Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mohoender
Jest you got confused, you quoted yourself. 
Of course but I was not being serious or not entirely. Your view of the Russian, however, is pretty simple and I would say false. During WWII Russian were using more snipers than anyone else (they still do). They used 14.5 rifle as soon as 1942. At Kursk they used a multi-layer defense that destroyed massive attacks by the Germans.
They use mass fire when employing low level soldier but that is true to everyone. Things might be changing as most armies are now professional troops, highly trained. That would not remain as such in case of global conflict as you would have to rely on less trained troopers (in my opinion).
At a tactical level what you say is true for everyone, at a strategic level everyone use as much power as it can to the soldier dismay usually. You gave the Somme as an exemple but there are several more recent ones: Stalingrad, Monte Cassino, Berlin, Beyruth (1982), Falloudja... |
I realised I quoted myself after I had typed everything.
Falloudja as an example of massive barage? Explain that one? Beruit? Not really, those are different as well. The only similiarity was the attempt to control the city. But brining as much force one can muster on a city, no, not really the US has not done that since WWII, the other wars we didn't use as much force as we could have/should have to flatten a city before we sent in ground troops in order to save the city or spare the civilians.
As for training troops in a hurry, again the US does place emphasis on marksmanship, we always have.
You are talking about "snipers" snipers are not regular soldiers. I am talking about the regular rifleman in the ranks.
Also, keep in mind the doctrine of the armies. In some, the rifle team is there to support the macinegun, in others the machinegun is there to support the rifleteam. Which determines the use and effectiveness of your suppressive fire.