Running Low on Ammo

I hate to point out how little you know about military hardware (or anything else for that matter) Westpoint, but the M-60 has been replaced in weapons platoons by the M240G and on vehicles by the M240B.

Wow that is a pretty ignorant statement . You cant be very intelligent to tell that to other members but you know everything And troops still carry the M-60 I don't care what it says on paper.

Is there anyone here who has ever actually been in a firefight?

Originally posted by psteel

Originally posted by Kozzy
When pinned you can simply return fire, this works well if done right because when a force is supressing(through direct fire) it is exposed and vulnerable. You can also shift to another position, or call in support. It's all a matter of fire and maneavuer, outshoot and outscoot your enemy.
]

sounds good in theory but doesn't work in practice. The side that gets the supressive fire going on their enemy has gained 'firesuperiority' or so I'm told. Once thats in place its the other way around. They can manuever around you and bypass or attack flank or rear...you on the other had break down into individuals fighting for your lives instead of fighting as a unit.

Sure good squad leaders can pull the squads 'nuts out of the fire'....but that has every thing to do with morale and training while haveing nothing to do with 3 round burst or M whatevers.

Exactly. If you're at fire inferiority it's going to take some balls, some smarts, or some luck to get out of it.

And an Army infantry squad has 9 men, 2 fire teams of 4 and a commander. A Marine squad has 13 men, one more fire team. A fire team has an M249, 2 M-16s, and an m203 grenade launcher.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Kozzy
Most soldiers during Vietnam were drafted, not well trained, and scared. Thus more likely to "rock n' roll"

You get the same result as full auto if you pull the trigger rapidly when firing burst anyway.

Those are some pretty ignorant statements, Kozzy. The men who fought the Vietnam war were the most well trained ever sent into battle. Most were not draftees, but volunteers and anyone who was not "scared" was crazy. The fear factor is exactly the reason there are medals for valor.

An M-16 can empty a 20 round magazine before the first casing hits the ground when fired from the standing position. Nobody's finger is that fast.

I know that, but there were a lot of conscipts in Nam, and conscripts are always less motivated and less capable during battle.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

I hate to point out how little you know about military hardware (or anything else for that matter) Westpoint, but the M-60 has been replaced in weapons platoons by the M240G and on vehicles by the M240B.

Wow that is a pretty ignorant statement .

You cant be very intelligent to tell that to other members but you know everything

And troops still carry the M-60 I don't care what it says on paper.

The M60 is still carried by second line army and Marine units. The Marines tried updating their's to the M60E4 before they got the M240s, and boy did it suck.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Is there anyone here who has ever actually been in a firefight?

I dont know, does being shot at by a farmer while being in his field when young count?

Originally posted by The_Squid

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Is there anyone here who has ever actually been in a firefight?

I dont know, does being shot at by a farmer while being in his field when young count?

My friend, the idiot he is, accidently fired his .35 rifle at my legs at the shooting range. Missed me by like 3 inches.

Originally posted by Kozzy

Originally posted by The_Squid

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Is there anyone here who has ever actually been in a firefight?

I dont know, does being shot at by a farmer while being in his field when young count?

My friend, the idiot he is, accidently fired his .35 rifle at my legs at the shooting range. Missed me by like 3 inches.

With all due respect, none of these count. Unless you have had to perform your duty, whatever that is, with precision and speed under a hail of small arms fire, with explosions going off all around, you really haven't lived and you surely haven't earned the right to criticize those who have. That's the one thing I will give John Kerry. Other than that, he wouldn�t get the sweat from my "boys."

Well, other then fistfights, that's my only combat experience.

Originally posted by Kozzy
Well, other then fistfights, that's my only combat experience.

Well, having never been in a firefight or not having the opportunity to serve in combat is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. So, continue the debate, just try to remember that unless you've been there, it's all theory and speculation and try not to be too critical of those who did their best under fire.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Kozzy
Well, other then fistfights, that's my only combat experience.

Well, having never been in a firefight or not having the opportunity to serve in combat is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. So, continue the debate, just try to remember that unless you've been there, it's all theory and speculation and try not to be too critical of those who did their best under fire.

I'm not, I was just repeating what I've seen in countless documentaries and reports.

Originally posted by Kozzy

Originally posted by cyberdude78
We wouldn't have to worry about that if soldiers simply went for the one shot kill. Its a complete waste of ammo to lay down fully automatic fire when one bullet is going to kill the enemy.

I'd like to see you hit anything beyond 50 meters with an M16 with only one shot.... that you'd probably have .00001 second to aim.

Also, ever heard of supression fire? You can't pin an enemy without a proper volume of fire on them, usually this means 5 to 10 SAWs blazing away.

Your boys need to learn a bit of fire discipline- UK style. Your basic contact drills use up far too much ammo.

With regards to the AK-47- it's actually a 7.63mm round. Nato rounds were purposefully made smaller so the enemy couldn't fire them.

The Cockroach writes:

With regards to the AK-47- it's actually a 7.63mm round. Nato rounds were purposefully made smaller so the enemy couldn't fire them.

Every AK-47 I have ever seen from Vietnam to here in the States fires a 7.62mm Short or 7.62mmx39, as it is more commonly called. To my knowledge, this round will not fire in NATO chambered weapons.

yes, because it's 7.63mm... Get one and measure it.

would you know how much ammo they use per day i mean that would help

I THINK you'll find its a 7.62mm since ive shot one and seen the packet of the Ammunition its used "7.62mm NATO"

and even if ya dont belive me then you can look at this website which states all AK-47 stats.

kalashnikov.guns.ru...

Oh jesus

AK-47: 7.62x39mm
NATO rifles: 7.62x51mm

And NATO rounds were made smaller because it allowed the soldier to carry almost twice as much ammo for the same weight.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by Kozzy]

Originally posted by Kozzy
Oh jesus

AK-47: 7.62x39mm
NATO rifles: 7.62x51mm

And NATO rounds were made smaller because it allowed the soldier to carry almost twice as much ammo for the same weight.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by Kozzy]

made SMALLER?? according to those stats they were made BIGGER, unless your talking about what they used to be then were made smaller to the 7.62x39mm ??

The Sen. John Kerry Record..

1. killed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
   
   
2. killed the M-1 Abrams Tank
   
   
3. killed every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
   
   
4. killed the Aegis anti aircraft system
   
   
5. killed the F-15 strike eagle
   
   
6. killed the Block 60 F-16
   
   
7. killed the P-3 Orion upgrade
   
   
8. killed the B-1
   
   
9. killed the B-2
   
   
10. killed the Patriot anti Missile system
    
    
11. killed the FA-18
    
    
12. killed the B-2
    
    
13. killed the F-117
    
    
14. killed every military appropriation for the development and
    deployment of every weapons systems since 1988
    (including a bill for battle armor for our troops)
    
    He was a huge supporter of Clinton's military cutbacks which nearly jeopardized our ability to contend with all of the needed preparations and actions to step into Iraq and accomplish the action with minimal casualties.
    
    If Sen. John Kerry were Commander in Chief of our Armed Services our country will not be able to defend itself against foreign terrorism or attacks from outside forces. He cut the funding of the FBI by 60% - He cut the funding for the CIA by 80% - He cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.
    
    He also voted to increase OUR funding for UN operations by over 600% according to info obtained.
    
    Why would ANYONE want these stunts to be rewarded by an honorable position such as the President of the United States?
    
    
    This was part of an email I got . . . . .

Plain and simple if Kerry is president this will happen to our military He was against every weapon platform that helped us win the Cold war. And I do not feel safe with Kerry's policy concerning war he says, I will only go to war when the US is attacked first. That is unbelievable this man is against preemptive strikes. I know this has nothing to do with the topic but im just adding to what the member above posted.