Captured Equipment

[mav1]

It would be good for the Syrians to capture any of the allies equipment and use it for themselves.

Such as afv's, guns, mortars and small arms.

The same could apply for the allies using captured Syrian Equipment( It's true the allies would'nt bother using Syrian Equipment, but it would be fun).

This could create a scenario where a Syrian use a captured Abrams tank against a Us Captured T72 Tank.

I liked using the captured panther tank when I play as the soviet's in cmbb. I would have liked more captured equipment being available in combat mission x1. To be honest I wold have liked any equipment in combat mission being used by any nation. This remindes me of the flight sim game Sturmovik, where you can choose any plane for any nation.

[ July 05, 2006, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]

[MikeyD]

I seem to recall BFC saying soldiers and their equipment have been de-linked. This means being able to pick up and use abandoned weapons. Does this mean a Syrian soldier could sneak onto a parked Stryker and drive it off? If a U.S. Soldier picks up an RPG doe he have to leave his M16 behind? Would a U.S. crew be able to jump into a T62 and start firing? I'm not sure how far weapon sharing would go up the equipment food chain.

[ July 05, 2006, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Salkin]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I seem to recall BFC saying soldiers and their equipment have been de-linked. This means being able to pick up and use abandoned weapons. Does this mean a Syrian soldier could sneak onto a parked Stryker and drive it off? If a U.S. Soldier picks up an RPG doe he have to leave his M16 behind? Would a U.S. crew be able to jump into a T62 and start firing? I'm not sure how far weapon sharing would go up the equipment food chain.

I'm pretty sure that BFC with this new engine could implement this and more but question is ; is it worth all the extra work ?

//Salkin

[birdstrike]

IMHO, using captured small arms seems a horrible lot of work with only little effect on the game.

I can picture Syrian troops use captured Humvees or some 75-mm Howitzers, Stingers or LAWs, but I doubt that more complex weapons like an M1A2 or Javelins could effectively be employed, even by experienced soldiers, without time-consuming, proper training in the system. Even granted the unlikelyness that the Syrians would get their hands on a funcional, yet abandoned US tank - and it seems so much more likely to ambush and capture a convoy of US transport vehicles than one Abrams (intact).

On the flipside, I reckon for US troops there wouldn't be T62s left to jump in .

So for Syrians, it would be interesting to use capured US transports to fool the all-seeing eyes-in-the-skies or Stingers to deal with pesky US CAS, but small arms or US using Syrian stuff - not worth the time to make it work.

Does anyone know if there are any accounts of captured Iraqi equipment that's been used by coalition forces during Desert Storm or Iraqui Freedom?

[MikeyD]

Well, the Brits were mighty pleased to drive off with a number of Saddam's M109 howitzers during the first Gulf War! I seem to recall it more than doubled their inventory of the weapon - plus his equipment was more up-to-date than theirs. I don't think they were actually USED against their former owners, though. They were more war-booty

[mav1]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Well, the Brits were mighty pleased to drive off with a number of Saddam's M109 howitzers during the first Gulf War! I seem to recall it more than doubled their inventory of the weapon - plus his equipment was more up-to-date than theirs. I don't think they were actually USED against their former owners, though. They were more war-booty

I think the Iraq artillery was better(more modern) than the allies? I know that they had longer ranges because they used rocket assisted shells. I don't think the allies used rocket assisted shells?

[jBrereton]

birdstrike - There are a fair few reports of US troops using AK-type weapons taken from Iraqis due to their superior close-range firepower compared to American 5.56mm calibre weapons.

The Brits prefer their SA80s, seemingly, and I don't know much about the actions of other Coalition troops.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by mav1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:

Well, the Brits were mighty pleased to drive off with a number of Saddam's M109 howitzers during the first Gulf War! I seem to recall it more than doubled their inventory of the weapon - plus his equipment was more up-to-date than theirs. I don't think they were actually USED against their former owners, though. They were more war-booty

I think the Iraq artillery was better(more modern) than the allies? I know that they had longer ranges because they used rocket assisted shells. I don't think the allies used rocket assisted shells? </font>

[flamingknives]

IIRC, the Iraqi artillery in the '91 conflict had up to 10km more range than allied tubes. C3I was somewhat lacking, however, so the extra range didn't matter.

I wouldn't call MLRS particularly advanced, at least in its basic form.

[zmoney]

Originally posted by jBrereton:

birdstrike - There are a fair few reports of US troops using AK-type weapons taken from Iraqis due to their superior close-range firepower compared to American 5.56mm calibre weapons.

Could you provide a link? This has been discussed before and in the other thread where this was discussed I posted that this was a false statement. The reason being is because the US military strictly prohibits soldiers using any other weapons other than their issued weapons. Main reason being because you use what you know/ use what you train with.

The only soldiers that would carry AK's would be like some SF guys because they don't want to stand out from the local Iraqi's or Afghani’s they are training/ leading into battle. Still then you would be hard pressed to find a fellow who would carry an AK.

I have been to both countries recently (Iraq/Afghan) and worked with many deferent units and never once saw anyone from the big army or special community carrying an AK. I served with a unit that’s standards were generally less restrictive but even we weren’t allowed to use captured weapons.

There are some American contractors who carry AK's until they can get M4's though.

To reiterate there is no US soldier who carries an AK. For the simple reason that he is not allowed to. It's not a video game where you can switch out weapons to your liking.

Lastly the AK isn’t that great. It’s like a T-34, it’s cheap and reliable and there are a ton of them out there, but wouldn’t you want to be in a Tiger if you had the option?

[jBrereton]

Zmoney - I've more heard it said by people who've served in Iraq, on other forae (NationStates as one example).

A fair few of them have stated that their colleagues have picked up AKs whilst on a mission (generally in cities) and have then got back their M4s later in the day.

[hellfish]

I distinctly remember stories about tank units in OIF who had to conduct dismounted patrols. Since they weren't authorized enough M4/M16s they picked up captured AKs to fill out their gaps.

[Imperial Grunt]

I would be happy if squads and fireteams simply redistributed ammo and weapons on their own and from casualites that were nearby. I never understood why in CM when a BAR gunner got whacked, why no one else would pick up the BAR and continue to march. Same with bazookas, etc...

As far as enemy weapons go, at least on the Marine side of the house, Marines are trained on the basic operation of enemy infantry weapons (AK, RPK, RPG, etc) for extreme circumstances. But Marines would not dump their M-16A4 or M-4 (with an ACOG, light, and IR laser designator on it) for an AK, especially an Iraqi AK.

There have been several documented incidents where a Marine used enemy weapons due to being out of 5.56 or because the rifle was laying there and the LCpl on the spot thought "why not empty the mag back at the enemy?" But spontaneously picking up an AK and firing it off usually just confuses other friendly forces around you. Adding more confusion to your own side is usually not a good idea in a gunfight.

A Marine Lt recieved the Navy Cross during OIF 1 for charging a group of Iraqis that had pinned down his platoon after it was ambushed. He directed the driver towards a trench and bailed out of the HMMWV, firing his M-16A2 and then his pistol until he was out of ammo. He then picked up one AK after another, firing and discarding the rifles one by one until the trench was cleared. He killed at least 24 Iraqi soldiers by himself. Somewhere during the action he also fired a captured RPG at another enemy position.

So, hopefully CM:SF will include friendly forces weapons and ammo redistribution and the use of some captured weapons. I think using enemy tanks, AFVs, and heavy support weapons will be too much of a stretch.

And on the others side of the coin, there is the Zawahiri tape of him firing the SAW until it jams and one of his soldiers burning his hand on the hot barrel. Additionally, an insurgent sniper team was recently taken out that had a captured Marine sniper rifle in their possession. Here is the story about that:

CAMP HABBANIYAH, Iraq - Lt. Col. Patrick Looney, battalion commander for

3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, holds the last round chambered in a Marine M-40A1 sniper rifle, which spent two years in enemy hands. A

21-year-old sniper from Sniper Section Four killed the insurgent June 16.

The Darkhorse battalion plans to mount the round on a plaque to present to snipers of 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment Magnificent Bastards, who lost four Marines and the rifle in Ramadi in June 2004.

CAMP HABBANIYAH, Iraq (June 20, 2006) -- Scout snipers from 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment killed an enemy sniper and recovered a Marine sniper rifle lost nearly two years ago during a mission near Habbaniyah June 16.

The rifle was the one formerly used by four Marines of 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment who were killed on a rooftop in Ramadi June 21, 2004.

Sniper Section Four was in a hide when the spotter observed a military-aged male inside a nearby parked car videotaping a passing patrol of amphibious assault vehicles. The Marines saw a rifle stock by the insurgent's side.

"We were in the right place at the right time," said Sgt. Kevin Homestead, an infantryman from K Company serving as a spotter for the sniper team that day.

They first radioed the passing Marines and told them they were being watched by an enemy sniper and to stay low. The insurgent then sealed his

own fate by preparing the weapon. The 21-year-old Marine sniper, who declined to be interviewed - aimed in at the gunman's head behind the rear-side window. He recited a mantra in his head. Breathe, relax, aim, squeeze, surprise. The enemy sniper died with the gun in his lap. They dialed K Company - or Samurai 6 - and reported the target was dead. "We then saw another military-aged male ... enter the passenger side door," said Homestead, 26, from Ontario, Ore. "He was surprised to see the other shooter was killed."

The second insurgent scurried around the car and jumped in the driver's seat. With the sniper now spotting for him, Homestead aimed in with his M-4 carbine and put three bullets in the driver before he could start the car.

A squad of K Company Marines came to the position and saw the sniper dead and the driver shot three times. The driver died as soon as the squad arrived on scene. They pulled out the sniper rifle and immediately recognized that it was an M-40A1, the same used by the snipers of 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment in 2004. The trunk of the car contained a pistol, a hand grenade, dozens of 7.62 mm rounds, multiple license plates and several camcorder tapes. "When we saw the scope and stock, we knew

what it was," Homestead said.

The rifle was missing for nearly two years - almost to the day. Marines believed the insurgent they killed, or those closely associated with him,had it all along. It is unknown how many times it was used against U.S. and Iraqi forces. "He was a very good sniper," Homestead said. "But he got cocky and slipped up and it was our time to catch that." The weapon came full circle, having originally belonged to the Darkhorse battalion in Operation Iraqi Freedom I, who turned it over to the "Magnificent Bastards" of 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment. Coincidentally, a Darkhorse sniper killed the insurgent sniper, and a former Magnificent Bastard killed the spotter. Darkhorse battalion had been dealing with sporadic sniper attacks since arriving in Iraq in January. Now, Marines have one less sniper to

worry about. "It's very rewarding to take them out the way we did," said Lt. Col. Patrick G. Looney, the battalion commander. "Doubly rewarding that it's a 2/4 sniper rifle, even though it won't bring back the four Marines who were killed that day."

Triple rewarding that it won't be used on another Marine or soldier, he added. "The credit has to go to Sgt. Homestead and the Sniper Section leader who made the kill," said 1st Lt. J. H. Cusack, Sniper Platoon commander. "It was more than being in the right place at the right time.

"It was the culmination of all of the training and planning the section leader had done up until that moment," Cusak added. "Being absolutely alert and focused to detect a small clue during a period of apparent inactivity

and a perfectly executed shot." Darkhorse snipers have since removed the powder and primer from the last 7.62 mm round chambered in the recaptured rifle. They will mount it on a plaque and present it to the Magnificent Bastards' snipers to honor their lost Marines. Looney said the ability to give some retribution for their loss makes the day a "grand-slam home run for sniper ops." He credited the snipers' professionalism and attitude in accomplishing the mission throughout their area of operations.

"I would say that the guys who shot are typical of the Darkhorse snipers," said Looney, 43, from Oceanside, Calif. "They're very proficient, very modest, very busy. They're out there almost daily doing great things in this AO and our old AO. The fact that they're taking a back seat and

letting the battalion reap the benefits is typical of the kind of Marines they are."

[birdstrike]

Concerning US troops using AKs and such, I don't doubt that there are incidents where US soldiers pick up Iraqi weapons - I remember reports of soldiers in Vietnam who used AKs, because they were out of ammo or for some other out-of-the-ordinary reason - but the thing is, I consider it not being a standard behaviour worth simulating. The effects of such isolated incidents are simply negligible. How many firefights end with the soldiers saying "well, it would have been a different outcome, if we'd had picked up those AKs the Iraqis left behind"?

The game's focus is not get rid of that M16 plastic junk to get a real rifle, or how to kill that guy on the edge with the RPG to use it and blow up the T80 on the main road. If I have the option (in a quickbattle) to buy squads using, for instance a captured RPG, or Stinger, or anything that could make a difference, I wouldn't bother. But putting in a bunch of Marines using Kalashnikovs only to simulate that one firefight in a hundred - why waste the time?

[hellfish]

I'm inclined to agree with bridstrike. Theoretically the war wouldn't last long enough to allow captured equipment on any sort of scale - certainly not like on the East Front where Germans and Soviets frequently utilized each other's captured vehicles and weapons. An M-1 tank is not something you can learn to operate effectively in a matter of weeks, let alone days. Likewise, I can't see the US ever using a T-72 or BMP in combat. Captured small arms would still be very, very rare and not worth simulating, IMHO.

[MikeyD]

In CMBB they do simulate picked up weapons - especially Germans using the Russian SMG. They can't actually be picked up and put down but a few Russian smgs are sprinkled in among the platoon weapons types.

One reason why soldiers claimed to prefer using scrounged AKs in Vietnam is because it didn't SOUND like an M16. The theory was the Viet Cong would fire in the direction of the sound of an M16 being fired but not in the direction of an AK firing.

For a CMSF battle the practice may be frowned upon for the same reason - sound. The bark of an AK being fired may bring on friendly fire incidents with U.S. troop firing on their own AK-firing guys! A more likely scenario is a team needs to clean a mg nest out of a building and there's an abandoned RPG laying around. But then again the abandoned RPG may be booby trapped - another reason why picking up discarded weapons would be officially frowned upon.

[FAI]

At least if it is possible to simulate equipment captured during a battle, it should have massive penalties for using it. Like, having succesfully captured a largely intact AFV, it would take minutes for Syrian troops to figure out how to swing the turret, then learning the the targetting and firing procedures....

[zmoney]

Originally posted by FAI:

At least if it is possible to simulate equipment captured during a battle, it should have massive penalties for using it. Like, having succesfully captured a largely intact AFV, it would take minutes for Syrian troops to figure out how to swing the turret, then learning the the targetting and firing procedures....

I hope your joking. Without an instructor I doubt they would ever figure it out.

[FAI]

Originally posted by zmoney:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FAI:

At least if it is possible to simulate equipment captured during a battle, it should have massive penalties for using it. Like, having succesfully captured a largely intact AFV, it would take minutes for Syrian troops to figure out how to swing the turret, then learning the the targetting and firing procedures....

I hope your joking. Without an instructor I doubt they would ever figure it out. </font>

[juan_gigante]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

For a CMSF battle the practice may be frowned upon for the same reason - sound. The bark of an AK being fired may bring on friendly fire incidents with U.S. troop firing on their own AK-firing guys! A more likely scenario is a team needs to clean a mg nest out of a building and there's an abandoned RPG laying around. But then again the abandoned RPG may be booby trapped - another reason why picking up discarded weapons would be officially frowned upon.

I remember back in one of the 5.56mm vs 7.62mm threads, we discussed U.S. soldiers using captured AKs, both in Vietnam and Iraq, and someone posted an AAR which mentioned a U.S. soldier grabbing an AK off the ground and using it, and being subjected to a hail of fire from other U.S. forces. He wasn't hit, but he definately didn't use the weapon anymore.

[Imperial Grunt]

I agree with the consensus, but squads should be able to take ammo from internal squad casualties if they are nearby and pick up key abandonded weapons, such as SAWs, AT-4s, grenades, etc from friendly KIA squads or teams. Same with the Syrians.

I also think it would be good if enemy crew-served weapons could be captured and used, if they add more firepower to the squad. For example, a squad assualts and siezes a trenchline that has a enemy 12.7mm machinegun in it. Same squad turns the weapon about and starts firing at the next enemy position. Only an idiot would not employ a simple weapon that was not obviously booby-trapped. Simulating captured rifles might be worthless, unless that squad was completely out of ammo and they captured a squad's worth of AKs.

More technical weapons such as a Stinger or SA-7 should not be allowed, just simple infantry weapons, especially when a squad is low on ammo.

Additionally Stryker squads would have alot of spare ammo, some of it probably already pre-loaded into magazines, in their vehicles, so a squad nearby should be able to top off in 5 turns or so. Grabbing an extra AT-4 or a bandolier of 5.56 should only take 2-3 minutes.

Syrian forces should be able to cache extra arms and ammo in key locations for the same purpose, especially since they will be on the defense probably 95% of the time. Besides, that is what mosques are for.

[mav1]

Well it looks like its been agreed upon that US troops would'nt use captured equipment. But would Syrians use captured trucks and humvees?

But in WW2 Cmx2 should all sides be able to use captured equipment?