USA spent on average 250 000 bullets per kill in Afghanistan & Iraq.
>>64758647Okay, and?
>>64758647Citation required. You can't just pull numbers out of your ass.
>>64758657But I can>>64758656that's a lot of bullets
>>64758647and Afghanistan probably spent 300 human souls to kill one American
>>64758647What is the point of your retarded tourist thread?
>>64758757
>>64758647That is what's called suppressing fire, you overwhelm the opposing side with a steady torrent of firepower which they can't match, then you move in to shoot and kill, optionally capture if the situation permits. Ammo is cheap when you're a developed military force, but I wonder if that number is entirely accurate, and accounts for stuff like enemies being killed in air strikes or artillery strikes.>>64758657I've heard the statistic before.>>64758659From an individual private person standpoint, sure, but you and me don't get into pitched firefights with Muslims or/and Russians on the daily.The study of combat records of WW2 and Korea showed two pretty fucking consistent and important things.First, whichever side has the most ammo with them and can maintain a collective high rate of fire the longest usually won.Two, riflemen NEVER fire beyond 300yds, in fact it's pretty uncommon for them to take shots beyond 200yds.Therefore, it's obviously important that the rifleman can carry a lot of rounds, but it's not important that his rifle can reach out to 800yds, that's the sniper's, marksman's, and machinegunner's jobs.So it's to the rifleman's benefit if he can carry a lot more ammo for a given weight, that his rifle is good for only 300yds at most, and also that he can easily spare some ammo to help keep up the suppressing fire. Also that his weapon is easy to control in rapid and full auto fire.A modern soldier is fundamentally expending more ammo faster than a rifleman from 1899, but he's also carrying 3x the ammo on average, and he's getting way more mileage out of every single round.
>>64758647The problem with all these "X number of rounds per kill" is they always ignore civilian casualties.
>>64758659You want fries with that?
