Michael Yon has a graphic report from Iraq, embedded with the British troops:

As we rumbled through the dry, desert heat, the smells of Iraq—nearly all of them bad—wafted down from the top hatch. Suddenly, the Bulldog was filled with a stench so awful that soldiers nearly gagged, as if everything that could rot in Iraq had gone rotten all at once. Where just moments before there was only dusty air in the compartment, in a flash it was filled with that horrendous, fetid stench and a swarm of flies. When, a few minutes later, the stench was suddenly replaced by smoke from outside, dozens of flies remained in the compartment.

...In an operation that lasted over four hours, British forces killed 26-27 enemy and sustained no casualties. 5 Platoon fired more than 4,000 bullets before their guns began to cool, and about 15 of the enemy kills were accredited to 5 Platoon. Another platoon captured two enemy fighters, including one Iraqi policeman who might have been heeding al Sadr’s call for Iraqi Police and Army forces to turn on their Coalition partners.

Shorter Michael Yon--he's impressed.

What? The media was only weeks ago saying that the British had abandoned the mission, they said the British were leaving Iraq, that the coalition had fell apart.

Well at least that is what their headlines screamed. Then somewhere deep in the story they finally mention that only some troops were leaving.

I can't help but wonder - is that all a huge mind job being pulled on the terrorists? Maybe the best way to weaken them is to have the news (which they watch) say that we are leaving, and then to in fact do the opposite and increase the pressure. Maybe this constant back and forth is even worse for them than it is for us?

Stranger things have happened...

Interesting.

The British fire approximately 300 rounds per insurgent.

The Americans fire about 250,000 rounds per insurgent.

Well anonymous if the US forces are using the same ammo as they were using in Mogadishu (and I find that likely) then I can understand the difference.

Anybody know if they've changed their ammunition to something that's more effective on humans as opposed to light armor?

I'd like to know where that number comes from.

If it has any bearing on reality, it probably is derived from all rounds fired by the army (most of them in training) divided by just the sparse reports of enemy dead (since we don't really do body counts anymore).

Even then, it still seems a little high.

Big D: "I'd like to know where that number comes from."

If "the anonymous" one were to turn around and bend over real far, you'd see where the number came from.

"Interesting.

The British fire approximately 300 rounds per insurgent.

The Americans fire about 250,000 rounds per insurgent.
Posted by at April 12, 2007 03:15 PM"

Apples and Oranges:

Our number includes our training expenditures and Helicopter Gunships/Vehicle mounted MG and AC-130 Gunships. It is a simplification of all the ammo the .mil is issued divided by the number of insurgents whacked over the same time period. Need I explain to anyone with a brain why this is completely fukd' up way to account? Does anyone really think we have carried and expended billions of rounds in combat thru individual weapons these past four years? That would be more than could be carried. Besides, Colt hasn't made that many barrels to replace the ones shot out on the front if that were true. I used to be a Unit Armorer in an Armored Cav Regiment. I doubt a typical front line M-16/M-4 will see more that a few thousand rounds fired in anger, its training that wears weapons out.

The Brits only account for rounds on a soldiers load out in a hot zone and do not account for every round produced divided by dead turds.

"What? The media was only weeks ago saying that the British had abandoned the mission, they said the British were leaving Iraq, that the coalition had fell apart."

They didn't say that. They said that the Brits had reduced their forces in Iraq, which is true.

But don't worry, everything is going well in Iraq and the bombing of the parliament building in the heart of the Green Zone and the blowing up of a major bridge are mere bumps on the road of this fifth year of success in Iraq.

The Americans fire about 250,000 rounds per insurgent.

Posted by at April 12, 2007 03:15 PM

what a hoot...

Learn something before commenting

Robert

Found this on another board:

"According to Wikipedia, there are 488,579 active duty soldiers and 180,000 active duty Marines. This totals 668,579 active duty members between those two alone.

1,800,000,000 rounds equals 2692 rounds for annual training per active duty member. This is a pretty good number for training alone, as I have frequently attended courses that would fire about 2,000 rounds in five days. So this would provide seven days of intensive live-fire per year per Army/USMC member. This does not include the actual ammunition required to actually use in combat.

If we account for all active duty service members, we are at 1,426,713 members. Divide 1,800,000,000 by 1,426,713 and you will find that this allows for 1,261 rounds per year for each active duty member.

If you actually expect to train the entire force (after all, reserv-ists are people too) you have to supply bullets to 2,685,713 individuals, giving you 670 rounds per member to accomplish all pre-deployment, initial, and sustainment training. This is a joke."

I saw the original article written by some moron from the British Independent News & Media bunch.

It is a good example of gross lying with stats. Sheep eat this stuff up.

Bill Lamark: "They didn't say that."

Yes, that is EXACTLY what their headlines (as I specified) said. Everywhere you looked, on every newspaper headline, on every news website article title and at the opening of every TV news segment they worded the announcement to sound as if the British were packing up and leaving ASAP. And they generally started off the body of their stories with something like "the Bush administrations coalition of the willing continues to shrink" or " the Bush administrations most stalwart ally begins pull out".

They made no effort to explain that the troop pull down was a minor one percentage wise nor that it was as a result of continuing self reliance on the part of the Iraqi security forces.

No they wanted it to sound as if the British were doing what the Democrats want US forces to do; "redeploy" IE surrender, give up, wave the white flag.

Sorry, that's my reply above.