US Army issue weapons

[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

Originally Posted by 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.



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)

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by 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)

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.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by headquarters

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]

Originally Posted by Targan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ...

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by copeab

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.