Thank you Patmos
for this debate. This won't be a long opening.
In this debate, I will seek to demonstrate the importance of accuracy over volume of fire.
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is final." - Wyatt Earp
1. The principle
When engaged in conflict, it is the duty of the fighter to actually hit what he's firing at. Humans have been known to survive huge barrages of fire, and return fire right back. The whole point of firing at the enemy, is to hit him. Even suppressive fire is typically used for maneuver, and maneuver is used to kill and demoralize, which requires accuracy. At the end of the day, without accuracy, the projectile is not being used to its full effectiveness.
It will always cost more to fire many projectiles at a target, than a few accurate projectiles. No matter what the projectile is, this is a truism.
An accurate shot from a gun is far more likely to hit the enemy in the vital areas that are always small targets, such as the head. Furthermore, the purpose of practising shooting at a gun range is to improve the accuracy of the shooter. It is obvious that the accuracy of the shooter is more important than the amount of bullets he can propel downrange.
In the past, it was common for armies to employ the strategy of carpet bombing
. The devastating collateral damage of which would kill civilians and military personnel indiscriminately. Since then, armies have shifted to more precise techniques
. A precise bomb strike will always cause less collateral damage than bombing runs in aerial bombing attacks.
In conclusion, accuracy is more important than the amount of projectiles that can be propelled at a target. When shooting a gun, dropping a bomb, or firing any other projectile, prioritizing accuracy over volume costs less, causes less collateral damage, and is more likely to eliminate the enemy.