US Army issue weapons

[weswood]

I've never been in the army, and the only time I was in an infantry unit in the Corps was 2 years in a Reserve Headquarters Co.

I'm putting together an NPC party, with issued weapons.

What are the issue weapons - M16, M4, M9 pistol??? for:

Infantry Staff Sergeant (E-7) Issued an M9 pistol, but I'm thinking of giving him a remington 870.

Enlisted Bradley driver- I've got him with an M4 carbine

Enlisted Medic- M9 Berreta

Enlisted Combat Journalist/Photographer- M9 Berretta

Thanks.

[copeab]

I'm not sure if medics are issued weapons. Otherwise, nothing looks terribly unrealistic.

[Eddie]

Infantry Staff Sergeant (E-7) Issued an M9 pistol, but I'm thinking of giving him a remington 870.

First off, he's a Sergeant First Class if he's an E-7. And he gets an M4 (or M16 depending on your year and supply system) and possibly an M9 if the unit in question has them to spare.

Enlisted Bradley driver- I've got him with an M4 carbine

M4, or M16 as above.

Enlisted Medic- M9 Berreta

Or M4. Most of our medics, we gave an M4 as his only weapon. We took the M9 for the PLs.

Enlisted Combat Journalist/Photographer- M9 Berretta

He'd get an M4/M16 instead of an M9.

[pmulcahy11b]

I'm not sure if medics are issued weapons. Otherwise, nothing looks terribly unrealistic.

In an infantry battalion, a medic carries the same weapons as a basic rifleman -- which means he's one of the heaviest members of the platoon. They trained with us and were pretty much as good as infantrymen as the rest of us were.

As an aside: Who's the most heavily-armed individual infantryman of an infantry battalion? It's the Chaplain's aide. For example, in my first active duty unit at Ft. Stewart, Slev (nobody could ever remember his mile-long name) carried an M-16A2/M-203 combination. He was issued twice the ammo of anybody else. The HMMWV he drove had a wartime load of a Dragon and two missiles, six AT-4s, two satchel charges -- and it was the only armored HMMWV we had. The Chaplain, who is unarmed, is considered very important in a US Army unit, and the Chaplain's Aide is his bodyguard. (And Slev also had to be able to assist in religious rituals!)

[pmulcahy11b]

I have to semi-disagree with you on one point, Eddie -- if the combat journalist is a civilian, he would be unarmed (though unless he is stupid, he's have picked one up in a T2K context). That is because he is legally considered a non-combatant.

If he's a military Combat Correspondent, he's basically a rifleman with cameras.

[weswood]

First off, he's a Sergeant First Class if he's an E-7. And he gets an M4 (or M16 depending on your year and supply system) and possibly an M9 if the unit in question has them to spare.
.

Whoops, typo. E-6.

Thanks.

[copeab]

In an infantry battalion, a medic carries the same weapons as a basic rifleman -- which means he's one of the heaviest members of the platoon. They trained with us and were pretty much as good as infantrymen as the rest of us were.


Ah, okay. I've done more WWII gaming that modern military gaming and medics in the ETO generally weren't armed as Germans usually didn't shoot at them (the Pacific was an entirely different matter).

[Ramjam]

But most modern armies don't have medics as such (apart from at hospitals and aid posts etc). They are combat medics which are infantryman trained to be a medics.
They are armed because a) they are infantryman first and b) they have to be able to protect any wounded in their care.

[TiggerCCW UK]

I have a friend who was a Royal Navy doctor before leaving the service. IIRC he usually carried a sidearm at least, both for personal protection and to protect his patients. I'll check with him when I see him at the weekend and let you know.

[fightingflamingo]

In the US Army there are Medics and Combat Life Savers.

Medics are the traditional aidmen attached to platoons. In the past they have been armed with sidearms for self defense, but there has been a trend to arm them with rifles/carbines in my experience in addition to the side arm. Their Aid bags, and carry an assortment of pharma & bandages which gives them the ability to triage personel in a broad range of ailments and injuries ranging from colds to traumatic combat injuries. The medic is responsible for the general health and hygene of a platoon in the field.

Combat Life Savers, are soldiers whom have completed a 40 hour block of instruction to enable them to stabalize casualties, and otherwise supplement the Platoon Medic. The are armed as a rifleman (or whatever function the platoon serves, depending on branch) and carry an aid bag which is less comprehensive than that which a Medic carries. They typically are able to apply field dressings, and start IV's (saline typically carried in aidbag). Generally, on Combat Life Saver will be present in a Squad, but there may be as many as one per fire team (again this is dependent on the unit and the TO&E).

Battalions usually provide aid stations in the battalion rear area, located away from the TOC, and the Logistical trains. There may be a physician, LPN, NP, or other health care professional there Plus several medics as staff. From the Battalion Aid Station, evacuated casualties may be evacutated further to a field hospital (the Aid Station may be bypassed by way of a heliborne Medivac), or returned to duty. Treatment for minor illness, injuries, may be completed at the aid station prior to a return to duty order. Personel will be equipt with a mixture of rifles/Carbines/sidearms... I never served in one myself, but I've seen them carry all kinds of weapons with no apparent logic to their assignment.

[rcaf_777]

I say your orginal TO&E is good, while yes those weapons would not normally found on pers of thier rank, job ect. In Twiligt there any number of reasons as why this party was armed that way, I mean this is role playing as long as you come up with a logical reson, I say go for it

[Legbreaker]

Anything goes in T2K. One of my favourite characters is an officer who carries a C-9 Minimi - not exactly standard issue for the leadership....

[Eddie]

I have to semi-disagree with you on one point, Eddie -- if the combat journalist is a civilian, he would be unarmed (though unless he is stupid, he's have picked one up in a T2K context). That is because he is legally considered a non-combatant.

If he's a military Combat Correspondent, he's basically a rifleman with cameras.

Since you're wanting to play semantics, I have to disagree with you then, pmulc, if he's a civilian, he's an embedded journalist, not a combat journalist. Combat Journalist is a Combat Correspondent.

[Eddie]

Since you're wanting to play semantics, I have to disagree with you then, pmulc, if he's a civilian, he's an embedded journalist, not a combat journalist. Combat Journalist is a Combat Correspondent.

But also, he's specifically listed as an Enlisted Combat Journalist, so we can argue the semantics all day, but the OP already identified what he meant.

[Legbreaker]

Meh, it's T2K. Arm him with whatever you feel like....

[Cdnwolf]

Guns??? What are you a bunch on panty waste sissys! I killed more men with my sharpened spoon then my gun! Ahhh nothing better then the feel of hot blood running over your hands when you make the first cut!!


(Okay... I have to stop eating my spiked rum cake... That was my alter ego Sgt Mayhem taking over for a bit...)

[headquarters]

if overseas ,the group can have been in units that have seen action and thus have captured weaponry / civillian weaponry .

I agree with your original line up , ( and it adds a few interesting game aspects such as range and damage considerations for the characters as well as for style -the seargant with the pa 12 gage is semi iconic as an action film character )

the post which outlines what is regulation is of course text book .

also I like the fact that you havent over armed - being outgunned is a joy for the players ,they just dont know it on a conscious level , its all in the tingling they get after the session is over and their PC actually survived against the odds..

I like another twist as well - the journalist is a civillian - and thus he gets whatever is left over after the soldiers are armed say a rusty and bent AK that you blunt the stats for so that it gets in accurate and faulty..

anyways - have fun with the outfitting - I like that part alot too.

[weswood]

The journalist is Army, MOS code 46Q, I looked it up. I've never encountered one so I didn't have a clue how he'd be armed.

As far as the medic, the only ones I've encountered were Navy Corpmen and I can't remember seeing them armed with anything, much less a pistol. I did have the idea of making him a concientous objecter/pacifist and refusing to carry any weapon.

[Legbreaker]

I did have the idea of making him a concientous objecter/pacifist and refusing to carry any weapon.
By 2000 I tend to think most of them would have been weeded out of the gene pool by "natural selection"...

[Mohoender]

By 2000 I tend to think most of them would have been weeded out of the gene pool by "natural selection"...

I absolutely disagree with you Leg!!:p By 2000 pacifists would be everywhere but they would be heavily armed.:D Objecters would be armed as well but they might be wiser in their use of weapons. It's a position you can't hold when your friends and family are dying around you.;)

I agree with the series "Tour of Duty" on what happens to objecters.

[Eddie]

Okay...I gotta go on a logic rant here. I still consider myself new to these forums because I primarily lurk, so let me apologize to the regulars here in advance that I know I'm about to offend in some unintended way. I'm not attacking anyone, just the idea of scavenging odd-ball weaponry in the Twilight environment that everyone seems to latch onto "because it's T2K, anything goes". As such, I will remove names in any quotes I take.

I agree with your original line up , ( and it adds a few interesting game aspects such as range and damage considerations for the characters as well as for style -the seargant with the pa 12 gage is semi iconic as an action film character )

the post which outlines what is regulation is of course text book .

It's absolutely textbook. It's also logic and common sense. You have a 50m range with a 9mm, a 75-100m range with a shotgun or a 300m range with a rifle...which would you prefer to be armed with? I absolutely love the cool factor of walking around with my M9 on a FOB and during training, but when rounds were coming at me, I was grateful for standoff. That takes care of the common sense part.

"But you take what you can find...it's Twilight, after all..."

Yeah, exactly, but stop and think about it. NATO sent all these troops into the fight at the start of the conflict. How were they armed when they were sent? Was there a shortage of "textbook" weaponry? I mean after all, a unit doesn't get sent to combat unless they have the majority of their MTOE equipment, and specifically they won't go unless they have all of what is called their "pacing items" (I can talk more about pacing items if you wish, but really it's more real-world information than necessary at this point). MTOE gives the majority of combat soldiers a rifle or machinegun (light or otherwise, and yes, an M249 is a machinegun by definition) as their primary weapon, with a few special jobs receiving an additional pistol as a backup or in some extreme cases as the primary.

Then people start dying.

What do you think the most excess, lying-around weapons are going to be? The few thousand backup weapons spread throughout the theater, or the primary combat weapon of whatever nation the troops deployed from? And what nations sent the most troops into a theater? Has the largest supply chains? The US and Russia, right?

Now then, because the nation in question was the US and the Army was specifically named, I have personally sat in Brigade-level meetings on a monthly basis since June because up until last week I was a company commander for an Infantry company, and believe me...no COL or LTC is going to send a unit to a combat theater understrength on rifles. They'll do what is called a "lateral transfer" from rear-echelon units or better yet non-deployable units and trade out all pistols if nothing else. Or an Operational Needs Statement (ONS) before deploying to buy enough weapons for everyone to deploy with.

Now battle damage and casualties will wear down the availability of rifles, but most of the casualties will be meat damage, not metal damage, but even if a single Army Battalion bought every single M4 in existence, all of them died, and the weapons had to be coded out, there are still hundreds of thousands of M16s in the inventory and I'd say tens of thousands of M14s (which would be an even cooler game-twist in my opinion), which will be the subject of those lateral transfers for combat. How long does it take? When I was stationed at Ft. Drum in 1999 and we gave up all of our M16s to the NY NG and we received M4s, it took one day for them to pick up the weapons and less than a week for our supply guy to complete all of the paperwork transactions. As a company commander now, when I laterally transferred my four SAWs for M4s in August, it took three days to get the weapons and close out with the Property Book Office.

As for the shotguns, there are 16-28 per battalion (less than M9s) based on type of Infantry unit...other types of units filling in the Infantry role typically have less than 50% of Infantry-assigned weaponry according to the Center for Army Lessons Learned.

Now all of this takes into the Original Posters comment:

I'm putting together an NPC party, with issued weapons.

I fully acknowledge once in theater, away from the flagpole trying to survive, PC instinct takes over and they raid every single body they come across. I fully acknowledge that if the OP is starting in media res, they could have acquired other weaponry. I fully acknowledge that having all US weaponry limits them to only NATO ammunition. I'm just answering the question asked by the Original Poster in the parameters that he gave us.

[kato13]

Okay...I gotta go on a logic rant here. I still consider myself new to these forums because I primarily lurk, so let me apologize to the regulars here in advance that I know I'm about to offend in some unintended way. I'm not attacking anyone, just the idea of scavenging odd-ball weaponry in the Twilight environment that everyone seems to latch onto "because it's T2K, anything goes".

I agree with all your points Eddie and like most people here, I appreciate people with real world information. So thanks for posting.

Of course weswood's original armament is possible in the game. 100% soviet weapons are possible. A mix of civilian stuff is possible. Heck sharpened sticks are possible. It all comes down to likelihood and creating an effective back-story.

Extreme situations common in T2k can lead to unlikely results, but if unlikely results start to show a particular pattern realism might suffer. It all depends on what one wants from their game. We are all here for ideas which we will mold and shape into our own T2k world.

Eddie I fully agree that "meat" causalities will far outnumber firearms causalities, and my games usually have a majority of people, be they civilians, soldiers or marauders, at least show the appearance of being as heavily armed as would be logical given their location and situation. The status of their ammunition situation is of course an entirely different matter.

[Abbott Shaull]

Ah, okay. I've done more WWII gaming that modern military gaming and medics in the ETO generally weren't armed as Germans usually didn't shoot at them (the Pacific was an entirely different matter).

Well it one of those things with the mind set of local culture. I wonder how medic faired on the Eastern Front.

[pmulcahy11b]

Since you're wanting to play semantics, I have to disagree with you then, pmulc, if he's a civilian, he's an embedded journalist, not a combat journalist. Combat Journalist is a Combat Correspondent.

I don't want to play semantics, I'm just good at it.:p

[Legbreaker]

It's absolutely textbook. It's also logic and common sense. You have a 50m range with a 9mm, a 75-100m range with a shotgun or a 300m range with a rifle...which would you prefer to be armed with? I absolutely love the cool factor of walking around with my M9 on a FOB and during training, but when rounds were coming at me, I was grateful for standoff. That takes care of the common sense part.

Three cheers for Eddie!

I'm right behind you on this one. They issue you with a rifle so you can shoot the enemy while they're waaaaay out there. You're issued a bayonet so you can stab them while they're still beyond arms length. It's all about killing them at a range longer than they can effectively kill you in my book - pistols just don't fit into that concept except in rare circumstances (such as inside buildings, tunnels or other close quarters).

This is one of the reasons I prefer 7.62 over 5.56 and both (as well as just about any other round) over 9mm. They give you the range and hitting power you need to take them down before they can get close enough to take you down.

[weswood]

Thanks for all the help.

To further clarify ( or confuse!)the situation, in my Twilight world, I've pushed back the nuclear exchanges. War starts as usual, with China/Soviet border clashes in 1996. It stays conventional until '97 when the USA/Nato/reunified Germany enter the war. Warsaw Pact uses nukes in China to free up some Armies to send against NATO, but avoids using them against NATO. '98 is pretty quiet re nukes, 99% conventional warfare. '99 the tactical nukes start falling again, this time against NATO. Then, Thankskgiving of '99 Warsaw Pact launches strategic nukes against the US and others in a last ditch effort to win the war.

The NPC party ( 1 SSgt, 1 Cpl Medic, 3 PFCs) were part of replacement troops, the last ship out from the US. They were actually at sea when the US was hit.

The reason I came up with that timeline is because if I ever find live players they probably won't be prior military, or combat experienced. Having them fresh to the war will cover any serious tactical blunders then make. That, and I have a hard time believing that the US would send troops overseas after being hit with massive nuclear strikes (TDM).

And while on issue weapons, is there an Army equivalent to the USMC K-bar knife? Issued instead of a bayonet to those whose primary weapon won't handle a bayonet - machinegunners, M203's etc.

[Legbreaker]

I'm not US, but back when I was in the Australian Infantry, machinegunners were not issued with any knives (besides a pocket knife hardly anyone carried). This was one of the reasons I made a habit of carrying a hand axe. There was a rumour though that gunners were to be issued pistols, but I never even laid eyes on one (the battalion only had 9 total if memory serves me).

Grenadiers (both M79 and later M203) were issued with bayonets, even though they could not be used while the launcher was fitted.

[fightingflamingo]

every company I've ever served with assigned bayonets to every soldier...

currently the US issues the M9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M9_bayonet which replaced the M7 (which had not been completely replaced when I first entered the army in 1990) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M7_bayonet

[Eddie]

Zero bayonets in my company until about a month ago, and even then we only got 40. He's right though in that almost every Infantry Company will have them.

[jester]

In the MC EVERYONE who had an M16 or 203 or SAW was issued a M7 Bayonet. Those who were "gunners" ie, SMAW, M60E3 and Mortars <and only the primary gunners> had 9mm but no Ka-Bars. As I recall, the Corpsmen, the Gunny, 1st Sgt and Company Comander had M9s with the Black Ka-Bar. Our XO chose to carry an M16. And most blades where banned or forced to check into the armory the exception being a KA-Bar with brown leather which was privately purchased or fixed blades with a blade length of 3 inches or less. Hell even my Kuhkri I traded for with the Gurhkas had to go into the armory. And when they found my Sykes Fairbian Comando knife WOW! They raised a fit. Bascialy it was a old style KA-Bar or the Pilots Survival Knife and that was about it.

[Abbott Shaull]

You can use the bayonet with the M16/M203 combo weapon, you just won't be able to use the 203 while you have the bayonet mounted. With that said, the old proverbial order to fix bayonets with the modern Platoon/Squad set up would mean as much as 1/4 to 1/6 of the force wouldn't have little more than a knife to bring to the fight. When I was the M7 only fitted to the M16s leaving the SAW and M60 gunners as well as those issued only pistol didn't have a weapon to fix the said bayonet too.

Interesting if they are close for the order to fix bayonets, the enemy that was a major concern were too close to use the M203 anyways for arming issues IIRC.

[Rainbow Six]

This is one of the reasons I prefer 7.62 over 5.56 and both (as well as just about any other round) over 9mm. They give you the range and hitting power you need to take them down before they can get close enough to take you down.

Way back in my very, very first game we had three PC's, all from the Black Watch (who had somehow managed to attach themselves to the 5th ID) and they were all armed with SLR's. As well as the added damage dice, the SLR just had an iconic look that the SA80 has never, ever managed to attain.

We all picked up AK's early on figuring that it would be easier to pick up additional Pact ammo than NATO but kept our SLR's (we had a GAZ jeep, so easy to horde a small amount of stuff).

Moving on to other campaigns, we always tried to have as few calibres as possible in my groups so characters could easily swap ammo amongst themselves. Where possible groups usually finished up with assault rifles of the same calibre (either 5.56N or 5.45B) as their primary weapons, plus one guy with an automatic rifle (of the same calibre as the assault rifles) and one with a machine gun (which was obviously of a different calibre).

[headquarters]

dont bother deleting names ,I always think I can debate from what I posted Eddie!


And no offense from a little factual information could possibly be percieved.

as for you claiming to finally bring logic and or common sense to the thread ..well you arent the first Yankee serviceman to come across a little on the strong side ...so whatever.

But I read the initial post more like a GM thinking "I want to arm the guys like this -or is that not doable ..? "

I still think the pick and mix approach has merit gamewise .I also think that the battlefield pick up variety has merit gamewise -and quite possibly in RL too,especially if talking a T2K enviroment .You will use whatever is more convenient -and from the first wars on record to the last ones we have had ,enemy gear and weapons have been used a great deal or just some -but still -its used.

The textbook example is most logical as agreed on -everyone with the standard rifle or carbine for their national service.Being sent overseas with a hodgepodge of weapons doesnt seem likely from a US POV.

Still,the other examples strike me as more interesting in game terms.Firstly , the weaponry can help outline the PC .The big strong MG gunner,the careful and skinny young guy with only a pistol ,the deadly and silent sniper rifle guy that is probably a psycho etc etc .

When the players have different ranges,damage stats and firepower - the game dynamics also change so that combat becomes different than if everyone has the same .Also having a little less than the enemy can be interesting .Players have to choose their terrain and posistions more carefully,and assign roles suited to their gear etc -good for cooperation in the party.Having the players slightly outgunned makes for great sessions -imho.Hence - some sidearms and shotguns will weaken the firepower considerably compared to an all carbine armed group.

I latch on to the battlefield pick up /captured weapons theory as well - depending on circumstances in game of course - any break or dealy in the supply chain might give results from soldiers eating enemy supplies and burning enemy fuel in their vehicles, to soldiers having to use enemy weapons and other gear to keep up effectiveness of the unit.

To make this "realistic" or "edible to some" will take a varying degree of stretch to make happen .As an example I guess the party can be met by a sour quartermasters detachment at the dock when they land in Europe and have all their shiny factory new carbines and gore tex gear taken away and given to hardened veterans ,and be issued a more hodgepodgy collection after .

After all -in the T2K game you can allow yourself to deviate from regulations..even more so than IRL:D

Okay...I gotta go on a logic rant here. I still consider myself new to these forums because I primarily lurk, so let me apologize to the regulars here in advance that I know I'm about to offend in some unintended way. I'm not attacking anyone, just the idea of scavenging odd-ball weaponry in the Twilight environment that everyone seems to latch onto "because it's T2K, anything goes". As such, I will remove names in any quotes I take.



It's absolutely textbook. It's also logic and common sense. You have a 50m range with a 9mm, a 75-100m range with a shotgun or a 300m range with a rifle...which would you prefer to be armed with? I absolutely love the cool factor of walking around with my M9 on a FOB and during training, but when rounds were coming at me, I was grateful for standoff. That takes care of the common sense part.

"But you take what you can find...it's Twilight, after all..."

Yeah, exactly, but stop and think about it. NATO sent all these troops into the fight at the start of the conflict. How were they armed when they were sent? Was there a shortage of "textbook" weaponry? I mean after all, a unit doesn't get sent to combat unless they have the majority of their MTOE equipment, and specifically they won't go unless they have all of what is called their "pacing items" (I can talk more about pacing items if you wish, but really it's more real-world information than necessary at this point). MTOE gives the majority of combat soldiers a rifle or machinegun (light or otherwise, and yes, an M249 is a machinegun by definition) as their primary weapon, with a few special jobs receiving an additional pistol as a backup or in some extreme cases as the primary.

Then people start dying.

What do you think the most excess, lying-around weapons are going to be? The few thousand backup weapons spread throughout the theater, or the primary combat weapon of whatever nation the troops deployed from? And what nations sent the most troops into a theater? Has the largest supply chains? The US and Russia, right?

Now then, because the nation in question was the US and the Army was specifically named, I have personally sat in Brigade-level meetings on a monthly basis since June because up until last week I was a company commander for an Infantry company, and believe me...no COL or LTC is going to send a unit to a combat theater understrength on rifles. They'll do what is called a "lateral transfer" from rear-echelon units or better yet non-deployable units and trade out all pistols if nothing else. Or an Operational Needs Statement (ONS) before deploying to buy enough weapons for everyone to deploy with.

Now battle damage and casualties will wear down the availability of rifles, but most of the casualties will be meat damage, not metal damage, but even if a single Army Battalion bought every single M4 in existence, all of them died, and the weapons had to be coded out, there are still hundreds of thousands of M16s in the inventory and I'd say tens of thousands of M14s (which would be an even cooler game-twist in my opinion), which will be the subject of those lateral transfers for combat. How long does it take? When I was stationed at Ft. Drum in 1999 and we gave up all of our M16s to the NY NG and we received M4s, it took one day for them to pick up the weapons and less than a week for our supply guy to complete all of the paperwork transactions. As a company commander now, when I laterally transferred my four SAWs for M4s in August, it took three days to get the weapons and close out with the Property Book Office.

As for the shotguns, there are 16-28 per battalion (less than M9s) based on type of Infantry unit...other types of units filling in the Infantry role typically have less than 50% of Infantry-assigned weaponry according to the Center for Army Lessons Learned.

Now all of this takes into the Original Posters comment:



I fully acknowledge once in theater, away from the flagpole trying to survive, PC instinct takes over and they raid every single body they come across. I fully acknowledge that if the OP is starting in media res, they could have acquired other weaponry. I fully acknowledge that having all US weaponry limits them to only NATO ammunition. I'm just answering the question asked by the Original Poster in the parameters that he gave us.

[General Pain]

Using captured enemy weapons might put you in the scopes of a friendly sniper.....

"Ahh...another one with a RPK...say goodbye to your comrades ...."
(crazy sniper talking to himself while picking off friendlies using captured weapons)

[Targan]

as for you claiming to finally bring logic and or common sense to the thread ..well you arent the first marine to come across a little on the strong side ...so whatever.

Eddie is a US Army officer, not a Marine.

[headquarters]

Eddie is a US Army officer, not a Marine.

edited to serviceman - should also be readable as army officer

[jester]

Another issue with using captured enemy equipment other than FRATRICIDE. But also the issue of familiarity. Most troops are familiar with their nations equipment and to a degree allied equipment from cross training and joint operations. Some, may have some familiarization with enemy gear. But, will it be as intimate as it is with their own? So, is it impossible to learn the ins and outs and proper employment of an enemies gear? Of course not, but it will take time, and it will also take trial and error both of which could be costly.

Just some ideas on the subject.

[copeab]

Another issue with using captured enemy equipment other than FRATRICIDE. But also the issue of familiarity. Most troops are familiar with their nations equipment and to a degree allied equipment from cross training and joint operations. Some, may have some familiarization with enemy gear. But, will it be as intimate as it is with their own? So, is it impossible to learn the ins and outs and proper employment of an enemies gear? Of course not, but it will take time, and it will also take trial and error both of which could be costly.


Let me note that I think post-nuke reinforcements will be of significantly lower quality than the soldiers that started the war and by 2000 their quality and training will be extremely poor. In such a situation, the "crude" AK series would be quite useful, as it requires less training to use or maintain than an M16.If you are going to stick a rifle in a fat 50-year old accountant's hands and shove him towards the front, better an AK 74 than an M16A2. Yes, this does ignore Warsaw Pact forces getting NATO weapons ...

[Legbreaker]

You can use the bayonet with the M16/M203 combo weapon, you just won't be able to use the 203 while you have the bayonet mounted.

Must depend on the actual type of bayonet. The ones we were issued with could not be fitted to the M16 while the M203 was fitted. The launchers barrel extended too far foward and there wasn't enough space between it and the rifle barrel for the bayonet to fit into.

[Abbott Shaull]

Okay I stand corrected. It been twenty years since I used one and seen one up close and personal. Forgot it connected as far back as they did.

If that is indeed the case, it takes away that many more trooper who can fix bayonets.... Which I have always found ironic in some books where the command has been given, in book written by various authors... But it always make the book more interesting.

But then again for the average player who doesn't have prior experience in such things in real life. I can several Player and GMs overlooking as many authors have seem to overlook.

[Abbott Shaull]

Using captured enemy weapons might put you in the scopes of a friendly sniper.....

"Ahh...another one with a RPK...say goodbye to your comrades ...."
(crazy sniper talking to himself while picking off friendlies using captured weapons)

Yes that is always a possibility. Yet, if I was sniper and seen someone wearing the same type of uniform that I was wearing, I would have second thoughts of pulling the trigger on them no matter what weapon they carried. On the other hand if there was like 'civil war', knowing enemy troop had access to same uniforms, or reports of enemy Special Operation units who were disguised.

What it comes down to is the situation that one finds themselves in. If I was tank crew and were on foot due to our tank being taken out. We had only 2 M3 for the four of us, I would be looking something for the other two of us, and possibly something to give the two with M3 something with more stopping power. Especially if there was no telling when and where we would get another Tank for us to continue to fight the war.

[Abbott Shaull]

Let me note that I think post-nuke reinforcements will be of significantly lower quality than the soldiers that started the war and by 2000 their quality and training will be extremely poor. In such a situation, the "crude" AK series would be quite useful, as it requires less training to use or maintain than an M16.If you are going to stick a rifle in a fat 50-year old accountant's hands and shove him towards the front, better an AK 74 than an M16A2. Yes, this does ignore Warsaw Pact forces getting NATO weapons ...

Honestly, I don't see many pact soldier willingly switch weapons. I mean you know weapons works functionally. You have been told that the enemy weapons are unreliable, and you would believe so. Once ammo becomes an issue with re-supplying, then you will see them doing the same thing.

Now on the other hand, any units that have work behind the front lines. They will grab up anything NATO they can lay their greedy hands on.

Besides during the Great War the Soviet would send units into combat with one soldier with weapon and the next one with a clip(s) of ammo who was suppose to grab the weapon from someone who wasn't in need of the weapon anymore. If they were lucky enough find one to use the ammo before they ended up without being able to use the ammo themselves.

One of the interesting things is, if one looks at what the standard Infantry Platoon from WWII was equipped with. Compare it to what the modern Infantry Platoon, we are closer to having a Standardization of weapons and ammo since before WWI. Even then a Regiment/Battalion would have standardized, but Rifle/Carbines would be different in many cases. It is one of those elusive things, one never has as many arm of single weapon than they need for the next war, but have tried to secure what they believe would be needed within reason based on the previous war.

[jester]

Yes, the M7 Bayonet was able to be mounted on the M16A2/M203 grenade launcher combo, I have heard that some very early SAWs could also mount a bayonet <I have never seen this only "heard">

As for the M16A2 verses the AK, I personaly would stick with a 16 over an AK unless there were no amo, then sure the AK would be taken as a working weapon over a useless weapon is always preferable. The 16 is much better when it comes to precision and distance than the AK. And I personaly would rather engage an enemy at a distance where I have the advantage over them. And that distance is 500m for the 16 verses 300m for the AK. And even at 300 and 200m, I will be able to put a round where I want it. For an AK I may hit the target but putting it in the head, the chest, or in a limited area that maybe all that is exposed which could be no more than 8 or 12 inches <think of the Death of Cowboy in Full Metal Jacket> well an AK doesn't have that level of accuracy.

Next, the training that was mentioned.

And would there be enough AKs back in the US to equip units to train them with before they go overseas? Would there be enough in the UK, Canada or Oz? For troops in theater the weapons would be there, but at home, who were raised after everything has fallen apart but sent to bolster the troops abroad, that doesn't seem likely.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, the M7 Bayonet was able to be mounted on the M16A2/M203 grenade launcher combo...
It could be the rifle, we had M16A1's and there was absolutely no way a bayonet was going to fit between the two barrels.
840
841
842

However, as can be clearly seen, there's not even enough space for the sling swivel.... I have to say based on the US Army docs these are taken from and my own experience with the M7 and M16A1/M203, the bayonet cannot physically be fitted while the launcher is in place. This is even more impossible if the base weapon is a carbine.

HOWEVER!

If the M203 barrel was cut shorter by about an inch, it could be fitted. It wouldn't be particularly safe though as the launcher could be fired (but not reloaded) while the bayonet was in place and it is EXTREMELY likely the grenade would strike the bayonet.

[pmulcahy11b]

However, as can be clearly seen, there's not even enough space for the sling swivel....

The sling swivel is on the right side of the modified handguard, below the leaf sight for the GL. It can be moved to the left side, but is normally found on the right side.

I just noticed something...the second picture you have there is a newer model, mounted via a MIL-STD-1913 rail to the M-4.

[pmulcahy11b]

Yes, the M7 Bayonet was able to be mounted on the M16A2/M203 grenade launcher combo, I have heard that some very early SAWs could also mount a bayonet <I have never seen this only "heard">

I've never seen an M-16A1 or A2 that could mount a bayonet. (OK, technically, that's wrong -- you can do it, but you DEFINITELY had better NOT fire a grenade with the bayonet mounted, as it sticks down in front of the M-203s barrel.) As far as the SAW -- the Minimi can still be gotten by the buying country with the ability to mount a bayonet. Consequently, early LRIP versions of the M-249 could mount a bayonet. Very few were actually made like that, though.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes, the M7 Bayonet was able to be mounted on the M16A2/M203 grenade launcher combo, I have heard that some very early SAWs could also mount a bayonet <I have never seen this only "heard">

As for the M16A2 verses the AK, I personaly would stick with a 16 over an AK unless there were no amo, then sure the AK would be taken as a working weapon over a useless weapon is always preferable. The 16 is much better when it comes to precision and distance than the AK. And I personaly would rather engage an enemy at a distance where I have the advantage over them. And that distance is 500m for the 16 verses 300m for the AK. And even at 300 and 200m, I will be able to put a round where I want it. For an AK I may hit the target but putting it in the head, the chest, or in a limited area that maybe all that is exposed which could be no more than 8 or 12 inches <think of the Death of Cowboy in Full Metal Jacket> well an AK doesn't have that level of accuracy.

Next, the training that was mentioned.

And would there be enough AKs back in the US to equip units to train them with before they go overseas? Would there be enough in the UK, Canada or Oz? For troops in theater the weapons would be there, but at home, who were raised after everything has fallen apart but sent to bolster the troops abroad, that doesn't seem likely.

If I recall the early SAWs were able to bayonet.

As a matter of fact I think many NATO troop would stick with their national issue weapon over the Pact AKs. You know I see units picking up and storing AKs, RPKs, and PKs only after out running their supply chain had become issue, or like I have noted troops such as those in armor units where after having to leave the tank with the entire crew surviving and being equipped with 2 M3s and pistols. I can see many tank commanders acquiring what rifles they could so if they had to abandon their tank, they would be of some use as Infantry role.

I think the US and many of the others listed have enough of their older equipment they would start to use that first. I know the US still has WWII stock they would issue.

Now for Germans using the AKs and what not for new troops. Yes, they would take the bulk, even with the West German industrial base, they wouldn't have the ability to equip all new troops. They don't have left stockpiles of weapons either that others would have.

Next is the ammo for these weapons that would become issue. Would we set up industrial sites to manufacture ammo. Yes, for a small scale compare to the ammo being produced for 5.56N and 7.62N ammo and such. Even larger rounds there wouldn't be much urgency to make rounds for the enemy weapons until things start to break down and by then it would be too late.

[Eddie]

The sling swivel is on the right side of the modified handguard, below the leaf sight for the GL. It can be moved to the left side, but is normally found on the right side.

I just noticed something...the second picture you have there is a newer model, mounted via a MIL-STD-1913 rail to the M-4.

Minor nitpick, normally the swivel is on the left hand side due to the majority of firers being right-handed. The right-handed swivels are the oddball, but it takes all of 2 minutes to change with a mallet and a punch. About five minutes with a Gerber and a dental pick.

[jester]

Minor nitpick, normally the swivel is on the left hand side due to the majority of firers being right-handed. The right-handed swivels are the oddball, but it takes all of 2 minutes to change with a mallet and a punch. About five minutes with a Gerber and a dental pick.

We would just thread the sling through the front sight. Or 550 cord with out modified thai slings.

[jester]

AMMO:

here is one problem with taking AKs.

What are you going to reload? The majority of PACT forces use soft steel cases that can not be reloaded. Whereas most Nato forces use brass cases that can be reloaded.

So, in the end AK ammo is going to run out with reloadable ammo being scarce.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes that will be a problem later in the war, after 1998 when many of the facilities that produce said ammo have been heavily damage and for all purposes been put of business.

It is part of the reason why by 2000 unit that were motorized/mechanized and had room to store extra weapon would have of each on hand. Many local the militia were equipped with mix using what ammo that could be found.

Even with reloadable cartridges, they NATO rounds could only be reload so many times. So by 2000 any round types are becoming rare.

[Webstral]

Forces in CONUS generally aren't going to have to luxury of choosing between the AK and the M16 series. In the Southwest, there will be some FN FAL rifles available. However, sufficient FN rifles for the purpose of equipping a battalion-sized formation probably won't be available in very many locations. US forces in Texas may have captured a few AK series weapons, but we should bear in mind that Fifth US Army lost the big fight in 1999. If anything, Division Cuba, Fourth Mexican Army, and the local bandits are going to have the luxury of using or not using US equipment.

As a rule, I think CONUS-based forces are going to have to use whatever comes to hand. Although 111th Brigade captures a fair number of FN FAL in June 1998, along with other Mexican gear, the senior leadership tells Thomason to stick with the M16. He listens. The FALs go to 3rd AZSTAG Brigade.

SAMAD copes with the maintenance issues with a combination of training and lubrication. A chemist at University of Arizona at Tucson perfects a workable means of producing a silicone-type of lubricant to replace petroleum-based lubricants. Local gunsmiths working at Fort Huachuca devise a rather labor-intensive means of manufactuting new rifle barrels and other parts. Since Fort Huachuca has the luxury of training new recruits properly, thanks to a) all the dead people in Phoenix who won't be eating the food the federal government set aside for them and b) the victory over the Mexicans in the Battle of Southern Arizona and subsequent back-burner status enjoyed by SAMAD, the troops learn how to use and maintain their M16 rifles properly in the desert environment.

Not everyone has this luxury, of course. By early 2001, the M16s being used by the Shogun's army in Nevada are getting long in the tooth. Most of their small arms, though, are shotguns and hunting rifles.

It should be borne in mind, though, that a fair number of Bloc-style weapons were in civilian hands in the United States by the end of 1997. I read in 1996 or so that 10 million SKS rifles had come in from China before the trade was shut down. I bought one. It's not a prom queen, but it works well. SKS and AK-47/MAK-90 rifles probably would be prized for their durability. Standardizing them in any large unit might be a bit of a problem, though. Hm. I wonder if New America would have been in the market for scads of inexpensive SKS rifles. With new stocks for larger users, the SKS could make a veruy serviceable standard rifle for a New American cell. Food for thought...

Webstral

[Eddie]

We would just thread the sling through the front sight. Or 550 cord with out modified thai slings.

That's what I did as well. Until one of my guys gave me his extra single-point sling. I'll never go back now.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

... SAMAD copes with the maintenance issues with a combination of training and lubrication. A chemist at University of Arizona at Tucson perfects a workable means of producing a silicone-type of lubricant to replace petroleum-based lubricants.

Don't forget graphite powder lubricant for smallarms, although it does tend to be corrosive to aluminium and some other alloys if the powder gets wet. Graphite powder lubes can also be found in hardware stores and may be overlooked by the average cityslicker looking for weapons lube.
Plus there are several regions where it's mined in North America. This page has a map right at the bottom showing localities for graphite deposits http://www.mindat.org/min-1740.html Zooming in shows a number of sites in Arizona so graphite mining may be extra food for thought for you?

[copeab]

If you're really desperate to put a bayonet on an M16/M203, you could always modify the lug mount so it was on the side of the barrel rather than underneath .

[Webstral]

Don't forget graphite powder lubricant for smallarms, although it does tend to be corrosive to aluminium and some other alloys if the powder gets wet. Graphite powder lubes can also be found in hardware stores and may be overlooked by the average cityslicker looking for weapons lube.
Plus there are several regions where it's mined in North America. This page has a map right at the bottom showing localities for graphite deposits http://www.mindat.org/min-1740.html Zooming in shows a number of sites in Arizona so graphite mining may be extra food for thought for you?

Thanks for the link. SAMAD may find itself obliged to go with graphite for at least some applications, but my initial instinct has been to shy away from it for the wear issues. My very limited experience with graphite as a lube in Iraq has been that by about 75 rounds, the graphite has been blown out of the chamber of an M16 and needs to be replenished. This isn't the end of the world, but it does mean that jams and misfeeds can become likely at an uncomfortable time. I'm not keen at all on grahpite for machine guns. We tried some under non-combat conditions and discovered that jams happen quite quickly unless there's a LOT of graphite in there. I never had a chance to observe graphite lube in the machine guns under combat conditions.

Still, if graphite is readily available, it's hard to see it being turned away. I suspect that over the long haul, there may be some sort of wear-and-tear trade-off between the tendency of sand and grit to become mixed into a liquid lubricant and the abrasiveness of wet graphite. Perhaps a seasonal variation is in order: no graphite during the monsoon or during the winter rainy season.

Thanks for the feedback. Even if I don't use graphite for the small arms, there are many industrial processes that will require lubricants. Better yet, as I look ahead to the (inevitable) reconciliation between Fort Huachuca and Colorado Springs, the way will be smoothed by greater amounts and types of vital products coming from SAMAD. Lubricants certainly count as vital products.

Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

If you're really desperate to put a bayonet on an M16/M203, you could always modify the lug mount so it was on the side of the barrel rather than underneath .

With the new mounts, you can't even do that -- the standard bayonet lug is used as part of the mount for grenade launcher. You'd have to add a second bayonet lug.

[pmulcahy11b]

Don't forget graphite powder lubricant for smallarms, although it does tend to be corrosive to aluminium and some other alloys if the powder gets wet. Graphite powder lubes can also be found in hardware stores and may be overlooked by the average cityslicker looking for weapons lube.

Just a little while ago, I was watching an episode of How's it Made? in which they were making graphite fishing rods. That makes me wonder -- could you make lubrication-quality graphite from such items?

[Webstral]

AMMO:

here is one problem with taking AKs.

What are you going to reload? The majority of PACT forces use soft steel cases that can not be reloaded. Whereas most Nato forces use brass cases that can be reloaded.

So, in the end AK ammo is going to run out with reloadable ammo being scarce.

Steel cases can be reloaded. I've done it with 7.62x39mm ammunition for my SKS. The drawback with the steel casings is that they are much harder on the reloading equipment, if you use run-of-the-mill gear. You have to have carbide tools that are harder than the casings. Not everyone has them. I used an associate's reloading equipment when I reloaded used steel casings. In effect, reloaded 7.62x39mm ammunition is going to come from only those sources that have the right equipment to cope with the steel casings. Also, as steel is less malleable than brass, steel casings can be reloaded fewer times than brass casings of the same caliber.

In the US, on the other hand, you can find 7.62x39mm ammunition in brass. It's more expensive, but it's easier to reload. Cheaper Bloc 7.62x39mm ammunition flooded the market in the 1990's; I bought a bunch. However, anyone with a mind for reloading probably bought the more expensive brass. Certainly, anyone looking to keep a field force equipped for the long haul would give serious consideration to stocking up on brass as opposed to steel casings. Again, I'm thinking of a New America cell for which I have been developing ideas as I have been watching programs on the Holocaust and various White supremist movements in the US. (One must remain aware of the enemy's state.)

Webstral

[Targan]

I suspect that over the long haul, there may be some sort of wear-and-tear trade-off between the tendency of sand and grit to become mixed into a liquid lubricant and the abrasiveness of wet graphite. Perhaps a seasonal variation is in order: no graphite during the monsoon or during the winter rainy season.

That makes a lot of sense Web.