We wouldn't have to worry about that if soldiers simply went for the one shot kill. Its a complete waste of ammo to lay down fully automatic fire when one bullet is going to kill the enemy.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
We wouldn't have to worry about that if soldiers simply went for the one shot kill. Its a complete waste of ammo to lay down fully automatic fire when one bullet is going to kill the enemy.

Thats going to be difficult thing to pull off considering that - historically- 80% of all fire is unaimed

Part of the problem is overt reliance on high tech ordnance to achieve 'victory' This limits others aspects of deployment. In 1991 the brits used 104 ships to deliver a 34K force with 14.7K Vehicles in 22 weeks. In 2003 they used 78 ships to deliver 32k troops with 15k vehicles in 10 weeks.The 2003 force had less armor 120 tanks compared to 150 in 1991 but it was more or less the same.

The downside was that only 1/2 the 215 x jets/helos were operational while only 1/3 as much ammo was sent as in 1991.Reports surfaced during the war of severe shortages in small arms...not a surprise if only 1/3 of the ammo was sent!

Did they not have the delivery capacity to send the munitions?
Did they not have them instock?
DId they not want to pay the cost of transfere?

Originally posted by cyberdude78
We wouldn't have to worry about that if soldiers simply went for the one shot kill. Its a complete waste of ammo to lay down fully automatic fire when one bullet is going to kill the enemy.

I'd like to see you hit anything beyond 50 meters with an M16 with only one shot.... that you'd probably have .00001 second to aim.

Also, ever heard of supression fire? You can't pin an enemy without a proper volume of fire on them, usually this means 5 to 10 SAWs blazing away.

Nah I wouldn't worry about them not having bullets it will get done i can guarantee you that cuz without bullets we cant fight war so that would never happen also the military tired to make the M-16 more efficient by making it only capable of a 3 round burst instead of full automatic modern M-16 don't have full automatic capabilities cuz it was a waste of bullets.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Nah I wouldn't worry about them not having bullets it will get done i can guarantee you that cuz without bullets we cant fight war so that would never happen also the military tired to make the M-16 more efficient by making it only capable of a 3 round burst instead of full automatic modern M-16 don't have full automatic capabilities cuz it was a waste of bullets.

OOOOOO the M16 fires 3 round burst!!! LOGISTICS PROBLEMS SOLVED

Please, it's more complicated then that. The average soldier carries above 200 rounds with him, he'll probably use it all in one firefight.

Originally posted by Kozzy

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Nah I wouldn't worry about them not having bullets it will get done i can guarantee you that cuz without bullets we cant fight war so that would never happen also the military tired to make the M-16 more efficient by making it only capable of a 3 round burst instead of full automatic modern M-16 don't have full automatic capabilities cuz it was a waste of bullets.

OOOOOO the M16 fires 3 round burst!!! LOGISTICS PROBLEMS SOLVED

Please, it's more complicated then that. The average soldier carries above
200 rounds with him, he'll probably use it all in one firefight.

Im just telling you what the army did no need to be a...about it im sure they can carry as many rounds as they can I was just saying one way the army tried to save ammo.


[edit on 24-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

A three round burst is a lot better than full automatic fire. Its more ammo efficent. If every soldier using a few less bullets per kill than the shortage can be slowed down by a lot. You would save thousands if not millions of bullets.

Originally posted by Kozzy

I'd like to see you hit anything beyond 50 meters with an M16 with only one shot.... that you'd probably have .00001 second to aim.

Also, ever heard of supression fire? You can't pin an enemy without a proper volume of fire on them, usually this means 5 to 10 SAWs blazing away.

I completely agree, any fire that prevents an enemy from returning fire is a positive, but then the enemy learns to hide better.

Using supression fire on a target is actually useless in a standoff, unless you have a number of units flanking to the sides to take out the target while he is hiding from the SAWs.

Supression fire is not only positive, but necessary and a basic part of any kind of tactics. You cannot maneavuer against an enemy without supression, to do so would be suicide. With firepower, there can be no maneauver, meaning there can be no victory.

Originally posted by Kozzy
Supression fire is not only positive, but necessary and a basic part of any kind of tactics. You cannot maneavuer against an enemy without supression, to do so would be suicide. With firepower, there can be no maneauver, meaning there can be no victory.

Yeah I think this is true when you are ambushed and your trying to save ammo you are done you need suppressing fire that is why they have the SAW and M-60 troops need suppressing fire when they are in a tough spot.

Originally posted by Kozzy
Supression fire is not only positive, but necessary and a basic part of any kind of tactics. You cannot maneavuer against an enemy without supression, to do so would be suicide. With firepower, there can be no maneauver, meaning there can be no victory.

Kozzy knows what hes talking about. The first thing you learn in city assault combat is about suppression/flank. And if you think popping off 3 rounds each at a bunkered in enemy is suppression then its quite obvious you've never been in a fire fight. Building up the nerve to even peak up for a split second to lay down suppressing fire is titilating. Being the guy to flank during suppression is heart wrecking. This strategy alone is why the US is doing so much better then the insurgents. We have better suppresive fire. We can lay down more bullets over their head for our guys to flank/kill/grenade. Versus their few AK's.

And whoever said fire 3 burst shots at 50m away is smart obviously has never faced a barrage of bullets being shot at YOU from 50m away.

Reviewing my post I realise it didn't come out right.

I myself was in the military so know a little (i wasn't Inf. though).

What I was trying to say is that you NEED suppression fire, but not as the only method of attack, you need units to flank aswell, or coordinate with reload times with snipers so the enemy lifts their heads to fire during the lull, we all know a soldier with an AK will be laying higher (if he is holding rifle upright, not sideways) than a soldier with a M-4, bah I'm rambling now.

Conclusion = suppression is good, but not as only attack option.

This was obvious as far back as WW-II. When Allied forces encountered the germans the found out what the real meaning of 'firesuperiority' was all about. USA squads had self loading rifles [30 rpm] and the Bars [SAW with 300-400 RPM]. Germans had bolt action rifles with a mere 12 RPM but each squad had at least 1 x Mg 34/42 LMG. THese monsters could spew out 1000-1100 RPM smokeless ammo. To make matters worse the entire german squad capability evolved around supporting these monsters, carring extra ammo and digging alternative positions for the MG. So the LMG was shifting from position to position without being detected inflicted horrible casulties in the Boccage country.

Allies found that even if the german companies were reduced to only 50 men , as long as they had a dozen LMGs, they could hold a company frontage and the allies had to unlesh its arty just to advance.

We just need the enemy to start carrying ak-74's instead of ak-47's


But seriously all the government needs to do is stop wasting so much money on the fancy tech. You can bomb a country all you want with your stealth bombers and fancy laser guided banana's but when all is said and done its always going to be the ground units who clean up the remainder of the enemies, and occupy the cities. So we should give them better urban training and accuracy, and for crying out loud make sure they have enough ammo, you might as well go in swinging a big stick if you dont have any bullets.

[edit on 26-7-2004 by daeldren]

Well I'm sure the little program involving free plastic surgery costs unnessesary money. Plus going to war with Iraq was unnessesary. That cost who knows how much money. Then we paid 80 billion to help rebuild some of it after we blew it up. Thats were we have money problems.

As far as amunition goes, it's better to have and not need than to need and not have.

As far as amunition goes, it's better to have and not need than to need and not have.

My god you are a genius we really did not know that until you told it to us thank you very much we would have never know that
But seriously that is why future battles will include lasers rather than bullets no ammo but you better pack some batteries with you

Originally posted by daeldren
We just need the enemy to start carrying ak-74's instead of ak-47's

The ak-74 uses 5.45X39 calibur ammunition while the ak-47 uses 7.62X39 calibur.
The NATO standards are 5.56X45 for it's small calibur round and the
7.62X51 for it's large calibur bullet.