4 ms·

The AK still is an assault rifle and will be used in such way. You seem to referring to heavy machine guns like German MG 1 or 2 which have far bigger magazines

• aaronem 13y ago
  Before this comment gets sniped a third time, I'll note that suppressive fire can just as well cover a unit disengaging from action as it can a unit preparing to move into closer contact.
  • jkscm 13y ago
    Yes you are right. I would even go as far as stating that the term "defensive weapon" makes no sense in the context of assault rifles.
    • aaronem 13y ago
      I'll go further, and state that "defensive weapon" is a contradiction in terms and semantically null however applied. A weapon is a tool; offense and defense are perhaps the two broadest categories of the ways in which such a tool may be employed.
      • mikeash 13y ago
        No doubt true in general, but how about land mines? That seems fairly close to a "defensive weapon".
        • caprad 13y ago
          > No doubt true in general, but how about land mines? Not when you throw them at someone.
        • aaronem 13y ago
          Nothing of the sort! A minefield makes a lousy area denial weapon, because it's consumable; every mine that goes off is one fewer between the attacker and the objective. It's a considerable obstacle, sure, but it won't stop an attacker; at best, it'll slow him down for a while. If he's really determined, it may not even do much of that; he might just order his infantry to march through the minefield anyway, which is a very effective if rather expensive clearing method. If he's really determined and also short of soldiers, he might do the same, but with a regiment of children -- Iran used this method during their war with Iraq in the 80s. Horrifying as it is, it does work. No, the point of a minefield is to funnel attackers into predefined areas where you've arranged to bring your heavy weapons, specifically artillery or machine guns, to bear with best effect. These areas rejoice in the name "killing zones", and their purpose is to maximize the effect of said heavy weapons by concentrating their targets in a single compact mass which can be saturated with fire. Granted, being a static emplacement, a minefield can only be effective when someone has to go through it or find a way around it; that said, and while the point is certainly arguable, I have a hard time considering a weapon, whose sole purpose is to make it as easy as possible to slaughter one's opponents en masse, as being particularly "defensive".
          • mikeash 13y ago
            Well, defense is simply killing your enemy when they're the ones who are attacking. It's hard to imagine using land mines to attack, while you nicely described how effective they can be to defend.
            • aaronem 13y ago
              I suppose it depends on the scope in which you define the terms 'attack' and 'defend'. If I lay a minefield ahead of a position, so that it may better absorb and break a counterattack intended to slow or halt my invading army, then am I attacking, or defending, or both at once?
              • mikeash 13y ago
                I'd say that you're defending at the tactical level, attacking at the strategic level, and then it all comes down to how much context you want to include when looking at the weapon. I could certainly see arguments for both.
• stcredzero 13y ago
  An old instructor of mine who was in logistics in Vietnam used to use suppressive fire to get his butt out of trouble. In fact, he used to say it was best to scare the enemy and not kill anyone in that particular situation. (His purpose was not to directly kill anyone.) He thought that killing someone's best friend was a great motivation for an enemy to go hero-mode on you, but instilling fear always worked out to his advantage.
  • aaronem 13y ago
    Your instructor was so close as makes no odds to stating the only workable doctrine for a nation involved in a guerrilla war. Kill a man's brother, and he'll spend every breath from then until his last looking to kill you back; show him convincingly that his cause is hopeless, and you open the way to, if not friendship, then at least the possibility of coexistence without either side feeling it needs to engage in sporadic attempts at murder.
    • stcredzero 13y ago
      Funny you should say that. We used to think of him as jolly but affably mushy in the head. In retrospect, he was pretty wise, but he made no attempt to come across as being especially smart. I later related what he said to a retired Marine, who responded to the effect, that must've been an Army story -- his family had been joining the Marines for 3 generations to kill.
      • omegant 13y ago
        I recommend reading "on killing", a book about effects that killing has in soldiers and how it has evolved since WW2. The modern warrior-killer mindset and training is responsible for a great part of the PTSD.