I gotta call BS on this stat...what do you guys think?

[Mike Miller]

Anyone read LT Grossman's books..On Killing or On Combat? He says that only 15-25% (IIRC) actually fired upon people in combat during WW2. Others were happy to help buddies reload while others postured by firing above enemies etc.

I'm assuming that's based on the research by General SLA Marshall. Years ago I read "About Face" by David Hackworth, who had personal experience with Marshall and declared him a fraud, that the statistic was made up.

[C-grunt]

I could see it being pretty high. One night while on patrol in Iraq we came apon an IED on the side of the road. It was pretty small and we were in Bradleys. As we were tracing the wire back to a spot in a palm grove it detonated. My buddy who was gunning the lead Brad emptied his entire co-ax box (900ish rounds of 7.62) at the 4 figures in the palm grove.

After he was done cutting down the tree line we couldnt see the 4 guys anymore. A Kiowa that was flying in the area saw the tracers and came over to help. She, yes a female combat pilot, flew over with the IR and spotted them dead a few yards in the tree line. She decided to make sure and then lit them up with a couple .50 call runs and 5 or 6 rockets.


Thats a lot of firepower to kill 4 enemy combatants. But damn was it cool to watch.

[Belmont31R]

I thought the M40 came after Viet Nam. In Marine Sniper they talk about taking commercial Winnys and Remmys and reworking them into sniper rifles. And the M40 is 308 and Carlos used a 30-06 when they 1st started.

The M40 was introduced later in the war, and came with a variable Redfield scope. Winchester M70 target rifles in 30-06 were used in the first part.


The M40A1 with 10X Unertl came after the war.

[ALCOAR]

I could see it being pretty high. One night while on patrol in Iraq we came apon an IED on the side of the road. It was pretty small and we were in Bradleys. As we were tracing the wire back to a spot in a palm grove it detonated. My buddy who was gunning the lead Brad emptied his entire co-ax box (900ish rounds of 7.62) at the 4 figures in the palm grove.

After he was done cutting down the tree line we couldnt see the 4 guys anymore. A Kiowa that was flying in the area saw the tracers and came over to help. She, yes a female combat pilot, flew over with the IR and spotted them dead a few yards in the tree line. She decided to make sure and then lit them up with a couple .50 call runs and 5 or 6 rockets.


Thats a lot of firepower to kill 4 enemy combatants. But damn was it cool to watch.

THANKS for sharing such a badass story! Awesomeness...very interesting replies so far. I think there is some truth in the fact that F/A and tactics of shooting anything that moved or looked funny in the jungle could merit the stat...however its mind blowing none the least.

[Complication]

Anyone read LT Grossman's books..On Killing or On Combat? He says that only 15-25% (IIRC) actually fired upon people in combat during WW2. Others were happy to help buddies reload while others postured by firing above enemies etc.

He does say that with each war rates went up as training changed to address the phenom.

That said, 50k per does sound ridiculous.

Grossman uses those stats as well.* I'm halfway through On Killing at the moment so I've got the book handy.

I believe he quotes the stats a number of times but the first stat I found, flipping through On Killing was:
"From January 7 to July 24, 1969, U.S. Army snipers in Vietnam accounted for 1,245 confirmed kills, with an average of 1.39 bullets expended per kill. (Compare this with the average fifty thousand rounds of ammunition required for every enemy solider killed in Vietnam.)" (Pg. 109, Revised Edition)

The footnote which accompanies this section partially explains it and is as follows:
"This has been mentioned elsewhere, but it bears repeating that the universal distribution of automatic weapons in Vietnam is probably responsible for much of this large number of shots fired per kill. Much of this firing was also suppressive fire and reconnaissance by fire. And much of it was by crew-served weapons (e.g. squad machine guns, helicopter door gunners, and aircraft-mounted miniguns firing thousands of rounds per minute), which, as mentioned before, almost always fire. ... "

I want to say that at some point Grossman mentioned that the same statistic for Iraq/A-stan was 10,000-20,000. But I couldn't find that right away. So I can't say for sure.

You should note that due to the circumstances that statistic covers (from miniguns to suppressive fire), the statistic becomes almost useless. It would be like comparing the TNT equivalent of explosives used in munitions to kill enemy combatants, including both the gunpowder in bullets and aerial bombs. It's a nice big, fat number, but it doesn't tell you anything useful.

*Given the scholarly nature of the books as well as their widespread success and acclaim, you can probably trust the statistics are reasonably accurate.

[RogerinTPA]

I remember seeing this program a while back, and unless I am mistaken [which could very well be the case] didn't they say the reason for this was because the doctrine of the day was to spray the forest with as much automatic fire as possible, weather it be to supress the threat or done simpley in the hopes that "with enough lead flying that-a-way you are bound to hit a zipperhead"?

My GF's father who was in Vietnam confirmed this, though I don't know how truthfull he may be about it.

As someone who has very little experience with the Military save for my grandfather's was stories from the Easter front of WW2, my Dad's doomsday tales of flying on TU95's with nukes on board over the passific for "training" and my extended weekend at the USNA as a potential Plebe, I find the Military channel to be pretty entertaining lol. Only wish Comcast carried it in HD

My dad (3 tours in VN), and other VN Vets I spoke with, stated that with conventional Infantry, hosing down a tree line or shrubs, while in contact, was pretty much the norm. After seeing quite a few film clips on troops in contact during that era, it seems everyone was going "rock & roll" on virtually everything in sight.

[ALCOAR]

Grossman uses those stats as well.* I'm halfway through On Killing at the moment so I've got the book handy.

I believe he quotes the stats a number of times but the first stat I found, flipping through On Killing was:
"From January 7 to July 24, 1969, U.S. Army snipers in Vietnam accounted for 1,245 confirmed kills, with an average of 1.39 bullets expended per kill. (Compare this with the average fifty thousand rounds of ammunition required for every enemy solider killed in Vietnam.)" (Pg. 109, Revised Edition)

The footnote which accompanies this section partially explains it and is as follows:
"This has been mentioned elsewhere, but it bears repeating that the universal distribution of automatic weapons in Vietnam is probably responsible for much of this large number of shots fired per kill. Much of this firing was also suppressive fire and reconnaissance by fire. And much of it was by crew-served weapons (e.g. squad machine guns, helicopter door gunners, and aircraft-mounted miniguns firing thousands of rounds per minute), which, as mentioned before, almost always fire. ... "

I want to say that at some point Grossman mentioned that the same statistic for Iraq/A-stan was 10,000-20,000. But I couldn't find that right away. So I can't say for sure.

You should note that due to the circumstances that statistic covers (from miniguns to suppressive fire), the statistic becomes almost useless. It would be like comparing the TNT equivalent of explosives used in munitions to kill enemy combatants, including both the gunpowder in bullets and aerial bombs. It's a nice big, fat number, but it doesn't tell you anything useful.

*Given the scholarly nature of the books as well as their widespread success and acclaim, you can probably trust the statistics are reasonably accurate.

Hit it with some facts, why dont you

[ALCOAR]

My dad (3 tours in VN), and other VN Vets I spoke with, stated that with conventional Infantry, hosing down a tree line or shrubs, while in contact, was pretty much the norm. After seeing quite a few film clips on troops in contact during that era, it seems everyone was going "rock & roll" on virtually everything in sight.

LOL...i sure as hell would have been. Ty for your pop's service!

[Ash Hess]

I would not discount it. Think about LZ Xray. The Cav landed with basic load and they had ammo coming in all day. Yet they had to redistribute several times. So say 1000 rounds fired per US soldier. Now if you go with bodies, like hands on dead dudes, the numbers add up quick.
I dont know how many BG's actually got smoked, nor do I know how many millions of 5.56 were fired but I run of this logic which I learned the hard way "5.56 goes quick, helicopters go slow".

[Complication]

Hit it with some facts, why dont you

Facts are no fun.

For what it's worth, after 30 minutes of searching, I've found estimates that range from 3,000 to 200,000 for Vietnam. But almost each one of those estimates are worded differently. Sometimes it's "rounds expended by infantrymen" or "fired from an M-16" or, like Grossman's phrasing, "rounds expended from any source."

While I've found the 50,000 round figure in a number of published books (on Google books and from book reviews/excerpts), I have yet to find one which cites a source.

My guess is that either 1) an Army study or other document came up with that number (in which case we might very well be able to find the original source) or 2) it was printed in a new article at the time (probably as a SWAG) and spread like wildfire (in which case almost all sources will state, "it is said that..." or other vague allusions to a source.

My gut says that someone tallied up all the 5.56 or all of any ammo that was procured or issued out over the course of the war (which probably wouldn't have been difficult to find at the time, I mean we're always hearing about ammo purchases along with information about improved 5.56 rounds like the SOST) and then divided it by confirmed kills. While that wouldn't be a precise number due to ammo in circulation before the beginning of the war (uncounted but fired) and ammo in circulation after the war (counted by unfired), it would be pretty damned close.