Brilliant, sir or madam. Absolutely brilliant.
The article seemed to use rounds expended vs. emus killed as the sole criterion for judging the success of the project. That’s always going to give you a lousy result if you’re using automatic weapons. If they had used bolt action rifles, I’m betting the ammo-to-emu ratio would have been much better, but the total number of emus killed would have been much, much lower.
And BTW, emu meat is absolutely delicious.
If the Klingons could win glory by eradicating tribbles throughout the Empire, I don’t begrudge the Australian military the chance to win its laurels by taking on rampaging emus.
Yeah, aren’t those the same kind of bullet-to-kill ratios you get in war against humans?
No, emus are smart enough to hide.
Apparently not (although a large portion is for training): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html
Considering how much suppressive fire can get used, 100 rounds for casualty would be very surprising.
That article’s numbers are worthless. Nobody cares how many bullets are manufactured vs how many insurgents are killed. Nobody cares how many bullets are used in all military use vs number insurgents killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. That would be like caring how many rounds of ammunition are used hunting deer vs number of insurgents killed.
The only meaningful number would be number of bullets shot at insurgents vs number of insurgents killed. And we just don’t have those statistics - either side.
But yes, the bullet shot per person killed ratio certainly goes up with full auto fire. The more bullets flying, the more likely a hit, but each hit is actually less likely because aiming is a lot less precise. If you want a low bullet/target ratio, you need an army of snipers.
It wasn’t much better even back during the American Civil War, when it was later estimated that each casualty had required the expenditure of his weight in lead. One soldier writing in his memiors mentioned taking cover on the ground behind a small log, and wondering how long he could hold his finger up before it would be shot off. Small trees on battlegrounds were sawn down by gunfire.
Fascinating. I hadn’t known that an American-made light machine gun firing (in some versions) the 30.06 round was available at the start of WW1. How did it compare to the B.A.R.?
No, much higher. Depending on which conflict and which armed forces you’re talking about, on average you get one small arms casualty per 25,000-300,000 rounds fired. The number has increased over time with the increasing presence of automatic weapons.