Does the Military use captured weapons and ammo? Itd make sense right...

Does the Military use captured weapons and ammo? Itd make sense right? Or is there some kind of stupid law in place that prohibits it?

Attached: SEALfindWeaponsCache.jpg (766x510, 128K)

Attached: SEALfindWeaponsCache00.jpg (766x510, 81K)

They usually document it and destroy it I'm pretty sure.

Why destroy it though. It could help cut down on costs (like a raindrop in a river I know). But wouldn't it be beneficial to smaller outpost areas that don't get resupplied a lot?

RDX/PETN filled bullets ? 1 fucked up soldier cost money ;)

We confiscated a few AKs in Kosovo when I was in the army (French). We kept 2 of them, had them deactivated, and then used them as props for various trainings.

If you're familiar with the weapon or are carrying the same weapons then yeah, you probably could, but in that case you're probably in a civil war and have no higher ups to report to.
If you're from a nation that's so poor or losing the conflict so badly that they can't provide you with domestic weapons and ammunition to the the point that you're willing to use a weapon you have no experience with, then I don't think you would have the capability to document to the point that your higher ups could make a decision on it.
Otherwise, a well functioning military would have no reason to use a foreign weapon. You would also have to consider that you have to give that weapon to someone knowing you probably don't have the infrastructure to repair it or provide ammunition for it for that one guy. Then you have to give a domestic weapon to that guy and he has to readjust to using it when it probably would have been easier just to give him a domestic weapon.
Individual soldier might take them as trophies though.

I think the Marines gave recruits some instruction on using weapons found in Iraq

in a fight anything goes, but as far as capturing mostly no, SF will do it some but they are more likely to give it to friendly fighters.

There was a case in Iraq where some soldier convinced his CO to let him use a captured PPSh-41 in house-clearing operations until they ran out of ammo for it. That's about the only recent example I can think of.

You could go back to WW2. Germany used practically every type of captured weapon they could lay their hands on that could be supplied with ammunition. It was really a German tradition which made sense as long as there were large numbers of low priority forces to arm and limits on the supply of new weapons. Since then there's hardly BEEN a war where a large military force would need every gun they could claim. It is a bit difficult to imagine a modern army being both powerful enough to invade other countries and yet manage to run out of supplies.

They give it to the iraqi forced or ana

how are you going to tell that a round of any sort hasn't been sabotaged?

Stupid question?
Why isn't some type of high explosive (RDX/ETN) used instead of gunpowder?
Couldn't you use less, in theory, to get the same(or more of an) effect without the rifle becoming a bomb itself?

but why, when it's likely inferior and/or sabotaged?

there is no point

*".", not "?".

probably increased throat/bore erosion. the brits did do that in WWII for a time because they were desperate and only did it with their rifle rounds.

as a general rule of thumb it's not ideal to use captured enemy weapons because you don't know how well taken care of the gun is. Unless you're captain america. You never know when you'll need an AK.

As the warrior-poet ice cube once said, if the day does not require an ak, it is good.

Do you know how it turned out?
Or what weapons they did it with?

Fi the US in modern times it really doesn't make sense. There are some exceptions like SOF elements partnered with indigenous forces will sometimes use there weapons load out because they are expected to be SMEs and for ammo compatability. For the rest of the military we have a fuckload of ammo and the standards for handling and condition of weapons and ammo that we hold service members to vs the state of captured munitions is crazy different. Plus you don't want to use enemy weapons as it can confuse friendly forces. Firing an AK is a good way to get blue on blue from adjacent elements in Afghan

One thing nobody mentioned yet is using the weapon the enemy uses makes you sound like the enemy which makes people think you are the enemy

it was fine after some testing but they went back to using gun powder the first chance they had. only .303 British iirc

ISIL used to spike ammo

>uses enemy weapons to deny enemy transportation

What a hero

They sell captured weapons back to terrorists to keep the war alive.

ammo could be sabotaged/trapped, its usually blown up.

Weapons...
Sometimes dumped on shitty "allies"

Some are brought back as training weapons/trophies

Some go to specialforcesniggas

Some are destroyed

Let’s pretend for a minute that the US has a network of saboteurs strategically placed in munition factories and munition shipping channels the world over. Let’s pretend they target shipments destined for enemies of theirs.
If something like that were true, and I was the USA, I would want a policy in place that dictates enemy munitions are to be cataloged, with particular attention paid to any type of manufacturing or shipping markings to assist in better postitioning said saboteurs, and then safely destroyed.
That’s good for pretending. I don’t know what we should do real-world.

>Does the Military use captured weapons and ammo?
War trophies go to soldiers

Attached: 1531971729172.jpg (640x617, 51K)

G11 did it, HMX based propellant. Burned very clean apparently.

Consider this:
Slap a bowling ball as hard as you can. See what effect it has.
Now place your hand on the ball and shove it as hard as you can. See the difference?
It's the same with high explosives vs. gunpowder.

Bullshit, either through you or the DI

It was a marine during the battle of Fallujah

Attached: 51780065.jpg (594x393, 99K)

Lot of that ammo is really trash quality tier, lower than even the trashiest US ammo manufacturers for comparison. You're much better off sending that ammo to kingdom come than using that stockpile.

Of course if I was an insurgent member, some ammo is better than no ammo, but the military aren't insurgents.

Generally not, stuff like personal weapons, rifles, pistols and stuff aren't to be carried as its a whole lot of unknowns you'd want an armourer to go over before using them- armourers also have a certain workload you can't really alter as it'd have an overall run-down effect into normal equipment. Course if your primary gets bunged up or otherwise fucked in the field and you 'have to' pick up a weapon, thats fine but it carries the risk of getting accidentally capped by your own team when its seen, heard or fired- not even counting airborne assets getting a hard dick seeing someone running around with it and just letting fly.
>support weapons= yes
Stuff like heavy machineguns, AA guns, mortars and things of such types are quite an asset. Provided its fit for service, has ammo to make it worth it's time, for sure. Lot of the light infantry, airborne units and spec forces don't always have huge amounts of that stuff just lying so when its found and functional it'll get pressed into some kind of service even if its just an added layer of defence to somewhere. Plus its just something the enemy can't salvage and get into service themselves, as scary as a dude with an AK or PK running around may seem- its got nothing on something like a DSHK or ZPU when it comes to making shit all fucked up.

However, it does mainly come down to operational capability as well, if its too complicated for the guys to use or some peculiarities in its operation, then it'll be shitcanned in favour of something that's less of a liability to them. Got to remember we try to assume very little in the military, you don't assume your guys know how to use it, they 'have to' know how to use it.

mah nigga

Attached: download.jpg (300x168, 8K)

Early Iraq they did. It's why you saw guys running around with ppsh's, ak's and sks's and other various things they found. They cracked down on that shit though and people stopped once shit got serious and nobody wants to get shot at by friendlies because those guys hear you with your AK.

>war trophies

Keeping weapons as war trophies has, unfortunately, been prohibited for years. I know some got away with it back in Vietnam but it’s been pretty much phobited since WW2

nope. there's independent foreign weapons training you can get but it's for those that would actually use it.

>SEALfindWeaponsCache
Are you retarded?

>>that feel when I'll never get to shoot one.

It's more material strength than "pushing" because with a HE propellant you could get stupid velocity out of short barrels.

Mostly it's stockpiled or destroyed, however in the field it's common to scavenge for some things. Grenades, rocket launchers, machine guns if they're in a good position.

God, why can't we bring back captured weapons and ammo into the US? It would create a new surplus market too, if massive stockpiles were imported.

Attached: IMG_3063.jpg (1192x830, 171K)

Took the images from a Ex-seal website. Eat a dick white boy.

IIRC there were documented cases of entire marine platoons using captured AKs in Vietnam. Mainly though it was because they lacked cleaning kits for the m16s

>It would create a new surplus market too
And now you know why they don't do it.

Captured shit is sorted and it is either destroyed or issued to friendly forces in the area. US troops almost never use captured weaponry and it is almost always in an unofficial capacity if they do.

There are extremely rare cases of it happening with antique weapons in the modern era. There was one guy on OPchan who captured a Martini Henry in Afghanistan and managed to legally bring it back.
That was in like 2008 though, and shit has changed since then.

Attached: nazi captured BH17.jpg (500x375, 20K)

Well it definitely happened in WW2. Heaps of captured aircraft; tanks and heavy weapons were used by the Germans.

I remember that tanks weren't a huge success though; especially in the Eastern Front. Bit hard to distinguish a friendly captured tank in fog of war.

Attached: download.jpg (374x135, 4K)

We would use captured PKM’s that weren’t in terrible shape. If you found one that was still functional you’d just throw it in your truck with whatever 54r belts you could find. Then before returning to the fob you’d just toss it in a ditch somewhere

it happens very rarely with the US military. There are a large number of reasons we don't as a general rule.

- it makes you sound like the enemy
- it complicates supply lines
- your force was not trained with these weapons in mind
- the weapons used by everyone we fight are inferior to our own
-the CIA has been sending booby trapped ammo to the middle eat for 50 years
- the quality of the ammo there is that isn't booby trapped is bad
-the amount of properly maintained reliable weapons used by our enemy is too low to be captures and then fielded in any real numbers
-our partner forces need the weapons more
-destroying caches removes the possibility they will ever be used to kill americans.


i am sure there is some stuff i am missing. but there are cases of it happening in every war the Us has ever fought. That doesn't mean it is common place or a good idea. If it is necessary and logistically feasible then it has been done. The real issue is that only armys that are losing the war start using anything and everything they can get their hands on.

It's not "destroyed" so much as it is "disposed of" in whatever way seems fit at the time- selling it off to the next al qaeda, letting double digit iq grunts record 144p videos of them mag dumping aks, etc

iirc the cia tainted a ton of the x39 supply with boobytrap rounds so it's really pointless for us to use any soviet shit unless we're in a video game

The Germans didn't really use it en masse for normal front-line operation. The Italians on the other hand equipped entire fighter groups with captured D.520s. Also some Italian pilot made ace on a captured P-38

Attached: ItalianD520.jpg (491x306, 57K)

It leads to pretty severe logistics issues when everyone is using different weapons, and most of the captured ones are poorly-maintained. Switching from one gun to the next is expensive, imagine trying to handle a bunch of random soldiers using AKs or FAMASs or G36s or FALs or some shit and all expecting to still have enough ammo.

Who did you take them from?

My friend in army, afghanistan said that he was told if they accidentally shot a civi they should pick up an ak fire a few rounds and dump it on the body.
probably bullshit but whatever.

> (OP)
>-destroying caches removes the possibility they will ever be used to kill americans.


>be Mohammed al ah-jaqh
>Fighting the good fight for my god.
>life is good in Taliban city, shooting trashy ammo with shitty held by Dutch tape gun
>get assblasted by 19years old teenager that can't even point where Iran is on a humvee
>They steal all my shit
>All my stuff is sold back again into American's market
>don't go to heaven because I've not killed enough infedels
>be burning in kebob hell now, slowly roasting while from time to time demon slices piece of me for it.
>it regrows after a while, no biggie.
>Get memo.
>"your gun ended up in school shooter's hand, reaching your infedel killing quota"
>Finally get to heaven.
>Allah ohakbar.

All depends on what military and war you are refering to. In general, the rule is if you need to use it do so, if you dont, stick to what you are issued

kkek