"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

Kipling.

Subby, "amunition" is not the correct nomenclature.
The proper term is Freedom Bullets.

You'll never take me alive, coppers!

Who the fark goes out on patrol with one radio and 90 minutes worth of munitions?

During WWII French Armor was helpless to stop or push back the advancing Germans because French doctrine at the time only allowed tanks to have enough fuel for 50 or so miles if I remember correctly. The same went for ammunition and other supplies. Not surprised to see that this type of oversight has not faded into the past. Sad.

French, eh? Bunch of pussies! Why, if it were an American force without ammunition they just would have punched the living daylights out the enemy with the butt of their weapons, I tell you what!

scruffy1: During WWII French Armor was helpless to stop or push back the advancing Germans because French doctrine at the time only allowed tanks to have enough fuel for 50 or so miles if I remember correctly. The same went for ammunition and other supplies. Not surprised to see that this type of oversight has not faded into the past. Sad.

Well, I am a little surprised this type of oversight has not faded into the past. Bear in mind though, that when the U.S. first showed up in Irak, a lot of equipment shortcomings had to be addressed, some of which were not apparent prior to combat.

I am sure, despite all our jokes, that those French soldiers fought with courage and conviction, and if their defeat was due to some assinine policy or a deficiency in equipment, that that policy or deficiency will be adressed.

War is not easy, there is bound to be a learning curve.

That said, French tanks in WWII were actually more heavily armoured and had more firepower than their German couterparts, but were not used very well. They would chase the Germans until they were out of gas, they'd have refuelling trucks drive up to them to refuel, and that's generally when the Germans would reappear. They also lacked air support.

Ninety minutes of ammunition when weapons can fire full cyclic at 600+ rounds per minute is one helluva lot of ammo. Now, one would hope that none of the French forces were so untrained and undisciplined that they simply fired full auto for 90 minutes...

Did they try taunting them a second time?

cyber_slacker: scruffy1: During WWII French Armor was helpless to stop or push back the advancing Germans because French doctrine at the time only allowed tanks to have enough fuel for 50 or so miles if I remember correctly. The same went for ammunition and other supplies. Not surprised to see that this type of oversight has not faded into the past. Sad.

Well, I am a little surprised this type of oversight has not faded into the past. Bear in mind though, that when the U.S. first showed up in Irak, a lot of equipment shortcomings had to be addressed, some of which were not apparent prior to combat.

I am sure, despite all our jokes, that those French soldiers fought with courage and conviction, and if their defeat was due to some assinine policy or a deficiency in equipment, that that policy or deficiency will be adressed.

War is not easy, there is bound to be a learning curve.

That said, French tanks in WWII were actually more heavily armoured and had more firepower than their German couterparts, but were not used very well. They would chase the Germans until they were out of gas, they'd have refuelling trucks drive up to them to refuel, and that's generally when the Germans would reappear. They also lacked air support.

The French have a great and very well trained special forces type unit, and yes they had superior armor than the Germans but sadly due to policy and regulations they were rapidly overwhelmed by the Germans, something that even the German found surprising. And I agree with shortcomings of equipment in supplies, it only goes to show you that wars are won and lost not in the battlefield but in the desks of those that make and instill policy.

The French problem has always been one of leadership, not courage.

Wait a minute - aren't all the NATO/ISAF countries using standard ammo? Wasn't that the whole point, that they would all use 5.56? How do you run out?

UNC_Samurai: How do you run out?

When you pack extra baguettes, cheese and wine instead of ammo.

coyote71: UNC_Samurai: How do you run out?

When you pack extra baguettes, cheese and wine instead of ammo.

If war can't be civilized then I'd rather die.

UNC_Samurai

Wait a minute - aren't all the NATO/ISAF countries using standard ammo? Wasn't that the whole point, that they would all use 5.56? How do you run out?

Um, I may be completely off-base here, but I think that no matter how standardized your bullets are, when you fire them all you are officially "out of ammunition." Please correct my error if I am wrong.

Incindiary bullets used by snipers "designed to punch holes in armor"?

WTF reporting going on here. That shiat doesn't exist, and if it did we'd be using it instead of DU rounds.

Should have borrowed some from Ted

meanwhile;

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0504/steyn1.asp

(OK, so it was 4 years ago, but I remembered it because I thought it was farking Shakespearian)

What French ammunition may look like:

RsquaredW
Incindiary bullets used by snipers "designed to punch holes in armor"?

WTF reporting going on here. That shiat doesn't exist, and if it did we'd be using it instead of DU rounds.

We don't use full metal jacket tracer rounds?

Single White Male: What French ammunition may look like:

We have a winner

Hmm, I did see some "armor-penetrating" rounds used in afghanistan. The first time our unit came under fire, we had a Humvee get hit above the drivers door with a round that penetrated through there into the hull of the vehicle, struck the transmission hump and went out underneath the vehicle.

Dunno what round that was, but I'm SURE it wasn't a 7.62x39. It also wasn't "incendiary."

Reporters can be morons when it comes to military stuff.

Nice Kipling reference, Rusty!

Anyway, this happens more often that you would think to everyone over there. We had an infantry platoon "go black" on ammo when they got ambushed by about 40 guys. We had to shoot a LOT of artillery rounds to keep separation between the good and bad guys. We ended up running out of HE rounds (approx. 80 between two cannons). We had to ground burst illumination rounds (flares) waiting for a chinook to bring us more. Fortunately, even without ammo, no Americans were killed that time.

FMJ Tracers are not incendiary. I've never seen a tracer round catch anything on fire except at a firing range.

Someone put the shoop face on this with a "JAAP DE HOOP" caption, before the link cools off!

SwiftFox: RsquaredW
Incindiary bullets used by snipers "designed to punch holes in armor"?
...
We don't use full metal jacket tracer rounds?

There's a significant difference between a "tracer" round and an "incindiary" (sic) round.

Also, keep in mind that the standard combat load even for US forces is 6 30-round magazines plus one in the rifle (210 rounds). Granted, veteran troops will carry as much beyond that as possible, but 200-ish round is generally considered a sufficient load (it doesn't matter what the cyclic rate on a rifle is if you're only using it on semi, with a single round fired every 2 seconds or so).

Dadx6
FMJ Tracers are not incendiary. I've never seen a tracer round catch anything on fire except at a firing range.

To quote someone, "Reporters can be morons when it comes to military stuff". The report is not from a source that would make that kind of distinction.

Dadx6,

I talked to a CA guy at our fob that always rolled with the ANA. He used a weird weapon on a mount on the back of a Hilux (definitely a gani?/russian?/chinese? weapon) that he claimed to be a 51 cal. with a 4mm exploding tip. Not sure if he was telling the truth or if this is even what you had seen hit a humvee. They do have RPGs and armor piercing RPGs (definitely a difference), but who needs anything that'll pierce armor in the gan? the worst you'll see is mud and truck metal.

Why didnt Bush make sure all the armies were properly equipped?

More deaths due to that moron.

Fire discipline much?

//snarky 'cuz they're French

Churchill2004: The French problem has always been one of leadership, not courage.

True. The French have always had great soldiers and terrible management. See Verdun, Maginot Line.

Wow... I just read basically the same thing written by Tom Kratman in Carnifex, only it was the "Gauls" on "Nova Terra" fighting in "Pashtia".

Great book, sequel to "A Desert Called Peace".

Those wacky French... sabotaging their own troops!

The main reason the French got beat was because of the Maginot line, which tied up most of their military in an area that the Germans could just go around. I'm sure insufficient fuel / ammo didn't help the forces that actually engaged the Germans - but the war was over for France regardless.

Yes, French soldiers are brave, but they have this odd tendency to be led by total freaking morons. All spirit and no brains.

portscanner: Why didnt Bush make sure all the armies were properly equipped?

More deaths due to that moron.

Aside from my incredible urge to joke about French surrendering or why the Democrats in this country aren't blaming Bush for the French not having the right equipment or some such thing, I must point out a couple things.
A) If the report is true, the Frenchies fought to the last man. Pretty honorable.
B) Did anyone read the last paragraph of the article? Sounds like all the "information" is based on rumor and innuendo. Much like most "reports" from a war-zone these days, any and all info that paints Western forces in a bad light is taken as gospel no matter what the sources (or lack thereof).

RsquaredW: Incindiary bullets used by snipers "designed to punch holes in armor"?

WTF reporting going on here. That shiat doesn't exist, and if it did we'd be using it instead of DU rounds.

Actually, that shiat does exist. It's just usually .50 caliber and designed to kill vehicles more than people.

From the wiki on the .50 BMG round(s):

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Armor-Piercing-Incendiary, M8
This cartridge is used, in place of the armor piercing round, against armored, flammable targets. The bullet is colored with silver tip.

KIA: Ninety minutes of ammunition when weapons can fire full cyclic at 600+ rounds per minute is one helluva lot of ammo. Now, one would hope that none of the French forces were so untrained and undisciplined that they simply fired full auto for 90 minutes...

But... but that's the fun way!

They're lucky that all that happened was they were killed. The Taliban would LOVE to get their hands on some live soldiers.

I don't understand. Why didn't they just call a time out? And while their at it, no hitting in the face!

Drongo3: Did they try taunting them a second time?

They should have farted in their general direction.

j0ndas :

I agree with you, and I think you could make that same argument about most countries. For example, the same thing really applies to the Italians in WW2; man for man, they were fine soldiers, but their officer class sucked.

I always found it ironic that the French were all about the attack in WW1: Plan 19. Had they switched tactics in between WW1 and WW2, they would have been freakin' military geniuses...

Benjimin_Dover: Drongo3: Did they try taunting them a second time?

They should have farted in their general direction.

Their father was a hamster and their mother smelled of poppy plants

Yeah, that's a 12.9mm MG called a "Dushka" (new window)

The ANA had those on all their little Ford Rangers everywhere. Never saw them actually use 'em, though, so I'm not sure how well-maintained they are.

Anyway, the Humvee that got hit, this penetrating hit was unique, there weren't any other impacts on the vehicle like it, making me think it wasn't an automatic weapon that fired it. Not that I know, of course, but just guessing.

Single White Male: What French ammunition may look like:

The Taliban doesn't recognize the white flag unless it is wrapped around your head.

Why are we in Afghanistan when it seems none of the locals want us there? Screw them, let them live in the stone age if that is what they want so badly. Tell them that we aren't in the rebuilding business anymore but we're staying in the blowing shiat up business so if they get uppity again we'll be back to blow everything up again. We should have all that effort spent here defending our borders, keeping the lunatics and harmful crap out of our country.

If/when we leave Afghanistan, it'll be like when we left Vietnam. There'll be thousands of assholes who didn't find the will to fight to free their country who'll find the will to try to get out with our forces.

portscanner
Why didnt Bush make sure all the armies were properly equipped?
More deaths due to that moron.

Yes, because GWB is the Supreme Commander of the French Army, as we all know.

LindyJohn: j0ndas :

I always found it ironic that the French were all about the attack in WW1: Plan 19. Had they switched tactics in between WW1 and WW2, they would have been freakin' military geniuses...

That argument does have merit, especially considering the Germans' first target wasn't France, but Poland. The campaign took a toll on the embryonic German forces at the time. The British and French were allied to Poland and obligated to come to their aid but instead sat on their thumbs for a whopping 8 months (Phony War/"Sitzkrieg").When the Germans finally invaded Western Europe, they had a much larger, as well as experienced force to throw at the Allies.

one would hope that none of the French forces were so untrained and undisciplined that they simply fired full auto for 90 minutes...

Wouldn't that make teh barrel melt? Isn't that why all .50 cals come with 2 barrels and a pair of asbestos gloves (to prevent the frying of teh hands, you know)?

Since this is Fark you can anticipate what happened next...

He fixes the cable?

Befuddled :

We're not Afghanistan because "they want us there". We're in Afghanistan because before we were there it was run by the Taliban who were directly allied with Al Queda-- you know, those guys who took down two of the ugliest buildings in New York...

And by the way, the South Vietnamese did not lose because they were unable to find the will to fight. Facing invasion by a communist power is pretty good motivation. South Vietnam lost largely because the U.S. congress cut all funding to the South Vietnamese military, and they ran out of bullets.