View Single Post
  #24  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:51 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
You ever get a chance to see the news media in other countries? It's so much better, so much more responsible, so much less focused on giving you that recreational fear that you (the collective you) love so much. Americans seem uniquely addicted to shitty news designed to scare us and provoke outrage. Our news media is really a huge outlier in the world
I'm a sheltered* Canadian who gets most of his news from The Economist magazine so I guess I don't have as much of a handle on the state of American media.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
They assume that everyone shoots off a few dozen rounds and hits someone else, and enough people doing this and that's how battles are decided. But in reality, between around 250,000 to 750,000 rounds are fired for every small arms combat casualty in combat. The number of rounds fired and their relative ineffectiveness is staggering. In WW2, small arms in total - machine guns, rifles, everything - accounted for less than 20 percent of casualties inflicted. In most battles, the purpose of small arms was basically to throw enough lead at your enemy so they were locked in place and keeping their heads down, which means they weren't doing the same to you. At that point you call in artillery and wait for that to do the actual work.
Ground & pound, much like MMA. Establishing initial fire superiority is where having high capacity and rate of fire matters.

I've read that stats about the number of rounds per casualties. Is that the total number of rounds expended in a year divided by the number of confirmed enemy casualties? If it includes rounds expended thru training, that may give us a skewed perspective on what engagements were like even if heavy weapons are still predominant.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 06-12-2019 at 11:52 AM. Reason: * because of the igloo