Trigger Happiness

Attempting to calculate how many bullets troops fire every day in Iraq, Steve Sailer digs up a few data points from military researchers and congressional testimony and comes up with a big number: 275,000.

Of course, the vast majority of bullets fired never hit anybody, but you can imagine the psychological impact on Iraqis of having 275,000 American bullets per day flying around their county trying to kill somebody. The .50 caliber rounds from the old M-2 machine gun are particularly alarming -- they can fly for several miles and at close range can punch through several walls. It's kind of hard to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis when you are firing a quarter of a million bullets per day in their homeland, some of them winding up in random living rooms. Borat's joke -- "We of Kazakhstan support your War of Terror" -- must not be too funny to Iraqis.

Consider, too, that most of those bullets are being fired in Baghdad and Anbar Province, and the number is even more astounding. But has anyone compared how the bullet expenditures have changed since 2003, or if this is even a good metric to use for judging war progress? Maybe Congress could inves... well, maybe someone could check it out.

Comments

Paul | October 18, 2006, 2:29pm | #

The number of bullets fired would always be a poor metric. It's a mildly interesting and you could certainly make the simple conclusion: More bullets fired = more combat.

But in these days of relatively modern warfare, you could have changes in the number of bullets fired with a mere change of tactics- amount of engagements be damned. For instance, if more fighting sprung up outside of Baghdad, less bullets could be fired because the soldiers on the ground might start relying on rear artillery or air support.

Even in urban fighting, new directives on a daily basis could be laid out as to how to engage in neighborhoods which could result in an increase of bullets fired for smaller engagements.

Aresen | October 18, 2006, 2:34pm | #

David

I oppose the Iraq war, but I think you're wide of the mark here.

The kills/shots-fired ratio has been ridiculously low since David first loaded a sling.

I do sympathize with the plight of the Iraqi civilians, but I think the same is true of those caught in the middle of any war. It is not a folly unique to the US troops in Iraq (even if we discount the fact that many rounds are fired just to make the enemy keep their heads down.)

Tim Cavanaugh | October 18, 2006, 2:43pm | #

"For instance, if more fighting sprung up outside of Baghdad, less bullets could be fired..."

No, fewer bullets would be fired.

Mike Laursen | October 18, 2006, 2:47pm | #

Whether or not it's a good metric for judging progress, it is based in nitty-gritty, measurable reality. And it's a big number. It could be effective as a talking point when debating war boosters who tend to think only in abstract terms like "spreading democracy".

On the other hand, if hawks aren't affected by body count statistics, then number of bullets fired per day isn't going to sway them.

Ruthless | October 18, 2006, 2:49pm | #

I hope this doesn't label me as a gun nut, but I don't think the old M-2 fires .50 caliber.
If I'm mistaken, I told you I'm not a gun nut.

Wally the bird | October 18, 2006, 2:50pm | #

Lots of bullets being fired and many more comming from american snipers picking off terrorists

Paul | October 18, 2006, 2:57pm | #

No, fewer bullets would be fired.

Ouch, Tim. So we agree that the capital of France is Paris?

Patriot | October 18, 2006, 2:58pm | #

m2 (maw deuce)= 50 cal

Mr. F. Le MUr | October 18, 2006, 3:08pm | #

No, fewer bullets would be fired.
Ouch, Tim. So we agree that the capital of France is Paris?

Fear not, Paul, your usage of 'less' was quite correct, though perhaps not preferred.

highnumber | October 18, 2006, 3:10pm | #

I don't care about any "kills/shots-fired ratio." Living within an area "slightly more than twice the size of Idaho," according to the CIA factbook, that has an average of 275,000 bullets flying around every day, whether or not they are aimed at me would really freak me out. That ain't no party nor disco, nor is it any fooling around.

Eric Atkinson | October 18, 2006, 3:14pm | #

Is it not true those rag headed goobers are always shooting up in the air with their AK47's and such. Think they would be used to all the falling metal.

madpad | October 18, 2006, 3:15pm | #

On the other hand, if hawks aren't affected by body count statistics, then number of bullets fired per day isn't going to sway them.

True, but voting the idiots out of office might just get their attention.

madpad | October 18, 2006, 3:18pm | #

Ruthless, the M2 does, indeed fire .50 caliber bullets.

ellipsis | October 18, 2006, 3:31pm | #

I don't mind admitting I'm a gun nut. Anyhoo, non-military types don't seem to understand the process involved in maintaining an infantry. You tend to fire more practice rounds (by far) than you ever direct towards an enemy.

I know for a fact that the Lake City army ammunition plant makes 1.2 billion rounds a year, and total munitions contracted are some 1.8 billion rounds; but I don't know how much of that goes to Iraq. But again, there's lots of training involved in those numbers.

Small arms ammo expenditures are in the neighborhood of $166 million annually.

FYI.

joe | October 18, 2006, 3:39pm | #

The trend up or down from 275,000 could be noise, changes in our tactics, changes in their tactics, or increases or decreases in the intensity of fighting, so I don't find the trend terribly informative without more info.

However, 275,000 bullets per day is a large number, and we're only going to get anywhere close to it in a war of considerable size.

I can't believe people got away with shouting "everything's fine" for three years. Everything is not fine now, it wasn't fine when the insurgency was on its last legs, it wasn't fine when we turned the corner after the elections, it wasn't fine when we weren't facing an insurgency, it wasn't fine when there were just a few dead enders, and it wasn't fine when freedom was messy.

We were systematically lied to, and there were a whole lot of eager beaver volunteers helping pass on the bullshit.

Throw the bums out.

BG | October 18, 2006, 3:44pm | #

Is it not true those rag headed goobers are always shooting up in the air with their AK47's and such. Think they would be used to all the falling metal.

I have always wondered about that ritual. I have never seen people ducking for cover in the aftermath of one of the celebratory shoot-straight-up-repeatedly sessions. But if my physics is correct than the bullets must come down at either almost the same speed or (if air resistance slows them down significantly) still pretty fast. I don't think they are shot up at a high enough velocity to escape earth's gravity.

Does anyone know how that works?

Jon H | October 18, 2006, 3:45pm | #

275,000 is surely just the start. It's probably 1.5 or 2 times that, if you add in all the insurgent fire, or the sectarian militia fire.

john | October 18, 2006, 3:46pm | #

I know very little (maybe nothing) about guns, bullets, etc. So can someone please tell me how many bullets are fired per day in, say, the US? This miight help frame the discussion of whether (how?) "big" the number 275,000 really is.

ellipsis | October 18, 2006, 3:49pm | #

David,

To answer your questions, here's a comparison in small arms ammo production from Lake City:

1995 = 325 million rounds per year
2001 = 800 million rounds per year
2006 = 1.2 billion rounds per year

Terry | October 18, 2006, 3:55pm | #

275,000/24 = 11,458 per hour

11,458/60 = 191 per minute

191/60 = 3.2 per second

Right now, combining firing ranges and the hunting season, don't you think more than 3.2 bullets per second are being shot in this country.
Yes.
And do the comparison to Iraq and per shot per square mile you get something equivalent probably to Iraq or not, which proves using bullets shot per day is really a very asinine way to judge military success.
Usually the comments here are by people of a higher intelligence.
Oh well, price of the free market. A moron gets to raise his stupid point. Sera, sera.

sam_h | October 18, 2006, 4:00pm | #

"...if my physics is correct than the bullets must come down at either almost the same speed or (if air resistance slows them down significantly) still pretty fast. I don't think they are shot up at a high enough velocity to escape earth's gravity."

Of course they don't escape earth gravity. If bullet traveled at escape velocity there would be a pretty dense layer of lead in orbit.

They come down at terminal velocity, nowhere near the muzzel velocity when they leave the weapon. The bullet goes starts moving downward from a state of zero velocity at it's hisghest point. The terminal velocity is as fast as it can move with air resistance. In a vacum the bullet would hit the ground with the same velocity as it left the muzzle.

Charlton Heston | October 18, 2006, 4:02pm | #

Hell, just since this thread started, I've shot up at least 25,000 rounds trying to inspire the server squirrels to work faster.

geek | October 18, 2006, 4:10pm | #

The bullet will generally come down faster than at terminal velocity since (unless shooting straight up) only the vertical component of the velocity reaches zero. The bullet still has the horizontal contribution due to the initial muzzle velocity

Phil-z | October 18, 2006, 4:10pm | #

Since bullets are spin stablized anything fired straight up, pointy end first, will tend to stop and fall back down blunt end first, thus reducing it's terminal velocity. It's been a while since I've looked at a ballistics program but memory says the slug will impact with about as much force as a golfball sized chunk of hail. Not good to be beaned with, but not fatal either. I think there was a myth-busters about this recently too.
The real problem is when the bullets are fired at less than about a 75 degree angle and they retain much of their velocity, and hence energy, all the way to impact.
Back in the peaceful late 90's domestic ammo production was about 5 billion rds/yr. Most of that was fired in the lower 48. It didn't kill 600K here.

Larry A | October 18, 2006, 4:10pm | #

I have never seen people ducking for cover in the aftermath of one of the celebratory shoot-straight-up-repeatedly sessions. But if my physics is correct than the bullets must come down at either almost the same speed or (if air resistance slows them down significantly) still pretty fast. I don't think they are shot up at a high enough velocity to escape earth's gravity. Does anyone know how that works?

Without getting too technical (The exact numbers depend on the cartridge's muzzle velocity, and the bullet's terminal velocity) a .30 caliber bullet shot straight up will come down fast enough to cause serious injury or death to any person or animal it hits.

Every four or five years the San Antonio news reports on someone wounded or killed by a falling bullet on the Forth of July or New Years. And those are usually handgun, not rifle bullets.

From my experience the main contributor to this lead pollution is not the .50 caliber M-2, but the .22 caliber infantry rifles. Issuing soldiers very light automatic weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition tends to reduce the incentive to actually hit the target when shooting.

Unless, of course, the figure includes the 20mm ammo for the helicopter and aircraft gatlings. They shoot so fast it's hard to fire less than 100 rounds per trigger squeeze.

madpad | October 18, 2006, 4:11pm | #

In a vacum the bullet would hit the ground with the same velocity as it left the muzzle.

Wrong. Maybe in space. But that involve a vacuum and microgravity.

In a vacuum(but still on earth) - assuming it was shot up - it would eventually return to earth accelerating from the hight at which gravity overtook it until it hit the something on the return to earth.

That would most likely be less that the muzzle velocity because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

downstater | October 18, 2006, 4:15pm | #

"Right now, combining firing ranges and the hunting season, don't you think more than 3.2 bullets per second are being shot in this country."

pretty disingenous.

3.2 bullets/second at a range or hunting deer does not produce the same effects on a population as 3.2 bps in your neighborhoods.

Terry | October 18, 2006, 4:21pm | #

downstater, I know, that is why I said its asinine to judge military success by shots fired.

As for the same effects, well just ask Barbra Boxer or Sarah Brady or any PETA twit and I am sure, they'll swear that the damage done by the torrential daily shooting produces a daily obscence holocaust far worse in Iraq because its etc. etc. etc.....

madpad | October 18, 2006, 4:22pm | #

qeek, velocity is velocity whether horizontal or vertical components are involved.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics - in a sense - indicates the energy produced by the event will never be greater than the energy that produces the evnt(s).

If the muzzle velocity gets the bullet up to the point where gravity reduces velocity to zero, then on the return trip, the velocity can never be higher than the initial muzzle velocity unless some other energy is added to increase that velocity.

Since gravity is a constant, there's no place in our example for additional energy to add velocity. Keep in mind the velocity on the up trip will decrease at the same rate at which it increases coming back down.

downstater | October 18, 2006, 4:35pm | #

i agree that shots fired is probably not a good metric for success.

what i'm trying to refute is any notion that the number of shots fired in iraq is no big deal because we have that many here in the states - when our shots are clearly fired with a different intent/purpose.

boxer? brady? peta? not sure how their takes (however stupid they may be) are relevant enough to the discussion to even be brought up. i think you may have some personal hostility to work through.

sam_h | October 18, 2006, 4:42pm | #

Madpad-

OK- in a vacuum, on earth, with a vertical shot -why would the round not travel at muzzle velocity when it reached the muzzle on the way down?

All the energy of the round has no were to go (no friction) on the way up, it is 100% converted into potentail energy. On the way down an equal about of energy is released. The accelration of the round would be symetracal.

Mike Laursen | October 18, 2006, 4:55pm | #

By god, am I the only guy around here who watches Mythbusters religiously?!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_3)#Episode_50_.E2.80.94_.22Bullets_Fired_Up.22

joe | October 18, 2006, 4:57pm | #

"As for the same effects, well just ask Barbra Boxer or Sarah Brady or any PETA twit..."

Republicans: all culture war, all the time.

What were we talking about again?

Paul | October 18, 2006, 5:00pm | #

Fear not, Paul, your usage of 'less' was quite correct, though perhaps not preferred.

I do agree with Tim that 'fewer' is much preferred. At least it reads better to me. It just kinda stung is all...

Terry | October 18, 2006, 5:02pm | #

downstater,
Your probably right. But can you think of a better place to work through your personal hostility then a comment section of a blog?

mutt | October 18, 2006, 5:05pm | #

How many rounds fired per day probably isnt a good metric for how "well" we are doing. Its a better metric for how truck drivers are doing, as they run the ammo out to dispersed troops. Low on ammo? You shoot less. Endless rounds- full auto, spray & pray. BECAUSE:
in general (Marines excepted, to a point) actual rifelry isnt taught in training. Its an art as well as a skill: in that you can be taught the rules & still not have the talent. Outside of snipers- the most responsible people on a battlefield- and Marine combat troops, (I know, they are all combat, but some get more range/tutoring time) actual long range marksmanship isnt taught. Takes a lot of time & many hours of practice to simply be "competant".
Figure, during the Boer War, a 14 year old Boer lad was expected to hit a Brit in the head, first time, every time, at 300 plus yards. That was considered "competant" with the Mauser rifle of the day.
Wars One & Two saw soldiers, over open sights, doing the same, maybe a bit more. Being able to hit a pack of luckies at 200 yardas. Pop a Jerry in the head at 400 yards: std for a Russian sniper w/ a 4x scope. But that kind of training takes time. Time is expensive, mass produced ammo cheap. "Contractors" profit from ammo sales. Nobody makes a buck off sniper training,
After War 2, automatic firearms came to the fore, & volume of fire replaced accuracy of fire. Accuracy of fire requires complete confidence & a cool heads. Volume of fire requires an idea of what direction to unload & a trigger finger. Thus the huge number of rounds expended. Couple that with the fact Our Lads (and Lasses) are shooting a light, fast bullet suited for very close range work in an open (long range) environment, and you get massive numbers of rounds fired, often at nothing at all they can see. Cant blame them: its a complete fiasco, we here on the Home Front let them down by lettin it happen, & they want to get home. And have almost unlimited ammo.
Now translate "blind shooting" like this into artillery ,or naval gunnery, or areial bombardment, and you get Viet Nam, & Lebanon, when we were "neutral".
Snipers. They got my respect, completely. One shot, one kill. No "collateral" damage....unless you are, say, the FBI HRT. A Marine or Army sniper can take the right life with one round a thousand yards or more. & the Marines- them rascals, were using Ma Deuce .50's with big ass scopes on them & a spotter with a stop wath to shoot Viets 2-3 miles away.
Had a 7.62 round come thru the tin roof & land in my soup, in Nicaragua. Came mostly straight down. I figure a skull aint much harder than a tin roof & the bottom of my soup bowl.....

downstater | October 18, 2006, 5:08pm | #

"But can you think of a better place to work through your personal hostility then a comment section of a blog?"

apparently it's being worked through 3 times per second in iraq!

Larry A | October 18, 2006, 5:13pm | #

"Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured."

wsdave | October 18, 2006, 5:18pm | #

If anyone knows (and I'm too lazy to check), how many allied troops are in Iraq? Divide into the number of bullets each day.

1000 rounds each? 100? 10? 2?

Not trying to make a statement, just curious.

Jon H | October 18, 2006, 5:40pm | #

"OK- in a vacuum, on earth, with a vertical shot -why would the round not travel at muzzle velocity when it reached the muzzle on the way down?

All the energy of the round has no were to go (no friction) on the way up, it is 100% converted into potentail energy. On the way down an equal about of energy is released. The accelration of the round would be symetracal."

The key, I think, is that on the upward portion of the trip, the bullet would travel farther in a vacuum than in air, giving it more time to accelerate on the way down.

In air, the bullet could only reach muzzle velocity while falling only if it were allowed to keep falling below the height at which it was fired. (frex, if it was fired by someone on a wire across the grand canyon.)

madpad | October 18, 2006, 5:41pm | #

why would the round not travel at muzzle velocity when it reached the muzzle on the way down?

Because according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the energy recovered will always be less, not equal too, the energy used.

Or as Alan Ginsberg restates it, "You can't break even."

Paul | October 18, 2006, 5:41pm | #

"Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured."

I don't think mythbusters tried very hard. I was a bit surprised that they were... surprised.

I believe there have been a number of documented cases in Israel and Palestine of people seriously injured and killed by falling bullets.

Lee | October 18, 2006, 6:10pm | #

We are, for want of a better word, anthropomorphizing the Iraqis into our own image. This is a country where AK-47s are fired into the air at weddings, for Christ's sake. Let's not go overboard with the psychological impact of a little flying lead.

ellipsis | October 18, 2006, 6:17pm | #

Paul,

There's a difference between arcing and falling. One still retains some of it's original momentum and is merely trending downward; the other has lost all it's momentum, and is purely under the control of gravity.

Semantics, I know. But important. Falling bullets only go 150 FPS. Arcing bullets can retain significant velocity, and impact miles from the weapon.

Steve Sailer | October 18, 2006, 6:26pm | #

Just to clear things up, the U.S. military fires several million bullets per day in training exercises around the world. My estimate of 275,000 per day is the number of American bullets fired in anger in combat operations in Iraq based on testimony at a 2004 Congressional hearing.

Perhaps I've made some mistakes in my calculations, but the most striking fact about this number is how little interest there has been in the media. The Pentagon, not surprisingly, has not made a big deal out of it.

ellipsis | October 18, 2006, 6:50pm | #

Ok, after running the numbers through my ballistics calculator, here's what I got:

Shooting a 308 WIN. ball at a 64 degree angle, it will land 2.6 miles away at a speed of 440 fps. That will kill you.

If you shot it at a perfect 90 degree angle, it would keep going until it lost its momentum, and come back down at 150 fps.

joe | October 18, 2006, 6:57pm | #

That's great, Lee. I guess all flying bullets are created equal, whether your cousin is firing them harmlessly into the air, or a foriegn army is playing Doom with insurgents in your neighborhood.

Buckshot | October 18, 2006, 7:03pm | #

MikeLaursen:

No, you are not the only one around here who watches Mythbusters religiously.

The Mythbusters proved:
1) A bullet fired straight up in the air will stop and be suspended motionless in the air for a fraction of a second. The muzzle velocity of the bullet is relevant only to how high it goes, not how fast it falls. A bullet that travels straight up, say 1 mile, will fall and hit the ground at the same speed as if you dropped it from a stationary baloon 1 mile up. This is terminal velocity and would hurt like hell, but it won't kill you. However, a bullet fired into the air at an angle (another commenter or two mentioned this) retains a considerable amount of energy, enough to kill you deader'n hell.

So say the Mythbusters, and these guys are very scientific and sytematic in their investigations.

Doc | October 18, 2006, 7:11pm | #

Just for s&gs. Troops ARE taught fairly good marksmanship skills. You are expected to be able to hit a target at 300m. It is NOT spray-and-pray.

All others, SF, Ranger, Airborne, etc, all can hit were they aim.

Please look at 'Murphy's Rules of Combat'. It's not really a joke.

Retired SF dood

Fred | October 18, 2006, 7:25pm | #

I'm afraid the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't relevant here. "You can't break even" is a statistical principle that applies to useful energy derived from an heat engine. Useful energy is only meaningful in the context of a thermodynamic problem. It is incorrect to think of the bullet as deriving useful energy from this process. This is a much simpler calculation involving potential energy, kinetic energy, and friction losses.

Conservation of energy is the relevant principle here. You trade kinetic energy for potential energy going up the gravity well, and you get it back going back down the gravity well. A bullet fired up at 90 degrees in a vacuum will arrive back at ground level with the same kinetic energy it had going up. Air resistance turns kinetic energy into heat. But there is no thermodynamics involved. Really, I know this stuff.

Fred | October 18, 2006, 7:29pm | #

(Except for the air being heated. There is thermodynamics in that process. But we are talking about the bullet as a single object.)

Geof | October 18, 2006, 8:21pm | #

There what, 125,000 plus US soldiers in Iraq. So 275,000 bullets is only a little over 2 per soldier per day. This seems pretty low to me, not high, especially considering the rate of fire of some automatic weapons like those on helicopters and 50 cals.

madpad | October 18, 2006, 8:41pm | #

Even with the mere qualifier of "Really, I know this stuff." I defer to Fred's expertise. It's been about 12 years since I had college physics. I'd ask a bunch of questions but "Lost" is getting ready to come on so see ya.

Pro Libertate | October 18, 2006, 8:58pm | #

It's okay, the Pentagon has figured out the problem. It's all one guy, PFC John Rambo.

Paul | October 18, 2006, 9:00pm | #

ellipsis:

There's a difference between arcing and falling.

I definitely know this. And I saw the opening of the Mythbusters show- but unfortunately due to extenuating circumstances I couldn't watch the whole bit.

After reading some of the other comments, I guess the Mythbusters peeps noted that a bullet fired 'straight up' is different than one fired at a given arc etc. etc.

I guess to me, and having a certain knowledge of guns firing in the air, it would be fantastically rare for someone to fire a bullet into the air straight enough AND hit someone to show up statistically. Most shots fired into the air are done indiscriminately and as such enjoy some sort of arc in their tragectory.

As a kid, we used to fire shotguns with birdshot as straight into the air as we could, and then listen for the pellets hitting the desert bushes around us. No one ever got hurt.

Bobster | October 18, 2006, 9:22pm | #

Correct me if I am wrong, I'm not, but a bullet shot straight up is actually accelerating straight down from the instant it leaves the barrel of the gun until it hits the ground.

buck smith | October 18, 2006, 10:13pm | #

Bobster,

It is technically possible that the bullet is no longer accelerating inside the barrel, if it reaches the sonic velocity of the pressure wave pushing it out of the barrel. Once it leaves the barrel it continuously accelerated toward earth by gravity (this can thought of as decceleration if the bullet is shot straight up). It is also deccelerated (accelerated against its direction of travel by friction with the air.

Also, although there 125,000 or so troops in Iraq, only about 20,000 or so are combat troops and they do most of the shooting.

Bobster | October 18, 2006, 10:37pm | #

Buck Smith,

I guess that is technically possible but not probable. I don't think there are any guns made where this happens. What would be the point of having a barrel longer than the length necessary to reach the speed of the pressure wave pushing the bullet? The extra length would be useless.

GILMORE | October 19, 2006, 12:02am | #

wow

this whole devolution into a debate on the physics of falling bullets is such a perfect reminder that most libertoids are ubernerds.

JG

SFC SKI | October 19, 2006, 12:13am | #

The researcher must have read the statistices without having a clue for their context.

First off, Soldiers and Marines are not just firing indiscrimiately, so most Iraqis don't have bullets whizzing over their heads at random hours. (unless you want to take the time honored Iraqi tradition of "celebratory gunfire") For the most part, the firing is controlled. Iraq is not a free-fire zone, and the rules of engagement call for several actions to be taken, circumstances permitting, before one bullet leaves the barrel.

Second, once a hostile target has been identified, often by firing upon Soldiers or attempting to set of an IED, they don't do us the courtesy of standing still in the open and allowing himself to be dispatched with one shot.
The researcher has obviously no idea of the concept of suppressive fire either. Did he take into account that any almost any day of the week, lots of rounds are being fired solely for the purpose of training?

Statistics are useful tools, but only rarely prove a theory.

madpad | October 19, 2006, 9:03am | #

wow...this whole devolution into a debate on the physics of falling bullets is such a perfect reminder that most libertoids are ubernerds.

Consider where the the debate devolved from...a post about the number of bullets being fired in our current military action. Ubernerds indeed.

Pro Libertate | October 19, 2006, 9:17am | #

Mythbusters rules. It should be cited hereabouts more frequently. Last night, they shot a pressurized air tank right through a concrete wall. Bam!

joe | October 19, 2006, 9:20am | #

SFC SKI,

275,000 bullets being fired through disciplined targetting is still 275,000 bullets - especially given the locations and character of the melees that make up this war, usually firefights in populated towns and cities, in and amongst the population. That American soldiers are demonstrating this discipline is relevant in judging their morality and that of their commanders, but it probably doesn't make much of a difference what tactics were being employed when its your house that get sprayed with .30 caliber bullets. As you say, the character of this war is causing this variety of fighting, even as careful rules of engagement are being followed.

"Did he take into account that any almost any day of the week, lots of rounds are being fired solely for the purpose of training?" Yes, he did, as he wrote in the article, as was nice enough to repeat in the comment thread: the 275,000 figure represents shots fired in battle.

SFC SKI | October 19, 2006, 10:27am | #

Thanks for pointing out my oversight, Joe.

I won't question the data Mr. Sailer used, but I am in Ramadi, and just by going through the daily combat reports, I am seeing far less than 1,000 rounds per day on average being fired by the entire combat team. I read reports from other provinces, and those don't differ much more. The daily numbers just don't back up the statistical averages. Ballpark math for the size of this element dictates that we should be shooting about 9,000 rounds a day, and that is if every trooper was on the walls holding off an attack. In reality, far fewer Soldiers are likely to engage in direct combat on a daily basis.
I am not a statistician or a math whiz, and I am not suggesting Mr. Sailer is lying, I am just saying that I do not see the evidence of 275,000 rounds being expended daily in relation to the level of activity I see in my part of the Anbar province. I can't explain it, and it's not my area of expertise, I merely want to say I am skeptical. I also don't want to create the impression that everything is just rosy here in the Jewel of the Euphrates River Valley.

MUTT | October 19, 2006, 5:15pm | #

Im hopin standards are better in riflery than when I went thru training in '68. While I went thru just basic firearms training- bein in the Engineers- I saw enough of AI Infantry trained grunts who had no notion of actual marksmanship. That I learned at home, & it was that, not any Army training, that saved my young ass. Lucky us, we had 14's. ended up being drafted to coach the poorer shooters in my training Co, at that.
And I know how much spray & pray was goin on, then, with zero concern of what was downrange past our putative targets.
Anyhow, SgtSki, any hostility/skepticism you might pick up in my comments has to do with the war, not you boys (my boys) havin been there myself.
You take care of them boys, Sarge. Me & mine are rootin for you all to both take it to them, and get home.