Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/27/2005 2:43:55 AM EDT
250,000 rounds per insurgent! Holy crap.
Article from a UK paper

Link Posted: 9/27/2005 2:57:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 2:59:09 AM EDT by Sukebe]
The tone of the article is anti war and anti U.S.. Who cares how many rounds fired per insurgent?
Frankly, I say the more rounds the better. It's called suppressive fire for a reason. If you can't just blow the shit out of the objective, you saturate the target with fire while our forces advance on the objective. Pretty elementary. I've got about 5,000 rounds of surplus 5.56. If they use it to kill Hajji, they can have it.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 4:45:56 AM EDT
How much of that ammo is used for training prior to and during the deployment?
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 5:17:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
The tone of the article is anti war and anti U.S.. Who cares how many rounds fired per insurgent?
Frankly, I say the more rounds the better. It's called suppressive fire for a reason. If you can't just blow the shit out of the objective, you saturate the target with fire while our forces advance on the objective. Pretty elementary. I've got about 5,000 rounds of surplus 5.56. If they use it to kill Hajji, they can have it.



Didnt see any Anti-war/Anti-Americanism in there. Read like a well researched article.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 5:18:36 AM EDT
Not all rounds are aimed at the bad guys. Firearms are made to take out equipment too.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 5:28:30 AM EDT
Normaly I don't do this but DUPE!!!

The stat includes all rounds fired in theater including training rounds. And as we all know not all rounds are shot spesificly to kill some bad guy, there is suppressive fire so guys can manuver. I think if you take just the number of rounds expended durring combat/security operations that it would be a hell of a lot lower. but there really is not a way to do that.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 5:53:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 6:31:22 AM EDT by Sukebe]

Originally Posted By gplg:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
The tone of the article is anti war and anti U.S.. Who cares how many rounds fired per insurgent?
Frankly, I say the more rounds the better. It's called suppressive fire for a reason. If you can't just blow the shit out of the objective, you saturate the target with fire while our forces advance on the objective. Pretty elementary. I've got about 5,000 rounds of surplus 5.56. If they use it to kill Hajji, they can have it.



Didnt see any Anti-war/Anti-Americanism in there. Read like a well researched article.



"Other estimates from military officials suggest that at least 20,000 insurgents have been killed in President George Bush's "war on terror".

"John Pike, director of the 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. If they don't do body counts, how can I? But using these figures it works out at around 300,000 bullets per insurgent. Let's round that down to 250,000 so that we are underestimating." 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."


Kathy Kelly, a spokeswoman for the peace group Voices in the Wilderness, said Mr Bush believed security for the American people could come only from the use of force. Truer security would be achieved if the US developed fairer relations with other countries and was not involved in the occupation of Iraq. The President, said Ms Kelly, should learn from Israel's experience of "occupying the Palestinians" rather than buying its ammunition.


You don't see bias in this "reporting". You don't see an anti war slant? You call interviewing kneejerk peace activists "research"? This rag took an innocuous GAO report based on facts and used it to express their anti war, anti Bush, anti American leanings and is trying to pass it off as news. Do you see them quoting US military strategists who could easily explain why so much small arms ammunition is being expended? No. Because the story isn't about the ammo. It's about the war.

Link Posted: 9/27/2005 5:58:03 AM EDT
Statistics are like bikinis. While what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is crucial. If we could come up with the number of U.S. and ally soldiers that are still alive 'cause Haj didn't wan't to stick his head up to shoot back, I bet the ammo used would look pretty insignificant. But then again, I may not know anything about anything. Just a thought...

Stych
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:41:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 7:52:57 AM EDT by gplg]

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By gplg:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
The tone of the article is anti war and anti U.S.. Who cares how many rounds fired per insurgent?
Frankly, I say the more rounds the better. It's called suppressive fire for a reason. If you can't just blow the shit out of the objective, you saturate the target with fire while our forces advance on the objective. Pretty elementary. I've got about 5,000 rounds of surplus 5.56. If they use it to kill Hajji, they can have it.



Didnt see any Anti-war/Anti-Americanism in there. Read like a well researched article.



"Other estimates from military officials suggest that at least 20,000 insurgents have been killed in President George Bush's "war on terror".

"John Pike, director of the 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. If they don't do body counts, how can I? But using these figures it works out at around 300,000 bullets per insurgent. Let's round that down to 250,000 so that we are underestimating." 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."


Kathy Kelly, a spokeswoman for the peace group Voices in the Wilderness, said Mr Bush believed security for the American people could come only from the use of force. Truer security would be achieved if the US developed fairer relations with other countries and was not involved in the occupation of Iraq. The President, said Ms Kelly, should learn from Israel's experience of "occupying the Palestinians" rather than buying its ammunition.


You don't see bias in this "reporting". You don't see an anti war slant? You call interviewing kneejerk peace activists "research"? This rag took an innocuous GAO report based on facts and used it to express their anti war, anti Bush, anti American leanings and is trying to pass it off as news. Do you see them quoting US military strategists who could easily explain why so much small arms ammunition is being expended? No. Because the story isn't about the ammo. It's about the war.





I dont know anything about global Security.org. Is it a liberal think tank?

I though the part with the hippie talking was an attempt to give an opposing view point, which I feel any good article should have.

edited to take out some of the flames
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:33:52 AM EDT
Globalsecurity.org is pretty solid, it's the opinion from the moonbat left that made the article spin.

The way I read it that includes worldwide consumption per year. Military aid, training, training ranges carried out in theater, and actual combat.

Me, I think I only used for or five mags worth last time not counting ranges. I know other 11B's who used even less.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:38:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 8:41:31 AM EDT by eddiein1984]
Wow, imagine that, an article that sites multiple sources from different views. Obviously the paper/writer are biased because they aren't telling you what you want to hear. Keep that dial on Fox!
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:52:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Wow, imagine that, an article that sites multiple sources from different views. Obviously the paper/writer are biased because they aren't telling you what you want to hear. Keep that dial on Fox!




Now you are reaching.


Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:56:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Wow, imagine that, an article that sites multiple sources from different views. Obviously the paper/writer are biased because they aren't telling you what you want to hear. Keep that dial on Fox!

Yeah, adding agenda-driven nonsense to provide "balance" is a great way to get at the truth.

The stupid bitch said nothing that was relevant in any way concerning the article's purported topic.

Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:03:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 9:09:44 AM EDT by eddiein1984]
OK, maybe that was a stretch, but I think the point is valid. Just because the "stupid bitch" didn't add much substance to the discussion, it doesn't mean the article is slanted. The article says here is an interesting statistic of material expenditures, what is the significance? It takes comments from multiple views. If she sounds like an idiot to you, then I guess her argument isn't strong. Just because she is quoted says nothing of the view of the author.

My point about McNamara was that he had generated an almost identical statistic during Vietnam. Instead of asking good questions like those being posed on this board, they tried to find a correlation between ammo shot and success. History repeating itself once again.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:13:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By gplg:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
The tone of the article is anti war and anti U.S.. Who cares how many rounds fired per insurgent?
Frankly, I say the more rounds the better. It's called suppressive fire for a reason. If you can't just blow the shit out of the objective, you saturate the target with fire while our forces advance on the objective. Pretty elementary. I've got about 5,000 rounds of surplus 5.56. If they use it to kill Hajji, they can have it.



Didnt see any Anti-war/Anti-Americanism in there. Read like a well researched article.



"Other estimates from military officials suggest that at least 20,000 insurgents have been killed in President George Bush's "war on terror".

"John Pike, director of the 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. If they don't do body counts, how can I? But using these figures it works out at around 300,000 bullets per insurgent. Let's round that down to 250,000 so that we are underestimating." 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."


Kathy Kelly, a spokeswoman for the peace group Voices in the Wilderness, said Mr Bush believed security for the American people could come only from the use of force. Truer security would be achieved if the US developed fairer relations with other countries and was not involved in the occupation of Iraq. The President, said Ms Kelly, should learn from Israel's experience of "occupying the Palestinians" rather than buying its ammunition.


You don't see bias in this "reporting". You don't see an anti war slant? You call interviewing kneejerk peace activists "research"? This rag took an innocuous GAO report based on facts and used it to express their anti war, anti Bush, anti American leanings and is trying to pass it off as news. Do you see them quoting US military strategists who could easily explain why so much small arms ammunition is being expended? No. Because the story isn't about the ammo. It's about the war.




+1
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:22:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 9:25:44 AM EDT by eddiein1984]
An article about the use of suppressive fire and squad movement probably wouldn't be worthy of comment by much of anyone outside the armed forces, now would it? But an article discussing the inability of the largest economy on earth to produce enough small arms ammunition to fight an insurgency, that might be worth talking about.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:29:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
An article about the use of suppressive fire and squad movement probably wouldn't be worthy of comment by much of anyone outside the armed forces, now would it? But an article discussing the inability of the largest economy on earth to produce enough small arms ammunition to fight an insurgency, that might be worth talking about.

Then again, it might not.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:37:01 AM EDT
sigh.... does this mean that any arfcommer with an ammo supply under 250,000 rounds is going to be mocked for being "underprepared"? lol

Time cash out the 401k - gotta order 250,000 rounds - hopefully I'll only be up against 1 bad guy

Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:39:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kc3:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
An article about the use of suppressive fire and squad movement probably wouldn't be worthy of comment by much of anyone outside the armed forces, now would it? But an article discussing the inability of the largest economy on earth to produce enough small arms ammunition to fight an insurgency, that might be worth talking about.

Then again, it might not.



That's a great point. Well put. Seeing as how this is AR15.com and most us shoot this very ammunition, and many of us are serving in those very same armed forces, it might be a little more worthy of discussion than the merits of the latest aluminum trinket to slap on our rifles.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:51:47 AM EDT
Got as far as seeing your link was from a UK news source...
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 10:00:13 AM EDT
Let's just drop the whole thing. I'm depressed now. I better order some super ninja trash to mount on my rifle.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 10:34:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kc3:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
An article about the use of suppressive fire and squad movement probably wouldn't be worthy of comment by much of anyone outside the armed forces, now would it? But an article discussing the inability of the largest economy on earth to produce enough small arms ammunition to fight an insurgency, that might be worth talking about.

Then again, it might not.



then again, it might very well be.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 10:50:03 AM EDT
Well when you figure the Army ammo infrastructure hadn't been modernized in way too long because it didn't generate sexy contractor dollars like a jet fighter, and the fact we get the amounts of training ammo suddenly since 9/11 that previously were reserved for the Ranger Regiment or JSOC, it's no surprise the industrial infrastructre lagged behind the demand.

What surprises me is that no one asks what mess we'd be in if we didn't live in a country with a robust civilian armament infrastructure.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:31:28 PM EDT

President George Bush's "war on terror".



We call those quotes around WoT, "scare quotes".


Kathy Kelly, a spokeswoman for the peace group Voices in the Wilderness, said Mr Bush believed security for the American people could come only from the use of force. Truer security would be achieved if the US developed fairer relations with other countries and was not involved in the occupation of Iraq. The President, said Ms Kelly, should learn from Israel's experience of "occupying the Palestinians" rather than buying its ammunition.


The article reeks of bias -- anyone who can seriously cite someone like that, with a straight face in a straight up news article that isn't even on that topic (they degenerated from ammo expenditure to "DEATH TO THE JOOOOS!" pretty damn quick), is either a fool or a fucking loon.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:47:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By kc3:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
An article about the use of suppressive fire and squad movement probably wouldn't be worthy of comment by much of anyone outside the armed forces, now would it? But an article discussing the inability of the largest economy on earth to produce enough small arms ammunition to fight an insurgency, that might be worth talking about.

Then again, it might not.



That's a great point. Well put. Seeing as how this is AR15.com and most us shoot this very ammunition, and many of us are serving in those very same armed forces, it might be a little more worthy of discussion than the merits of the latest aluminum trinket to slap on our rifles.

Lotta "us," there.

You a fucking commie?
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 7:26:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 7:26:33 PM EDT by DevL]
They are right. THe ammunition per casulaty is too great and too expensive. Nukes are cheaper. I say we level the whole place and spend the extra money on beer.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 7:58:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
They are right. THe ammunition per casulaty is too great and too expensive. Nukes are cheaper. I say we level the whole place and spend the extra money on beer.



OK I am confused about this whole article/thread.... I read the article, but I am not sure what the point is...
Is this just trivia?
Is the point that our combat troops can't shoot? (need more training, therefore use more ammo)
Is the point that our troops have no disipline and just fire for no reason or at nothing?
Is the point that we should bring the troops home because
1) We cannot afford the bullets?
2) We can't hit what we shoot at?
3) We are just wasting ammo and time?
Is the point that we cannot make enough bullets in this country? (So we should increase our supply?)
Is the point that we should outraged that we are buying bullets from Isreal? (Which I guess brings in the whole, using the Jews to kill Muslims, thing)

Personally, I think this is just useless trivia. I was in the army for 7 yrs and I would not want some bean counter behind a desk telling me to use less bullets. My understanding from the article is that we are consuming 1.8 billion rnds/yr which is double from 5yrs ago. So, we were using 900,000 rnds/yr when we were not fighting anyone..... More useless trivia....
I agree with DevL, nukes would be cheaper...

+1 on the beer
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:15:43 PM EDT
move this shit to another forum
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:24:17 PM EDT
At $0.20 per rounds, that is $50,000 per kill. That's more than I make in a year.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:11:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
They are right. THe ammunition per casulaty is too great and too expensive. Nukes are cheaper. I say we level the whole place and spend the extra money on beer.




Sounds good to me .
Top Top