Each Kill takes 250,000 bullets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

I have heard that training using around 90% of all the ammunition fired by the forces, no links to prove it just the figure that has been bandied around at work. Added to this is the fact that the most rapid firing weapons are used for suppression, not accuracy, you can see where the seemingly high figures come from.

---

Well I personally fired more rounds in training - then I ever did in combat. About 95% more fired in training.

250000 bullets for a single kill.Thats what i call SUPPRESSIVE fire. ~;)

The numbers are justifiable to me. Suppressive fire keeps our guys safe and training is very important. :bow:

I’m wondering though, are we using the best weapon for the job? ~:confused: Aren’t weapons with a wider blast area (like a shotgun) better for urban areas? With a shotgun type weapon you can just fire in the right direction and stand a good chance of hitting the target at least a little, right? (Works with deer, but they don’t require as much suppressing fire ~;) )

Maybe some of the Orgs army members can tell if US soldiers are using shotguns in urban enviroment.In our army only forces that use shotgun are the special forces and military police. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

Maybe some of the Orgs army members can tell if US soldiers are using shotguns in urban enviroment.In our army only forces that use shotgun are the special forces and military police. :bow:

---

Up until 2000 when I got out of the military - The United States used primarily the M16A3 and the M4 for individual weapons in combat. Special Forces, Rangers, and the MP's got a wider choice.

Shotguns are mostly used by the SF and for shooting rabid dogs on airfields ~;) . We don't issue many to the green army.

thought soldiers got trained to fire acurate...this is like a 5 year old with a toygun

When I was in the French army, shot gun were not in the basic equipment. Contrary to the common belief, the assault riffles aren’t design to kill. I even remember that the French one, the FAMAS, was re-design because too efficient (movement of the bullet). If you want to kill, use a hunting gun.
A dead soldier is dead and that is it. An injured soldier will immobilised more troops. To evacuate injured soldier means a need of transport, a protection and logistic which could be used somewhere else if he is dead. All movement is slowed down, moral is affected etc…
The amount of bullets needed to incapacitate is also due to high speed of fire. A multi-barrel machinegun fires 1000 bullets per second.
The usual distance in combat is 200 metres. A shot gun range is far less than that. It was used in jungle, but I doubt of its efficiency in urban environment. A 5.56mm (NATO calibre) will go through concrete and walls, not the hunting gun ammunition…

Thanks for the info guys. :bow: This brings another good question what i didnt think of before.Becouse the modern infantry doctrine isnt about killing your enemy but making him harmles(They also teached us in the Finnish army to shoot into center of the enemy).How many guerrillas in Iraq and Afghanistan have been wounded with those rounds of ammo?

Lets train our men to shoot better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Lets train our men to shoot better.

---

This was the reason why Sniper School was formed in Fort Benning. It's also one of the reasons why the M16A1 was phased out in favor of the A2.
Too many people "spraying and praying" with assault rifles in Vietnam, not enough people taking clear shots.

In the US Army, you are required to hit at least 24 targets (ranging from 50m to 300m) out of a total of 40 targets to even graduate basic training. Those that dont are recycled into new training units and start all over again.

This is about as hilarious as when I read that in WWI the Brits had to pay a royalty to a German company for every shell they fired at Germany in the war. ~D Business is buisness I guess. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evil_maniac from mars

This is about as hilarious as when I read that in WWI the Brits had to pay a royalty to a German company for every shell they fired at Germany in the war. ~D Business is buisness I guess. ~;)

---

Hahaha... that's sick! Well, did they pay up then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evil_maniac from mars

This is about as hilarious as when I read that in WWI the Brits had to pay a royalty to a German company for every shell they fired at Germany in the war. ~D Business is buisness I guess. ~;)

---

I posted that. It was from a book called The Arms of Krupp. An excellent read for miliary history buffs. It traces the engineering, evolution, usage, politics and economics of artillery from Napoleon to Hitler. An amazing book.

Well AFAIK the 5.56 mm was not made the new standard caliber because it wounded more than old bullets, but because it was lighter so you could have more ammo and easier to shoot with as it had smaller recoil AND had same stopping power as the older/heavier ammo.

I have heard about the idea that wounding is better and I see that is something a desktop general would think about in terms of annoying enemy logistics but I bet if you ask any soldier about what weapon he wants he would pick the one that has the biggest chance of stopping his foe. And its always better to make big holes in the enemy soldiers than small holes if you want to stop quick.

The special tumbling/fragmentation effect of the 5.56 is supposed to be a bit of a hype especially with the new carbines (M4?) as it doesnt have as high muzzle velocity, combined with a new round that doesnt fragments as easy. I saw some comments on websites suggesting the problem had always been there (since the caliber got introduced in Vietnam) and it was basically a lie that it really had same or more power than the old 7.62 mm

Brenus: do you have any links on that redesign of the FAMAS?


CBR