Suppression is the Critical Infantry Task

[brasidas19004]

This is a great little article, only 2 pages. There is a 4-pager article, prettier but harder to print out.  Comes up immediately on a search for title/author.

As about half of the forums on this board are post 1850, and the Dreyse Needle Gun was mass produced as an 1841 model, all subsequent wars begin to tip in the direction of suppression, assault, seize objective [or drive off the enemy].

Whether or not and how you model this important aspect of firepower in your games is up to you, of course.

But I submit to the group that any historical game must model this somehow to keep the claim of historical, and that it can be done in a fun, smart way that makes the final assault even more satisfying!

Hope it is informative.

[huevans]

I don't agree - at least before 1870.

Before 1870, you have 2 lines of equal numbers of infantry standing to fire at each other with equal weapons. Suppression only happens as a part of collapsing morale, as 1 of the opposing lines melts away and withdraws.

You don't have the infantry firepower before 1870.

[Smokeyrone]

I don't agree - at least before 1870.

Before 1870, you have 2 lines of equal numbers of infantry standing to fire at each other with equal weapons. Suppression only happens as a part of collapsing morale, as 1 of the opposing lines melts away and withdraws.

You don't have the infantry firepower before 1870.

I wonder if the Spencer repeater is an outlyer?  I don't see why those Yankee cavalry weren't just wiping out line and column infantry?  Range? Lethality?     

[brasidas19004]

I don't agree - at least before 1870.
Before 1870, you have 2 lines of equal numbers of infantry standing to fire at each other with equal weapons. Suppression only happens as a part of collapsing morale, as 1 of the opposing lines melts away and withdraws.
You don't have the infantry firepower before 1870.

I don't think the Danes and Austrians would agree with you.  Read up a bit on their encounters with the Dreyse.
Also, firing at each other with equal weapons is often as not untrue. There are numerous battles and campaigns where the two sides were largely armed with different weapons, e.g. Crimea.
Also, Suppression isn't melting away and withdrawing.  It is pinning people down so they don't shoot back. This enables you to maneuver.

[bc99]

As this is the colonial forum I recall reading about encounters in the Sudan where weight of fire forced Sudanese to take ground or “veer” towards another portion of the square they were attacking.

What are people using to reflect “suppression” in your colonial battles?

[carlos marighela]

Hardly a novel theory. Forty odd years ago I was being taught that the key to platoon assaults was winning the firefight, ie preventing or limiting the other bugger from firing back at you as you closed. It was to be achieved by 'effective fire', ie fire that either killed or wounded the other chap or gave him sufficient pause to think about not firing back, exposing himself unneccesarily or even just buggering off.  Where possible, supporting fire from battalion assets or supporting arms would assist. All of that is er... supression.

I suspect most gaming systems model suppression in one way or another. Many have specific modifications to figures/bases suppressed, such as limitations on effective fire and/or movement. Others factor it in by a combination of casulaties and morale. Unless we are talking ultra small scale skirmish rules. Most rules do not differentiate between battle casualties and with larger scae games it's assumed that not every hit equals a kill or wounding, just an adverse effect on the enemy's ability to fight.