Using enemy weapons?

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Post Reply
r1xlx
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 29 Aug 2016, 20:27
Location: uk

Using enemy weapons?

#1

Post by r1xlx » 29 Aug 2016, 20:47

What was official attitude to using guns of dead enemy and unofficial usage of any captured weapon?
I am under the impression that the allied armies never used any weapons they captured during advances?
For instance those MG34's look absolutely deadly as the bipod keeps the barrel end steady - were allies allowed to use one if they found one in a captured position or were all pillboxes, dugouts etc not entered for fear of booby traps?
Same goes for grenades and mortars and those awful 4 barrel AA guns etc.
I have never read of any allied soldier turning a gun on its former users and never noticed it in old newsreels.

Gary Kennedy
Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 19:56

Re: Using enemy weapons?

#2

Post by Gary Kennedy » 30 Aug 2016, 15:17

The not very helpful answer is probably 'it depends'.

The German Army had a voracious appetite for captured enemy kit, but they tended to gather such items together and distribute them on a formal basis so that the correct supplies of ammunition and spares could be maintained.

Re the specific example of the MG34, I can recall a few instances where British troops turned captured ones on their former owners. The problems you face there are two-fold, the first one harking back to logistics. Your Rifle Coy is full of men who can happily strip and reassemble their Bren guns and SMLEs, can get them serviced by the attached REME armourers and get replacements parts and of course ammo by the box load. What the RAOC aren't shipping across are spares for enemy weapons, nor cleaning kit, lubricants or ammo (7.92-mm was used in the Besa, but that was a RAC item). So keeping such weapons operating becomes a job in itself, scrounging ammo and parts or scavenging them off the battlefield, which as trophy hunters knew could be a fatal sideline.

The other issue is, if you start using the enemy's weapons, your own side might mistake you for said enemy. There was a distinct difference in report between say the Bren and the MG34. If B Companyy suddenly hears MG34s or 42s firing close to their flank, where they supposed 16 Platoon was in place to provide security, they might think 16 Pl aren't there anymore and react accordingly. I think it was in a book on 3rd (Br) Div in 1944-45 there's a story of someone who decided to turn an MG34/42 the other way, causing some discomfort to the nearby units who thought the Germans had infiltrated their lines (it may also have been a night action to add to the confusion).

Plenty of cases where enemy weapons were used of course, the legendary one of the US 82nd Airborne Div acquiring sizeable stocks of Panzerfaust on seemingly every jump they ever made, similarly the Red Army issuing captured supplies of the same weapon to its troops. At the other end of the scale, the oddity of 6th Guards Tank Bde keeping a booty Panther running for a while in France, before it inevitably broke down.

Also, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with British, US or Soviet rifles or machine guns, mortars or field artillery compared to German ones, so no overriding need to ditch and replace. SMGs could have issues (yes Sten, still looking at you...), but oddly the Soviets seemed to like the MP40 while the Germans loved the PPSh41 so much they began converting captured stocks to 9-mm. As soon as you mention tank/anti-tank people start whipping out their stat sheets and gauges to refight old battles one more time, which they're welcome to!

Gary


Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: Using enemy weapons?

#3

Post by Mori » 30 Aug 2016, 17:20

r1xlx wrote:What was official attitude to using guns of dead enemy and unofficial usage of any captured weapon?
I am under the impression that the allied armies never used any weapons they captured during advances?
That's a reasonable assumption: Allied troops did not use captured weapons, baring exceptional cases.

One well documented example is the US 82 AB using panzerfaust, in the wake of the Ardennes battle. this was a local initiative by their officers, as they had captured a lot of these weapons. They learned how to use them with effect, for example in the fight on the Siegfried line in the second half of January 1945. Adjacent divisions operating in the area did not do so.

The 1944-45 First French army suffered from a shortage of weapons and asked SHAEF to get captured German guns, esp those artillery guns with compatible shells. In spite of repeated requests, they were not allowed to pick what they wanted from dumps of captured guns. (see this article, in French: https://rha.revues.org/7980)

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Using enemy weapons?

#4

Post by Sheldrake » 30 Aug 2016, 20:38

There are several problems with using a weapon picked up in a battle.
  • Ammunition: Where is it and how much is there of it?
    Safety: Is it safe to use? or is the attractive lueger/PM40/MG34 booby trapped?
    Training: Can you use the weapon?
    Zeroing: The sights won't be aligned.
A weapon has to be a big improvement on your own to take the effort and run the added risks.

Obviously an enemy weapon is better if you don't have any ammunition for your own, which is why commandos and paratroops might be trained to use enemy small arms.

Some weapons were prized because they were a useful addition or far better than their own kit.The Lewis Gun was far better than any portable automatic weapon supplied to the Kaiser's army.
Image
The 28th (Maori) Infantry battalion had a reputation for hoarding enemy weapons. A section of twelve was supposed to have two automatic weapons (TMG and Bren). By 1945 Maori sections might have only two rifles and ten automatic weapons captured German and buckshee Allied.

The Sten gun was designed to use the same 9mm ammunition as the MP40 so partisans could use captured supplies. It also made it easy to obtain ammunition for an "Ally"(1) personal souvenir. There are examples of Germans with Sten guns ("Better than the MP 40 because you could use it from the prone position." as well as Brits with MP40. ("better than the Sten because it might not go off if you dropped it")
Image


For a definition of "Allyness" see here.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Allyness
http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/thread ... st-7209441
Steiner is "Allyness" personified.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”