Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Us Forced To Import Bullets From Israel As Troops Use 250,000 For Every Rebel Killed

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html

US 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 government report says that US forces are now 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.

"The Department of Defense's increased requirements for small- and medium-calibre ammunitions have largely been driven by increased weapons training requirements, dictated by the army's transformation to a more self-sustaining and lethal force - which was accelerated after the attacks of 11 September, 2001 - and by the deployment of forces to conduct recent US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq," said the report by the General Accounting Office (GAO).

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".

But senior officers have recently claimed "great successes" in Iraq, based on counting the bodies of insurgents killed. Maj-Gen Rick Lynch, the top US military spokesman in Iraq, said 1,534 insurgents had been seized or killed in a recent operation in the west of Baghdad. 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."

Always knew the US was trigger happy but this is insane. 250,000 bullets to kill one person.

Anyone know how many bullets where fired say in Iwo Jima?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html

Always knew the US was trigger happy but this is insane. 250,000 bullets to kill one person.

Anyone know how many bullets where fired say in Iwo Jima?

Don't know but I recall reaing similarly huge figures for Vietnam. Something relating to Snipers who managed around 1 kill per 1.8 rounds fired as against the military in general which used up several thousand pounds weight of munitions for every person killed or something along those lines. 250,000 rounds sounds a lot (and it is) but when you think that an M16 rifle or crew-fired machine gun will go through 650 rounds a minute (10.8 rounds per second) or more it's not too difficult to get those sorts of numbers. A multi baralled mini-gun or the larger type on A10 aircraft can fire at a rate of 6,000 rounds a min or 100 rounds a second. They fire so fast that the report of each shot blends into one the previous and produces a sound rather like tearing cloth.

Also, the type of fire you are employing has a lot to do with it. whomever you are firing at may be too far to realistically hit but you may just be trying to stop them advancing by making it too dangerous to move out of position until you can get an air-strike to flatten the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always knew the US was trigger happy but this is insane. 250,000 bullets to kill one person.

Anyone know how many bullets where fired say in Iwo Jima?

It's a case of tactics, infantry men don't carry tons of ammo, they carry 210-300 rounds, they are not the ones doing the shooting. Instead modern infantry tactics are to suppress the enemy i.e. shoot at them with big stationary machine guns to keep their heads down. Then to get up close and shoot them or call in artillery or an airstrike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a case of tactics, infantry men don't carry tons of ammo, they carry 210-300 rounds, they are not the ones doing the shooting. Instead modern infantry tactics are to suppress the enemy i.e. shoot at them with big stationary machine guns to keep their heads down. Then to get up close and shoot them or call in artillery or an airstrike.

Or perhaps someone in procurement is elbow-deep in a big old pot of honey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or perhaps someone in procurement is elbow-deep in a big old pot of honey.

There is a theory about war that people don't want to really kill each other. There was some sort of study about WWI and WWII where only 2% (the psychopaths and sociopaths) where the ones who did the effective fighting while the rest of the people fired into the air or unaimed shots. Grub smith made a documentary about it you can view the first part here

I suppose this is why uber heroism is quite plausible like Simo Hayha who killed 600+ Russians or that bloke who won the victoria medal when he single handedly took on a panzer division. Or Alvin York who single handedly captured an entire german rifle squad (140 men)

Which is why modern militaries brainwash their soldiers to prevent higher level thinking the old shoot first ask questions later. You see soldiers interviewed who came back from the falklands suffer all sorts of psychological issues when they sat down and thought about it later on.

Though this is of course a hotly disputed theory though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a theory about war that people don't want to really kill each other. There was some sort of study about WWI and WWII where only 2% (the psychopaths and sociopaths) where the ones who did the effective fighting while the rest of the people fired into the air or unaimed shots. Grub smith made a documentary about it you can view the first part here

I suppose this is why uber heroism is quite plausible like Simo Hayha who killed 600+ Russians or that bloke who won the victoria medal when he single handedly took on a panzer division. Or Alvin York who single handedly captured an entire german rifle squad (140 men)

Which is why modern militaries brainwash their soldiers to prevent higher level thinking the old shoot first ask questions later. You see soldiers interviewed who came back from the falklands suffer all sorts of psychological issues when they sat down and thought about it later on.

Though this is of course a hotly disputed theory though.

There is some truth to this but other assertions are way off imo.

WWI and WWII were largely fought by conscripted men, farmers, bakers, tailers etc etc. The vast majority are unlikely to have wanted to kill and as the study sugests may have only been returning unaimed shots most of the time. After a couple of weeks basic training the vast majority were also probably unable to kill much at range even if they wanted to.

Modern militaries do not brainwash soldiers they train them. There is a massive difference between a guy dragged off the street and put into uniform and a professional soldier that chose the job. Our soldiers do not shoot first and ask questions later, if the situation like a firefight in afghan occurs where this is the case then there are no questions to ask. The British army has been primarily deployed as a peacekeeping force for many years and there are strict rules of engagement. No soldier fires in that instance unless he has to and knows that he can justify it.

A professional army is trained to do the job. The yanks had a similarly shocking kill rate in vietnam but again that was largely fought by conscripts that did not want to be there and were not trained to be fighting there. The yanks having that kill rate now with a professional army deployed pretty much says it all, they are a liability and we should get danger money for being in theatre with the tools.

PTSD affects many and in many different ways, it doesnt affect some in any way at all. It is part of life and the job though which is why I believe that it affects professional soldiers that have made the decision to do that job and been trained to far less than conscripts. But no matter how much training you have had nothing really prepares you to deal with that first round fired at you that cracks as it passes by. After that survival and training kicks in, not brainwashing or psychopathic tendencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern militaries do not brainwash soldiers they train them. There is a massive difference between a guy dragged off the street and put into uniform and a professional soldier that chose the job. Our soldiers do not shoot first and ask questions later, if the situation like a firefight in afghan occurs where this is the case then there are no questions to ask. The British army has been primarily deployed as a peacekeeping force for many years and there are strict rules of engagement. No soldier fires in that instance unless he has to and knows that he can justify it.

The yanks having that kill rate now with a professional army deployed pretty much says it all, they are a liability and we should get danger money for being in theatre with the tools.

Ours might now but seeing video after video of rednecks murdering innocent people, I'm suspicious. OTOH however, many in the army are not in the army to be soldiers. About 10 years ago I know of a girl who I was chatting to on IRC who told me she was signing up. Not because she wanted to be a soldier but because the military would pay a big chunk of her university fees. When you add in virtual conscripts like that a lot of theories about pro soldiers go out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ours might now but seeing video after video of rednecks murdering innocent people, I'm suspicious. OTOH however, many in the army are not in the army to be soldiers. About 10 years ago I know of a girl who I was chatting to on IRC who told me she was signing up. Not because she wanted to be a soldier but because the military would pay a big chunk of her university fees. When you add in virtual conscripts like that a lot of theories about pro soldiers go out the window.

Not really.

The army is a large organisation. Chefs and clerks do not get involved in fighting. The infantry are primarily the professional soldiers that are obviously the fighters. Not many people join the infantry to get uni fees paid.

That bird you were chatting up must have been going for a commission so it hardly applies to her, not least because she could not serve in teeth arms but because as an officer she wouldnt be getting involved anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ours might now but seeing video after video of rednecks murdering innocent people, I'm suspicious. OTOH however, many in the army are not in the army to be soldiers. About 10 years ago I know of a girl who I was chatting to on IRC who told me she was signing up. Not because she wanted to be a soldier but because the military would pay a big chunk of her university fees. When you add in virtual conscripts like that a lot of theories about pro soldiers go out the window.

There was an SAS soldier in the news 18 months or so back who refused to fight and bought him self out (I think, can't quite recall the details) because the afghan/iraq thing was a total waste of time and that he had to fight alongside the yanks. He reckoned that with very few exceptions you could split the entire US armed forces into two even categories; those who were there because they were getting their uni fees paid and those who were simply religious/patriotic nutters with the intelligence of a flea who were just happy to be killing foreign, brown people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an SAS soldier in the news 18 months or so back who refused to fight and bought him self out (I think, can't quite recall the details) because the afghan/iraq thing was a total waste of time and that he had to fight alongside the yanks. He reckoned that with very few exceptions you could split the entire US armed forces into two even categories; those who were there because they were getting their uni fees paid and those who were simply religious/patriotic nutters with the intelligence of a flea who were just happy to be killing foreign, brown people.

personally, I wouldnt take too much from what that disgrace had to say.

There is likely a large percentage in the military for a number of other reasons.....to get a job, to learn a trade, to escape poverty, to travel.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always knew the US was trigger happy but this is insane. 250,000 bullets to kill one person.

Anyone know how many bullets where fired say in Iwo Jima?

Looks like the "Collateral Murder" chopper pilots should be commended for their frugality. They did in 13, and probably didn't use more than 20,000 rounds.

Medals all round. Hurrah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html

Always knew the US was trigger happy but this is insane. 250,000 bullets to kill one person.

Anyone know how many bullets where fired say in Iwo Jima?

Figure for Vietnam was 35,000 per kill,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Figure for Vietnam was 35,000 per kill,

nope, figures range from anything between 3000 and 250,000 depending on what you read.

just like figures for korea range between 5000 to 100000.

apparently the average for WWII was 25000 but I am sure that many more figures could be found.

No one knows but to be fair much of the ammunition is never intended to kill but provide covering fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope, figures range from anything between 3000 and 250,000 depending on what you read.

Which is why the average was 35,000, as I said. They kept accurate statistics on the body count in Vietnam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.