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?
>>64758647>>64758657>>64758842https://web.archive.org/web/20110111041200/https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-15050027.html>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.>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."Counting rounds fired in training together with rounds fired in combat is incredibly dishonest.
>>64759014>bad faith "wect bad!" threads crop up>find out there's another global south humiliation Why is it so incredibly consistent?
>>64758647Think of it the right way. The US spent 1/4 a million on each dead combatant by preventing the death of their own. Each US citizen costs over a million to raise and close to a million to train.
>>64759014No wonder the number seems so very high, when they're fucking counting ammunition spent in training and practice (which is going to include training and practice with suppressive fire), considering that live combat with enemies is on average what most grunts do least.Good contribution to help wash a shitty thread, sincere thanks.Has anyone done a more honest math, like just counting what people went into an engagement with, then counting what they had left after, the comparing to killed, captured, and escaped enemies?
GWOT was started to keep military spending as high as possible.
