Its a classic glass half full / glass half empty argument. Remember, each side killed one person. One side can only afford to dispatch one soldier, with a non

Its a classic glass half full / glass half empty argument. Remember, each side killed one person. One side can only afford to dispatch one soldier, with a non-sniper rifle, on a sniper patrol, and the pessimism shows in that he did the spray and pray technique every day and went home, knowing that his side couldn't bother even providing a proper sniper rifle. "They pretend to supply us, we pretend to fight for them". Its just bad luck that eventually a spray -n- pray weapons policy randomly hit some poor guy on our side resulting in massive retaliation. The glass half empty way to look at $100K of small arms ammo to kill one guy is it cost $100K and that's not scalable if there's more than one guy. The other way to look at it, is this only happened once, which tells you all you really need to know about the opfor's opinion of this tactic, and furthermore we didn't appear to mind spending $100K on one opfor. That's why this kind of suicide kamikaze tactic was not super popular. Now with backpack nukes, or maybe IEDs, maybe the scales tilt. But if all you have is an AK47 and a small amount of ammo per day, this isn't going to happen too much. How do you win against an opponent who demonstrably doesn't care how much it costs to get you? Apparently, the only working strategy is you wait for him to leave. Which seems to be pretty much how it turned out. As a side meta comment, times have changed on our side too. Back then the Army spent $100K on small arms ammo and they must have fired a hundred thousand rounds up at that hill, and somehow hit the opfor although they also hit roughly 99999 other things, hopefully not civilians. Now a days you get the opfor on the IR drone scope and drop a single hellfire missile costing $100K on him from the air. Its the same cost but much less visually impressive and much lower civilian casualties or general destruction.