Did Germans use captured .50's?

[BloodyBucket]

I think the issue of finding ammo for personal weapons is not so big a deal as one might think. Most soldiers don't go through that much ammo in one engagement, and if you do run out and the issue is not decided then there is probably somebody near who does not need a weapon anymore.

Crew served weapons are a different matter.

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

[JasonC]

It seems to me in the discussion of ammo etc and the use of captured equipment, that an essential little niggling historical point is being overlooked.

The Germans captured more Russian war material in 1941 than any army in history. The haul of side arms was in the millions, the haul of field artillery in the tens of thousands, the haul of artillery ammo in the millions again. They also occupied a region (the Donbas) that produced 40% of the Russian pre-war ammo supply.

That is a little different from picking up a 50 cal after a fire-fight along with 3 boxes of ammo for it. They didn't exactly do the same thing in Connecticut, either.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

It seems to me in the discussion of ammo etc and the use of captured equipment, that an essential little niggling historical point is being overlooked.

The Germans captured more Russian war material in 1941 than any army in history. The haul of side arms was in the millions, the haul of field artillery in the tens of thousands, the haul of artillery ammo in the millions again. They also occupied a region (the Donbas) that produced 40% of the Russian pre-war ammo supply.

That is a little different from picking up a 50 cal after a fire-fight along with 3 boxes of ammo for it. They didn't exactly do the same thing in Connecticut, either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point.

An interesting bit of trivia is that the Germans used large numbers of captured Allied trucks in the Western Desert - mainly because Ford had branch plants in Germany, and spare parts for CMPs were readily available (!)

[BloodyBucket]

Good points Jason, I was just speaking to the individual's viewpoint.

I know the German haul of Russian material was huge. In the way of small arms, didn't most of it get issued to rear area troops? Even with all that captured gear and manufacturing capacity, it had to be a logistical nightmare trying to supply different units with different ammo.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Good points Jason, I was just speaking to the individual's viewpoint.

I know the German haul of Russian material was huge. In the way of small arms, didn't most of it get issued to rear area troops? Even with all that captured gear and manufacturing capacity, it had to be a logistical nightmare trying to supply different units with different ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bridge security company at Remagen (rear area troops to be sure) were equipped with, and trained on, many captured machineguns - Russian included. The trouble was, the men were also convalescents from a nearby Ersatz Battaillon who were constantly being transferred back to the front.

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

[Cull]

Trying to ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.....

If it did happen, sure. But I know nothing of that being the case, at least en masse.

So...I don't see that happening in CM2.

Now I fall into NOT ANSWERING your question. The one thing that I can guess is that the M2 simply didn't fit the German machine gun concept. The Germans used machine guns as infantry multipliers (even when vehicle-mounted) rather than "heavy weapons". The German "heavy", as pointed out in one of these posts, was a different animal than the .50, and that was the idea. As you said, they didn't have an equivalent, but that was by design---to fit their concept of MG employment.

Interesting discussion here, though..

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jack Arilliac:

The Germans used machine guns as infantry multipliers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an interesting term. I was wondering if you might define it? I'm not sure what you mean and would like to know more.

[Warmaker]

My guess on infantry multiplier? Think about how many bullets an Schwere MG42 team can spit out. How many Kar 98K's/MP40's is that that thing worth?

[Fishu]

<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>

During World War 2, germans had rifle caliber of 7.92x57mm (also called as mauser 8mm)

They didn't have a single weapon of their own that would have accepted any sort of 7.62mm ammunition.

7.62mm was used by americans and soviets.

(.30-06 is 7.62x63mm)

Brits used 7.7x56mm. (.303)

and im almost certainly sure of these figures, after all the study on this subject in the past year.

Kar98's were rechambered after the war, just like Springfields or Garands. (ie. for NATO rounds)

Turning from Sten user to MP40 was fairly simple, since Stens were most often made to accept captured ammo (read; german 9mm).

Specially nice thing for resistance groups who were using stens.

Alot of PPSh 41's were converted to accept 9mm, which were often used by the germans in the eastern front.

For example, it was alot better for clearing trenches than the MP40. (MP40 has ~500 rpm and PPSh 41 ~900rpm, plus possible to fit drum.. although, most 9mm conversions I've seen, has been with curved stick magazine)

I doubt there were much of ammo supply problems either for PPSh 41, since large groups of soviets were armed with this type and alot of rounds also stored for them. (capture one position and you'll get PPSh 41 for yourself and plenty ammo )

Btw. PPSh 41 is partly based on more expensive (but better quality) Suomi M/31 submachinegun.

[Cull]

Michael:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jack Arilliac:

The Germans used machine guns as infantry multipliers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's an interesting term. I was wondering if you might define it? I'm not sure what you mean and would like to know more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a general term used in reference to support weapons "multiplying" a force's relative strength. Could be applied to lots of weapons, of any war---a catapult, flaming cauldron of oil, whatever. In this context, I think the Germans pioneered the modern concept with their use of MGs. For example, take a German company in a defensive position: With the number and mobility of their MGs, they could cover a much wider front (per man) than could an American company---their manpower was multiplied by the support weapons. In the attack, they could lay down a "effective" firepower equivalent of an Allied force (just a guess, to make the point) twice their size. By "effective", I mean what it takes to make the other guys ineffective. Not necessarily destructive force, but suppression/reduction.

Anyway, in my post about the MG concept, I was just saying that the German one was much different than the Allied in theory. That's why I guessed that the Germans (and I may be wrong about this!) didn't make a real effort to convert the M2. The M2 .50 cal, though massively destructive, didn't fit the general German MG concept---high rate of fire, high mobility, massive suppression ability---of man/force/infantry multiplier. In the modern U.S. army, an example can be seen in the implementation of the SAW. I guess the idea is: why have a heavy MG (requiring several men) that can knock down buildings (you've got other options for that duty) when you can give each of those several men a high ROF weapon that accomplishes what you really need---making a lot of the other guys hide. That "multiplies" your guys relative to theirs.

In fact, I just remembered some post recently on how the U.S. army has come to resemble the German of WWII over the years....nothing original here, just the speed and mobility thing.

This is just "theory" stuff; I'm sure lots of people here have more "facts"...

[Ex Bellator]

I have seen pictures of a specialist Luftwaffe squadron (KG200?) which included captured B-17's. As we know they bristled with .50cals so does this count?

I've always been intrigued to know more about their service record so if anyone can point me to a good source of information I'd be grateful.

[Mattias]

In “Enzyklopädie Deutscher Waffen 1939-1945” Gander/Chamberlain presents and describes 23 different types of captured MG’s used by the Germans.

The M2 cal .50 is not among them.

As it is usually a reliable source this seems a pretty clear indication that the M2 was used on a mostly localised and random basis.

M.

[ 05-13-2001: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Guest Babra]

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

I think the issue of finding ammo for personal weapons is not so big a deal as one might think. Most soldiers don't go through that much ammo in one engagement...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would disagree with that generally.

[Mark IV]

Germans had access to 12.7mm and 13.2mm MGs from Breda (Italy) from before the war.

U-boats were fitted with 13.2mm Bredas late in the war. I don't think the Germans were generally impressed with the idea, except in AA roles, and even then as an expedient.

However, even if they learned to fear Ma Deuce, the simple fact is that to use captured equipment on a widespread basis, you have to overrun a lot of enemy equipment first. Then, you have to gather up the equipment, provide an ammunition and parts source for it, and redistribute it. For vehicles, you have to adapt mounting gear.

The Germans did not have this opportunity with Ami kit, like they did with Russian and French equipment, because they were generally holding or abandoning territory in the West, rather than occupying it.

And someone else has made the other excellent point... the .50 has one of the most distinctive sounds on the battlefield, and is the acoustic equivalent of having a brass band play the Stars and Stripes in your foxhole. I'd rather have one side shooting at me than both of them.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I have seen pictures of a specialist Luftwaffe squadron (KG200?) which included captured B-17's. As we know they bristled with .50cals so does this count? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting point, - but of course it doesn't mean they used the guns in combat.

I have read of captured B-17s being used to fly near US formations and report on their position, altitude, etc., but don't think they were used in combat - ie forced to use the .50s to defend themselves. But I know less about their history than you, probably. I just don't get the impression that they were ever used in a direct combat role.

[Jeff Hays]

Lets not forget the ZB-37 from Czechoslovakia. Techinally it was not captured in combat but nonetheless it was used by front line troops in all theaters. As the Suomi model 31, finland used these. The PPsh 41 and PK series may have been loose copies. Lets not forget the Beratta 38, it also was issued to german troops. By the way most of these weapons are now available now that eastern Europe has been opened "up".

[Fishu]

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

Interesting point, - but of course it doesn't mean they used the guns in combat.

I have read of captured B-17s being used to fly near US formations and report on their position, altitude, etc., but don't think they were used in combat - ie forced to use the .50s to defend themselves. But I know less about their history than you, probably. I just don't get the impression that they were ever used in a direct combat role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theres story telling that KG200 once tried to shoot down forts with captured fort while they were in a landing pattern.

Although, they aborted it after suspicious US bombers were having guns pointed at the KG200 bomber. (bad colors, markings and no radio calls answered)

[Johnny D.]

Yeah, I have book on US planes the Germans captured. It mentions how KG 200 was a secret Luftwaffe unit used in clandestine intelligence missions, and most were delivery of agents, saboteurs, and their supplies behind enemy lines. I thought I heard of them sending up captured B-17's to knock down stragglers, too.

[Fishu]

Forgot to mention that germans actually destroyed most of the captured planes themself in incidents.

One of the B-17's went down by a single flak hit.

[Red Dog]

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

I have seen pictures of a specialist Luftwaffe squadron (KG200?) which included captured B-17's. As we know they bristled with .50cals so does this count?

I've always been intrigued to know more about their service record so if anyone can point me to a good source of information I'd be grateful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

KG 200 was primarily responsible for clandestine intelligence operations. The majority of their missions were insertion, retrieval, and supply of agents and commando/partisan units. Their missions where all highly classified, most of their records were destroyed before the end of the war; and many of the few records which remain are still classified to this day. They were flying missions daily right up until the end of the war. I recall reading somewhere that in the last days of the war they had inserted several commando units in Russia who were still actively raiding and sabotaging up until the early 1950s... can't recall the source for this and most of my books are in boxes at my parent's house. Possibly "Kommando: German Special Forces of WW2"? or maybe it was from one of the Timelife WW2 books?

[BloodyBucket]

Babra, your disagreement with my statement on ammo use is probably correct. I should have used the past tense. I think it is true applied to WWII era soldiers in general, and to modern soldiers using WWII era training.

[Ex Bellator]

Interesting stuff - thanks guys