Nice Aesthetic, Bullets, Info, and Gorrilas.

File: flat,1000x1000,075,f.jpg (184KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1000x1000px

>>35110281
Suicide

>>35119372
I can't even find any real news about it, desu anon
I'd say it's a numbers and morale game at that point

>>35119372
What distinguishes them?

Presumably whoever struck first and had better strategy. What kind of a question is this?

>>35117192
First?

File: federal police.jpg (61KB, 640x410px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x410px

>>35119424
>Guerrilla with smuggled weapons from the US, ghetto thechnicals and armoured vehicles, IED's, barrel bombs and other cheap tactics to take over as much territory as possible on Northen Mexico and seccede from Communist old Mexico
or
>Mexican army with G3's, APC's, AAV's, Helicopters, Shitty planes and 100,000 men with almost no morale.

I know the US would fuck our shit up but i doubt they would support a communist regime right?

>>35119412
Possibly the best episode
Country Mac was amazing, god rest his sinful homo soul

File: 7443c8c9bb0d78789644fc494015b51a08c0f7d2.gif (1011KB, 374x211px) Image search: [Google]

1011KB, 374x211px

>>35110821

overwhelming friendlies to enemies ratio, extreme firepower and technology advantage and attacking when and where least expected

i.e. a fight as unfair as possible

>>35119372
Is this a brewing civil war? I thought it was just a cartel FFA down there.

File: 1503257309687.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>35119863
well the communist party is probably going to win next year's election, i'd give it 4 years before we have a Venezuela style crisis but 10 times worse. And that's where my totally not real plan to seccede from Southern Mexico comes in, hopefully the people cooperate and it doesn't start a decade long civil war.
:^)

>>35110281
Skoal

>>35110281
Fire, mobility and cover. You want at least two out of three at any given time.

File: 1504948867170.gif (1MB, 355x225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 355x225px

>>35117728

File: lolraggot14883495.png (81KB, 500x354px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x354px

>>35110641

>>35117840
lol no. We binned the shit out if the emt and sent teooos to plant those flags wat fucking harder than toady in a little war called WWII. To prove how even more incorrect you are, the US dropped more Bombs in Vietnam than it did in the entire European theater. Didn't work either

>>35118334
Thats an ex army ranger telling you how to survive a gun fight
>0 comments
No sorprise there /k

>>35110281
Don't die

>>35118348
Fallujah was not massed infantry formations facing off against massed infantry formations with no air support.

>>35120866
Are you illiterate?

Anywho, I am speaking of the infantry side of things. 'Patrols' going out into the jungle to find and destroy enemy patrols. Walk around until you get ambushed, and try to kill more then you lose.

I think you both are ignoring the the original concept of the question I am answering is "what do when no air support?"

Pointing out how many bombs we dropped on Vietnam just further distances your point.

>>35110492
>If you could afford to support a platoon with JDAMs everywhere they go why wouldn't you?
Ah yes, the big IF. Eventually that's gonna end and America will find itself fighting a war under a contested airspace and then what?

>>35122197
>Walk around until you get ambushed, and try to kill more then you lose.

That's called a movement to contact, is dumb as fuck, and has largely been the entire strategy of the U.S. military in Iraq and A-stan for the past 16 years.

>>35110281
A G G R E S S I O N

Don't show up unless you want to aggressively kill the enemy.

>>35122261
Ever seen a cav scout paint his gold spurs blue in disgust?

It's kind of clever.

>>35122319
Probably because of all those "presence patrols" their command mandated on a daily basis...since they had no actionable intelligence.

Funny how "movement to contact" managed to become "presence patrol" over the years.

>>35119438
First is good, but the important part is "before the other guy knows your holding it"

>>35122296
came here to say this. fitness only goes so far. i saw it so much when i was in iraq, some dudes couldn't handle it, others lived in it. i don't want to sound like i'm tooting my own horn, but i was a scrawny faggot beta nerd when i joined the army. i found something inside myself, that aggression, and fucking loved combat. i miss it. i've still got the aggression but i can't let it out of that box in my heart back home. aggression is 90% of fighting, 9% is training until you have muscle memory. the last 1% is having smart leaders who understand tactics.

>>35119378
This looks like shit my uncle would share on FB

File: sensible chuckle kanye.gif (1MB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 248x189px

>>35110641

File: total-usd-debt-to-gdp-1977-2012.jpg (209KB, 853x602px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 853x602px

>>35110492
>infinite dollars
This is what Americans actually believe.

File: Japanese charge aftermath.jpg (47KB, 500x313px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x313px

>>35122378
>aggression is 90%, 9% skill, 1% tactics
Really ? I'm a noserve, I'm not contradicting you, but isn't it a bit far-fetched ? I'm sure the Japanese in WW2 had lots of aggression, and it didn't seem to do them good.

File: 24315671235461.jpg (196KB, 728x409px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 728x409px

>>35123835
damn... .that is bleak

>>35110733
Simple: you endure casualties better than the other guy.
You don't need to kill or wound the enemy's entire strength, you need to kill or wound enough to rout him

>>35119908
look mate, I'm just gonna put it out there, if you succeed in ceccedding, UNSCA had a pretty bitching flag.
and if you can beat mexico, well, it's not like guatemal has a world renowned military....