UK troops in Afghanistan fire 2m+ rounds in six months

[London_Calling]

The Telegraph, and you, are trying to make out that British soldiers are going gun crazy shooting everything in sight because they fired 2 million bullets in five months.

This is exactly what I'm not saying, and nor is the Telegraph for that matter.

I think the Telegraph blogger is implying - and I'm saying expressly - that the conflict is hugely underplayed in the UK media, partly because it is not desirable for the public to grasp the scale of the 'challenge', or how long the committment will be.

To be honest, it's just not winnable, but what else can be done except try to wait out a major change in the dynamics of the situation . . .

 

[London_Calling]

(emphasis added)

I agree with most of what you say there, but by what measure is it a larger action by UK forces than:

Iraq Invasion 2003
Iraq Invasion 1991
Falklands
Op BANNER (Ireland c. 1968 - c. 2008)
Korea

(all since WW2, to name probably the biggest ones)

?

No feller. We're talking about bullets fired and interaction with an enemy.

Not doing your research for you.

 

[CyberRose]

This is exactly what I'm not saying, and nor is the Telegraph for that matter.

You (and the Telegraph) are at least saying that 2 million bullets is an excessive amount, everyone else is saying no, it's not, actually

 

[CyberRose]

No feller. We're talking about bullets fired and interaction with an enemy.

Not doing your research for you.

Is the Afghan War the biggest UK military operation since WW2?

 

[London_Calling]

Is the Afghan War the biggest UK military operation since WW2?

(a) Don't be fucking stupid, and (b) I'm not playing childish game.

 

[CyberRose]

(a) Don't be fucking stupid, and (b) I'm not playing childish game.

Don't get a benny on! I was only asking!

Afghanistan has been 7 years, Iraq 5 years, which I think are longer than other conflicts Britain has fought since WW2 (obviously not counting Northern Ireland) so you never know, you might be right?

 

[Andy the Don]

Reason why we have had such a large expenditure of small arms ammunition could be because unlike Gulf war I + II Afghanistan has been an infantry battle, Gulf War I + II have were armoured advances across desert with the infantry mopping up any pockets of resistance that did not surrender in terror. The Falklands was an infantry war, but apart from those issue with GPMG's the British forces mainly used single shot SLRs. In Afghanistan the object is to put down as much fire as possible. Hence something like every 3rd or 4th soldier uses either a GPMG or a MINIMI light MG with a high rate of fire.

 

[dylanredefined]

The taliban have gone from being a mostly afgani force to a mostly foreign fighter force so they can be defeated .Wether that means afganistian
can be turned into a nice place to live yet to see .
Plonking soldiers on an isolated hillside and daring the taliban "to come have a go if you think you hard enough" resulted in a lot of dead taliban so they gone back to terrorist tactics .

 

[Squatticus]

No feller. We're talking about bullets fired and interaction with an enemy.

Not doing your research for you.

In Korea, the Royal Tank Regiment (and others) fought Chinese T-34s - pretty interactive.

In the Falklands, 258 British servicemen were killed, many by Argentine air action*, and in naval battles and land attacks up to brigade level.

In Northern Ireland, 134 British soldiers were killed in 1972 alone, exceeding the toll for 6 years in Afghanistan by one third.

It's good to see whatever heat possible being put on the occupation, but your claim that its the largest action since WW2 is exaggerated.

*The Afghan resistance do not have any planes, as far as I am aware.

 

[London_Calling]

Well done, you know the list as well. Can't think why you didn't include GW1 & 2 so you could be entirely disingenuous.

 

[Squatticus]

Well done, you know the list as well. Can't think why you didn't include GW1 & 2 so you could be entirely disingenuous.

In what way am I being disingenuous?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I note the Telegraph describes this as staggering. Do they mean staggeringly low maybe?

The journalists responsible have probably seen loads of Yankee war films where "spray and pray" is the approved method of weapon use. They probably can't get into their heads the idea of actually only firing at targets.

 

[Poi E]

sorry for the diversion but loved the Mirror headline yesterday:
OUR AFGHAN HEROINE

 

[Grandma Death]

How many of those rounds came from Prince Harry?

 

[spring-peeper]

sorry for the diversion but loved the Mirror headline yesterday:
OUR AFGHAN HEROINE

it's there one two many e's in that word?

 

[Poi E]

How many of those rounds came from Prince Harry?

At least a dozen vodka shots.

 

[Aldebaran]

I've no idea why we're there. Surround Iran?

Among others, yes. As servants of the US Corporate Interest.

salaam.

 

[weltweit]

Afghanistan is a much cleaner reason than Iraq.

We are in Afghanistan because it gave succour to Al Queda which was behind the September 11th attacks in the USA which were taken as not just an attack on the USA but on the West and UK also.

The trouble is that we only win in Afghanistan if we establish the new democratic state which has the strength to withstand the remnants of the Taliban and Al Queda on it's own, and at the moment we are a long way from that goal.

Apparently Bush has asked the US military to deliver him Osama Bin Laden before he leaves office. It is interesting that after all this time the ringleaders of the Taliban (Mulla Omar) and Al Queda are still at large while in Iraq Saddam Hussein is already dead and buried.

 

[likesfish]

According to Wiki, the SA80 (gun used by British soldiers) fires 610-775 rounds/min...

thats it cyclic rate what follows is gun nerd talk
cylic rate is how fast it can fire all its bullets it can empty its 30 round magazine in 3 seconds so 60/3 =20x30=600 rounds a minute
has nothing to do with real nobody could load a rifle that fast.
most submachine guns have a cyclic rate of over a 1000 rounds a minute that does'nt mean it can fire 1000 rounds a minute just that it empties its magazine really quickly

 

[MikeMcc]

Support bods will normally carry about 200 rounds, some of which will be actually be for the support weapon (LSW, Minimi or GPMG). Infantry will carry a least twice that. Watch any of the serious coverage (the Ross Kemp series, or the recent Panorama report) and you will note that ammunition supply is always an issue.

In a contact the tactic is to lay down as much fire as possible on the enemy position while ground troops move in to assault the position, or air support is called in to flatten the position. It takes a huge amount of ammunition despite the training in controlling rates of fire.

Given the tempo of operations out there I'm surprised that more rounds haven't been fired.

While I would agree we aren't winning at the moment, we aren't losing either. Current estimates on Taliban losses are >7000, that's not a rate that they can continue with for long.

 

[Aldebaran]

Each of the 600 frontline soldiers is firing approximately 18 rounds per day.

Don't you find that chilling? Each of them could kill a human being. Or other life.
Dead is dead. Gone. Done with. No return to life on this planet.

salaam.

 

[MikeMcc]

Don't you find that chilling? Each of them could kill a human being. Or other life.
Dead is dead. Gone. Done with. No return to life on this planet.

salaam.

But very few of them actually hit anyone, most are to keep the enemy pinned down so that they can't escape.

 

[Aldebaran]

Which enemy and why would this "enemy" be the enemy of the UK, specifically?

salaam.

 

[MikeMcc]

Which enemy and why would this "enemy" be the enemy of the UK, specifically?

salaam.

Whomever is shooting at the troops in question. It's a mistake to look at too wide a picture when thinking about soldiers responses. That's for politicans, not soldiers. Soldiers are drilled and trained to respond to situations. Privately they have opinions on the situation, but they cannot allow those to influence their actions. That could result in their, or their mates, deaths.

 

[Squatticus]

@ aldebaran: Mike's posts were on a technical question, not expressing support for either side.

@ Mike: where's the >7,000 figure from? I hadn't seen it, and what period does it cover?

I don't see that it's necessarily unsustainable, given the population base, if the population is behind those fighting the imperialists*. Consider what other nations have sustained in wars to which they heavily committed themselves (in other words, just cause this isn't on a WW1 scale for the Brits, it doesn't mean it's not for the Afghan/Pakistan pop - asymmetry being an apt word in this case.)

*That in itself is a big question, but given the number of civilian's killed by bombing (which must be well over 7,000, if we count the whole period since 2001), it wouldn't be surprinsing if the occupiers were absolutely hated. I also noted that the duties of the Int Corps woman who was recently bumped off included 'training local security forces in the search of women suspects', which suggests a broader based insurgency than the picture of a few beardy wierdys which is sometimes painted.

 

[dylanredefined]

My mates lot were told they had killed approx 4000 that was when Ross Kemp was out there .
Aldebaran I suppose you could see every round as a potential life ender .
guess familiarity breeds contempt .Though small arms are pretty rubbish at killing people on a battlefield .Hence the taliban preferring bombs and mines and ISAF air support and heavy weapons .

 

[dylanredefined]

The population of afganistian basically wants to be left alone and will back which ever side happens to have the advantage or can offer the most goodies or threaten the most effectively .And alligences can change pretty quickly .Its not as simple as west oppresing the noble afgan .An awfull lot of taliban fighters are also foriegners some british accents have been heard over
the taliban radios .Taliban radios are not secure so it is easy to listen into what they are doing .

 

[weltweit]

Don't you find that chilling? Each of them could kill a human being. Or other life.
Dead is dead. Gone. Done with. No return to life on this planet.

salaam.

Well I was just trying to get a sense of perspective from playing with the figures.

It is very unlikely that all 600 front line troops are engaging daily and each firing 18 rounds per day. What is more likely is that much fewer of them are engaging and they are firing a lot more than 18 rounds each.

In the OP it said that it was staggering that UK troops are firing 11,000 rounds per day on average.

But in March it was much more busy.

March
400,000
460,000
62,000
-------
922,000
-------
31 days in March

922,000 / 31 =

29,700 total rounds per day

Is that chilling? yes perhaps it is, but this is a war and both sides think they have right on their side.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Current estimates on Taliban losses are >7000, that's not a rate that they can continue with for long.

It doesn't really work that way. The people that are called "Taliban" aren't actually "Taliban", they are just whoever happens to be being fought at the time (presuming that there's no political reason to call them "warlords" or anything - "Taliban" is going to be the default unless there's a different specific current propaganda move). The number of such people is therefore limited by the population of Afghanistan who can actually carry a gun, plus anyone else who feels they want to wander in.

 

[weltweit]

Indeed, the Afghans survived against the British last time and against the Russians, who is to suppose that they will not last this time against the USA and British (and others).