To me, if the authors meant or, they would have said or. They said and, so they meant and.
It's almost like everything I said went right over your head
Let's presume you're absolutely right in that AND is exactly the word the author intended and there's no possibility he meant and/or there.
Here's the complete sentence for reference's sake:
"Though it may appear as a “spray and pray” technique it is in fact a
combination of controlled and fully automatic bursts
focused over a narrow area and directed at anything
that moves."
In order to narrow our focus, can we agree on a simplified and slightly reworded phrase of "suppressive fire is a combination of controlled and fully automatic bursts" as being true to the original text's meaning?
Assuming yes, I'm moving on.
ALL of the following are true given the criteria of "suppressive fire is a combination of controlled and fully automatic bursts" .
Suppressive fire is always a combination of both controlled AND fully automatic bursts.
Suppressive fire is categorically a combination of both controlled AND fully automatic bursts.
Suppressive fire is categorically a combination of both controlled AND fully automatic bursts, but individual cases can be exclusively one or exclusively the other.
Suppressive fire is categorically a combination of both controlled AND fully automatic bursts where individual cases can include both types of bursts in any combination.
Suppressive fire is descriptively made up of such kinds of bursts as controlled AND fully automatic burst, but potentially can implicitly include other kinds of bursts because this is a descriptive list.
Suppressive fire is exhaustively composed of only controlled AND fully automatic bursts, but can be individually composed of either.
Suppressive fire is exhaustively composed of only controlled AND fully automatic bursts, and each instance must include both.
Suppressive fire is exhaustively composed of only controlled AND fully automatic bursts, and each instance can include either or both.
I mean, thats 8 potential meanings right there still sticking to the the "AND MEANS AND!" paradigm. I could have given more. And this isn't up for debate, btw. If you want to argue you're arguing with the English language not me.
If you want to argue about which meaning you feel the author PROBABLY meant, do so. I did so, basing my opinion on there being a lack of restrictions in the
actual rules, making this "fluff sentence" completely unsupported if read to mean FA only. It does still give insight to author's intent, agreed. I agree that 1 bullet from a SS gun should not be able to perform suppressive fire based solely on the presence of this line. Because again there's no rules mention of a restriction on firing modes. Ever.
And IMO that's the final word on the question. The rules don't ever give any restriction on firing modes for suppressive fire. It's a binary truth with not a lot of wiggle room. All we're arguing about at this point is whether one possible reading of ambiguous flavor text out of many possible readings counts the same as the rules explicitly giving a restriction. My agreement with those I'm arguing with extends only to the point that the flavor text makes it clear that bursts of some kind(s) should need to be used. There's too much ambiguity and too little supporting evidence from the rules to go decisively beyond that, leaving the negative state of an absence of a restriction on firing modes as the status quo for the rules on suppressive fire.