Destruction of Weapons.

[Ironside]

So would rolling for wear value on weapons as well as vehicles make sense What penalties should be imposed for wear

[headquarters]

sadism

So would rolling for wear value on weapons as well as vehicles make sense What penalties should be imposed for wear

as a GM you could take a realistic and sadistic approach and drastically reduce range stat OR increase jam/misfeed occurence to portray this.

To alter the range by 5 or 10 meters on teh stats for an assault rifle kind of hurts for the PC .

[General Pain]

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]

True. I suspect that T2K PCs always have a tendancy to hoard far more than soldiers would IRL.

To be fair, though, soldiers in most T2K campaigns face a far worse resupply problem than soldiers in RL.

[copeab]

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.

[Legbreaker]

To be fair, though, soldiers in most T2K campaigns face a far worse resupply problem than soldiers in RL.

This is true, however it's really only since around mid 98 that mentality would have begun to change significantly. Even during, and for a period after the nukes, collection and storage of enemy weapons, vehicles and other materials would be far from the norm.

With most major military operations occuring before this, it is highly likely that normal operational proceedures would have been followed resulting in the distruction of the vast majority of captured equipment.

[copeab]

With most major military operations occuring before this, it is highly likely that normal operational proceedures would have been followed resulting in the distruction of the vast majority of captured equipment.

Before the nukes, probably yes. After the nukes, I see destruction of enemy equipment as much less likely. Given that the nukes killed about 80-90% of troops, there will a lot of equipment left (even after accounting for battle damage).

[Legbreaker]

A lot of allied material....
Enemy material, in the first few months anyway, will have little to no worth unless supply lines from the rear have been cut/decimated, and then only until "normal" (for want of a better word) supply operations can be reorganised.

Once those supply lines run dry, then will enemy material other than food, fuel, etc become important. Weapons, clothing and vehicles will be amongst the last things saved and used on a wide scale.

[Abbott Shaull]

With modern mobile warfare, it is very easy to get ahead of your supply chain. Even with the most secure supply lines, one well place raid can throw you in the world of hurt, especially if you are active in fighting.

[kato13]

I am glad there are such varying opinions, as it validates my original inability to come to a conclusion.

My original post was about small arms, but I dont mind the drift. I guess images of tanks crushing Ak-47s and Rpgs during the Iraq conflict is what started me thinking about this. Thought total warfare and anti insurgency operations might be apples and oranges.

Since we have drifted onto vehicles two things about trucks. Ones that arrive at the front full will generally be returning to the rear areas empty. Perhaps captured small arms and munitions would go along on that return trip, for use is support of the NVA or even China or Allied forces in the middle east.

Secondly, I don't think captured trucks would be destroyed. While larger more complicated weapons systems might not be worth the hassle, captured trucks would be relatively easy to maintain and use.

[fightingflamingo]

originally intended to respond to a post I misread the context off... just for further clarification of my POV since I bothered to type it up

for the WP, I agree that captured equipment will be of little value beyond technical intel until such time as the rear area supply chain breaks down. However, NATO's situation in V1 would be a different situation (this does not apply to a V2 or V2.2 as the NVA has been disbanded). The NVA makes exclusive use of WP equipment. Given battlefield recovery rates of vehicles in World War 2, as well as from the Arab-Israel conflict through the 1973 war, it is plausible that NATO would be very interested in recovery of captured WP equipment which could provide salvage parts for NVA equipment from vehicles otherwise deemed to be a total loss, and possibly a pool of battle damaged vehicles some of which may be returned to service through canabalization of others.

In the context of V1 or IMT2KU, I think it is unlikely that the industrial productivity of the FRG will be able to adequately reequip those units of the Unified German Army to Bundeswehr standards which had origins in the former NVA. The FRG will be hard pressed to replace it's own battlefield losses (through both new production vehicles and battlefield recovery), let alone reequip former NVA divisions wholesale (let alone make an provision for training the former NVA units to operate and maintain said equipment).

Small Arms would also be retained when captured through the TDM, and for similar reasons. The DDR had a large reserve structure which the new unified Germany would continue to draw upon for combat replacements, and possibly (depending on your particular view of canon) the mobilization of the NVA's reserve structure.

After the breakdown of the logistical supply chain (when in my view the war transitions from what is primarily a full on high intensity mechanized battlespace, to an intermediate level of intensity infantry(e.g. patrolling/infilitration) battlespace that the destruction of capture weapons and equipment will be undertaken to a large extent. At that point in the war, such demolition will be more because the capturing units will not be able to bear the burden for dealing with such equipment (vehicles still will be retained to make up combat losses, likely by the capturing unit if the vehicle in question is immediately serviceable). That is not to say that individual soldiers on either side wouldn't choose to equip themselves with a variety of warprizes.

IMHO...

If you don't have a WP equipt NVA then all this is irrelevant, and there is ample reason to destory captured enemy equipment not retained for technical intel purposes.

[Abbott Shaull]

I am glad there are such varying opinions, as it validates my original inability to come to a conclusion.

My original post was about small arms, but I dont mind the drift. I guess images of tanks crushing Ak-47s and Rpgs during the Iraq conflict is what started me thinking about this. Thought total warfare and anti insurgency operations might be apples and oranges.

Since we have drifted onto vehicles two things about trucks. Ones that arrive at the front full will generally be returning to the rear areas empty. Perhaps captured small arms and munitions would go along on that return trip, for use is support of the NVA or even China or Allied forces in the middle east.

Secondly, I don't think captured trucks would be destroyed. While larger more complicated weapons systems might not be worth the hassle, captured trucks would be relatively easy to maintain and use.

If a shooting war started in Europe. An truck that isn't destroyed would be pressed into service by whomever had current 'Ownership' due to the fact, that what most Logistical people would predict would get the job done. Well let's us say they daydream quite a bit.

Honestly I don't see much of anything leaving Europe except maybe larger capture vehicles.

1. The obvious is the Germans would like the stuff to help re-supply certain ex NVA units.

2. Green Beanies, SAS, and SEALs along with any other forces going behind Pact lines to train partisans need to get hardware. Let's see they are operating behind Pact lines so it make only sense so they should be able to acquire more supplies locally.

[Raellus]

I just thought of another reason why NATO would hang on to captured PACT gear prior to the TDM.

I think we've established that captured gear would be kept to resupply former GDR units, ship to China, equip E. European guerrilla units, etc. I think that NATO would also keep it in order to equip the post war Polish military. With things going slowly but well during early to mid '97, planning for a NATO-aligned Poland must have been on the drawing board. It would have been nearly impossible to reequip whatever remained of the Polish military with NATO-manufactured weapons, especially since NATO would probably be hard pressed to make up its own material losses. It would be easier to equip the post-war Polish military with stockpiles of captured PACT weaponry. It would be faster and cheaper and Polish troops would already be familiar with the operation of Soviet bloc weapons, from rifles to MBTs.

Trucks are a no brainer. Knowledgeable folks here have previously stated that the Soviets would, even at the outset of the war, be short on trucks. Any captured NATO or Chinese trucks would immediately be pressed into service. The WWII Wermacht was always short of trucks and used whatever they could get their hands on. It made maintainance a real pain in the a** sine a single unit could have French, Belgian, Czech, British, Russian, and American military (and civilian) trucks in the their supply and baggage trains.

After the TDM, I think any unit with a vehicle or two would be wise to keep a set of PACT weapons. With resupply sporadic at best, a lot of units would probably have to resort, at times at least, to using captured ammo which should be fairly plentiful or at least readily available during combat. Some PACT gear, like the RPG-7/16, would probably be standard issue in NATO units by 2000.

And the AK series is legendary for its simplicity and durability. The M-16 has a reputation of being rather finicky. I once saw video of a South African special police unit in the early '00s called to remove an old weapons cache from the '80s somewhere in the bush in Namibia. They found an old AK literally orange with rust. They poured motor oil over it, wiped it down with a rag, and fired a whole magazine on full auto without a stoppage.

[Legbreaker]

Softskins, particularly cargo vehicles are almost certainly going to be retained for use by the logistical networks of all sides. Combat vehicles, besides a few units retained for intel, SF units, etc, are almost sure to be destroyed as there is no guarenteed logistical support for them and the risk of them being recaptured by their original owners (with intact and hopefully effective supply train) tends to outweigh the benefits.

In V1, there will be stronger emphasis on transporting Pact equipment to the East German units, but without dedicated production supporting this material, these units are destined to weaken as the war goes on, no matter how much capture gear is given to them. It is more likely in my opinion that these units will not receive reinforcements - these would be directed to the Western units first as there is a supply chain in position to support them. The East German units would gradually be downsized from Divisions to Brigades and perhaps even Battalions (with the supporting units split off and maybe requipped). Of course Canon appears to tell a different story with these units remaining as strong and effective as any other on the western side.

Trucks moving back from the front are likely to be carrying less than those moving forward, however they will by no means be empty. Casualty evacuation, movement of damaged equipment and vehicles rearward for repair, some enemy equipment (minimal in my opinion), and so on are all vital to continued military operations.

Around mid 1998 everything changes with greater value placed on supplies of all types. With the limited movement of units and the more defensive nature of the war, the risk of losing vehicles and munitions decreased - only the occasional raid would result in the enemy gaining anything significant.

[kato13]

Trucks moving back from the front are likely to be carrying less than those moving forward, however they will by no means be empty. Casualty evacuation, movement of damaged equipment and vehicles rearward for repair, some enemy equipment (minimal in my opinion), and so on are all vital to continued military operations.
.

Given it take something like a half a ton of consumables per US soldier per week, I really do think most trucks will be returning empty. I cannot fathom the above mentioned reaching anywhere near those levels.