Using Captured Vehicles

[Rainbow Six]

Does anyone know if it would be possible for an experienced technician to change the main weaponry on a BTR Like for example swapping the KPV for an M2 machine gun (or similar) Or is this something that would simply not be possible mechanically

Just thinking that if it was possible it could solve the problem of trying to source War Pac ammunition, especially in the rear areas.

[Raellus]

Does anyone know if it would be possible for an experienced technician to change the main weaponry on a BTR Like for example swapping the KPV for an M2 machine gun (or similar) Or is this something that would simply not be possible mechanically

Just thinking that if it was possible it could solve the problem of trying to source War Pac ammunition, especially in the rear areas.

I'm sure it would. However, the technician would need access to adequate facilities- at the very least a well equiped machine shop, I reckon. I asked my father-in-law, who works in a machine shop, what kind of T2K-related gear he could conceivably make with the machines at his shop and he said he could make just about anything "mechanical" as long as he was provided with the blueprints.

[Mohoender]

Does anyone know if it would be possible for an experienced technician to change the main weaponry on a BTR Like for example swapping the KPV for an M2 machine gun (or similar) Or is this something that would simply not be possible mechanically

Just thinking that if it was possible it could solve the problem of trying to source War Pac ammunition, especially in the rear areas.

I would think many things to be possible. When needs arrise, people can achieve surprising things with whatever is at hand. Of course, that would be more difficult with the most modern equipments but still, I'm sure that some people would find ways. If you check on the wiki alone you'll find modifications including tank turrets, mortars...

Israel is still doing surprising things and always did. Germany did striking modification of captured equipments all war long. However, coming back to the BTR (in that case, a BTR-60), here is the most striking modification I ever saw. It's a well known picture of a BTR-60 mounting an AML-90 turret. That modification was done somewhere in Djibouti or Somalia I think. Africa has always been the most impressive place when it comes to field modifications (both military and civilians).

[Raellus]

Nice find, Moh. What a bizzare vehicle. I wonder what that turret does to its performance. Seems to me that it would be a bit top-heavy and guzzle a lot more gas.

I may need to start another thread for modified vehicles.

[Mohoender]

Nice find, Moh. What a bizzare vehicle. I wonder what that turret does to its performance. Seems to me that it would be a bit top-heavy and guzzle a lot more gas.

I may need to start another thread for modified vehicles.

I have no clue about its performance. However, from what I read it was stated that the modification was made in order to use a spare turret taken from a destroyed AML-90.

[Raellus]

I was looking at the EESB, specifically the TOE (such as it is) for the U.S. 6th ID, and came across the following:

"On the other hand, the 6th has a large supply of 5.45mm Bloc and 7.62mm L (they captured a supply cache last year), so one soldier in three is equipped with an AK-74 in place of the M-16A3 and the FAVs usually mount PK machine guns."

It strikes me as a bit silly to equip one soldier in three- in each unit- with a captured weapon. This would make supplying each small unit a bit trickier. It makes more sense to me to equip one platoon per company or one company per battalion with captured weapons. I can see this practice as becoming quite common by 2000. It would ease the logistics burden at the divisional level if they could just say "we'll supply you with 2/3 of your needed ammo" (i.e. the NATO stuff) and you take care of the rest on your own (captured PACT stuff).

It kind of strikes me that that would become the logistical philosophy in general come 2000- "Corps/Division/Brigade/Regimental HQ" will give you just so much (fuel, ammo, replacements, etc.) and you'll need to come up with the balance."

[Webstral]

I suspect "one soldier in three" is one of those misleading uses of numbers TV ads employ. "Every seven seconds, an identity is stolen!" This isn't a timed event with identity thieves patiently waiting for the seven-second alarm to chime. Seven seconds is an average derived by dividing a period of time (day, week, month) by the number of identity thefts occurring in that time. By the same token, "one soldier in three" probably is intended to mean one third of the force. It's poor writing on the part of the author.


Webstral

[Raellus]

I figured as much but you can never quite tell with some of the GDW writers.

Still, I think it would be cool to see a U.S. army company equipped with AKs instead of '16s, PKMs instead of M240s and/or M-60s, and RPGs instead of LAWs.

[Legbreaker]

This might raise the ugly spectre of enemy/friendly identification in the heat of battle.
A US soldier for example might see the sillouette of an AK and automatically think "enemy" when in reality it's just a soldier from a different unit.
Great care would obviously have to be taken to train and brief soldiers to first correctly identify friendly troops in all conditions before opening fire - not a easy thing to do when the bullets are flying...

[Targan]

This might raise the ugly spectre of enemy/friendly identification in the heat of battle.
A US soldier for example might see the sillouette of an AK and automatically think "enemy" when in reality it's just a soldier from a different unit.
Great care would obviously have to be taken to train and brief soldiers to first correctly identify friendly troops in all conditions before opening fire - not a easy thing to do when the bullets are flying...

Well in T2K when the West and East German armies were merged the Germans apparently managed to deal with this problem.

[Mohoender]

I don't know how this is delt with in T2K but during WW2, all armies used oversize markings. Moreover, the Nazi used the same method than the German in T2K: when time allowed, they modified most foreign armored vehicle to fit their own weapon system onto them. In T2K German T-72s are fitted with 120mm gun and probably with MG-3 instead of the russian SMGs.

[Raellus]

I don't know how this is delt with in T2K but during WW2, all armies used oversize markings. Moreover, the Nazi used the same method than the German in T2K: when time allowed, they modified most foreign armored vehicle to fit their own weapon system onto them. In T2K German T-72s are fitted with 120mm gun and probably with MG-3 instead of the russian SMGs.

I think it would be a lot easier and more efficient to just keep the T-72's original 125mm gun and manufacture the ammo for it (I'm sure the former E. German munitions industry could handle it) than to pull all of the former E. German T-72s off the line to refit them with 120mm guns.

As for the confusion, and potential blue on blue, that using captured infantry weapons could cause, it would be a consideration but I'm sure it wouldn't prove prohibitive. Just train your troops not to use weapon type alone for enemy recognition. Use it as part of a matrix including helmet shape, cammo pattern, etc.

As Mo stated, the Germans in WWII used loads of captured Soviet PPsHs and the like on the Eastern front and I don't remember ever reading about misidentification of friendly troops issue (not to say it never happened, though).

[Mohoender]

Raellus what you said about the ammo is very true and, as I recall, the German were manufeacturing 76mm and 85mm russian rounds. May be several others. Nevertheless, they were transforming a fair number of captured vehicle as well. They had two units who were performing only that. One was located in the East and issued a number of prototypes. The other was located in France (where it had less pressure) and came up with an amazing number of modified vehicles (using allied vehicles): tank hunters, flame throwers, sp artillery, sp rocket launchers, armored transports...

By the way what is less known is that both the allied and the soviets used a large number of captured vehicles as well.

Russia modified captured Pz-III to make tank hunter and they were glad to use Tigers and captured Panthers. They also used Pz-IV.
American troops used a number of transport vehicle while the british used the Pz.III in northern Africa (Polish armour).

In all these cases, the problem never came from ammo but from spare parts.

About, changing the gun, I think I red that somewhere in one of the cannon books where german T-72 tanks are called T-72-120. I think, however, that it comes out of v2.2 where they had more time to do that. However, the replacement of SMGs has more chance to take place as this is not as difficult.

About captured vehicles, Israel remain a very interesting exemple as they have been using and are still using captured vehicles. They indeed use them with the original weapon but always replace it as soon as they can. They also perform extensive modifications.

[Webstral]

Standardizing ammunition types is one of the most critical aspects of modern war. It might seem easier to set up a factory for 125mm ammunition as opposed to swapping out the 125mm gun, but the real trick is getting the right ammunition to the right units at the right time. The above-mentioned Israelis regunned captured T-55s partially because the 105mm main gun is superior to the 100mm gun but principally because the fewer types of main gun ammo in the supply system the better. If everyone uses 105mm or 120mm, then in a pinch (the only time that matters in war) a given tank unit can be given a neighbor's supplies. Not so if the neighbor fires different ammunition.

It's no coincidence that NATO settled on standard calibers for some of the most important items: 155mm and 105mm for artillery, 120mm and 105mm for MBT guns, 7.62x51mm for general purpose machine guns, and so on. Equally, it's no coincidence that the Warsaw Pact uses identical calibers, even if their hardware isn't as uniform as Moscow would like.

Webstral

[Raellus]

Creating and maintaining ammo commonality is a really good point, Web.

I was thinking, though, that the reunified German army would stay segregated for a while, with former E. German army units keeping their Soviet-Bloc weapons and vehicles. It wouldn't be too hard to keep such homogenous units supplied. Such and such a division gets 125mm tank shells, 7.62mm S ammo, 122mm arty rounds, etc. while the other ones get standard NATO.

I don't see the Germans scrapping all of the former E. German army's Soviet made artillery tubes, rocket launchers, trucks, etc. for the sake of creating ammo commonality as it would take time and money to replace it all with standard NATO gear. It just seems that the war moves too fast (up to '98 or so) for that to happen. Those T-72s would be needed at the front.

Later in the war, as attrition mandates blending of W. and former E. German units, supply would become more of an issue. Perhaps there would be time and the facilities needed to retrofit NATO guns to Soviet-made tanks shortly before the TDM. After that, it would probably be too late to manage such a large scale refitting.

The Israelis are a good model/exemplar but it should be kept in mind that they had months if not years to upgun and re-engine their captured Soviet-made tanks before having to use them operationally.

Also, many Israeli commando units (Sayeret Golani, for example) used AKs captured during the '67 war during the '73 war. Israeli rifle squads customarily included an RPG gunner as late as the '82 war in Lebanon. This, of course, in addition to their western and locally made weapons. If the Israelis could handle the supply and identification issues, I'm sure the Bundeswher could too.