Destruction of Weapons.

[kato13]

In another thread Eddie brought up the concept of "meat" (human) causalities being larger than "metal" (weapon) causalities. I have always considered that this would lead to (at least at in appearances) an increase of firepower at every level.

Those who might have been carrying pistols or SMGs would upgrade to Assault rifles from their fallen comrades or the enemy. Civilians would gather up (or trade for) weapons they would never have been able to have pre war. Ammunition would be a different matter, but in a t2k world I might want a M4 with 4 rounds over a pistol with 30.

IMO there would be three factors reducing weapons availability.

1) Combat Damage
Even though "metal" is tougher than "meat" there will still be many situations where armaments are destroyed by combat. This is due to the fact that pressures that would kill a man a dozen times over are common in combat.

2) Lack of maintenance
The west really takes a hit here when compared to Soviet armaments, but with a minimum effort I expect that most weapons would maintain some degree of reliability.

3) Purposeful destruction of weapons.
This was the one variable I cannot really wrap my head around what the combatants would do.

My first thought is that during the early stages of the war, destruction of a majority of captured small arms would be the norm. As supply lines get a little more shaky it would be reduced, and by the end everything would be hoarded unless it could not be carried.

Countering this is the Soviet theory of never throwing anything away and the West's need to reequip elements of the East German army. Both of these might lead to hoarding earlier than I expected.

I am wondering what people would think would happen at a macro level in regards to captured weapons.

[Abbott Shaull]

One thing to remember that during the Operation Iraqi Freedom, some of the AKMs and AK-74s that were captured were turned around and used by the troop. Sometimes this was due to the fact that many Armor personnel really felt naked when they were out of their vehicles, to add to the personal weapons they were issued. Other times a unit was on the move, and the need/want to keep moving forward, rather than wait for proper resupply to catch up with them.

No with that said there were still plenty of arms to go around, so some where destroyed, but also more importantly some were kept so when it came time to re-establish the Iraqi Army they would have something to initially re-armed them with. With that said, this is one of the subjects that the creators over looked at times. For once either side gained ground they would have to leave significant force to control what they had gained.

Once you take an area over, you want to re-establish local control as soon as possible. Which in cases of fighting in Europe and Korea if you playing US or one of it allies this isn't much to worry. Now if you playing in Iran you would want to do so, or if you happen to pact forces in southern Germany or Austria. Or you could play Soviet forces in Alaska/Canada or China.

Those would of been a couple of came that I would love to played in.

Just some thoughts.

[fightingflamingo]

I can not see NATO willingly destroy captured WP weapons. The main reason for this is that the NVA(DDR) is equipt with WP arms, and because of NATO's need to field the NVA formations, I do not think that NATO could afford to destroy captured arms. The thought of reequiping the NVA along Bundeswehr lines , while attractive, is not possible in the time frame available, given the capacity of West German industry. Battlefield recovery of captured weapons & vehicles could serve to provide a pool of replacement parts and replacements for the NVA's own losses. Secondly, retaining WP small arms (and heavy weapons such as RPG's), provides a further pool of weapons which can be used to equipt partisan or resistance movements in Eastern Europe (or other theatres of war) without drawing on NATO's industrial capacity to provide arms for these movements (should they exist in your campaigns) and allow for them to rely on local sources of ammunition resupply (e.g. captured stockpiles). IMT2KU, I also assume that Web's "Tchaikovsky" raids destroyed substantial amounts of the PRC's industrial capacity prior to the onset of nuclear warfare, so another use would be to ship serviceable captured equipment (surplus to the needs of the NVA) to the PRC to help supplement their war material requirements.

Basically, I'm of the opinion that nothing would be intentionally destroyed once captured. All weapons and systems could be put to use, even if not serviceable, by either providing spare parts for serviceable equipment (from unserviceable equipment) or where captured equipment is serviceable for providing replacement arms for allies equipt with the other sides weapons.

However, I do see both sides taking action to destroy their own equipment to prevent capture by the other side (e.g. thermite grenades in the breaches of howitzers about to be overrun and captured by the enemy). Mainly, I see these efforts focused on destruction of battledamaged, but otherwise recoverable vehicles, and those vehicles which would be captured outright (no damage). This will have varing levels of success. Most equipment will be captured by whichever side is currently on the offensive, and will largely consist of recovery of battlefield losses, with a range of damage, which may or may not be returnable to service after some level of maintenance (depot, or theatre).

[headquarters]

when the allies freed Norway in 1945 , we were ordered to dump airplanes,guns,tanks and small arms as well as other top notch German gear at sea or to melt it down .Even though we had enough stash left over from them to arm ourselves to a high standard.we had planes,ships,subs,forts,guns,tanks all sort of arms etc enough to arm 300-400 000 German soldiers and stockpiles had been amassed to hold Norway for a long time should it be cut of by allied invasion attempts.

Luckily they went quietly.

Shortly after ,orders were put in for British and American gear on all levels.

But we had so much German equipment that it took years to destroy , and by that time the mood changed and we started hoarding .I still have a nice Kar98 re chambered to Nato 30-06 by the Norwegian arsenal.
Lugers p08 and Walther p38s were main sidearms here up until 1985 or longer .

Economics and civillian considerations factor in -the interests that control the armaments industry might not see the value of keeping 200 000 captured AKMs and 500 T-72s and T-55s.
A contract for 500 MBT and 200 000 small arms to equip a newly liberated nations with STANAG gear is more interesting.

with confusion and disarray in a T2K situation a destroy order regarding captured gear might be carried out by some up to the last moments before "you are on your own " crackles through the aether.

Soldiers take orders from civilians once they reach a certain rank.

just putting it out there as a possibility

[copeab]

Originally Posted by kato13

1) Combat Damage

Would this include weapon exposed to radiation?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by copeab

Would this include weapon exposed to radiation?

That's a good point. How much stuff of any sort are PCs going to find that's radioactively hot? This could be a real problem with food, drink, and medicine!

[Legbreaker]

I tend to think any weapons and munitions captured will be destroyed. It may not be right away, but after a few hundred rifles are sent back to Battalion HQ, they're going to be piled up with other captured equipment and blown up.

Vehicles are the same. Fuel will of course be drained and anything else of immediate or intelligence use stripped out, but then they too are going to be destroyed.

It just makes sense in any warzone. Leaving enemy material laying about is a problem. Guarding captured enemy equipment drains manpower. Moving enemy equipment takes manpower AND resources.

It's not going to be just your own equipment that's spiked in a withdrawal either. Why would you want to leave anything, no matter what it's origin, where an enemy may aquire it?

Of course complete destruction isn't always going to occur either. for example an APC only needs certain components to be damaged or removed to make it virtually useless. Most items can be rendered effectively useless with just minimal effort.

[Raellus]

I think both sides would keep nearly everything that wasn't damaged, especially given the need to keep the former GDR units equipped and supplied. Precedent is there. In WWII, both the Germans and the Soviets used significant quantities of their respective opponents' weapons, from tanks and artillery to small arms. The Germans even manufactured a few types of Soviet small arms ammo for use in their captured Red Army weapons.

IIRC, there were so many captured Panzer IVs still around by the end of the war, that the Syrian army was still fielding large numbers of them (via the USSR) during the '67 war with Israel. On a strange note, IIRC the early Israeli air force fielded a number of BF-109 fighters.

After the TDM, captured weaponry and ammo would be an even more important source of resupply.

HQ, on a side note, my grandfather, who spoke fluent Norwegian, was a USN captain assigned to help study/deal with German U-boats captured in Norwegian ports. We still have a medal that was presented to him by the king of Norway for his services and a sheef of primary source documents about the U-boats.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

During the Arab-Israeli war you mentioned, the Syrians also fielded StugIII assault guns with their PzIVs but I think many of them were actually supplied by France and not the USSR (not surprisingly, France had a healthy supply of German vehicles and spares). The Israelis at that time were using Shermans.
The Israeli air force did indeed fly Bf109s that I think were supplied through Czechoslovakia (they also received a number of Kar98K and Vz24 rifles through the same source if I remember right). They faced Egyptian pilots flying Spitfires.

[General Pain]

Originally Posted by copeab

Would this include weapon exposed to radiation?

Depending on the situation, but if your out of arms and fin yourself in a radiation-zone - the damage is probably allready done so I would probably pick up the weapon anyway. It's like the old question how would you like to die...by gun or knife....or in this case slow and horrible or quick...IMHO.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by General Pain

Depending on the situation, but if your out of arms and fin yourself in a radiation-zone - the damage is probably allready done so I would probably pick up the weapon anyway.

I was thinking more along the lines of a weapon carried out of a radiation zone by a scavenger and the PC either killing the scavenger or coming across his body.