250,000 bullets for every insurgent killed

Quote:

---

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."


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.


The GAO 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 in their current state. "The government-owned plant producing small-calibre ammunition cannot meet the increased requirements, even with modernisation efforts," said the report.


"Also, commercial producers within the national technology and industrial base have not had the capacity to meet these requirements. As a result, the Department of Defense 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 Israeli 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 $10m (about £5.5m) more than it would have cost for it to produce the ammunition at its own facilities.

---

Thank God our soldiers are trained! It only takes them a mere three tons worth of ammunition bullets to kill a militant. Imagine if they weren't trained.

Source? And comparable figures for the amount of bullets insurgents are using?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Source? And comparable figures for the amount of bullets insurgents are using?

---

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...el-bullets.htm

Regardless of how much they use. I knew the wars were extravagant in nature, but this is ridiculous. Three tons of bullets to kill a single man. A sub-machine gun voraciously consumes $3600 per minute, imagine how we'll America would be doing financially if we either trained soldiers better or pulled out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...el-bullets.htm

Regardless of how much they use. I knew the wars were extravagant in nature, but this is ridiculous. Three tons of bullets to kill a single man. A sub-machine gun voraciously consumes $3600 per minute, imagine how we'll America would be doing financially if we either trained soldiers better or pulled out.

---

More employment in the munitions industry (ironically something we haven't outsourced yet). It's the same for arms that fuel the drug wars in Mexico. Have you ever asked yourself how all those American weapons ended up in the hands of drug lords?

I'm probably going to be wrong, but isn't that just essentially defecit spending? The government is spending money it doesn't have, borrowing money, or worse printing money in order to finance their binges. It would be much more efficient to invest in industries that have a future. In any case, my biggest question is, wtf happens with the crowding out effect? The economy shouldn't do well in the long-run, yet it wars bolster the economy in the short and long run.

This has always been the case, Omega - most small caliber munitions are expended just to keep the opposing force's heads down (and keep them from shooting at you with impunity), not to actually hit anyone. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to include training ammunition (of which there is quite a bit) despite their rather flimsy justification for doing so.

This is also a meaningless metric. Most of the enemy casualties in our last decade of conflict were not killed by small arms fire, but rather by larger munitions - mostly artillery and bombs. The grunts on the ground direct the fire of the bigger guns, and their small arms usage is mostly to keep the bad guys roughly in one place until the cavalry shows up. From a perspective of 'kills per weapon discharged', our airstrikes are probably a much better metric (though also a completely unimportant one).

Furthermore, to suggest that a low kill ratio is a sign of poor training is somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps the use of warning shots and suppression fire was specifically designed to reduce casualties given the somewhat uncertain nature of many armed encounters in Iraq and Afghanistan (e.g. are the guys we're shooting at really enemy fighters or not?). It's also a little silly since most of the engagements occur far outside the effective range of an M-16 (or an AK-47), so obviously a lot of rounds are going to be wasted.

Lastly, I sincerely doubt that our use of small caliber ammunition is what's costing $126 billion this year in Iraq and Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

Ridiculous, and the head of a security organization should know better.

When I was in the infantry, we spent large amounts of ammuntion in training.
I can't stress enough how essential it is.
You need to fire your weapon with accuracy to the point where it's second nature, so that when you are in combat with the stress, and the adrenaline, and worrying about someone actually shooting back at you, you can actually perform.

You get to that point by firing your weapon A LOT.

Ridiculous to include training rounds as relevant to combat accuracy.
(By the way, though I shot expert on the range, and only missed the target once in a blue moon, according to this study, I have 0% accuracy because it didn't kill an insurgent.)

They also ignore that everyone trains, but not everyone gets into combat.
To paint preparation as wasteful, is an evalutation I find remarkably stupid.

They also ignore that suppression fire is a huge, huge part of combat.
Infantry squads aren't snipers..it's fire and manuever, flanking.
I'll gladly drop a few hundred rounds into a wall, or use up a case of mortar rounds to keep the enemies heads down, so a squad can get into position to flank them.

Useless report.

BTW, isn't your source like 5.5 years old? Why are we even having this discussion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crowheart

snip

---

Was that supposed to be read like a poem? haha and interesting stuff. Glad I posted this article, it made me grossly misconstrue truth and skewed how I saw this. And because i found it interesting? The numbers probably increased. loll