How common is it in war...

to use an enemy combatant's weapon? it has been a trend in games the last few years to not restrict weapons to certain sides. while this drives my OCD crazy, i wonder how accurate it is? if you are in the military and find a gun you like during combat can you just take it back with you?

Very uncommon to use enemy firearms. In wars past, armies would use captured cannon and such, but not so much now.

to use an enemy combatant's weapon? it has been a trend in games the last few years to not restrict weapons to certain sides. while this drives my OCD crazy, i wonder how accurate it is? if you are in the military and find a gun you like during combat can you just take it back with you?

IronBeaver

Well I know in WW2 soldiers would take enemy weapons as souvenirs but the likelyhood of them actually using them is unlikely unless they lost their original weapon.

A soldier will want to stick with a weapon they are trained with already. An enemy weapon will probably only be used if they lost their main weapon.

I don't see the point in it when Scavenger is enabled.

I don't believe it has ever been particularly common in modern wars. Soldiers during World War 2 would take German weapons as souvenirs but never used them on any wide scale because they weren't trained on how to use them. I would imagine it would be quite difficult for a soldier to sneak a captured weapon or souvenir on to a transport plane now-a-days.On top of all of that, I would also imagine picking up an enemy weapon on the battlefield and using it would increase the chances of a friendly fire incident.

It wouldn't make very much sense for someone to use a weapon they have limited experience with unless they were in a desperate situation.

I heard someone say that during WW2 the Allies would take the German MP40 because it was a superior weapon. Treyarch decided to reflect this fact in World at War.

Regular soldiers: Not often. Ammo is often plentiful, and engagements not that long. Your trained to perform well with your own weapons, so have no need to use enemies. That said people trapped behind enemy lines have been known to use found weapons.

Special forces: They are known to at time use enemy weapons. Groups like the green berets who stay behind enemy for long periods, and train locals are often using non-US guns. Berets are known to be trained to use hundreds of weapons, even some black powder pieces.

Very uncommon to use enemy firearms. In wars past, armies would use captured cannon and such, but not so much now.

sonicare

As a rifleman in the Marine Corps we are trained on how to disassemble common enemy weapons. Typically, we would just take out the bolt and put it in our pocket instead of taking the whole weapon. We could use them if we needed to, but there would almost never be a reason to.

umm if your army is winning the enemies weapon is probably jammed and underwear stained.

I heard someone say that during WW2 the Allies would take the German MP40 because it was a superior weapon. Treyarch decided to reflect this fact in World at War.

byof_america

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Very uncommon to use enemy firearms. In wars past, armies would use captured cannon and such, but not so much now.

JasonDarksavior

ugh...casual games are taking over. I miss the days of medal of honor, COD1, COD2, and battlefield 2, when weapons were restricted to a side.

[QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

Very uncommon to use enemy firearms. In wars past, armies would use captured cannon and such, but not so much now.

Nick3306

I've been involved in war, and I wouldn't take an enemy's weapon to use in place of my own.

Doesn't make much sense if you don't stock the ammo for it.:P

Armories normally carry ammo for issued weapons.

i don't see why not, especially if you're on the side that has the less advanced weaponry.

ugh...casual games are taking over. I miss the days of medal of honor, COD1, COD2, and battlefield 2, when weapons were restricted to a side.

IronBeaver

ugh...casual games are taking over. I miss the days of medal of honor, COD1, COD2, and battlefield 2, when weapons were restricted to a side.

IronBeaver

...what?...

1. the topic isn't about video games (though i see how you could relate it to games)

2. How does taking an enemy's weapon have anything to do with casual/hardcore games?

[QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"][QUOTE="Nick3306"]Thats seems weird because unlike what people think the 5.56 round is superior in every way.Nick3306

Yeh, I found this post from a gun forum. It might be worth a read.

"LOL u guys crack me up, we go through this for ever. Those who truly know and understand ballistics here, know the real deal when it comes to 5.56. The 5.56 is popular, it's every mans round todayalong with the AR15 black rifle. Anyone who wants to play solider thinks the 5.56 is for them, yet most everyone I know in the sandbox complains daily about how ineffective the round is, how it either over penetrates often, or simply does not provide enough force to stop an irrate FOE. But the bottom line is Force = mass X acceleration. A slower moving larger bullet releases more energy and force doing ultimately far more damage to soft tissue, vital organs, leaving larger wound cavities and of course more strike force stopping the FOE in their tracks. If I could shoot boulders, I would. Furthermore, for accurate ballistics arguements to be made you really need to pinpoint the range you are talking about to determine when yawing occurs, FPS drop off, etc Ultimately - ANY ROUND IS LETHAL,and yes .22 is a NASTY round in itself. - It comes down to shot placement. But if you take accuracy out of the equation, take out superior fire position out of the equation, and look at why the 5.56 was developed. You'll see it's a round to aid armed troops to be more accurate at longer distances and to wound not kill. "

For the average solider very rare.

For spec forces, its not that uncommon. If you don't want to clearly say o look US troops were here. Your going to use a weapon used by your targets.

The 5.56 round has decent stoping power, but the 7.62 round has more. A bigger round will have more stopping power.

But i do doubt marines are ditching high tech m4 and m16 for an ak47 with possibly limited ammo.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Very uncommon to use enemy firearms. In wars past, armies would use captured cannon and such, but not so much now.

JasonDarksavior

I'm highly skeptical about that factual accuracy of that claim, even if the 7.62 is more effective in certain respects.

The best example I've heard of is Germans taking the PPSh to use on the Ostfront because it was clearly superior to their own weaponry. With Allies taking the MP40, I could see that happening because I think I read the Thompson was only given to NCOs or officers, while everyone else had the M1 rifle or carbine for paratroops. Games always make it seem like rifle is good for medium range while a sub-machine gun is only good for close quarters, but at any rate, an MP40 was a pretty damn good thing to have in any situation.

In modern conflict I would say it's a lot less common, since supplies and gear are usually close at hand and people don't need to scrounge for weaponry. At the same time, our "enemies" aren't really an actual military, either, so technological benefits aren't exactly all there.

[QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

Very uncommon to use enemy firearms. In wars past, armies would use captured cannon and such, but not so much now.

coolbeans90

I'm highly skeptical about that factual accuracy of that claim, even if the 7.62 is more effective in certain respects.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"] Um.....There was an article about US Marines dumping their M4 carbines to take the enemy's AK 47s since they had the 7.62 instead of M4's 5.56 round.JasonDarksavior

I'm highly skeptical about that factual accuracy of that claim, even if the 7.62 is more effective in certain respects.

I'd consider reexamining the sources. I'd imagine that goes against oodles of military regulations.

The best example I've heard of is Germans taking the PPSh to use on the Ostfront because it was clearly superior to their own weaponry. With Allies taking the MP40, I could see that happening because I think I read the Thompson was only given to NCOs or officers, while everyone else had the M1 rifle or carbine for paratroops. Games always make it seem like rifle is good for medium range while a sub-machine gun is only good for close quarters, but at any rate, an MP40 was a pretty damn good thing to have in any situation.

In modern conflict I would say it's a lot less common, since supplies and gear are usually close at hand and people don't need to scrounge for weaponry. At the same time, our "enemies" aren't really an actual military, either, so technological benefits aren't exactly all there.

Sharpie125

I remember Britain considering the Thompson more valuable then the commandos using it because they had so few.

[QUOTE="IronBeaver"]

to use an enemy combatant's weapon? it has been a trend in games the last few years to not restrict weapons to certain sides. while this drives my OCD crazy, i wonder how accurate it is? if you are in the military and find a gun you like during combat can you just take it back with you?

Well I know in WW2 soldiers would take enemy weapons as souvenirs but the likelyhood of them actually using them is unlikely unless they lost their original weapon.

A soldier will want to stick with a weapon they are trained with already. An enemy weapon will probably only be used if they lost their main weapon.

[QUOTE="Nick3306"][QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"] Well they were reports in Afghanistan or Iraq that soldiers said the 5.56 didn't have enough stopping power. The would not be able to take down the enemy with a few rounds. But hey, I'm no soldier so I'm only telling what I saw in the article.JasonDarksavior

Yeh, I found this post from a gun forum. It might be worth a read.

"LOL u guys crack me up, we go through this for ever. Those who truly know and understand ballistics here, know the real deal when it comes to 5.56. The 5.56 is popular, it's every mans round todayalong with the AR15 black rifle. Anyone who wants to play solider thinks the 5.56 is for them, yet most everyone I know in the sandbox complains daily about how ineffective the round is, how it either over penetrates often, or simply does not provide enough force to stop an irrate FOE. But the bottom line is Force = mass X acceleration. A slower moving larger bullet releases more energy and force doing ultimately far more damage to soft tissue, vital organs, leaving larger wound cavities and of course more strike force stopping the FOE in their tracks. If I could shoot boulders, I would. Furthermore, for accurate ballistics arguements to be made you really need to pinpoint the range you are talking about to determine when yawing occurs, FPS drop off, etc Ultimately - ANY ROUND IS LETHAL,and yes .22 is a NASTY round in itself. - It comes down to shot placement. But if you take accuracy out of the equation, take out superior fire position out of the equation, and look at why the 5.56 was developed. You'll see it's a round to aid armed troops to be more accurate at longer distances and to wound not kill. "

Short answer: No, generally not.

Um.....There was an article about US Marines dumping their M4 carbines to take the enemy's AK 47s since they had the 7.62 instead of M4's 5.56 round.JasonDarksavior

If this is a recent war (probably so, being as the M4 is referenced), then I can assure you this article was bulls***. US military personnel do not "dump" their weapons, nor would they be allowed to use enemy AK-47s in anything but the most extreme circumstances. Regular forces generally aren't allowed to use anything but the weapons they are issued.

Elite units get more leeway in the weapons they use. However, the only reason you'd use any weapon other than your own is a desparate circumstance, like you're out of ammo or your weapon is damaged. See, weapons are "zeroed" to you. If you have no experience with firearms, that means the weapon shoots where you aim it, which is probably not going to be exactly where someone else aims it.

When Jack Bauer kills a sniper, then picks up his rifle, and is able to hit something in the first shot, 500 meters away? That's baloney. (It's not impossible, but the odds are about a million to one.) You have to zero the weapon to you, which takes at least several shots. So, if Call of Duty wanted to be realistic, when you pick up another gun, it wouldn't shoot exactly where your reticle points.

You have to zero the weapon to you, which takes at least several shots. So, if Call of Duty wanted to be realistic, when you pick up another gun, it wouldn't shoot exactly where your reticle points.

Palantas

A lot of kids don't realise this and most probably don't even know what zero means outside of it being a number or a character in the Mega Man series. In reality, if you are on the battlefield you would not use an enemy weapon except as a very last resort. To do otherwise could get your court-martialed. Granted, when we first crossed into Iraq in 2003 we had some people who used captured AK-47s as a secondary but that did not last long. We had a major in my area who had an AK him and his driver used for convoys and shortly after we took Baghdad he had to turn it in with the other captured Iraqi weapons. Special Ops has leeway but the nature of their missions may cause them to get separated from their original weapon and they may have to prepare to use a captured weapon. Normal troops usually don't have that issue. Anybody who has spent more than a day in the military knows how much of a pain in the behind it is if an issued weapon is lost. One guy in our platoon lost his rifle on a convoy and we were searching the surrounding village for almost an hour before the local Sheik found it and gave it back to us.

Of course, this is answering based on the US military, another military may act differently.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]You have to zero the weapon to you, which takes at least several shots. So, if Call of Duty wanted to be realistic, when you pick up another gun, it wouldn't shoot exactly where your reticle points.

ad1x2

A lot of kids don't realise this and most probably don't even know what zero means outside of it being a number or a character in the Mega Man series. In reality, if you are on the battlefield you would not use an enemy weapon except as a very last resort. To do otherwise could get your court-martialed. Granted, when we first crossed into Iraq in 2003 we had some people who used captured AK-47s as a secondary but that did not last long. We had a major in my area who had an AK him and his driver used for convoys and shortly after we took Baghdad he had to turn it in with the other captured Iraqi weapons. Special Ops has leeway but the nature of their missions may cause them to get separated from their original weapon and they may have to prepare to use a captured weapon. Normal troops usually don't have that issue. Anybody who has spent more than a day in the military knows how much of a pain in the behind it is if an issued weapon is lost. One guy in our platoon lost his rifle on a convoy and we were searching the surrounding village for almost an hour before the local Sheik found it and gave it back to us.

Of course, this is answering based on the US military, another military may act differently.

I'm no expert, but didn't quite a few US troops pick up AK47s in the Vietnam War; as the old M16s jammed a hell of a lot? Which led to friendly fire incidents.

So you won't get punished for taking enemy weapons?JasonDarksavior

Depends what you mean by "taking." In the conduct of ground operations, you attempt either to collect or destroy enemy equipment. So yes, US soldiers take AK-47s (and all manner of other weapons) to be dropped off in depos. They don't take them to own them, like, you don't get to fly home with one and put it above your fireplace.

In WW2 there was something called The Spoils of War, which meant you could take whatever you wanted. Even after the war, when my grandfather was an MP shaking down German P.O.W.s he got all kinds of stuff. Pocket watches, Pocket knives, what ever they had and he wanted.

Mostly soldiers stick to their weaponry, but I don't think it is against the rules to take enemy gun. But try not to lose your's though :D

[QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"][QUOTE="Nick3306"]Thats seems weird because unlike what people think the 5.56 round is superior in every way.Nick3306

The AK round will take someone down with no problem. It is a really reliable weapon, that's why so many armies have used it and still use it 'til this day.

If this is a recent war (probably so, being as the M4 is referenced), then I can assure you this article was bulls***. US military personnel do not "dump" their weapons, nor would they be allowed to use enemy AK-47s in anything but the most extreme circumstances. Regular forces generally aren't allowed to use anything but the weapons they are issued.

Elite units get more leeway in the weapons they use. However, the only reason you'd use any weapon other than your own is a desparate circumstance, like you're out of ammo or your weapon is damaged. See, weapons are "zeroed" to you. If you have no experience with firearms, that means the weapon shoots where you aim it, which is probably not going to be exactly where someone else aims it.

When Jack Bauer kills a sniper, then picks up his rifle, and is able to hit something in the first shot, 500 meters away? That's baloney. (It's not impossible, but the odds are about a million to one.) You have to zero the weapon to you, which takes at least several shots. So, if Call of Duty wanted to be realistic, when you pick up another gun, it wouldn't shoot exactly where your reticle points.

Palantas

This.

Not everyone sights their guns the same way. For example, on open iron sights I go for placing the post pretty low in the notch, someone else, on the other hand, might prefer it to be a bit higher.

[QUOTE="Nick3306"][QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"] Well they were reports in Afghanistan or Iraq that soldiers said the 5.56 didn't have enough stopping power. The would not be able to take down the enemy with a few rounds. But hey, I'm no soldier so I'm only telling what I saw in the article.shoot-first

The AK round will take someone down with no problem. It is a really reliable weapon, that's why so many armies have used it and still use it 'til this day.

[QUOTE="shoot-first"]

[QUOTE="Nick3306"]Its a common misconception, people think the bigger the round the more damage but that is not the case. The 5.56 fragments upon impact bouncing around inside you while the 7.62 goes straight through.Nick3306

The AK round will take someone down with no problem. It is a really reliable weapon, that's why so many armies have used it and still use it 'til this day.

I would think soldiers would want to use the weapon they've been trained to use, assuming they aren't picking something up as a souvenir.

I don't see the point in it when Scavenger is enabled.

Lto_thaG