Posted: 3/25/2003 7:55:07 PM EDT
| Is there a code of conduct against an individual soldier useing captured enemy weapons in a war? I know if I were in Iraq I'd be luggin around one of those RPG launchers. |
|
"What's that?" "That, sir, is an AK-47...the preferred weapon of our enemy...makes a rather distictive sound, doesn't it, sir?" "Why yes...yes it does" [beer] To "Heartbreak Ridge", and the thousands of men who stormed hills just like it throughout our history, and who kick the sand out of their boots tonight. God bless and keep you all, and may you return home safe and victorious. |
|
Quoted: RPG's brought down the choppers in Somalia and took out the Hummer in Iraq. Hard to defend against and sure wrecks what it hits. |
|
Quoted: LAW's I think are better than RPG's. Yes but the LAWs and AT4s aren't reloadable. And the Israelis have made some very good AT rounds for the RPG-7. The only weapon I would prefer over ours is an AK v. an M-16 in the desert, but using an AK would draw friendlty fire for sure. It depends on the situation, many of the M4s/M16s our troops have optics VS the crappy iron sights on the AKs. Couple that with the accuracy difference I'd be hard pressed preferring the AK, especially at the distances the troops are engaging at. |
|
I think in a pinch, it wouldn't be a problem, but in the long run, you should be concerned with resupply. Your biggest concern would be how and where you obtain more ammunition, it's age, condition, and reliability. In Vietnam there were 7.62x39 ammo reliability issues, some of them courtesy of the CIA. Some weapons caches would appear to have gone "unnoticed" during a patrol, when in reality there were a couple of really "hot" rounds loaded with explosives loaded in each case. Weapons that blow up in people's faces are bad for morale. Last thing I'd want is to pick up a rifle with sabotaged ammo (done during shipment) and have it take half of my face off. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I believe that using Enemy weapons, except for self-defense, is a Geneva Convention violation. This I rather doubt. During WW2 all sides used captured enemy equipment and not just for self-defense. The British preferred the Italian Dovunque ("go anywhere") trucks in the Western Desert because the Italian trucks had better traction and no carburetor to get clogged up with sand. The Germans preferred the Soviet-made SVT-40 to the Kar98k on the Eastern Front. The US paratroopers on D-day had a habit of dashing their M1A1 Thompsons against rocks when they found captured MP40s to use instead. Nobody wanted French equipment. Even the Bulgarians protested when they were handed Dewoitine 520 fighters by the Germans, taken from the Vichy French. |
|
95th: Additionally, Germans made extensive use of battle-captured Sherman and T-34 tanks, in addition to the cases where the actual manufacturing plants have been captured, like the P35(p) pistol and the 38(t) "Hetzer" tank. [img]http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/firefly_3.jpg[/img] Sherman tank, with German crosses plastered all over the place, lest an eager Luftwaffe pilot might be tempted to take a potshot. More about captured equipment used by Germany in WW2: [url]http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ct.htm[/url] |
|
Well, after reading about "Fortunate Son" operations in Vietnam, I would be very hesitant to use any enemy firearm with enemy ammo. Operation Eldest Son IPlaster's "Sog: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" is the reference. Eldest son rounds were AK or mortar round that detonated when fired, destroying the weapon and killing the shooter. My research has pointed to the use of either plastic explosives (least likely) to using really fast buring pistol powders in place of the rifle powders (most likely). The purpose of these actions were to convince the NVA that there were serious, fatal quality control problems in China, the main supplier. This was confirmed by pirated radio broadcasts that assured the Communist Brothers in Arms that the quality control problems were fixed now. One check of the headstaps shows that the ammo is years old and makes one wonder how much bad ammo made it into the system before the problem was detected and fixed. "Recon teams often carried a few Eldest Son rounds, either as loose AK cartridges or a single round in an otherwise full AK magazine, to be left on bodies of ambushed enemy soldiers, the least detectable means of insertion... But proof of Eldest Son's Effectiveness rolled in. On 6 June 1968 US 1st Infantry Division soldiers came upon a shattered AK-47 "found beside the body of an NVA soldier" who'd died firing it at the Americans. Paratroopers of the 101st Airborne Division found a dead NVA soldier grasping his exploded rifle. US 25th Infantry Division soldiers discovered a whole North Vietnamese mortar battery destroyed, with dead gunners found sprawled around four peeled back tubes. The enemy finally concluded that the ammo was exploding due to manufacturing problems, not sabatoge, and this created all sorts of logistical problems." (pp448-449) That said, I still thing the RPG is great, even though the Russians have dropped the design and have gone to LAW type rocket. On page 155 it shows RPG-2 rounds modified for anti-personnel work by using tape to hold 10d nails and packets of CS powder to the missle. The use of RPGs agianst aircraft requires extensive site prep ( a hole deep enough to contain the backblast with out killing the operatior) or mods to the weapon to divert the backblast. (not quoted, but from Black Hawk Down.) Sorry, My dad was in SOG, as an AF communications specialist (before you jump on me, he was NOT on a gound team, an worked mostly in an office), and I have a love of researching this stuff. pat |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I believe that using Enemy weapons, except for self-defense, is a Geneva Convention violation. This I rather doubt. During WW2 all sides used captured enemy equipment and not just for self-defense. Except the Geneve Convention didn't take place until 1949! You are right about WWII, but your reasoning does not back up your statement that "This I rather doubt." For a history buff, you sure tend to forget a lot, kar98. |
|
Our AT4 smokes the RPG. I was at a fam-fire where they launched a crate of East Germany RPG's without much sucess. Once they got the thing ranged and were sucessfully hitting the BMP on the range about three quarters of the hits smacked the armor, dropped to the tracks and either smoked or exploded. Of the remaining hits some never did expolode or smoke and a few actually exploded on impact. We were unable to assess damage to the BMP due to all the un-exploded ordanance now littering the range. EOD had fun cleaning up that mess I'm sure. |
|
Quoted: Except the Geneve Convention didn't take place until 1949! You are right about WWII, but your reasoning does not back up your statement that "This I rather doubt." For a history buff, you sure tend to forget a lot, kar98. Crikey, matey! The first Geneva Convention was held in Geneva in [red]1864[/red]. Representatives of twelve governments took part and adopted a treaty prepared by the International Committee and entitled the "Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field". This agreement, with its ten articles, was the first treaty of international humanitarian law. Subsequently, further conferences were held, extending the basic law to other categories of victims, such as prisoners of war. In [red]1899[/red] the next Convention was signed in the Hague, adjusting Geneva Convention's principles to the war-action at sea. In [red]1906[/red], the ten articles of the First Convention were improved and complemented. The next one was held in [red]1907[/red]. In [red]1929[/red], these Conventions were developed further and affirmed one more time. In the aftermath of the Second World War, a Diplomatic Conference deliberated for four months before adopting the four Geneva Conventions of [red]1949[/red], which for the first time included provisions for the protection of civilians in wartime. In [red]1977[/red], the Conventions were supplemented by two Additional Protocols. Now you again [img]http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/pimp.gif[/img] |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I believe that using Enemy weapons, except for self-defense, is a Geneva Convention violation. This I rather doubt. During WW2 all sides used captured enemy equipment and not just for self-defense. Except the Geneve Convention didn't take place until 1949! You are right about WWII, but your reasoning does not back up your statement that "This I rather doubt." For a history buff, you sure tend to forget a lot, kar98. I posted that quote being a little too passive. I'm damn sure that using captured enemy weapons is a violation of Military rules of engagement, Geneva Convention or otherwise. Similarly, using soft point ammo, or the Enemy's uniforms or Civilian attire is a violation. Soft point ammo, I believe, is not a Geneva Convention violation, and there appears to be alot of gray area/ misunderstanding concerning this. It is however, prosecutable by some legal mechanism. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: This I rather doubt. During WW2 all sides used captured enemy equipment and not just for self-defense. The Germans preferred the Soviet-made SVT-40 to the Kar98k on the Eastern Front. The US paratroopers on D-day had a habit of dashing their M1A1 Thompsons against rocks when they found captured MP40s to use instead. Never heard that about the paratrooper/Thompson bit. Using MP40's would make sense if you were running around behind German lines causing trouble. The Germans did prefer to use Soviet PPSh41 subguns over the MP40. 71 rnds of flat shooting 7.62x25 at 900rpm=[:D] They also liked to use captured M1 Carbines. As long as your issued weapons are good (& in plentiful supply)why bother? I could see gathering up & storing captured weapons for emergency use if resupply might become an issue (BHD, Khe San |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I believe that using Enemy weapons, except for self-defense, is a Geneva Convention violation. This I rather doubt. During WW2 all sides used captured enemy equipment and not just for self-defense. Except the Geneve Convention didn't take place until 1949! You are right about WWII, but your reasoning does not back up your statement that "This I rather doubt." For a history buff, you sure tend to forget a lot, kar98. I posted that quote being a little too passive. I'm damn sure that using captured enemy weapons is a violation of Military rules of engagement, Geneva Convention or otherwise. Similarly, using soft point ammo, or the Enemy's uniforms or Civilian attire is a violation. Soft point ammo, I believe, is not a Geneva Convention violation, and there appears to be alot of gray area/ misunderstanding concerning this. It is however, prosecutable by some legal mechanism. If you're sure about it, could you cite the article of the convention? I've read it several times and have never ran across a prohibition against using captured weapons. There's stuff in there about how an armed force of a nation has to be uniform (and what that means), what a "levee en masse" is and how they're covered. How people who violate that are delt with. A bunch of other wierd stuff about how much a POW has to be payed while in captivity, visits from the Red Cross, etc. You are right in that it doesn't specifically mention soft-points. It states that weapons that cuase "undo suffering" will not be used. For most nations, that means FMJs are used to simply avoid the whole thing, but there isn't any specific soft-point prohibition, just like there isn't any prohibition against using .50 cal on personnel. I'll go back and look, but I'd like you to cite your reference. I'm pretty sure you can use captured weapons. Ross |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I believe that using Enemy weapons, except for self-defense, is a Geneva Convention violation. This I rather doubt. During WW2 all sides used captured enemy equipment and not just for self-defense. El Alamein springs to mind in a big way. Why would it violate the GC? |
|
The Geneva Convention has nothing to do with weapons, wearing civilian clothes, wearing other military clothes. It only deals with the treatment of captured military and civilian persons. There have been 4 "Geneva Conventions" The latest was in 1949 What most people mean when they talk about not using certain kinds of ammunition, not wearing other military/civilian clothes. That is actually "The Hague Convention/Articles". This covers things such as landmines, chemical and biological weapons, munitions that cause "mameing" or "unnecessarly suffering", Dressing as civilians, dressing in other military's uniforms, etc... |