Army running out of ammo...

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-12 07:15pm

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationwo ... mmo11.html

U.S. ammunition plant reaching its limit

By Joseph L. Galloway
Knight Ridder Newspapers

FORT BELVOIR, Va. — The U.S. military's only plant making small-arms ammunition is running at near capacity, 4 million rounds a day, and the United States still is forced to look overseas and to the recreational industry for ammunition for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and those training to deploy there soon.

Gen. Paul Kern, commander of the Army Materiel Command, said Friday that giving those units priority ensured they had enough small-arms ammunition. "Everyone else will have to pay the price" and wait for it, he said.

The increased demand for ammunition for combat shooting and intensified training has made deep inroads in the nation's war reserves of ammunition, Kern said.

The sole plant making small-arms ammunition, the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Independence, Mo., is running three eight-hour shifts a day, six days a week. The plant provides 5.56 mm rifle, 7.62 mm and .50 caliber machine gun as well as 9 mm pistol cartridges for all branches of the military.

Because of the increased demand for ammunition since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Kern said the Army in late December let two supplemental contracts to Olin Winchester of East Alton, Ill., and Israeli Military Industries for each to produce 70 million rifle rounds per month starting in June.

The general said it would probably take until 2005 to get small-arms ammunition production to a level at which there will be enough to cover all the increased training needs and begin rebuilding the war reserves.

"We can't just go out and buy our ammunition commercially," Kern said. "We maintain very tight quality controls. Our ammo has to work, at 40 below zero or 140 degrees."

He said the Army has put an additional $225 million into small-arms ammunition production and additional armor for Humvees since the 9-11 attacks.

In addition to combat requirements, two other factors were driving the increased demand for ammunition: increased live-fire training for combat-service-support units and the fact that Reserves and National Guard were shooting as much as the active Army as they trained for deployment to combat, Kern said.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-12 07:20pm

Feels like the Clinton years again.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-12 07:23pm

Joe wrote:Feels like the Clinton years again.

Actually as I understand it, it was because of Clinton that the ammo reserves were so low when the demand began.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-12 08:01pm

You can always... hehe... import... hah... the ammo.

Sorry, America importing bullets is just too silly for me.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-01-12 08:09pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Sorry, America importing bullets is just too silly for me.

It almost seems like we're importing everything these days.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-01-12 08:31pm

The more bullets you fire in peacetime the less bullets you have to fire in war.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-12 08:51pm

Why don't they build another factory?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-12 08:53pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Why don't they build another factory?

Might be easier to just work with an established company that is experienced in making munitions added with the military's stringent requirements makes buiklding new factories cost prohibitive.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-01-12 08:53pm

I don't understand. The munitions plant is nationalized?

I presume that if the U.S. Army were to start exhibiting substantial need, somebody would go and build a new, private factory to scoop up orders.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2004-01-12 08:58pm

Stravo wrote:
Joe wrote:Feels like the Clinton years again.
Actually as I understand it, it was because of Clinton that the ammo reserves were so low when the demand began.

This problem started long before Clinton got elected so he isn't the only one responsible. Military downsizing and privatization over the decades had reduced the number of ammunition plants to almost none.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-01-12 09:44pm

Axis Kast wrote:I don't understand. The munitions plant is nationalized?

I presume that if the U.S. Army were to start exhibiting substantial need, somebody would go and build a new, private factory to scoop up orders.

The military owns it's own ammo plant so as to insure the supply, regardless of what the market price is. Makes sense when you think about it. I'm not surprised at all at the companies that they're contracting the rounds from.

If we really had to have more ammo being made, we'd probably build another factory.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-12 10:02pm

What would happen to the army if, say, the ammo plant was destroyed by terrorists?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-12 10:32pm

Wow, Lake City is the only one making small arms ammo still? Wonder when the rest of the armories were closed...

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2004-01-12 10:33pm

What would happen if say...we wasted less money shooting people?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-12 10:33pm

HemlockGrey wrote:What would happen to the army if, say, the ammo plant was destroyed by terrorists?

They'd reopen other armories and begin using the dozens of civilian ammunition producers to buy ammo. Also, other countries could assist in the supply, thanks in part to NATO's homogenization of the ammo used by it's member countries.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-12 10:35pm

Worlds Spanner wrote:What would happen if say...we wasted less money shooting people?

You've got to turn this into a debate about the war, don't you? Jeez, people, the war is already going, bitching about us being there is doing a bit of good, unless you want us to leave Iraq in the sorry state it's in now.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2004-01-12 10:45pm

Oh, I'm not talking about the part of the war that's over.

The fact that such heavy training is going on implies that much more fighting is planned.

Two possibilities come to mind:

a) The administration has so little confidence in it's plans that it expects violence to escalate. If this is so, shouldn't they change their plans? I suppose having bullets as back-up is good, but so far the White House doesn't seem to think of bullets as a last resort.
b) More wars and war-like actions are actively being planned.

I don't care for either.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-12 11:00pm

Worlds Spanner wrote:Oh, I'm not talking about the part of the war that's over.

The fact that such heavy training is going on implies that much more fighting is planned.

Two possibilities come to mind:

a) The administration has so little confidence in it's plans that it expects violence to escalate. If this is so, shouldn't they change their plans? I suppose having bullets as back-up is good, but so far the White House doesn't seem to think of bullets as a last resort.
b) More wars and war-like actions are actively being planned.

I don't care for either.

You know jack about military preparedness, don't you? If you don't keep your military prepared, then you might as well not have a military at all. The more you sweat training, the less you bleed fighting. Military training is essential to keeping your troops alive in the event that they have to fight, and live fire training is an essential part of that.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-01-12 11:01pm

I do believe we've gone back to the imperative that says we must be ready to fight two simultaneous wars overseas since September 11th - largely as a necessity of fulfilling the mandates of the strategy of preemption. And regardless of what you think of preemption, the two-war mandate is still useful.

I also question why higher training standards and intensity bother you. We've still got an all-volunteer army, and we're not going to change that. Conscripts are expensive, inefficient, and anathema to the current U.S. vision of warmaking. If we really have trouble, you'll see additional pay and bonuses for volunteers - as in virtually guaranteed acceptance to some of the best state schools after service and a 1 to 1.5 time increase in compensation before we start a draft. It's also political suicide for the politican who actively pushes it.

As for the new invasions, I question what makes you think we really will go into Syria or Iran anytime soon.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2004-01-12 11:09pm

Nathan F wrote:Wonder when the rest of the armories were closed...

I'm guessing most of them were closed in the 50s and 60s during the mass downsizing of the military.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-12 11:11pm

Rubberanvil wrote:
Nathan F wrote:Wonder when the rest of the armories were closed...
I'm guessing most of them were closed in the 50s and 60s during the mass downsizing of the military.

Definitely not the 50's and 60's, that's when we were in Korea then Vietnam. I'm thinking probably the downsizing of the Carter and later Clinton administrations.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2004-01-12 11:14pm

Axis Kast wrote:I also question why higher training standards and intensity bother you. We've still got an all-volunteer army, and we're not going to change that. Conscripts are expensive, inefficient, and anathema to the current U.S. vision of warmaking. If we really have trouble, you'll see additional pay and bonuses for volunteers - as in virtually guaranteed acceptance to some of the best state schools after service and a 1 to 1.5 time increase in compensation before we start a draft. It's also political suicide for the politican who actively pushes it.

Quite right.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-01-12 11:28pm

Worlds Spanner wrote:The fact that such heavy training is going on implies that much more fighting is planned.

Two possibilities come to mind:

a) The administration has so little confidence in it's plans that it expects violence to escalate. If this is so, shouldn't they change their plans? I suppose having bullets as back-up is good, but so far the White House doesn't seem to think of bullets as a last resort.
b) More wars and war-like actions are actively being planned.

I don't care for either.

Train for war not peace. Think of it this way. An athlete does not sit on his ass and hope that when the big competition comes he'll be in shape and do well. He might never make it to the big game, but he trains his ass off so that he'll be ready if he does. Same thing with the armed forces. They might never be called on to fight a war, but they damn well better be ready if they do see action. The only way they're going to be ready is through constant training.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-01-12 11:35pm

I didn't know our ammo was so versatile that it functions over a range of 150 degrees. I think they should build a new ammo plant, I'd rather not have our guys running out of bullets while the North Koreans are closing in on Pusan.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-01-13 12:31am

Training is bloodless combat, and combat is bloody training.
That is how the military trains today, and it helps keep the casualty count low. A military that doesn't train is a military that won't exist shortly after combat begins.