Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

TERRORISM: The War on Terror Causing Ammo Depletion

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
The US Military is running out of small-arms ammunition.
Unlike the consumer market, where ammo is easily obtained from many manufacturers, the military's ammo is all manufactured at one plant. Currently that plant is running 24 hours a day, 6 days a week, and they're still not able to keep up with demand for 5.56 mm rifle rounds, 7.62 mm and .50 caliber machine gun ammunition, and 9 mm pistol rounds.
 

Producing four million rounds a day, the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant is running at capacity. Because they're unable to produce the needed rounds, two additional production contracts were awarded last month to Olin Winchester and Israeli Military Industries. Production is set to begin in June, providing 70 million rifle rounds each month. These contracts represent a rare foray into the recreational and overseas sectors for military ammunition.
Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are given priority when it comes to ammo supplies, leaving stateside troops to struggle when it comes to battlefield live-fire training.

Seattle Times




posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
There must be a hell of a lot of shooting going on.



posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
There must be a hell of a lot of shooting going on.


My thoughts exactly. Especially for a War that was supposed to be Won months ago! Perhaps it's not as "Under Control" as we've been told.

So is it wise Military Procedure to put all the Eggs(Ammo) into one basket(Manufacture)?

Not like we don't have other Tactical Alternatives, at least I should hope, to the Ammo they're running low on. But how wise is it to Focus so intensely on "Invasion and Prolonged Warfare" in a territory so far away that it leaves your HomeLand Possibly Vulnerable without sufficient Military Supply? Especially with threats of Terroism so High within the HomeLand?

Sun Tzu said: From the Art of War
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war,
cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.


I guess it's a good thing many American People have held strong to their "Right to Bear Arms", just in case the worst possible situation presents itself.
"It's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it!"


Amendment II-Bill of Rights

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Banshee,
According to the below article, the problem is "procurement":

"PROCUREMENT: Why There's a Bullet Shortage"
Link:
www.strategypage.com...


Excerpt:

"January 12, 2004: The U.S. Army produces or procures 350 different types of munitions (bombs, bullets, grenades, rockets and so on.) Currently, it has shortages in 25 of those items, the most noticeable being fragmentation grenades and blank ammo for the M-16 rifle and SAW light machine-gun. The Department of Defense produces all of its small arms ammunition at one factory, in Lake City, Missouri (the largest plant for 5.56mm-20mm ammo in the world). But this facility is now running 24/7 and Congress is under pressure re-open older, smaller, mothballed plants. The Lake City plant can produce over a billion cartridges (mostly various types of 5.56mm ammo) a year, so why the shortages? A large part of it has to do with troops getting ready for duty in Iraq. This involves a lot of infantry training, and that requires a lot of blank 5.56mm ammunition. There was apparently a lack of coordination between the people in the Pentagon deciding to greatly expand infantry training, but no one told the Joint Munitions Command so that production of munitions used in training could be increased. This sort of thing was not a problem during the Cold War, when there were always large "war reserve stocks" of ammunition. This was necessary because the main threat was the Warsaw Pact (the Soviet Union and it's East European allies) that threatened to invade Western Europe. A war there would last a while and require huge quantities of ammo to keep the troops supplied while munitions plants increased production. So thousands of tons of ammunition was always kept in stockpiles. But this ammo would degrade with age. Thus every year there were large quantities of "use it or lose it" ammo reaching the point where you either fired it off or recycled it. Once the Cold War ended, so did the need for the large war reserve stocks of ammo. Billions of dollars a year could be saved by sharply reducing the war reserve stocks, and that was what happened. Unfortunately, there were some miscalculations in doing that, and there have been periodic shortages of 5.56mm ammo over the last few years. No one at the Pentagon will give a straight answer as to why this is happening, but whatever planning system they are using, it needs a little tweaking."


Here's what I found conflicting:

"So thousands of tons of ammunition was always kept in stockpiles. But this ammo would degrade with age. Thus every year there were large quantities of "use it or lose it" ammo reaching the point where you either fired it off or recycled it."

IMHO, this is incorrect in that if the ammo is stored properely, the shelf-life of ammo is virtually indefinite.

I think relying on a single supply point and/or source for munitions, ie: bullets, is foolish and needs to be studied and quite possibly changed to a more effecient method of creation and dispersal.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Woah! only one factory making all the ammo? sounds foolish to me! If there was a war in the US and ennemy forces destroyed or captured that factory or it was destroyed by terrorists, it would mean no more ammo, at all, at a time where it would be most needed. I agree, other factories distributed in many areas would be a wise plan. What does the military plan on doing if they loose their means of manufacturing ammo? Get slingshots and start shooting rocks?


I cant believe the US military could be so careless about its means of supply.





new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join