Using captured small arms

[offtaskagain]

No i'm not thinking of whining for the ability to pick up enemy weapons in the midst of a CM battle. I'm just wondering if there is any general idea as to how widespread the use of captured small arms (German in particular) was amongst the Allied armies. I can find a fair number biographies mentioning troops carrying MP-40s and the like, but i've never seen much else. Only recently I've found a few photos like this that show use of captured guns.Dead kitty.

Can anybody find any more pictorial evidence?

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

[Michael Emrys]

The Germans themselves were probably the largest users of captured weaponry, everything from small arms to heavy artillery. Although this practice was mostly confined to second and third line units, the SS was often armed with captured weapons, especially in either the early years or with formations raised outside Germany.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

No i'm not thinking of whining for the ability to pick up enemy weapons in the midst of a CM battle. I'm just wondering if there is any general idea as to how widespread the use of captured small arms (German in particular) was amongst the Allied armies. I can find a fair number biographies mentioning troops carrying MP-40s and the like, but i've never seen much else. Only recently I've found a few photos like this that show use of captured guns.Dead kitty.

Can anybody find any more pictorial evidence?

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, one is cautioned about period photos. There is no way of knowing if the troop posing with the Sturmgewehr was a frontline combat soldier, or if he ever fired a shot in anger. He probably told the folks back home that he brought the Tiger down, too...

[Slapdragon]

Allied use of captured weapons was extremely rare except in special circumstances and with special units. Much of this had to do with supply of ammunition: except for 9mm, there was just no advantage to using a weapon that would soon run out, and the 9mm weapons were not that superior to the Commonwealth weapons issued. In addition, the allies in the CM:BO time frame had no trouble equipping their armies with good quality weapons of every variety. Some Armies, in fact, were down right mean about using foriegn weapons, and treated it as a court martial offense. Both Patton and Wes Clark had bugs up their ass about using nonstandard weapons (which is funny, considering the fact that Patton himself used them).

The place were captured weapons got used was rear areas. Mauldin tells a story about a clerk in the 79th ID personnel office who was suppose to be cutting his papers for travel when he was assigned as a cartoonist across Europe. The clerk had hanging by his desk an MP-40. When Mauldin asked, the clerk said he had captured it. A sergeant later told him that it had been traded with a weapons disposal unit for directions to a local hoar house.

The same thing happened in other wars. Anthony Herbert remarked that "In Korea and Vietnam, you could always tell the rear area types. They carried the "captured" burp guns and AKs. Grunts carried rifles and carbines because if they showed up at inspection without them, even in war time, it was coming out of their pay."

[JonS]

IIRC, one of the US airborne units made extensive use of a cache of Panzerfausts they captured. I think this event was the basis for and SL/ASL scen.

[Captain Wacky]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Again, one is cautioned about period photos. There is no way of knowing if the troop posing with the Sturmgewehr was a frontline combat soldier, or if he ever fired a shot in anger. He probably told the folks back home that he brought the Tiger down, too...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr. Dorosh, Grog of Grogs, I am shocked and saddened beyond belief. The tank in the picture is CLEARLY not a Tiger but rather a Panther.

A dark day indeed

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

IIRC, one of the US airborne units made extensive use of a cache of Panzerfausts they captured. I think this event was the basis for and SL/ASL scen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

US Airborne Infantry training included an extensive course in using captured weapons. Behind enemy lines, running out of ammo, I would assume that they would use anything they could find, especially fausts, which are like grenades in their expendability.

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Mr. Dorosh, Grog of Grogs, I am shocked and saddened beyond belief. The tank in the picture is CLEARLY not a Tiger but rather a Panther.

A dark day indeed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a Tiger, a Tiger II.

[JonS]

I'm fairly sure it wasn't behind enemy lines. There was a lot of training involved in their use, but that was in the week before they went up to the line.

Arrgh. Its a one off anyway, so not representative.

BTW, I'm fairly sure that is a King Tiger. Note the curved turret side, and the track covers.

[JonS]

Bas!

How was the Badlands?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

obvioulsy all units in need of weapons would use captured weapons no matter the country, but the allies would use the mp-40 being that is was a superior weapon, germany had the market conrnered in quality during ww2 on small arms

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

IIRC, one of the US airborne units made extensive use of a cache of Panzerfausts they captured. I think this event was the basis for and SL/ASL scen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was the 82nd. Airborne at the start of the Ardennes Offensive. I have posted about this recently.

Michael

[Tero]

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=145

Combat Lessons No.5, War Department Pamphlet, 1945

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Using Enemy Weapons: Lieutenant Fosdick, a platoon leader of the 4th’ Infantry Division, FRANCE, reports: “When captured enemy weapons are to be used by any member of a unit, all member; of the unit must be so informed; On one occasion,a sergeant was killed when he began to fire with a captured German machine pistol. This weapon has a characteristic sound when fired. Other troops of the sergeant’s own unit thought a German sniper was in their midst and fired on the sergeant, killing him.”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does that reflect the extreme rarity of the use of captured arms by the US troops ?

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=146

Combat Lessons No.6, War Department Pamphlet, 1945

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“Staff Sergears Robert G. Rhodes, Company B, 315th Infantry, 79th Division, was in charge of the platoon that had just captured a certain hill position on the Seine River, north of Paris. The inevitable counterattack was expected at any minute and the sergeant lost no time in preparing for it. He placed the squad close to the crest of the elevation: this group was to serve as a base of fire. The other two squads he distributed, one on the right front and one on the left front, both well forward. The two flank squads were given German machine pistols and German machine guns and were given orders not to fire until the enemy had advanced beyond their position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can anyone in the know tell me what kind of a special unit was this Company B, 315th Infantry, 79th Division ?

[Slapdragon]

Two cites from combat lessons pamplets does not prove or disprove anything Tero. Shows it was done, as I have said -- by there nature including an event in a "combat lesson" means that the front lines troops were not doing it, or else it would not have been included in training materials designed to change field practices. (There was also a VD discussion and a discussion of eating healthy in the combat lesson series).

As for the MP-40 being superior, the US would naturally not use the MP-40 often or for very long for the simple reason that no 9mm existed in the US supply chain. Perhaps the Commonwealth dumped their Stens en masse for the MP-40, but I have no proof of this, and it seems doubtful that British paras jumped into battle all clutching German weapons.

I should note the rumor that Dillingham mentioned in his short work on the infantry. That Americans caught carrying German weapons were shot on the spot by Germans. Not true as far as I know, but it was one of the more common rumors going around the US infantry.

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

Bas!

How was the Badlands?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frigging well still here mate!

The only thing that I've learnt from this tour is that remaining even for a week at a time in Suai FOB with all these wannabe war heros, that for some reason never quite cut it to go to the front is sheer hell!

I mean a classic instance is on sanger duty at blackadder. This 37 year old clerk Sgt starts blathering on about how he's not sure that having two women man the sanger can be trusted to operate the c-9. Bwhahhahaah, five mins later going down to open the gate he spills the c-9 on to the ground breaking the belt box and spilling 5.56mm all over the floor snapping the belt into three sections. War hero then asks me to put it back together.

[Chad Harrison]

along the same lines, the only nice thing about the Close Combat computer game is that you could pick up the other sides small arms when you run out of ammo. thats one of those things that is on my "i hope its in CM2" list. why not? shoot, if i had only 2 rounds of .45cal left, you bet i would pick up anything that shoots!

[Captain Wacky]

I guess that is a KT. I kept looking at the angled back hull and though it was the Panther.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

along the same lines, the only nice thing about the Close Combat computer game is that you could pick up the other sides small arms when you run out of ammo. thats one of those things that is on my "i hope its in CM2" list. why not? shoot, if i had only 2 rounds of .45cal left, you bet i would pick up anything that shoots!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I kind of think this is simulated in the "low" ammo, since you keep firing, just at a reduced rate and frequency. By this point you are firing the kitchen sink, and a K98 with 20 rounds you scooped off a dead German is not going to make you write any long novels if things are that desperate. Beside, low ammo is often cited in AARs was the reason for breaking off action.

[gredeker]

I seem to have an impression (sorry, can't cite any sources) that using captured weapons in the WWII US Army was either frowned upon or outright prohibited at night - it led to too much friendly(?) fire.

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

(Stuff about GI use of captured German Übersturmvolksgeschirrspülermaschinenkatzenellenbogen)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason for your second quote seems indicated by your first one. The flanking troops were told to open up on the Germans w/MP-40s after the Germans had gone past in order to confuse them about who was firing on them. If they heard MP-40s rather than M-1s, they might think they were hit w/blue-on-blue (or is that gray-on-gray?).

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redeker:

I seem to have an impression (sorry, can't cite any sources) that using captured weapons in the WWII US Army was either frowned upon or outright prohibited at night - it led to too much friendly(?) fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the Army and the situation. Patton forbid the use of captured weapons in an order issued from his headquarters but there appears to be few actual courts on the subject from 3rd Army.

Some commanders, such as Gavin, would turn a blind eye to leg policies. Captured weapon training was given to Paratroopers anyway, and was added to infantry training after the war in the US.

The Sten and the MP-40 sound close enough alike that I am not sure there would be any reason to not use one over another if that is a factor, but the MG-42 (MG-3 is what I heard fired) is considerably different than the 1919.

[Chad Harrison]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

I kind of think this is simulated in the "low" ammo, since you keep firing, just at a reduced rate and frequency. By this point you are firing the kitchen sink, and a K98 with 20 rounds you scooped off a dead German is not going to make you write any long novels if things are that desperate. Beside, low ammo is often cited in AARs was the reason for breaking off action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes that is a good points. i posted a post about this some time ago, and that was the conclusion that we all came too. in my low ammo situations, it seems that unless i order my troops to fire at EXTREMELY CLOSE ranges, they usually wont fire on their own at those ranges. realistic? yea proboably, but its frustrating to watch your veteran paras die to a green rifle squad at 10m just because they are "low" on ammo!