Each Kill takes 250,000 bullets

I would not have believed it unless I read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INDEPENDENT

26.09.05
By Andrew Buncombe

WASHINGTON - United States forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand.

As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.

A US Government report says that US forces are using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine and increased training.

Estimating how many bullets US forces have expended for every insurgent killed is not a simple or precisely scientific matter.

The former head of US forces in Iraq, General Tommy Franks, famously claimed that his forces "don't do body counts".

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

John Pike, director of the Washington military research group GlobalSecurity.org, said that, based on General Accounting Office figures, US forces expended around 6 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."

The General Accounting Office report notes that the three Government-owned, contractor-operated plants that produce small- and medium-calibre ammunition were built in 1941.

Though millions of dollars have been spent on upgrading the facilities, they remain unable to meet current munitions needs.

"As a result," the report says, "the Department of Defence had to rely at least in part on foreign commercial producers to meet its small-calibre ammunition needs."

A report in Manufacturing & Technology News said that the Pentagon eventually found two producers capable of meeting its requirements.

One of these was the US firm Olin-Winchester.

The other was Israel Military Industries, an ammunition manufacturer linked to the Israeli Government, which produces the bulk of weapons and ordnance for the Israeli Defence Force.

The Pentagon reportedly bought 313 million rounds of 5.56mm, 7.62mm and 50-calibre ammunition last year and paid US$10 million ($14.6 million) more than it would have cost for it to produce the ammunition at its own facilities.

- INDEPENDENT

---

LINK

That is one heluva lot of bullets. I wonder how many stray bullets killed non-insurgents.

BTW: I heard in WWII it was about 10-20,000 bullets per kill.

Um, I know that most guns are supposed to be rapid fire, and you usually fire more than one at a guy, but this is just nuts.

Oi.

Though I kinda like the irony of using Israeli bullets to kill insurgents.

See, with sabers and bows you don't have this problem. Yes not every arrow hits the mark, but they can often be reused. ~D

Training, warning, cover fire, squeeze and pray, wounding and then killing a guy.

Multiple the rate of fire of Napolean weapon 2 or 3 a minute?

M16 about 800 per minute at max?

so That is about 400 times as fast.

Napolean bullets to kill a man * rate of fire ratio of a M16 to Napolean rifle.
400 * 400 = 160 000.

More cover used and less open warfare. But it seems the amount of kills per minute of combat is about the same.

Does Israel make arrows? ~D

Quote:

---

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."

---

Erm.. a bit of a biased article.

There should have been much more focus on this aspect.

How many bullets are being used to train both US and Iraq and Afghani troops? How many are being used in live fire exercises?

This has abeen the case for a long time now...didnt it cost like $25,000 to kill a german in WW2? or something ridiculous like that?

I would say that anything more than 1 bullet pr kill is very bad statistics. and shows the army boys need much training. they shud all read Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six

We just need to regress to the Classical style.

Insurgent maniples battling against U.S. pezeraitoi and katapfraktori... bow-and-arrow shootouts in the streets... :dizzy2:

On the upside, no bombs. ~:cheers:

Well, if each country used it's traditional style of warfare, I'd bet on the Afganis and Iraqis... And Iranians, and pretty much everyone else in Central Asia. ~;)

Well in a typical skirmish you would see lots of shots fired but not many being hit. A convoy is attacked and troops firing at enemies that are in cover as well as potiential insurgent positions. AFAIK US troops are doing this a lot more often than regular attacks on an enemy postion.

So that would explain the large amount of ammunition used. Having semi/full automatic weapons also means more shots fired than say in WW2.

I dont really see any bias in the article. The fact is the US troops spends a lot of ammo and being involved in such a large scale operation like Iraq+Afghanistan they simply dont have the production capacity to replace it all.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

I would say that anything more than 1 bullet pr kill is very bad statistics. and shows the army boys need much training. they shud all read Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six

---

The Rainbow troopers practiced the double tap, which required at least 3 rounds, 2 in the chest 1 the head.

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.aler....low.ammo.html

Quote:

---

The Army estimates that it consumes about 5.5 million rounds of ammunition in Iraq and Afghanistan each month. About 72 million rounds have been used in Iraq. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the military began requiring that soldiers conduct live-fire training twice a year, instead of once, consuming about a 100 million rounds a month.

---

Article from July 2004 so I guess the US Army has spent around 150 million rounds now and shows most is used in the increased training and it would be about 7500 rounds/killed insurgent for those who are interested in such details.


CBR

That's better.

Good article, CBR. The Independent is now "sensationalist" too.

Well its clear that the journalist didnt do his research properly. Either he just hates America or he is sloppy ~:)


CBR

Quote:

---

Estimating how many bullets US forces have expended for every insurgent killed is not a simple or precisely scientific matter.

---

Keyword expended not shot at insurgents, just expended.

Most companies include training costs into the costs of employing someone.

Just imagine if USA hadn't invaded Iraq then it could only be based on killed enemies in Afghanistan so the number would be maybe 5-10 times higher ~;)


CBR

Maybe it would be cheaper just to pay them off.... ~;)

Forget bullets.

Bomb their citys untill every last one of them is dead... ~D

The military has always used live fire to train soldiers - that is how you train. ITs not rocket science to see that the author of the article has his own baised in reporting the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercian billman

The Rainbow troopers practiced the double tap, which required at least 3 rounds, 2 in the chest 1 the head.

---

That's cooper method, the double tap is the rapid pair of shots at the center of mass.

Seamus

All in all, I prefer expending ammunition to expending my fellow Americans, so this bothers me little.

Most ammunition used in combat is fired in the general direction of the enemy in the near certain knowledge that you won't hit her or him. The point is to keep them behind cover so that can't be shooting at you or your mates while your group gets better position.

Seamus

Quote:

---

The Army estimates that it consumes about 5.5 million rounds of ammunition in Iraq and Afghanistan each month. About 72 million rounds have been used in Iraq. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the military began requiring that soldiers conduct live-fire training twice a year, instead of once, consuming about a 100 million rounds a month.

---

So training consumes 20 times as much ammo as warfare.

So the following has been sensationalised:

Quote:

---

A US Government report says that US forces are using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as changes in military doctrine and increased training.

---

The order of the words is normally most important to least so it should have been written:

Quote:

---

A US Government report says that US forces are using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years, largely as a result changes in military doctrine and increased training, and a tiny proportion due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

---

Since training is largely the reason that more ammo is being used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

That's cooper method, the double tap is the rapid pair of shots at the center of mass.

Seamus

---

If you are refering to Col. Jeff Cooper, Marine Corps Ret., the two the chest and one to the head, I believe, was originaly called the Rhodesian Double Tap.

Eh... So they way you put bullets in your enemy even got it's own name !! ???

This statistic is based on insurgents and frankly it is biased...

...now add all those innocents that these bullets have killed and then your average U.S soldier becomes out of a sudden rather accurate.

Same with roadside bombs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

This statistic is based on insurgents and frankly it is biased...

...now add all those innocents that these bullets have killed and then your average U.S soldier becomes out of a sudden rather accurate.

Same with roadside bombs.

---

I was thinking the same thing.

Also the blurred distinction between innocent and insurgent makes the statistics, ultimately, impossible to definitely determine.

DA

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.

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