.

That's like 400k bullets right there minimum.

Posts like this just highlight how detached from reality some of you are

Sent from my LG-P659 using 2+2 Forums

It is way easier to stockpile or waste the bullets in target practice then to fill out the damn paperwork to return them.

The average American. Though I admit I based that on no evidence other than my own personal experience lol.

Why don't you? Since you seem to know all the facts. According to Poker Reference's post which you seemingly couldn't refute it seems it's more like 8000 rounds per kill. Even if they're only shooting at people 1% of the time it still takes them 80 rounds per kill on average. So like I said, they're not elite killing machines.

Look stinkbag, just because you're butthurt over your dumbass 250k bullets per insurgent nonsense and you don't have the first ****ing clue about things like suppressive fire is no reason to get all snippy with me. Good day, sir.

Lol nobody is buttsore here except apparently you. If you think the US military uses over 99% of it's rounds on suppressive fire then it's you who has no ****ing clue about it.

I said good day, sir.

If you haven't served then you probably have no idea how rounds are used and 235 didn't say 99% were used for suppressive fire.

Tons of bullets are used as suppressive fire and to cut of an enemy escape while another team flanks them. The team flanking doesn't really shoot until they actually have a shot. I doubt there is a single person in the infantry that isn't an expert marksmen. They probably shoot 95% plus on targets out to 300 meters when they can see them.

The US has a tendency recently to be overly optimistic about what can be achieved with military force. Regardless, it's difficult for me to say that the US has been defeated on the battlefield since the official end of the War of 1812.

Since then, our military personnel have pretty much walked over all opponents. The US may not have achieved every military goal we've set, but I really don't think any of the enemies of the US are thinking "WOW, if only we could get the US to attack us. Then we'd have it made."

lol

No.

You pretty much shoot thousands and thousands of rounds till you pass at an expert level once you get to your unit. In basic not everyone does.

Bullets dont really kill anyone tho, bullets hold fix suppress whilst someone dials in high explosive ordnance. Even if you are a great shot its hard to hit anyone in reasonable cover from any kind of distance if there is any kind of return fire.

Also it says 250K to each kill, what about wounded?

Yes but how much of that is soldier expertise and how much is preponderance of force?

USA Army has lost quite a few battles when the enemy has been able to be roughly equal in the specific battle.

Im not saying the USA is not well trained, but the way you are citing history is just shallow.

Ok thought I'd clear up a few things. First of all, a huge amount of rounds are used for suppressing fire. A 240 machine gunner will fire 8 rounds a second without an actual target because it's kind of hard to do anything with that amount of rounds coming in your vicinity. Second, I would say close to 85% of my platoon scored expert on the rifle range, which consists if consistently hitting targets at 500 meters. Considering the effective range of the m-16 is 550 meters, I'd say it doesn't get much better than that. And I was shooting expert by the end of basic and I had never fired a rifle before the Marine Corps in my life. So the statement that it takes thousands of rounds to become an expert is definitely not accurate. I can't speak for the Army or any other branch but inside of 100 meters I'll go 100 for 100 on a man sized target and so could everyone I deployed with.

On the women infantry subject, after my 2 deployments I was rotated to 29 palms California to be a combat instructor. Every unit deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan must attend a 1 1/2 month course there where they are evaluated by people like me. They are exposed to infantry like situations such as patrol ambushes, IED attacks, recovery and rescue scenarios, riot control, and wounded medivac scenarios. Every woman I reviewed in these situations performed terribly.

yeah no one misses 100 meters and in

Yeah and outside of 100 meters, pretty much all rounds are suppressing fire while you close distance. It's just good tactics.

On the topic of winning and losing wars, restricting ROEs (rules of engagement) play a big part in how the U.S. military performs. It's easy to say "look at how they perform" when the ROEs state I can't fire until I'm under fire. In the siege of Fallujah, they pampleted the city for 3 days and said "we're coming" and that anyone left in the city would be declared hostile. With free reign on the enemy we crushed, the kill to death ratio was like 12 to 1 with them having home terrain advantage and the ability to hide in wait while we cleared every house in the city

That statistic is pretty much meaningless IMO. the number I would like to see is the number of shots fired compared to the number of shots fired at a human target, and then that number compared to the number of human targets killed.

Plus are most insurgents even killed by a bullet? I would think that more or at least a similar number are killed in bombings or missile/drone strikes than by bullets. So is that number only insurgents killed by bullets?

I don't know this for fact but I would wager that the majority of deployed soldiers will never even shoot at a human target, but will still fire thousands of rounds during their deployment.

Wow. Just wow. I actually learned something today on how you get good people to commit atrocities.

And that would be incorrect. If we go only by IQ score, the fact that you must possess at least a high school diploma to join should be evidence enough. But for numbers sake the average IQ of someone in the military is 105 while the average nationwide is 98.

Putting Vietnam down as anything but a loss would be kind of difficult.

Additional question. Do you think the USAs front line troops are optimally trained in operating in close proximity to, and engaging with, a civilian population you are trying to win the "hearts and minds" of.

If not - would a wider range of viewpoints, better conflict resolution skills, better empathy and improved communication skills help?

Better trained than ad hoc militia ftw.

I don't get where you draw the link. Over 80% of the civilian population of Fallujah fled before the battle.The battle was fought directly between insurgents and members of the US military. If you can think of a better way to empty a city before an invasion, please share it.

Considering I was an instructor in courses that directly reflect this, the answer is yes, without a doubt.