User Panel
Posted: 9/27/2005 2:43:55 AM EDT
|
|
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. |
|
How much of that ammo is used for training prior to and during the deployment?
|
|
Didnt see any Anti-war/Anti-Americanism in there. Read like a well researched article. |
|
|
Not all rounds are aimed at the bad guys. Firearms are made to take out equipment too.
|
|
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. |
|
"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. |
||
|
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 |
|
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 |
|||
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
|
The stupid bitch said nothing that was relevant in any way concerning the article's purported topic. |
|
|
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. |
|
+1 |
|||
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
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. |
||
|
Let's just drop the whole thing. I'm depressed now. I better order some super ninja trash to mount on my rifle.
|
|
then again, it might very well be. |
||
|
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. |
|
We call those quotes around WoT, "scare quotes".
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. |
||
|
You a fucking commie? |
|||
|
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.
|
|
At $0.20 per rounds, that is $50,000 per kill. That's more than I make in a year.
|
|
Sounds good to me . |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.