27 May 2008

Troop Ammo Debate Being Revealed

"Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the U.S. The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews."

I need to read up on this more. But as I understand it, the Geneva Convention required signatory nations to use ammunition that didn't necessary kill, but would wound. For to wound an enemy combatant was to tie up far more additional resources of an enemy military.

But with today's insurgent/terrorist approach, with hit and run tactics in urban settings, I have no idea whether the enemy even cares about its snipers or bomb maker's lives. For all I know, they leave them behind to die. Then, stopping power does become an issue.

Interesting, and disturbing, reading.

1 comment:

Harry Schell said...

Observations that the 5.56 round was marginal date from "Blackhawk Down" days.

In tests against cinder block walls, the 5.56 was marginal compared to the 7.62x39 and especially the 7.62x51.

The continuing interest of field troops in M14's is a symptom of the problem. Ditto for those units that can which have gone back to .45 ACP in preference to the 9mm. Even police have largely abandoned 9mm for .40 S+W or .45.

We are not giving our guys the best stuff to do the job.