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:
... 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.

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... smile.gif 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... smile.gif 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 ]

[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 ]

[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