Troops use 250,000 bullets for every insurgent killed

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   


US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.
...
The Pentagon reportedly bought 313 million rounds of 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50-calibre ammunition last year and paid $10m (about £5.5m) more than it would have cost for it to produce the ammunition at its own facilities.


I am baffled. I don't know what to comment on. The mentality that "if force isn't working, use more force" or the insanity of doing the same thing and expecting different results.

I guess my comment is ... Wow, this is amazing and eye-opening...

I was so blown away, I forgot to add the link.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
yup, I read that whole story too BH, and thought about bringing it here, but then I spotted the NSA story and thought it was more urgent. I was just on my way back there to grab it, and saw this, hehe....You go girl!


Anyway, one thing to remember is that a good bit of that figure was ammunition used in training. But even so, it is still an amazing statistic. I suppose you saw the story on how the pentagon can't account for their umpety ump $ trillion in war spending? With statistics like these, I am starting to see why!



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I always hear reports of all of the needless killing in Iraq.....this sounds like there is a lot of restraint being shown....250,000 rounds per Iraqi insurgent killed seems like an awful lot of "warning" rounds being fired.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
The report indicates that the US armed forces are expending about double the amount of small arms ammo compared to what they were expending prior to 9/11. Considering we are killing terrorists at a rate of probably better than 1,000% more (at least) than we we prior to 9/11, the figures aren't very surprising at all.

"The Department of Defense's increased requirements for small- and medium-calibre ammunitions have largely been driven by increased weapons training requirements, dictated by the army's transformation to a more self-sustaining and lethal force - which was accelerated after the attacks of 11 September, 2001 - and by the deployment of forces to conduct recent US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq".

So whats next? The shocking news that we are burning twice as much jet fuel? Or that our consumption of MRE's has quadrupled in the last 5 years?



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Shouldnt this post be in the Weapons forum? More appropriate place I would think.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I was just on my way back there to grab it, and saw this, hehe....You go girl!



Great minds, huh?




Anyway, one thing to remember is that a good bit of that figure was ammunition used in training.


Yes, that was mentioned in the article:



Pointing out that officials say many of these bullets have been used for training purposes, he said: "What are you training for? To kill insurgents."



Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
250,000 rounds per Iraqi insurgent killed seems like an awful lot of "warning" rounds being fired.


Or maybe they're just really, really bad shots!



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Another thing to consider is that the numbers are wrong. I clipped this from the noted link.

"Washington military research group GlobalSecurity.org, said that, based on the GAO's figures, US forces had expended around six billion bullets between 2002 and 2005. "How many evil-doers have we sent to their maker using bullets rather than bombs? I don't know," he said."

That equates to about 13,334 bullets per soldier that we have over there. Sorry, I think the numbers are off just a tad.





[edit on 26-9-2005 by Toelint]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
This is hardly earth shattering news guys. Rounds per kill have always been this high in almost every conflict ever measured, for ALL sides. Factor in injured rather than just deaths and the numbers change entirely. We treat nearly 100% of our enemy wounded in Iraq right now, whats the suprise they arent dying?

This is only "news" because its shows the American stats, try to find the insurgents stats why don’t you as a comparison? Maybe compare it to other conflicts and other nations?

You wont because showing this stat the way you do proves some sort of point or agenda you have, even though these numbers are hardly conclusive, accurate, or even remotely reflect all the factors. Let alone other nations and other conflicts.

Nothing to see here folks, just another one side’s analysis of data skewed to promote anti American rhetoric.




[edit on 26-9-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
not to mention forgot to add part of the article where it says they expended ammo on training. so just dont expect the troops expended ammo on terrorists only.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Sounds a little high. Wouldn't want those people on my side in a bear hunt.

On the bright side we can now understand why rock throwing became a norm. Recycleable?



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Also we should keep in mind that not every single bullets fired are intended to kill. The article make it sound like soldiers have bad accuracy. Just to name one example, you know some times when a HMMWV roll over an IED, they start spraying around to counter a potential embush and keep insurgents head down while US soldiers get the hell out.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
hmmm ............the " logic " of this story is fatally flawed , you cannot use TOTAL ammo expenditure over a period , divided my ememy combatant deaths as any meaningfull statistic

i am not sure just how the US military " stock contriols " its small arms ammo - but i am sure they will have a more detailed break down of " training " and " action " ammo issues and more important - how many rounds are being shiped to iraq and how many to the training depots where troops are preparing for deployment

if we can see these figures - we can get a clearer picture of the true rounds / casualty figure

a soldier who has fired off 1000 rounds at a FIBUA simulation training estabilisment is more likley to hit a greater percent of the enemy he fires on , AND hit fewer bystanders , AND fire at fewer shadows



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
how many rounds are being shiped to iraq and how many to the training depots where troops are preparing for deployment


Trained to do what? Deployment to where? They talked about this in the article. Did you read it? Did you read the thread?


Originally posted by ufia
The article make it sound like soldiers have bad accuracy.


The article didn't speculate on the reason for so much ammo being used, and did not 'make it sound like' the soldiers have bad accuracy. I suggest that is a personal interpretation.

It's simply a look at the amount of ammo being used and the fact that we can't keep up with it.



A government report says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine.


[edit on 26-9-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Our "personal interpretation" is tempered by your affinity for anti US rhetoric and perpetual hatred.

Please don’t insult us by denying that your intent is to imply bad aim or incompetent troops, it’s absurd to think you are capable of implying anything else with your history of postings. Its no accident you posted this on the Terrorism forum before it was moved here.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
QUOTE : "Trained to do what? "


does this REALLY have to be spelt out




QUOTE : "Deployment to where? "

fer crying out loud ! , i will give you 3 guesses

QUOTE : "They talked about this in the article."

yes they do - thus highlighting their fallacy


here in the UK we have a mantra " train hard , fight easy " , i thought my post was quite clear



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i thought my post was quite clear


Your post was clear. I apologize if mine wasn't.


I meant that the numbers in the article are including the training bullets because they are used in training to go to Iraq and kill insurgents.

An analogy would be that if you spent $250,000 to go to law school, then spent $250,000 to open a practice, you could rightfully say that you had spent $500,000 to have this practice.

Yeah, it probably only takes one bullet to actually kill an insurgent, but there are the shoot-em-ups they have done to buildings, cars, and other property. There's the training to kill insurgents. And let's not forget the accidental discharges as was mentioned in an earlier post.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Yeah, it probably only takes one bullet to actually kill an insurgent, but there are the shoot-em-ups they have done to buildings, cars, and other property. There's the training to kill insurgents. And let's not forget the accidental discharges as was mentioned in an earlier post.


yep the 5.56 rounds are just too small to take down a tango. not to mention terrorists dont usually stand there and let u hit them. they be hidin behind cars and buildings or ditches. a suicide car bomber headin straight towards u...well i know wat u would do...rock and roll at the car before he hits u and BOOOOM.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Not to mention that if there are 10 soldiers in a platoon, and an insurgent is shooting at them from a window, they're not going to sit there and yell "Frank! Your turn to kill him!" and sit there watching while Frank shoots the guy. EVERYBODY in range is going to open up on him. Now if all 10 soldiers fire one round (which AIN'T gonna happen), and kill him, then suddenly you have 10 rounds to kill one terrorist.

If you're trying to keep them from shooting back at you, which do you think is going to be more effective....One guy shooting 5 or 6 rounds, or 10 guys firing at full-auto blasting away with 200 rounds.

[edit on 9/26/2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
For what it is worth, when I served in basic training, I think I only got the chance to fire no more than 300 rounds between the M16 and M60 the whole time. That was the extent of our marksmanship training. Of course their are other MOS' which require more live fire training.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
not to mention forgot to add part of the article where it says they expended ammo on training. so just dont expect the troops expended ammo on terrorists only.

Right, I went through thousands of rounds on the M-16 and M-60 and never hit anything but paper targets. M-60 ammo comes in 100 round belts and you can run through that in 30 seconds easy. Practice, practice, practice. That way you're good when you need to be.

Yet another useless statistic. Let's compare nuclear weapons detonated by the US with actual cities hit and include training rounds. Man the accuracy of these bombers is horrible. They only hit 2 out of dozens of attempts. Considering that almost counts with nuclear weapons, the US must be horrible at using and delivering these things.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join