Did Germans use captured .50's?

[Gyrene]

The German Army had the excellent insight to recognize a superior enemy design and adopt captured examples when they could for example: T34's, LT-38's & H39's, and even the Garand (Re-designated as the Selbstladegewehr 251(a)), so did they ever adopt the M2HB MGs they might have captured from the Russians out of early lend/lease equipment?

The M2 is easily superior to the MG34 in a number of categories, and I'm sure enough of them where around to make their adoption worthwhile.

My question is, if this did happen, would it be enough to merit its inclusion in CM2?

Curious more than anything.

Gyrene

[Panzer Leader]

So, just what is so much better about the .50 cal?

I mean, I know that in game turns, it can take out vehicles and just seems to be a better MG, but what are its benefits in reality?

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

So, just what is so much better about the .50 cal?

I mean, I know that in game turns, it can take out vehicles and just seems to be a better MG, but what are its benefits in reality?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In addition to killing light armor, the 50 can make short work of cover that a rifle calibre MG can't deal with (valuable in urban fighting). The drawback is heavy ammo weight and low rate of fire.

[s_e_avenger]

One advantage of the .50 was that it could be used against lightly armored targets. (but even the .30 in combat could be effective against German halftracks.)

Probably the biggest advantages were range and accuracy. I've read more than one account of .50's being used to "snipe" at long range.

The size of the round probably helped too. In "Death Traps," Belton Cooper caracterized the Germans as "terrified" of the .50.

I have never heard of the German Army officially adopting a similar weapon (although the Soviet Bloc wasted no time in developing the 12.5 mm) They seemed to jump straight from 7.92 to 20mm.

I'm sure they used captured examples, and have seen pictures of them using the .30 air cooled at Arnhem.

As far as CM, maybe there is a possibility that abandoned crew served weapons could be re-manned by either side based on unit experience. (but I'm sure that's been said before).

[Gyrene]

Panzer Leader, like Marlow stated, the .50 caliber round is in a whole different league from the MG34/42's 7.92mm round, it can considerably out range and out damage the much light German round.

I didn't imply that it would replace the M34/42, but it would be foolish for the Germans not to adopt any captured ones, as they had no equivalent of their own.

Gyrene

[MrSpkr]

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

In addition to killing light armor, the 50 can make short work of cover that a rifle calibre MG can't deal with (valuable in urban fighting). The drawback is heavy ammo weight and low rate of fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. I've read accounts of quad .50's mounted on halftracks literally demolishing small wooden houses with about five minutes of concentrated fire. The .50 round is heavy, accurate, and carries a tremendous amount of energy into any target it hits. If the German's could find ammo for the .50 MG's, they would be very foolish not to employ them.

MrSpkr

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Dittohead]

Towards the end of the War germans employed variuos 13mm and 15mm machineguns(from fighter planes) mounted on trucks/halftracks and anything else they could find.

[Thomm]

... possibly for the same reason the Allies did not use the MG42 ...

[nick]

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

... possibly for the same reason the Allies did not use the MG42 ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't they? I've heard the MP40 was quite a sought-after weapon, for british servicemen at least.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I think there is a picture of a .50 mounted on a German halftrack in the Encyclopedia of German Tanks. I am at work, so I can't look it up right now.

[Fishu]

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

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

[qb]... possibly for the same reason the Allies did not use the MG42 ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't they? I've heard the MP40 was quite a sought-after weapon, for british servicemen at least.[/QB]

British Sten and German MP40 uses same caliber of ammo.

9x19mm SMG bullets.

For instance also pistols does use 9x19mm; like Browning hi-power (actually both sides used Browning HP 1935), Luger P08 (9mm), Walther P38, Walther PP and more..

(although, not so recommended to use SMG bullets in a pistol )

But rifle calibers were different (MG42 uses rifle caliber), so there were little supply problems.

Russians did also have their own 12.7mm heavy machinegun, called DShK.

There were also some german MG131's converted to man carried machineguns, what I've heard of. (probably mostly in the late war)

[offtaskagain]

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

Probably the biggest advantages were range and accuracy. I've read more than one account of .50's being used to "snipe" at long range.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The longest sniping kill I've ever heard of was by Gunnery Sergreant Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam. He got a headshot at something around a mile with an M2. Of course that thing had one hell of a scope and shooter added to it though. Also, these days the Army uses the Barrett .50 cal rifle for anti-material and counter-sniping.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Also, these days the Army uses the Barrett .50 cal rifle for anti-material and counter-sniping.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that like counter-snipping? That is one thing I miss from ASL...

Jeff Heidman

[Wittmann]

Is counter snipping the same as a vasectomy reversal?....ouch!

[ASL Veteran]

One reason you may not want to use captured equipment is that the enemy equipment usually has a sound that is distinct from your own weaponry. Friendly troops may mistake the user as an enemy and blast away in his direction. The logistics difficulty would be present too - how do you supply these foreign weapons if you have no ammunition supply? Probably neither safe nor practical to use captured equipment unless the creator nation was conquered (giving you ammunition supply) or whole units were equipped with said weapons (to prevent friendly fire and ease of logistics). BTW, the MG15 was a failure as a ground weapon because it was so long that it was 'unhandy' - something that didn't really matter in an airplane.

[Michael Dorosh]

They issued Panzerfauste like popcorn, and you really think the Germans needed .50 calibre machineguns to deal with enemy armour????

[Username]

IF the germans could get them and IF they had enough ammo, THEN they would probably use them as light flak guns.

I cant see them getting them till battles like the BULGE.

But the germans did fear them and also the russian 14.5mm HMG (the russian 12.7 was like a 'kurtz' 50 cal if you ask me). The russian 14.5mm WAS the antitank rifle round and would make halftracks/armored cars into swiss cheese. I am sure the germans captured alot of weapons after market garden but couldnt get the ammo needed. They didnt have time to get an ammo factory setup in the remaining months of the war.

Lewis

[Michael Emrys]

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

(MG42 uses rifle caliber)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Technically true, but a little misleading for the uninitiated. The MG34-42 fired a 7.92mm round. The Kar98 (the standard issue Wehrmacht rifle) fired a 7.62mm round. They were not interchangable. No doubt this must have caused some regrets among the German infantry from time to time.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Technically true, but a little misleading for the uninitiated. The MG34-42 fired a 7.92mm round. The Kar98 (the standard issue Wehrmacht rifle) fired a 7.62mm round. They were not interchangable. No doubt this must have caused some regrets among the German infantry from time to time.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe this is correct.

Postwar K98s fired 7.62, if they rechambered for NATO. Wartime Mausers fired 7.92 mm ammo.

I own one.

More importantly, from Buchner's German Infantry Handbook in the section on MG 34s:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since the same ammunition was used as in the 98 k rifle it could be exchanged from one weapon to the other if need be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JasonC]

They used 20mm FLAK for the same sort of role. As others have noted, they also used 15mm MGs on aircraft - along with 30mm cannon and 20mm cannon. From their point of view, the 50 cal (and the Russian 14.5mm AA MG) was an intermediate weapon, between everyone's standard ~30 cal MGs and their 20mm AA. They made tens of thousands of 20mm AA - singles, quads, towed, flak-tanks, on half-tracks, on trucks.

As for use of captured 50s, they may have in a pinch, locally, but I am not aware of any systematic use of them - unlike, say, the 120mm mortar. One fellow mentioned sound, but the likely main reason is ammo. 50 cals use ammo in great quantities, and the rounds are heavy compared to the standard ~30 cal MGs. Unless they were going to start making the stuff, they'd soon run through anything they captured. It was much easier to use 20mm FLAK that they already made shells for.

[Jeff Hays]

7.92mm or 8mm is what the Mauser (Kar98) used. 8mm is One of the most plentiful types of ammunition still around after the 7.62x39 . I have 8mm rounds on stripper clips manufactured in 43 & 44 in perfect condition (corrosive) but prefer SA, Russian, or East bloc manufacture due to higher quality for shooting, and very cheap at around 3 to 5 cents a round. As for the use of captured 50's I wouldnt waste time on a captured weapon that had no reliable supply source for ammo and parts and would soon become a liablility in combat. As for the use of captured T-34's and russian 76mm ATG's, the Germans did capture these in sufficient quantities to have parts and produce ammo for.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Hays:

As for the use of captured 50's I wouldnt waste time on a captured weapon that had no reliable supply source for ammo and parts and would soon become a liablility in combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would if there was a perceived need for that weapon - other examples have been given, from the landser who desires a PPSh to replace his bolt action K98, to the officials who decided the Marder should make use of captured Russian 76 mm guns. I think the point to be made here is that the Germans had no perceived need to use .50 calibre machineguns.

[BloodyBucket]

Posted by ASL Veteran"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One reason you may not want to use captured equipment is that the enemy equipment usually has a sound that is distinct from your own weaponry. Friendly troops may mistake the user as an enemy and blast away in his direction <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My father told about that problem. In France, he and some buddies came upon an abandoned MG42 and quite a bit of ammo for it, thought it would be poetic justice to use it on the former owners and were fired on by 60mm mortars soon after opening up.

I agree that the Germans probably didn't see a need for putting the M2 into widespread use. It is a big item to lug around if you are on foot, and they didn't have an abundance of vehicles to play with.

[Jeff Hays]

"from the landser who desires a PPSh to replace his bolt action K98"

I would not want to rely on a weapon that I had no reliable means of ammunition for. The PPsh would soon become a liability in any serious firefight also not to mention the a long range fire fight where it couldnt hit a barn at a barn at 100 meters, ok not literally though... BTW my SR-41 which is a cut/converted PPsh 41 in semi auto is a blast to shoot but the mauser has excellent range.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Hays:

"from the landser who desires a PPSh to replace his bolt action K98"

I would not want to rely on a weapon that I had no reliable means of ammunition for. The PPsh would soon become a liability in any serious firefight also not to mention the a long range fire fight where it couldnt hit a barn at a barn at 100 meters, ok not literally though... BTW my SR-41 which is a cut/converted PPsh 41 in semi auto is a blast to shoot but the mauser has excellent range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many were rechambered for German 9mm. And there is plenty of anecodatal evidence to suggest that despite what you may think, there were many Germans who did opt to caryy Russian weapons.... I don't have any concrete sources at my fingertips, however, so will discount what you say.

Bear in mind that armies seek to avoid firefights through the use of maneuver and heavy supporting fire. As you know, squad tactics revolved around the lMG providing supporting fire - so the guys with MPi and grenades could get in close...rifles and SMGs are designed for very different things, and it seems to me you are mixing apples and oranges. If I was expected to operate as a rifleman, I too would want a rifle.

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]