The Deadly Beauty of the Tracer Bullet

Edrof · 14 Sep 2010 at 16:13

New article up at Environmental Graffiti about tracer bullets. Thanks to everyone who helped out in my research thread, I appreciate it!

As ever the editors have cut out bits and messed with my syntax but the essence is still there.

The Deadly Beauty of the Tracer Bullet

Some of the pics to whet your appetites:

EdGey · 14 Sep 2010 at 16:19

cool

Ahleckz · 14 Sep 2010 at 16:28

An OK read, felt quite dumbed down though. Also, you should source your anecdotes such as the 250,000 bullets per insurgent death and the story in France.

Greenlizard0 · 14 Sep 2010 at 16:29

Are you the only forum member that writes for that website? It feels very GCSE English essay like.

Swi1ch · 14 Sep 2010 at 16:47

Ahleckz said:
An OK read, felt quite dumbed down though. Also, you should source your anecdotes such as the 250,000 bullets per insurgent death and the story in France.

I read somewhere that ammunition expendature for infantry was 10,000 rounds per 1 enemy casualty. Whilst fighting what is essentially a guerilla force, I feel like 250k might be accurate.

I'll try to source.

Moley · 14 Sep 2010 at 16:53

Ahleckz said:
An OK read, felt quite dumbed down though.

Greenlizard0 said:
Are you the only forum member that writes for that website? It feels very GCSE English essay like.

Seriously, WHO CARES? It was an interesting article for those of us who know nothing about the subject and some pretty cool pictures too - yet you too thought the only suitable response was a put down?

This forum makes me sigh sometimes....

Disco Boy · 14 Sep 2010 at 17:02

Thing with tracers is... They work both ways

Cosimo · 14 Sep 2010 at 17:04

Nice read and a good selection of photos.

Tefal · 14 Sep 2010 at 17:12

Swi1ch said:
I read somewhere that ammunition expendature for infantry was 10,000 rounds per 1 enemy casualty. Whilst fighting what is essentially a guerilla force, I feel like 250k might be accurate.

I'll try to source.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html

lol the "calculation" is done from the entire expenditure of ammunition by the army.

ie they've included every round fired in training even on American soil in the "kill to bullet ratio".

So it's a hideously inaccurate figure.

the man who pulled this figure of of his anal sphincter said

Pointing out that officials say many of these bullets have been used for training purposes, he said: "What are you training for? To kill insurgents."

So yeah he's decided any supplies used in training is counted towards the kill.

A 2007 U.S. government report estimated that a staggering 250,000 bullets have been fired by U.S. forces in Iraq for every insurgent killed.

So the op didn't spend 30 seconds to google or even read the source he used for the article and as such has pretty much made something up.

and it throws the rest of his work into doubt as it's likely all based on equally bull**** data.

CocoPops · 14 Sep 2010 at 17:13

Loving the night photos.... painting by tracer

Dave M · 14 Sep 2010 at 17:17

Tefal said:
So the op didn't spend 30 seconds to google or even read the source he used for the article and as such has pretty much made something up.

and it throws the rest of his work into doubt as it;s likly all based on equally bull**** data.

So you're saying he has a future in journalism?

Tefal · 14 Sep 2010 at 17:18

Telescopi said:
So you're saying he has a future in journalism?

I see an "Editor" title in his future

Swi1ch · 14 Sep 2010 at 17:28

Tefal said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...use-250000-for-every-rebel-killed-508299.html

lol the "calculation" is done from the entire expenditure of ammunition by the army.

ie they've included every round fired in training even on American soil in the "kill to bullet ratio".

So it's a hideously inaccurate figure.

the man who pulled this figure of of his anal sphincter said

So yeah he's decided any supplies used in training is counted towards the kill.

Well I can kind of see his point, plus you'd think they'd discount the training rounds to reduce the casualty/fired ratio and make them look better, so there must be a reason.

Tefal · 14 Sep 2010 at 17:38

Swi1ch said:
Well I can kind of see his point, plus you'd think they'd discount the training rounds to reduce the casualty/fired ratio and make them look better, so there must be a reason.

who are "they" the guy that came up with the figure is entirely unrelated to the military.

he's just taken the total amount of ammunition used by the Us military over the last few years and divided it by the number of enemy combatants killed.

The army officials said "it's mostly used in training" and the guy says yeah but you train to kill so it counts towards shots fired per kill.

the Op has then even further bastardised the number by changing it from that to explicitly stating the army has fired all of those rounds in Iraq it's self.

which would mean between 2002 and 2003 using his "round down of 50,000" and taking just the enlisted men from the us forces (ignoring all civilians officers and females) Everyman will have only 283 bullets per year to train with.

Von Smallhausen · 14 Sep 2010 at 17:42

Forde said:

Love that pic.

One of my favourite WWII fighters to boot.

Kutter · 14 Sep 2010 at 18:02

some great pics there

arknor · 14 Sep 2010 at 18:31

Tefal said:
and it throws the rest of his work into doubt as it's likely all based on equally bull**** data.

like the bit about shooting down airships :rolleyes:

which seemed to be added just to bloat the essay...

btw before tracers they had bullets that exploded on impact

Edrof · 14 Sep 2010 at 18:39

Thanks for the positive responses. Shame about the usual GD lynch mob! I'm learning to take it with a grin, though.

To those commenting about my poor English: I'm afraid the EG editor who dealt with this piece has changed a lot of it around. I haven't had a chance to read it all through yet but by the looks of the first paragraph it's been dumbed down a great deal.

I write in the OP "As ever the editors have cut out bits and messed with my syntax but the essence is still there", though...

I can post my original if anyone wants to read it.

@Ahleckz the sources are listed. In the source list!

@Tefal, didn't you bother to read the next paragraph?

"As a vast percentage of those expended rounds will have been used for suppression, lost, spoiled or spent in a myriad of other ways, the figure of a quarter-million is undoubtedly misleading."

I did read my source thoroughly, but thanks for suggesting my work is all bull**** as you put it. Am I missing something? How is this paragraph wrong?

@Moley, thanks for your support. It's not nice to be ripped to pieces.

Edrof · 14 Sep 2010 at 18:43

arknor said:
like the bit about shooting down airships
which seemed to be added just to bloat the essay...

btw before tracers they had bullets that exploded on impact

Arknor, I know you have a thing for me and zeppelins!

The section about airships details some of the first (and most important) uses of the tracer bullet. It's perfectly reasonable to include it in a piece about tracer bullets.

Also, I had included photgraphs of Leefe-Robinson and his Bleriot biplane. The editors (in their infinite wisdom) decided it would be far better without all that gubbins :rolleyes:

Ahleckz · 14 Sep 2010 at 18:50

Forde said:
Thanks for the positive responses. Shame about the usual GD lynch mob! I'm learning to take it with a grin, though.

@Ahleckz the sources are listed. In the source list!

I only checked a few, and they were picture sources (my internet is very slow and didn't have the time to check them all). Though, what I did also mean was to directly link the bibliography with the sources in the text. A simple (4) after the anecdote, for example, would be sufficient.
Though I would do it as you would in an academic piece, for example it would read - "there were a quarter of a million rounds used per insurgent death (John, 2008)". Then in your source list you'll have "John, M., 2008. John Knows It All. Glasgow

enguin"
Just makes it easier for people to find out more.

Not a criticism in the slightest, just suggesting that you should make the sources and the stories link up better.