Want to see more interviews with experts? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, more info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
I have heard that the Germans used captured weapons when available but when the artillary piece ran out of captured shells or the tank needed repair they just abandoned them .
@@annadalassena5460 Thanks for the info. Maybe they meant in combat situations and they could not get further shells for the guns or spare parts for theforeign tanks they would abandon them or possibly they were more likely to abandon trucks rather than fighting vehicles.
Not modernizing, But standardization. Und a tank is only as good as the support. A long term effect, Auf Deutsch forgetting how much logistics plays in long term combat operations. Und standardization make a big, big difference in many, many small ways. Using foreign weapons, is historic in European combat. Is always a fall back, when short term combat becomes long term combat.
You have to calculate the coriolis force, charge, air pressure, temp., wind direction and type of round before you can shoot. Back in the day we used to compete computer's vs slide rulers, to see which was faster for doing the calculations. It turns out pushing buttons on a calculator is slower than using a slider ruler. 13 Echo 6/37th FA US Army 78-81
@@readhistory2023 - I was in school when the first hand held electronic calculators came out; they cost $100 and more for a 4-function calculator; the only students allowed to get them was the Vietnam War vets. The rest of us took a course in slide rule use. The 3 significant numbers used in scientific calculations comes from the use of slide rules. The US space program got people to the moon using slide rules. Anything else besides the 3 first numbers isn't that important.
As an old US paratrooper during the height of the Cold War, 1978-84, once a year AT MINIMUM.. We did foreign weapons cross training with ALL SovBloc Infantry weapons and most of NATO Armies as well. Our mortar platoons even got firing drill practice on 82mm w samples acquired from the IDF (which is where most/all of the inf weapons came from as well). Obviously being dropped behind enemy lines made this a sensible exercise. But I will also observe that having a weapon, whether you have the firing tables OR NOT... is much better than having firing tables and NO WEAPON... Jist sayin....
@@theodorechill Israel looted everything they can't buy and held onto them for a long time, though when the serial wars ended, unscrupulous Israeli stockpile troops began to sell them to neighbors
It's a subject I've gotten fascinated about over the last few years: the more I am amazed that the Wehrmacht stayed together at ALL after November of 1941, much less able to attack deep into the Soviet Union. Not only were they amazingly short of the truly needed big movers and towing vehicles, but they were just flat OUT of fuel dozens of times during critical moments just in the first YEAR. Of course, not having fuel means you lose trucks and movers even faster. There was a report to Hitler that of the 500,000 vehicles at the front, only 35,000 were left at the beginning (January) of 1942. I don't know how they managed to make a major attack in Blue just a few months later: at best they were making 6-8,000 trucks per month, and only half of those went to the Ostfront. Worse? I think they were making only a hundred or so towing-prime-mover vehicles per month during that time when they needed something like 4,800 to 5,900 produced a month (just in prime moviers!). I was reading "Oil and War" and they said they needed to produce something like 40,000 vehicles per month just to keep 15-20% of the Wehrmacht motorized, and that they actually needed something like 65,000-85,000 vehicles a month if they were to win a war. They also said they needed around fifty times(!) the fuel they actually had to fight the war.
Richard M haha! no but there were converted tank chassis that we used to use as skidders back in the day, they were fast! ill find out from the ol fallas what they were called
@@douglaslinton1759 You are joking, but here in norway, the pieces of "atlantic wall" in places looked like this: "a bunker" made of way more cobblestone than actual concrete, an old czech mortar (some 21cm from 1916), on the hill an actual concrete bunker with a Pz 38(t) turret in it (very useful against shipping) and an actual Ft17 tank (sometimes working)... so yeah..
@@welbhloud thats awsome, i always loved those recycled stories, correct me if im wrong, im pretty sure a french line of tanks was made by a dismantled ship?
A man I used to work with was a mounted infantryman (IE Cavalry with a rifle instead of a sabre) in the Red Army. He often worked behind the German lines doing sabotage, recon, and such. He told me he often saw German trains coming into the Soviet Union with German equipment and leaving the next day taking damaged, and destroyed Soviet equipment out to Germany. I asked what he thought the Germans were doing with the Soviet vehicles. He said that he thought the Germans took it back to Germany, scrapped it, turned it into German weapons and sent it back to the Soviet Union. We laughed, but then he added that he had a job in a Soviet steel mill after the war. His mill processed considerable amounts of former German tanks, trucks, and weapons that were unserviceable, turning them into raw steel to help rebuild the Soviet Union. So, makes perfect sense that this happened, going in both directions.
As a Navy Brat living in Japan during occupation 1957 I was amazed at all of the Dreadnauts and WW1 ships from Chile and other countries awaiting being scraped and used the rebuild Japan ! It was quite an industry !
Yeah, you can be the Germans, with fair bit of beutewaffen. Or you can be the Finns, where all the stuff you have is beutewaffen, to the decree that you're actually buying captured T-34s from Germany. (And using french artillery from 1870s) Or you can be the Spanish Republican army, where you have different types of infantry rifles using their own ammunition within a squad.
@@faro2095 Well, I might have exaggerated, a bit, and they most likely for most part were able to standardise rifles at squad level at least but Beevor's Battle of Spain notes that some units had 16 different calibers for their weapons. spanish-civil-war.tumblr.com/post/130914862202/republican-soldiers-at-the-battle-of-the-ebro Here's also a picture which shows spanish republican soldiers with Three different rifles (A Gewehr 88, Mosin-Nagant M891 and A Spanish Mauser) all shooting at the enemy.
Or China, China was a mess. Some captured Japanese equipment, some old French, German, American equipment. They probably had at least 1 thing from every major power, and probably a few things from minor countries. A little bit of something from everyone, and not everyone was continuing to sell the supplies for them.
Well, if the spanish aren't enough just take the Bours from the Bour war. They had to bring their own gun and ammo... Sure they had a big number of Mauser Rifles, but different ones, Rifles from Steyr, british ones ect... Whatever they bought for themselves as hunting weapons, they used.
@@nirfz My family actually has a rifle that's an heirloom from the Second Boer War and it's a Martini-Henry chambered in .303 Definitely some weird things from that era!
Yes but doesn't it also mean tits and ass? That's the really important philosophical, technical, religious, fantastical, life-preserving questions to ponder.
Any time there's a piece of German equipment that takes over ten seconds to say the name of in the first minute of a video you know it's gonna be a good one
I really like this topic, thanks for the discussion with Mr. Wehner. On a related note, during some recent reading I thought it was quite interesting how Soviet troops used captured Panzerfausts during the Battle of Berlin.
If I recall correctly, Beutewaffen seems to be pretty common amongst major warring faction which have huge armies and partisan formations. Still remember seeing captured panzer 3 in the Russian victory museum (and a su76i, I think, which is basically a StuG III with a F-34 gun). No one seems to go as far as developing an extensive designation system like the Germans did, though
I think Jens Wehner’s point that the use/maintenance of captured weapons was perhaps not as useful as one might imagine, is a valid one. The publication Captured Arms / Beutewaffen features a unique selection of original German World War II propaganda photos, depicting captured arms in use in German service. It shows how important it was to portray this booty as being a Godsend to the (overstretched) conquering Nation.
Read about an American artillery unit using 88mm Flak guns for about a week until ammo ran short in Northern France. Author of "Death Traps" (bad book, interesting narrative) used to carry some Panzerfausts in his Jeep, just in case. My section captured Iraqi (Soviet made) field phone switch box during Desert Storm. It let us double our field phone network. The operators liked how the Soviet made switch popped out a small metal plate to show you who just dialed in. The US switch had a harder to see bit of white paint, but it glowed in the dark. We captured AK-47 and AKM, but they are heavy and inaccurate, so no thanks. Take some photos, strike poses, then soldier on with an M-16 or M-4.
Samuel, British tank crews didn’t like the BESA machine gun, despite its reliability. Americans used .30 cal Browning machine guns. The BESA concept sounds fine : « In an emergency, the BESA could use stocks of captured German ammunition because it fired the same cartridge as the Kar98k rifle and MG-34 and MG-42 machine-guns ». However the guns were fed from the right only, while German belts fed from the left, so not sure any stocks captured were really compatible.
The German army and nation were very good at improvisation and recycling materials to suit their needs. They didn't have the manufacturing base the Allies had but they did remarkable things with materials available.
@@leonardwei3914 Ive heard that all my life and knew it referred to Germans but you just put that in context for me. Duh. Man do I feel silly now. Thanks for that insight! Learned something new today.
@@leonardwei3914 the term is 'Jury rigging' and it's a nautical term referring to improvised repairs made to ships in the age of sail. Might have picked up other meaning since, but that's where it came from.
@@ruckzuruck7039 It's quite a feat to move millions of people around during war time to their final destinations, where you still needed to house, feed and put them to slave labor .
I read an autobiography by a Russian soldier. He said that for one period he and his comrades carried both Russian and German guns. The reason being that they couldn't always get supplies of their own ammunition. But as they were advancing they often captured German ammunition.
The Wermacht having "loot weapons" reminded me of a quote (I can't find now) possibly said by either Adm. Farrugut or Adm. Porter: Armies loot, navies take prize.
blackore64 If you do not need them, captured weapons are a rather large logistical problem. They take up precious storage space and need security personnel to keep them from being stolen
@@rofljohn23 It reminds me that Romans called their military supplies "impedimentum" that is stuff that gets in way of them walking/marching. (Pede = Latin for foot).
I'm actually reading a German Memoir now that considered the MP40 to unreliable, specifically the magazine was prone to bending when you were taking cover or crawling and such.
@Zyruss Aquino Yes, but that doesn't mean they had the same problems. Also the guy wasn't comparing it to the PPSH he just said the MP40 was unreliable.
Also the PPSh and PPS are able to fire 7.63mm Mauser rounds which Germans still had a lot of so finding ammo for them isn't hard. Some are converted to 9mm and fed with MP40 magazines.
Subtle English humor of trophies of war. Blackadder episode Duel and Duality: "It's a cigarillo case, emblazoned with the company motif of two crossed dead Frenchmen on a background of a mound of dead Frenchmen motif." Just brilliant humor
Considering that the rebels have been caught using STG44s (German and Yugo) and in one case an Le/FH 18 and the SAA were fighting quite well around Aleppo with the artillery schools Stug 3s i wouldnt take any bets on what got used out there.
When I was reenacting the German Heer, the Commander carried a Suomi SMG. I asked him about it and he told me a compacted version of this talk. It made a lot of sense since Germany's industry was quite draconic in it's practices and war production was surprisingly low.
Good video with a lot of very good points made (including things I hadn't thought of before. One thing I will mention before people ask about it in the comments is that MHV appears to be trying to say "ingenious" at 0:59 .
I read somewhere years ago that many American soldiers had grown up with Ford Model A and Model T cars and tractors on their farms so that was a great asset. With their own equipment and training to but also the tinkering and getting enemy machines running sometimes. Probably many Germans could work on motorcycles as well back then but would have less experience with heavier equipment. I just think it's an interesting thing to think about and consider the influence of culture/experience on the armed forces. I would assume the USSR would have fewer mechanics and built based on that lack of experience and knowledge of vehicle maintenance and repair as well. You know how The Chieftain goes on and on about changing transmissions and the like? It seems the German system was to send vehicles back to depots with highly trained people and specialized equipment to carry out the repairs whereas the Americans maybe had the attitude of we'll design it easy enough to do and the boys will figure it out. My grandfather of the ww2 generation always worked on his own tractors, everyone did; and my baby boomer uncle rebuilt his first car engine when he was 15 with his younger brothers watching and learning. Of course now you need an expensive diagnostic system to work on new cars so things have changed.
Culture and pre-military experience no doubt matters quite a bit for effectiveness, and even more for draft situations - you can cut necessary training time by a lot if your draftees come in off the street with some basic to moderate competency in whatever field you're teaching.
I header somewhere that before the start of WWII every 10th US citizen had a car. In Britain it was 1 for 20, France 1 to 35, Germany 1 to 70, Poland 1 to 770.
The US army basically used one (GM) truck in Europe making supply of new spare parts and cannibalization of damaged vehicles simpler. Nearly the entire production of trucks from both the White and Studebaker companies were sent Lend Lease to the Red Army.
Drach talks about this in his Japanese damage control video on how the average Japanese person didn't have knowledge about mechanics and how that affected their damage control efforts.
Reminds me of my great grandfather who was in the Japanese army during the war. His transport ship was sunk near the coast of philippines and he and 2 other guys had to hang onto a log to not drown and to make it to the nearest island. One of the guys who was with him was a fisherman before he got drafted and new well how to navigate the current of the waves to make it to shore.
De-motorisation actually starts in 1938 - the Army observed that it was losing more trucks in accidents and wearage than it was receiving in replacements and the infantry divisions are consequently stripped of most of their existing motor transport.
My fathers favourite weapon in WW2 was a MP40 captured on the Bruneval raid in 1942 it was his personal arm till 1949 and a relative who is SAS his personal weapon is a 5.56mm MINIMIE LMG .
Beutewaffen was probably well suited for the frontloaded, aggressive operations. They can be treated as disposable assets, meant to multiply the power of the initial thrusts. Obviously, all these assets rapidly evaporate, but that was not an issue for planners who imagined a victory in mere weeks.
John Stieber commented a bit on this in his autobiograpy "Against the Odds: Survival on the Eastern Front" ISBN-10: 1523347368 (1995,2016), although I dont suppose Italian gear was considered Beutewaffen. "Our trucks were all of Italian make, pride of place going to a huge immensely powerful open 7 ton Alfa Romeo which also pulled a large trailer. Then there was a 5 ton Lancia, again open deck which was a great "mud-plugger" that is it could keep going through terrible conditions of mud and slush. Finally there was a 3 ton Fiat with a tarpaulin-covered loading area. The fiat was our only truck with a petrol engine. [....] The blunt front end made it tremendously maneuverable in woods and on narrow tracks and it could accelerate extremely quickly" "It was also our good luck that from the moment we left the road the Russians had stopped firing at us. Maybe they could not believe their eyes or they were spellbound by the incredible sight of our splendid Alfa Romeo truck and trailer sailing through the air. The way the Alfa Romeo responded to the demands made on it and never broke down, is a testimony to the great engineering product that it was"
"[...] a heavy 5-ton German Henschel truck and a further six soldiers. The truck was diesel-engined, but unusual inasmuchas it had a small 3-speed gear box bolted onto the front end, used only for cranking the engine before starting it. [...] The army must have been terribly short of transport to have provided us with such unsuitable equipment in a war zone." "Twice already the driver had released the clutch and each time there was just a cough from the engine before it spluttered into silence. Our driver frantically waved for a fresh pair of men to take over from the first team [...] Another mate and I jumped forward and took over the job of man0handling the engine through its three starting gears. Just as we were about to engage the second gear three Russian armoured troop carries appeared about half a mile away and began to head towards us. Rather than desert the truck and head into the safety of the woods, we nodded our immediate agreement to continue with another try. By the time we got to third gear, desperately trying to get up more speed on the engine, the Russians were much too close for comfort. Our driver now held the balance of our lives in his hands. If he tried the ignition too soon, the chances were that the engine would again fail to fire. But if he waited longer for us to get more speed then, even if the engine fired, the Russians could be upon us." p192-210.
Italian equipment after Italy changed sides was from what I know Beutewaffen/-ausrüstung, at least I know that they made a huge list of all the equipment that was captured.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Interesting supposition. I was thinking of the maschinenpistole 738(i), of Italian origin which had the beutewaffen designation, though I suppose that could be synonymous with fremdgerät in usage. Whether the mp738 was inducted under that name before or after Italy switched sides, I couldn't say, but all foreign weapons likely fell in that category
One interesting side effect of the relatively low mean income in Germany was that many people bought the relatively cheap and easy to upkeep motorcycles. (esp. low displacement two strokes like the dkw rt 100 or rt 125) I think i once read in a book about the topic that 1/3 of all motorcycles registered in `31 was in Germany. Then there was the Kradschützen Experiment where they wanted to cheeply equip motorized infantry (think of it as proto Panzergrenadiere) however the motorbikes specifically engineered for the Wehrmacht were more expensive than many cars. (Not a finished historian so don`t quote me btw)
There is a great scene in Cross Of Iron were Steiners captured PPSH runs out of ammo and he simply throws it aside and picks up another one. Those pesky drum magazines and their lack of consistency...
To add something to the topic about captured artillery and firing tables. Soviet artillerymen were specifically instructed to not allow firing tables to be captured by the enemy. Notebooks with calculations must be destroyed together with the all other equipment if evacuation was not possible,
Some US troops use captured STG44 during Battle of the Bulge, even the Springfield company reverse engineered the MG42 to replace M1919 but ended up developing M60.
Long time joke in the Netherlands was to ask Germans for their bikes back as they were confiscated/stolen during the war by the Wehrmacht. They even stole churchbells. I understood the attlantik wall was more of a time gaining instrument to keep the allies from gaining a foothold to easily instead of repelling the outright, and having the mobile attack units behind the line doing the real defensive push. So using beute waffe with limited supply of ammo wasnt a real issue there.
At around 10 minutes into the video when they spoke about the assortment of Beutewaffen artillery guns, along the Atlantic Wall, and the tables needed for accurate fire for the specific guns . . . a problem I could see is with having sufficient copies of the printed tables for each gun, as copy machines weren't around back then to quickly make multiple copies. Although mimeograph technology was around back then for printing purposes; that was a labor-intensive way to print multiple copies. Then there were also the issues of protecting those printed paper tables from the weather elements.
I think something being overlooked here is the large amount of Hiwi's in German service, probably over a million throughout the war. 25% of the 6th army at Stalingrad and 600k at one point in 1944. Some of them were probably proficient with captured Soviet arms and willing to teach Germans. Same for French, Belgian, Czech, and etc collaborators with all of their captured equipment. Foreign equipment is not as big a hurdle as one might think, The US made large use of Bofors and Oerlikons. The British, Free French, and Soviets also made large use of foreign equipment through lend-lease.
For further research look up Alfred Becker. He was a German officer who pioneered the conversion of Beutewaffen. He has a pretty extensive Wikipedia page for a start, which already gives a picture how it worked. For example apparently the Beutewaffen workshops were often directly linked to divisions helping to mitigate the supply problem.
Oh firing tables, that's one of the nostalgic things from my time in the Army. I actually kept some of the tables and slide rulers when we finally retired the M102 and fielded the M119
Yes, artillery is not very useful if you can't figure out where the shells will impact. Most soldiers don't have the math, so the tables and slide rules were a way to allow them to give accurate fire with out a lot of math.
If you do a youtube-dl --write-thumbnail --skip-download th-cam.com/video/3joQMHS2xfA/w-d-xo.html You can zoom in and it's too blurred to see. Hopefully, Google's e-Stasi won't be able to see it either.
@@cleanerben9636 It's still something different than killing millions of people in dedicated factories... The purpose why Hakenkreuze should be banned in general should also be very clear...
@@AnhTrieu90 Trophy would be something presented, not something used. In English one talks typically of captured weapons but beute and booty are basically the same word. it can also mean prey or catch.
The thing I think of whenever this topic comes up is there's a fairly famous pic of two guys from the Dirlewanger Brigade with their masks on and one of them is carrying PPsH.
The Germans Panzer units was short on equipment They have to adopt convert and use everything what was captured from the opponent's Great video thanks for posting
For anyone wondering: on the thoumbnail is Hauptmann Wilhelm Traub from 305 Infantry Division during the attack on the Barrikady gun factory in Stalingrad also he has an amoeba helmet cover
Fascinating discussion. It would be interesting to know the type(s) and what percentages of these Beutewaffen were part of the Atlantic Wall. How would this affect the training/doctrine of the Bodenständige Divisionen? Oh dear, you've identified more Ph.D. dissertation subjects for energetic graduate students.
This was a great video - More questions are a great sign. I would love you to make some connection to British mechanised infantry/armoured divisions if possible :) Or perhaps share what the Axis powers thought about designs from the Brits - Of course every nation had their own approach it's very cool.
You need to publicize this channel more prominently on the main channel. I watch every one of your videos and only just now discovered this treasure trove!
Car industry in Germany was very well developed before the war. Opel was the largest car manufacturer of Europe! But civilian car production was shut down in 1940.
I am no expert, but I have a few thoughts and questions. So I'm operating on the assumption that many beutewaffen were used on the Atlantic wall largely because although it was necessary to have the weapons necessary to defend the coastline, the Atlantic coastline was largely considered a backwater theater that is not nearly as deserving of attention and concern as the Eastern front. The best stuff and stuff that fits the logistical system best goes east, what's left goes west. So in that case, why would the Germans put the Soviet artillery on the Atlantic wall if it was considered better than German artillery? As for the what the beutewaffen user thought, I would have to imagine that being issued a weapon for which there were no spare parts, no spare ammunition, isn't even a national design, and is essentially a leftover or hand-me-down would be demoralizing. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Atlantic wall. The Czech tanks used earlier probably did not have this effect as I believe there was still production going at the time they were used.
With regards to the Atlantikwall we have to consider that it was mostly a tool for coastal defence. Also, the Western theater of operations was far from a backwater, even if it did not have the same immediate priority as the 'Ostkampf'. Therefore it received significant attention and supplies. The Atlantikwall may have used a lot of varied weapons, but a good portion of those weapons was expected to reach and hit targets out at sea, so any foreign divisional type gun or naval gun could potentially be a great benefit to its firepower. For a good example of this we can look at the storming of Pointe-du-Hoc which was in part conducted in anticipation of the potential threat that could be posed to the amphibious force by the guns that were presumed to be there. The guns in question were captured French 155mm pieces. For the specific mention of the 152mm ML-20 guns of the 130. Panzer Lehr Division, it has to be remembered that they were a mobile division. It was formed and trained in both France and Hungary before being assigned to Panzergruppe West. The ML-20's might not have been an excellent solution, but by 1944 they were apparently sufficiently good enough to equip a first-rate division and be able to at least supply it for the foreseeable future. From the morale-perspective, it's of course difficult to know for sure how that was considered without reading ample contemporary reports, but it occurs to me that there were far more pressing issues for Germany that strained morale. Using captured weapons and equipment is a military expedient as old as time and soldiers being soldiers, the general thought would have been something along the lines of "We know this enemy gear is great because we've had to fight it, and now at least get to fight with it." It reminds me of a story I heard about the M1 carbine during the Battle of the Bulge, where captured American weapons were piled in the front yard of a house and of all the American weapons there, the pile there that frequently shrank was that with M1 carbines. Garands, Thompsons, Grease guns (which now all have a much better reputation than the M1 carbine) and the like were more or less ignored.
My Dad's area was Artillery and I was trained as an Artillery Mechanic. When you fire an artillery piece there are two main factors that go into where the shell will land. 1) Azimuth and Elevation; 2) Powder Charge. Each Shell has two basic parts - the Projectile and the Powder Charge that is going to propel the projectile out of the gun towards the target. The types of Artillery Shells I remember are - Fixed, Semi-Fixed, Semi-Fixed Separate Loading and uncased powder bags. Fixed Shells: - have the projectile attached to the casing at the factory. You load the shell into the gun and fire it. There is no adjustment to the powder charge. Semi-Fixed: - These rounds are fired just like the fixed rounds BUT the projectile can be taken off the casing - and you can reach down inside the casing and adjust the powder charge before putting the projectile back on it to fire. There are typically a number of little powder bags there and you can take some of them out to adjust the charge. Leaving all the little powder bags in is referred to (iirc) as Charge 7. Each round you fire from the Artillery Piece is recorded - with the Charge it was fired at. The reason for this - is that Charge 7 takes a lot more out of the gun to shoot it - than the other charges. Thus - a tube may be rated as being able to fire a certain number of rounds - that number will vary depending on the number of Charge 7 rounds that were fired. After so many rounds - the tube needs to be checked for wear. The rifling can be stripped out and the gun will become less accurate. Also - the gun can become unsafe to shoot. These records are kept for every gun barrel. Sometimes the barrels can be refurbished - mostly (iirc) they cannot. Semi-Fixed Separate Loading: These are typically larger rounds that function the same was as the Semi Fixed Rounds - but the Projectile and casing may be loaded into the weapon separately. Powder Bags: Here you do not have a casing. You have a projectile that is loaded into the gun on it's own - followed by Powder Bags that are loaded after it. These were typically the types of rounds Battleships used - but not always. IIRC ... (which I may not) The Germans tended to have Semi-Fixed Separate Loading rounds - with casings - for their naval artillery. OK - so - when you are trying to fire on a target you can do it several ways. You have Direct Fire - where the gunner sees the target - aims the gun at it and fires. Then you have Indirect Fire - where the gun crew cannot see the target but is firing on a set of coordinates. Adjustments can be made to shoot over something that is in the way - even if the gun COULD directly engage the target if it weren't. Here - you determine how far the round is going to go and at what angle it is going to approach it - by adjusting your powder charges and the elevation of the gun. >>>>> WHAT POWDER CHARGE AND ELEVATION TO USE ARE IN THE FIRING TABLES
@@kingslushie1018 Make sure you double check all that - I was doing it from memory - and for one thing - could not remember the correct name for the version of the ammunition that used Powder Bags - so I KNOW that that's not complete. Another thing you want to get straight is the different types of breeches they had. The Fixed and Semi-Fixed shells were used with vertical and horizontal Sliding Wedge Breech Blocks where the thing was a wedge that would be thicker at one end than the other. You would slide the thin end across the breech to the far side until the thickness of the rear part of the wedge sealed the breach. This, like the Semi-Fixed Separate Loading - was the type of Breech Blocks the Germans liked. When loading these types of shells you insert the nose of the projectile into the chamber but then make a fist and push it against the base of the shell until the base trips a release that sends the wedge across the breech. You want to make sure no fingers are going to get caught or it will cut them off. With a fist the breech block will just knock your hand out of the way, though you don't have to wait for it to do that. You can just give it a good shove and then jerk your hand away. The other type that comes to mind is the Screw type which were used with Powder Bags (not sure of the real name here) where there were slots in the breech and in the breech block that had intersecting ridges. You'd close the breech with the ridges on the breech block inserting in gaps in the ridges of the breech - then when fully closed - turn them to seal it. You also had different types of igniting mechanisms. With the shells that had a casing holding the powder - much like a rifle bullet - these shells (iirc) had a primer in the base of the shell - that was struck by a firing pin. The version that used powder bags had to have a new primer that was screwed into the breech block for each shot fired. AGAIN, I was being trained as an Artillery Repairman - I was not an Artilleryman. So - a real Artilleryman would give you better information on all of this. Compared to one of those guys - my knowledge is cursory at best. .
Bob Smith your beginning knowledge, is a gateway to Enlightenment. I will uses the basis of the knowledge you provided for me here to do further research into the future! Thank you for that! ❤️
@@BobSmith-dk8nw As an artillery mechanic you probably have better technical knowledge of various artillery equipment than the crewmen do. The crew only knows the particular items they're in charge of using. Everyone gets a crash course of most of the info at basic training but once you get out there people tend to stick to the same one or two roles in the gun crew. The driver for example knows how to work the gearshift and the periscope on his hatch, but will usually have to be reminded how to prepare and load the ammo if he has to help with that. No more than 2-3 members (of a crew of 6-12) will have a good idea of how the turret controls work, let alone how to use the GPS and targeting computer in modern artillery pieces. LUCKILY, I am very happy to report that in modern mechanized artillery, the firing tables have been replaced with computerized GPS targeting. The battery command vehicle will usually distribute exact firing coordinates for each individual gun.
In a war of movement (Normandy for example), where one side was in a state of almost constant advance, it made sense to make use where safe of abandoned equipment. My father (a field gunner) picked up a BMW combination in Falaise and used it right through to the German border. He also had a German pistol and ammunition for it. He preferred it and found it easier to use and more reliable than his issued revolver. He gave up both the combination and the pistol when his regiment got a new CO in early 1945 and the order came down that the use of enemy equipment should cease, as it might give the impression that it was superior to allied equipment. He was reluctant to switch back. He said the German equipment WAS superior. The motorcycle combination was interesting. It had a differential and 2WD. It also had exhausts that were directed in part to exit across the handlebars, to keep the rider warm in winter.
It's worth noting, that the sovjet soldiers favored german weapons over their own. Eespecialy the the MP 40 was prized, for it was easier to control then the PPSh-41, not as cumbersome and it was quicker to reload.
It really surprises me how much there's still to study and it saddens me how many questions were never asked in time (when grandfather was still around)...
Good video with more Q's at end than A's. I think you should divide the Beutewaffen into the categories of vehicles (Sea, air, & land), artillery, and small arms--simply from the photo history of them for simplicity sake in my opinion. Example on what did a better weapon do for morale? Wehrmacht-Heer/ and Waffen SS units with tons of pix using the PPSH-41 submachine gun for example, or other Ostfront units using Soviet small arms. 5million USSR PW's leaves a lot of handguns and rifles, and SMG's behind. The one T-35 working land-tank taken from Dubno (?) that was used in Berlin's defense as an armored pillbox; Kampfgruppe 200's enemy aircraft squadron...and so on. The Soviet 76mm AT gun was captured in great numbers and employed as it was, and mounted on tank chassis as a hasty Self Propelled Gun, was it not? Until the German production of the 75mm AT gun came online after Barbarossa's first year, that piece got used a lot..
Not only can not having my firing tables can be a problem but what about not having fuse setting "keys" and sighting equipment? Much of Polish, French, Yugoslavian, & Belgian artillery was WW I leftovers based upon review of various sources ("Merkblatt" "Fremden Gerät" [plz excuse any misspellings this from memory] & Wikipedia). For example, the 105 mm French cannon Mle 1913 S(chneider) was captured from the French, Yugoslav, Italian and Polish armies. So were many French WW I era 75 mm field cannons (France, Yugoslavia & Poland).
I read in a book that at least some of the command tanks used by panzer regiments had the turret weld and the gun removed replaced with a mock up. Any chance on how common it was?
I read the same, some German tanks were used as command tanks and equipped with enhanced communication capabilities etc and because not having a gun could attract attention a mock up was fitted. Not sure how common this was but it seems a good idea to be able to have a tactical overview of the battle ...
@@haydnroberts7434 I think this was displayed in one of the pictures in Dr. Toeppel's "Kursk" book (that Bernhard/MHV has talked with in the past, there are some vids)
That was a standart practice. The Panzerbefehlswagen III(armored command vehicle) was made in the Ausf. D, E and H. Later they replace the halftracks uses by forward artillery observers with the Panzerbeobachtungwagen III with the false cannon moved to the right and an MG in the center and aditional radio.
one has to wonder why we don't see more Beutewaffen t-34s. the ones we do see in historical photos are most earlier ones with the 76mm and the German cupola modifications. was it the case that the Germans just weren't interested in capturing them, or if they were capturing them modifying them and using them for other duties basically as tractors? or perhaps they were using in significant numbers but only on the front lines and only till they broke down so that any individual tank just wasn't in service long enough to be photographed due to the rarity of photographers on the eastern front.
You might want to remind yourselves of the extensive use made by 21st Panzer of "Captures" both in N. Africa and Normandy(Feuchtinger). There seem to have been slightly different philosophies in each theater. Von Luck and several other good books on Normandy discuss the adaptations and "Specials" they created from "Beute" notably, I seem to remember... this is all from old memory, Sturmgeschütz-Abteilung 200 whose Commander Major Alfred Becker a mechanical engineer put a lot of effort into it. A discussion of Becker's adaptations might be interesting.
If you as an infantryman get a PPSH it makes sense to use it instead of a Mauser. Just that might be enough to save your life and makes you a deadlier soldier. Case in point, the study done on the Stg44 in the eastern front. Even though it lacked ammunition, where the ammunition was available, it made a huge difference. This is why the Soviets used it to pattern their first generation Ak47's.
Ich hätte mal zwei Fragen, was genau waren die Kradschützen Battalione eigentlich? Also es gab ja in fast jeder Panzerdivision, neben den beiden Panzergrenadierregimentern, ein Kradschützen Battalion. War das einfach nur ein Battalion voll mit Kradmeldern oder haben die wie leichte Kavallerie funktioniert? Heißt, sie sind wo hingefahren und haben dann dort als Infanterie gekämpft? Und: Was hat man eigentlich gemacht wenn man beispielsweise an der Ostfront in einer Kesselschlacht meinetwegen 100.000 Gewehre erbeutet hat, hat man die dann auch regulär an die Truppe ausgegeben? Oder nur an Osttruppen, Korück, Sicherungsdivisionen oder eben auch die bodenständigen Divisionen? Weil bei Fahrzeugen ist es klar, aber ob Handfeuerwaffen auch einfach weiter verwendet wurden würde mich echt mal interessieren.
zu 1) Kradschützen ist was geplant. zu 2) Wie im Video gesagt, wir wissen sehr wenig. Generell waren weniger "wichtige" Verbände mit Beutematerial ausgestattet, aber wie, wo, wann das organisiert wurde kA. Vermutlich Armee oder Heeresgruppe Ebene, aber für schweres Gerät wohl noch höher.
I guess the main reason is simple: the German industry wasn't strong enough to mass produce German-build weapons to outfit it's armies (at the beginning of WW2 it wasn't even on a full war footing that came when Speer was made minister of war production) especially in the later stages. So they used what they captured. It was a German military tradtion (for example during WW1 the first tanks Germany had were captured English Mark tanks). And with Baukommando Becker and Baukommando Ost Germany made "Beutewaffen into an art form.
A lot of Volkssturm weapons were Beutewaffen, and this was a real logistical problem. Like finding Dutch ammunition for Dutch bolt-action rifles captured in 1940.
You shouldn't overthink that point. When they "Captured" Dutch small arms, they also captured millions of rounds of ammunition to go with it. The Dutch also had ammunition plants for defense use. Unless they were scrapped or appropriated and converted to 8x57, they would have continued to produce cartridges. I once owned a Norwegian Krag 1912 carbine that was captured at Normandy. I was told there was plenty of ammunition captured along with it. (No, it was not an 8x57 conversion) I enjoyed that rifle for some time, and the "Duffel Cut" hidden under the rear band was never an issue.....Anyway...
Don't forget the small arms. Lots of Czech and Polish rifles and automatic weapons were sent to rear area troops to use, and after Barbarossa large numbers of Soviet SVT-40 self loading rifles were reissued to Wehrmacht troops. (Ironically, though the Russian soldiers hated the SVT yet German troops loved it. Having had one I can attest that it's more complex than most WW II Russian weapons and was less of an enigma to the more mechanically literate Germans.
Also M1 Garands, PPShs, HiPowers, STENs,. In the case on the PPSh, the 7.63x25 Mauser ammunition which was already available in Germany could be used instead of 7.62x25 Tokarev since they have the same external cartridge dimensions, and the chamber pressure on the Mauser is only slightly lower than Tokarev, so the weapon will still cycle effectively.
@@colbunkmust I don't know about other weapons, but my CZ-52 only cycles about 60% of the time with 7.65 Mauser. Poor enough performance that I've stopped using it and sold my surplus.
Very good points, as long as you are not in Hearts of Iron 4 but in real life there must be a difference in what you use. I've also read some on forums about the captured rifles in Poland, France etc. Look, for some equipment, yes you have no problems but with many of them you do. Calibres for example, it is the exception if it works fine most of time, not the rule.
A great basic account of logistics was written a few years back by the brilliant Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld - "Supplying War." Lots of stuff on WWII.
3 interesting things : 1. Even the helmet cover on the thumbnail is captured. It's Russian amoeba camo. 2. The Wehrmacht used T26 and BT series tanks in second line roles or with police and auxiliary units 3. The most weird captured tank is a hotchkiss tank with a T26 turret that I saw. It was used in the eastern front.
Isn't the thumbnail that Hungarian helmet cover some Wehrmacht soldiers got? Also, I'd say the weirdest one I've seen is a flamethrower Char B1 or a turretless ARV T-34. Tanks with swapped turrets, not as rare as you might think.
@@JohnsonTheSecond It is amoeba. I ve seen some other pictures with captured amoeba helmet cover and the one in the thumbnail is very similar to the others I seen. I don't know much about swapped turrets tanks in ww2 but I think it's still pretty odd and notable that they even did that with those two completely different tanks.
@@theairbourne1019 I've seen hungarian helmet covers and the one in the thumbnail is identical to what I've seen... go ask any reenactor or expert on this
@@JohnsonTheSecond first nice you reenact too, good. What do you reenact? I do mostly German and Russian Reenactment. Second and main point: most Reenactors don't know either of those camos. I saw both and the Hungarian one has way more different different spots then the one in the thumbnail. The Russian one has bigger spots and less on the helmet cover. There is even another picture of the same guy with that helmet cover and you can see it pretty good, that it's a amoeba cover.
Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of trying to maintain the various trucks of every nation from which they captured equipment? Ideally they would've used all spare parts up, while they retooled those factories to make standardised parts for German equipment.
More questions after the discussion than before. That is the nature of intellectual inquiry, as opposed to mere repetition of what other historians said.
It makes more sense to put your limited stock weapons in the Atlantic wall than in your army. In your army your carting around something that will quickly become useless whereas in the wall its not being used until its needed and its static. In the army you would be using them for months at a time, in the Atlantic wall your expecting to only be using them for a few hours or days at most until troops can arrive to reinforce, your not expecting a coastal position to hold out for weeks. Finally by putting your recycled stuff in the Wall your allowing your newly produced weapons to go straight to where they are needed and will be of most use, the Army.
The Wehrmacht evaluated the captured hardware and classed them according to their performance. Most artillery pieces were used in defensive, well prepared strong points in western Europe and this in conjunction with German guns. Many were manned by soldiers from the countries that produced them, Ukrainians, Czech, Russian, French etc. Many airfields, factories, depots, railyards etc needed AA protection. And some of these captured weapons were deployed there. In the transport section, most vehicles of the time were easy to repair and they could part out some to keep others running. Supplies were transported by rail (especially from Germany ), which was faster, and then by trucks to the destination. In addition many of these hardware were used for internal policing of occupied territories - the towns and cities etc.
![[Full Episode] The Restaurant War Thailand ศึกพ่อค้าซ่าแม่ค้าแซ่บ Episode 4 | 13 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/h8N9tY46P-M/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to see more interviews with experts?
Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, more info here:
» patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
I have heard that the Germans used captured weapons when available but when the artillary piece ran out of captured shells or the tank needed repair they just abandoned them .
@@annadalassena5460 Thanks for the info. Maybe they meant in combat situations and they could not get further shells for the guns or spare parts for theforeign tanks they would abandon them or possibly they were more likely to abandon trucks rather than fighting vehicles.
Not modernizing,
But standardization.
Und a tank is only as good as the support.
A long term effect, Auf Deutsch forgetting how much logistics plays in long term combat operations.
Und standardization make a big, big difference in many, many small ways.
Using foreign weapons, is historic in European combat.
Is always a fall back, when short term combat becomes long term combat.
You have to calculate the coriolis force, charge, air pressure, temp., wind direction and type of round before you can shoot. Back in the day we used to compete computer's vs slide rulers, to see which was faster for doing the calculations. It turns out pushing buttons on a calculator is slower than using a slider ruler.
13 Echo 6/37th FA US Army 78-81
@@readhistory2023 - I was in school when the first hand held electronic calculators came out; they cost $100 and more for a 4-function calculator; the only students allowed to get them was the Vietnam War vets. The rest of us took a course in slide rule use. The 3 significant numbers used in scientific calculations comes from the use of slide rules. The US space program got people to the moon using slide rules. Anything else besides the 3 first numbers isn't that important.
Two German researchers have a heated debate concerning loot crates. 1943. (Colorized).
Having more questions at the end than beginning just means it was a good history discussion. Keep up the great work!
As an old US paratrooper during the height of the Cold War, 1978-84, once a year AT MINIMUM.. We did foreign weapons cross training with ALL SovBloc Infantry weapons and most of NATO Armies as well. Our mortar platoons even got firing drill practice on 82mm w samples acquired from the IDF (which is where most/all of the inf weapons came from as well). Obviously being dropped behind enemy lines made this a sensible exercise.
But I will also observe that having a weapon, whether you have the firing tables OR NOT... is much better than having firing tables and NO WEAPON... Jist sayin....
" firing drill practice on 82mm w samples acquired from the IDF (which is where most/all of the inf weapons came from as well)"
Interesting.
@@theodorechill Israel looted everything they can't buy and held onto them for a long time, though when the serial wars ended, unscrupulous Israeli stockpile troops began to sell them to neighbors
ive worked in forestry here in New Zealand for many years & i can tell u that the value of a tracked vehicle that can tow, can never be underestimated
& very interesting video thank u
It's a subject I've gotten fascinated about over the last few years: the more I am amazed that the Wehrmacht stayed together at ALL after November of 1941, much less able to attack deep into the Soviet Union. Not only were they amazingly short of the truly needed big movers and towing vehicles, but they were just flat OUT of fuel dozens of times during critical moments just in the first YEAR. Of course, not having fuel means you lose trucks and movers even faster. There was a report to Hitler that of the 500,000 vehicles at the front, only 35,000 were left at the beginning (January) of 1942.
I don't know how they managed to make a major attack in Blue just a few months later: at best they were making 6-8,000 trucks per month, and only half of those went to the Ostfront. Worse? I think they were making only a hundred or so towing-prime-mover vehicles per month during that time when they needed something like 4,800 to 5,900 produced a month (just in prime moviers!).
I was reading "Oil and War" and they said they needed to produce something like 40,000 vehicles per month just to keep 15-20% of the Wehrmacht motorized, and that they actually needed something like 65,000-85,000 vehicles a month if they were to win a war. They also said they needed around fifty times(!) the fuel they actually had to fight the war.
Yes, but do you see a Bob Semple Tank running around the woods?
Richard M haha! no but there were converted tank chassis that we used to use as skidders back in the day, they were fast! ill find out from the ol fallas what they were called
Amazing. I have never encountered a Kiwi that had a real job....
German sees a dead guy with a gun
"It's free realestate"
@Pommy Pie german look at old ww1 tank, it's free realestate
@@douglaslinton1759 You are joking, but here in norway, the pieces of "atlantic wall" in places looked like this: "a bunker" made of way more cobblestone than actual concrete, an old czech mortar (some 21cm from 1916), on the hill an actual concrete bunker with a Pz 38(t) turret in it (very useful against shipping) and an actual Ft17 tank (sometimes working)... so yeah..
@@welbhloud thats awsome, i always loved those recycled stories, correct me if im wrong, im pretty sure a french line of tanks was made by a dismantled ship?
Reduce, reuse, repair, recycle
Hippity hoppity, now that's my property
A man I used to work with was a mounted infantryman (IE Cavalry with a rifle instead of a sabre) in the Red Army. He often worked behind the German lines doing sabotage, recon, and such. He told me he often saw German trains coming into the Soviet Union with German equipment and leaving the next day taking damaged, and destroyed Soviet equipment out to Germany. I asked what he thought the Germans were doing with the Soviet vehicles. He said that he thought the Germans took it back to Germany, scrapped it, turned it into German weapons and sent it back to the Soviet Union. We laughed, but then he added that he had a job in a Soviet steel mill after the war. His mill processed considerable amounts of former German tanks, trucks, and weapons that were unserviceable, turning them into raw steel to help rebuild the Soviet Union.
So, makes perfect sense that this happened, going in both directions.
Cool
How'd you met this guy?
That old man was full of shit
As a Navy Brat living in Japan during occupation 1957 I was amazed at all of the Dreadnauts and WW1 ships from Chile and other countries awaiting being scraped and used the rebuild Japan ! It was quite an industry !
Interesting observations. Cooked down scrap German Armor would have maybe been 2% of the steel used to "Rebuild" the USSR in 1946 I'd guess...
Yeah, you can be the Germans, with fair bit of beutewaffen.
Or you can be the Finns, where all the stuff you have is beutewaffen, to the decree that you're actually buying captured T-34s from Germany. (And using french artillery from 1870s)
Or you can be the Spanish Republican army, where you have different types of infantry rifles using their own ammunition within a squad.
blackore64 That with the spanish can´t be real xD.This sound too unrealistic.
@@faro2095 Well, I might have exaggerated, a bit, and they most likely for most part were able to standardise rifles at squad level at least but Beevor's Battle of Spain notes that some units had 16 different calibers for their weapons.
spanish-civil-war.tumblr.com/post/130914862202/republican-soldiers-at-the-battle-of-the-ebro
Here's also a picture which shows spanish republican soldiers with Three different rifles (A Gewehr 88, Mosin-Nagant M891 and A Spanish Mauser) all shooting at the enemy.
Or China, China was a mess. Some captured Japanese equipment, some old French, German, American equipment. They probably had at least 1 thing from every major power, and probably a few things from minor countries. A little bit of something from everyone, and not everyone was continuing to sell the supplies for them.
Well, if the spanish aren't enough just take the Bours from the Bour war. They had to bring their own gun and ammo... Sure they had a big number of Mauser Rifles, but different ones, Rifles from Steyr, british ones ect... Whatever they bought for themselves as hunting weapons, they used.
@@nirfz My family actually has a rifle that's an heirloom from the Second Boer War and it's a Martini-Henry chambered in .303
Definitely some weird things from that era!
I suspect "Beute" is a similar word in root to the English "booty" - which is material captured in battle or in raids.
Yes but doesn't it also mean tits and ass?
That's the really important philosophical, technical, religious, fantastical, life-preserving questions to ponder.
Joachim V. Concaviren just the ass/butt.
@@MaeLSTRoM1997 You can't have assault without ass
I was watching Mark Felton video on Sherman tanks the Nazis captured during WW2.They called the Sherman’s Beute Panzer which means Trophy Tank!
@@MaeLSTRoM1997 Die Fickenwaffen
Any time there's a piece of German equipment that takes over ten seconds to say the name of in the first minute of a video you know it's gonna be a good one
I really like this topic, thanks for the discussion with Mr. Wehner. On a related note, during some recent reading I thought it was quite interesting how Soviet troops used captured Panzerfausts during the Battle of Berlin.
If I recall correctly, Beutewaffen seems to be pretty common amongst major warring faction which have huge armies and partisan formations. Still remember seeing captured panzer 3 in the Russian victory museum (and a su76i, I think, which is basically a StuG III with a F-34 gun).
No one seems to go as far as developing an extensive designation system like the Germans did, though
I think Jens Wehner’s point that the use/maintenance of captured weapons was perhaps not as useful as one might imagine, is a valid one. The publication Captured Arms / Beutewaffen features a unique selection of original German World War II propaganda photos, depicting captured arms in use in German service. It shows how important it was to portray this booty as being a Godsend to the (overstretched) conquering Nation.
Read about an American artillery unit using 88mm Flak guns for about a week until ammo ran short in Northern France. Author of "Death Traps" (bad book, interesting narrative) used to carry some Panzerfausts in his Jeep, just in case. My section captured Iraqi (Soviet made) field phone switch box during Desert Storm. It let us double our field phone network. The operators liked how the Soviet made switch popped out a small metal plate to show you who just dialed in. The US switch had a harder to see bit of white paint, but it glowed in the dark. We captured AK-47 and AKM, but they are heavy and inaccurate, so no thanks. Take some photos, strike poses, then soldier on with an M-16 or M-4.
Samuel, British tank crews didn’t like the BESA machine gun, despite its reliability. Americans used .30 cal Browning machine guns. The BESA concept sounds fine : « In an emergency, the BESA could use stocks of captured German ammunition because it fired the same cartridge as the Kar98k rifle and MG-34 and MG-42 machine-guns ». However the guns were fed from the right only, while German belts fed from the left, so not sure any stocks captured were really compatible.
@@amerigo88 AKM "heavy" and "inaccurate" LOL
That little missspeak was pretty funny. Now I'm imagining the Wehrmacht somehow getting their hands on T-62s.
Think about it. You in your sherman driving in grrmany and then a t62 appears and starts shooting at you
@@justarandomguy37 think it would just shoot u once....almost anywhere
How many T-62s would the Soviets have though 0.0
@@artificialintelligence8328
- be german tanker
- manns Tiger, pride of the Wehrmacht, modern weaponsystem
-soviet t62 appears
-fuck this
Great videos to watch while deck building in Steel Division 2. Honestly one of my favorite military history channels on TH-cam.
Thanks, great game!
The German army and nation were very good at improvisation and recycling materials to suit their needs. They didn't have the manufacturing base the Allies had but they did remarkable things with materials available.
If you can call industrialized genocide remarkable.
I've heard that's where the term "Jerry Rigged" comes from, although I don't have citation.
@@leonardwei3914 Ive heard that all my life and knew it referred to Germans but you just put that in context for me. Duh. Man do I feel silly now. Thanks for that insight! Learned something new today.
@@leonardwei3914 the term is 'Jury rigging' and it's a nautical term referring to improvised repairs made to ships in the age of sail. Might have picked up other meaning since, but that's where it came from.
@@ruckzuruck7039 It's quite a feat to move millions of people around during war time to their final destinations, where you still needed to house, feed and put them to slave labor .
I read an autobiography by a Russian soldier. He said that for one period he and his comrades carried both Russian and German guns. The reason being that they couldn't always get supplies of their own ammunition. But as they were advancing they often captured German ammunition.
Let your enemies be captured and incorporate them as to supplement your own strength
- Sun Tzu, Art of war
The Wermacht having "loot weapons" reminded me of a quote (I can't find now) possibly said by either Adm. Farrugut or Adm. Porter: Armies loot, navies take prize.
@Joshua N. Ajang I thought americans destroy all enemy weapons they capture, because enemy weapons are evil or something.
@Joshua N. Ajang I was referring to american practice to destroy captured military equipment.
'Beute' sounds more like 'booty' to me.
blackore64 If you do not need them, captured weapons are a rather large logistical problem. They take up precious storage space and need security personnel to keep them from being stolen
@@rofljohn23 It reminds me that Romans called their military supplies "impedimentum" that is stuff that gets in way of them walking/marching. (Pede = Latin for foot).
In Stalingrad germans looked for PPSH-41’s because they were excellent for urban warfare
Why over the MP40? Is this just because regular 41/42 infantry squads at this time did not carry any SMGs?
I'm actually reading a German Memoir now that considered the MP40 to unreliable, specifically the magazine was prone to bending when you were taking cover or crawling and such.
@Zyruss Aquino Yes, but that doesn't mean they had the same problems. Also the guy wasn't comparing it to the PPSH he just said the MP40 was unreliable.
Also the PPSh and PPS are able to fire 7.63mm Mauser rounds which Germans still had a lot of so finding ammo for them isn't hard. Some are converted to 9mm and fed with MP40 magazines.
If you run out of ammunition the ppsh would make a better club than an mp40 ! Lol
Subtle English humor of trophies of war. Blackadder episode Duel and Duality:
"It's a cigarillo case, emblazoned with the company motif of two crossed dead Frenchmen on a background of a mound of dead Frenchmen motif."
Just brilliant humor
That UE 630 looks like something you could see in Syria or Iraq today.
If you look closely at the plaque with the production details, next to "manefacturer" it clearly says "Rashid's uncle, in his shed". ;-)
A small fact: Syria bought a lot of former German weapons from Czecheslovakia. They even used German Panzer IV during the 6 Day war.
Toyota pick-ups are better... :)
Considering that the rebels have been caught using STG44s (German and Yugo) and in one case an Le/FH 18 and the SAA were fighting quite well around Aleppo with the artillery schools Stug 3s i wouldnt take any bets on what got used out there.
No joke.
When I was reenacting the German Heer, the Commander carried a Suomi SMG. I asked him about it and he told me a compacted version of this talk. It made a lot of sense since Germany's industry was quite draconic in it's practices and war production was surprisingly low.
I really enjoyed seeing your friend here speak about these things. Hearing you two go back and forth sometimes with different ideas was great
Yet again thank you for a informative video and coverage of topics not usually covered by other channels
Someone likened the invasion of Russia as a rolling museum of vehicles and equipment.
They even looted two Mark IV Tanks, and Russia's own failed T-35
Good video with a lot of very good points made (including things I hadn't thought of before.
One thing I will mention before people ask about it in the comments is that MHV appears to be trying to say "ingenious" at 0:59 .
I read somewhere years ago that many American soldiers had grown up with Ford Model A and Model T cars and tractors on their farms so that was a great asset. With their own equipment and training to but also the tinkering and getting enemy machines running sometimes. Probably many Germans could work on motorcycles as well back then but would have less experience with heavier equipment.
I just think it's an interesting thing to think about and consider the influence of culture/experience on the armed forces. I would assume the USSR would have fewer mechanics and built based on that lack of experience and knowledge of vehicle maintenance and repair as well.
You know how The Chieftain goes on and on about changing transmissions and the like? It seems the German system was to send vehicles back to depots with highly trained people and specialized equipment to carry out the repairs whereas the Americans maybe had the attitude of we'll design it easy enough to do and the boys will figure it out.
My grandfather of the ww2 generation always worked on his own tractors, everyone did; and my baby boomer uncle rebuilt his first car engine when he was 15 with his younger brothers watching and learning. Of course now you need an expensive diagnostic system to work on new cars so things have changed.
Culture and pre-military experience no doubt matters quite a bit for effectiveness, and even more for draft situations - you can cut necessary training time by a lot if your draftees come in off the street with some basic to moderate competency in whatever field you're teaching.
I header somewhere that before the start of WWII every 10th US citizen had a car. In Britain it was 1 for 20, France 1 to 35, Germany 1 to 70, Poland 1 to 770.
The US army basically used one (GM) truck in Europe making supply of new spare parts and cannibalization of damaged vehicles simpler. Nearly the entire production of trucks from both the White and Studebaker companies were sent Lend Lease to the Red Army.
Drach talks about this in his Japanese damage control video on how the average Japanese person didn't have knowledge about mechanics and how that affected their damage control efforts.
Reminds me of my great grandfather who was in the Japanese army during the war. His transport ship was sunk near the coast of philippines and he and 2 other guys had to hang onto a log to not drown and to make it to the nearest island. One of the guys who was with him was a fisherman before he got drafted and new well how to navigate the current of the waves to make it to shore.
De-motorisation actually starts in 1938 - the Army observed that it was losing more trucks in accidents and wearage than it was receiving in replacements and the infantry divisions are consequently stripped of most of their existing motor transport.
Which country are you talking about?
@@steffenrosmus9177 Germany.
My fathers favourite weapon in WW2 was a MP40 captured on the Bruneval raid in 1942 it was his personal arm till 1949 and a relative who is SAS his personal weapon is a 5.56mm MINIMIE LMG .
in American English (if it exists) Loot Weapons applies to glocks and rugers stolen from the local walmart. Love this channel!!!!!
Beutewaffen was probably well suited for the frontloaded, aggressive operations. They can be treated as disposable assets, meant to multiply the power of the initial thrusts. Obviously, all these assets rapidly evaporate, but that was not an issue for planners who imagined a victory in mere weeks.
I think you're a student of Hollywood. On a true "battlefield" nothing is disposable.
John Stieber commented a bit on this in his autobiograpy "Against the Odds: Survival on the Eastern Front" ISBN-10: 1523347368 (1995,2016), although I dont suppose Italian gear was considered Beutewaffen. "Our trucks were all of Italian make, pride of place going to a huge immensely powerful open 7 ton Alfa Romeo which also pulled a large trailer. Then there was a 5 ton Lancia, again open deck which was a great "mud-plugger" that is it could keep going through terrible conditions of mud and slush. Finally there was a 3 ton Fiat with a tarpaulin-covered loading area. The fiat was our only truck with a petrol engine. [....] The blunt front end made it tremendously maneuverable in woods and on narrow tracks and it could accelerate extremely quickly" "It was also our good luck that from the moment we left the road the Russians had stopped firing at us. Maybe they could not believe their eyes or they were spellbound by the incredible sight of our splendid Alfa Romeo truck and trailer sailing through the air. The way the Alfa Romeo responded to the demands made on it and never broke down, is a testimony to the great engineering product that it was"
"[...] a heavy 5-ton German Henschel truck and a further six soldiers. The truck was diesel-engined, but unusual inasmuchas it had a small 3-speed gear box bolted onto the front end, used only for cranking the engine before starting it. [...] The army must have been terribly short of transport to have provided us with such unsuitable equipment in a war zone." "Twice already the driver had released the clutch and each time there was just a cough from the engine before it spluttered into silence. Our driver frantically waved for a fresh pair of men to take over from the first team [...] Another mate and I jumped forward and took over the job of man0handling the engine through its three starting gears. Just as we were about to engage the second gear three Russian armoured troop carries appeared about half a mile away and began to head towards us. Rather than desert the truck and head into the safety of the woods, we nodded our immediate agreement to continue with another try. By the time we got to third gear, desperately trying to get up more speed on the engine, the Russians were much too close for comfort. Our driver now held the balance of our lives in his hands. If he tried the ignition too soon, the chances were that the engine would again fail to fire. But if he waited longer for us to get more speed then, even if the engine fired, the Russians could be upon us." p192-210.
Italian equipment after Italy changed sides was from what I know Beutewaffen/-ausrüstung, at least I know that they made a huge list of all the equipment that was captured.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Interesting supposition. I was thinking of the maschinenpistole 738(i), of Italian origin which had the beutewaffen designation, though I suppose that could be synonymous with fremdgerät in usage. Whether the mp738 was inducted under that name before or after Italy switched sides, I couldn't say, but all foreign weapons likely fell in that category
One interesting side effect of the relatively low mean income in Germany was that many people bought the relatively cheap and easy to upkeep motorcycles. (esp. low displacement two strokes like the dkw rt 100 or rt 125) I think i once read in a book about the topic that 1/3 of all motorcycles registered in `31 was in Germany. Then there was the Kradschützen Experiment where they wanted to cheeply equip motorized infantry (think of it as proto Panzergrenadiere) however the motorbikes specifically engineered for the Wehrmacht were more expensive than many cars. (Not a finished historian so don`t quote me btw)
This discussions of heavy ordnance is so calming it's almost like ASMR. I'm loving their soothing voices
There is a great scene in Cross Of Iron were Steiners captured PPSH runs out of ammo and he simply throws it aside and picks up another one. Those pesky drum magazines and their lack of consistency...
Mr Wehner has such a soothing voice
I would love to have ASMR made by him
To add something to the topic about captured artillery and firing tables. Soviet artillerymen were specifically instructed to not allow firing tables to be captured by the enemy. Notebooks with calculations must be destroyed together with the all other equipment if evacuation was not possible,
Some US troops use captured STG44 during Battle of the Bulge, even the Springfield company reverse engineered the MG42 to replace M1919 but ended up developing M60.
And the M60 started as a reworked FG42 with a MG42 feed system slapped on it. Check out the US T42, T44 and T52 prototypes leading up to the M60.
Long time joke in the Netherlands was to ask Germans for their bikes back as they were confiscated/stolen during the war by the Wehrmacht. They even stole churchbells.
I understood the attlantik wall was more of a time gaining instrument to keep the allies from gaining a foothold to easily instead of repelling the outright, and having the mobile attack units behind the line doing the real defensive push. So using beute waffe with limited supply of ammo wasnt a real issue there.
Don't worry, it has been enough time for German (tourist) bicycles getting stolen in the Netherlands.
@@Runenschuppe I think the words you are looking for are "getting reclaimed"
im learning german and i always pick up new words from your videos ^^
At around 10 minutes into the video when they spoke about the assortment of Beutewaffen artillery guns, along the Atlantic Wall, and the tables needed for accurate fire for the specific guns . . . a problem I could see is with having sufficient copies of the printed tables for each gun, as copy machines weren't around back then to quickly make multiple copies. Although mimeograph technology was around back then for printing purposes; that was a labor-intensive way to print multiple copies.
Then there were also the issues of protecting those printed paper tables from the weather elements.
very good point!
In the Channel Islands the known ranges of small islands out to sea, are painted in the inside of the Artillery bunkers.
Schleppers ... what a lovely word ... and a fabulous channel ... ausgezeichnet!
I think something being overlooked here is the large amount of Hiwi's in German service, probably over a million throughout the war. 25% of the 6th army at Stalingrad and 600k at one point in 1944. Some of them were probably proficient with captured Soviet arms and willing to teach Germans. Same for French, Belgian, Czech, and etc collaborators with all of their captured equipment. Foreign equipment is not as big a hurdle as one might think, The US made large use of Bofors and Oerlikons. The British, Free French, and Soviets also made large use of foreign equipment through lend-lease.
For further research look up Alfred Becker. He was a German officer who pioneered the conversion of Beutewaffen. He has a pretty extensive Wikipedia page for a start, which already gives a picture how it worked. For example apparently the Beutewaffen workshops were often directly linked to divisions helping to mitigate the supply problem.
The mark of good scholarship, I am guessing and now I have more questions.
Oh firing tables, that's one of the nostalgic things from my time in the Army. I actually kept some of the tables and slide rulers when we finally retired the M102 and fielded the M119
Yes, artillery is not very useful if you can't figure out where the shells will impact. Most soldiers don't have the math, so the tables and slide rules were a way to allow them to give accurate fire with out a lot of math.
Why all loot weapon?
*Easing the strain on German Industrial Capacity.* Plain and simple. ;)
But sometimes it made it worse? It just shifted the strain from production to maintenance and supply
I might make some Beutewaffles on the Weekend 😋🤗
Careful about that tiny swastika in the thumbnail.
The irony of banning swastika is that its similar to the nazis burning books.
CleanerBen it’s really not is it .
If you do a
youtube-dl --write-thumbnail --skip-download th-cam.com/video/3joQMHS2xfA/w-d-xo.html
You can zoom in and it's too blurred to see. Hopefully, Google's e-Stasi won't be able to see it either.
@@jonathangriffiths2499 covering up and destroying history sounds pretty nazi like to me.
@@cleanerben9636 It's still something different than killing millions of people in dedicated factories... The purpose why Hakenkreuze should be banned in general should also be very clear...
Does Beutewaffen translate to "booty (as in looted goods) weapons"? Because Booty Weapons is a word that should definitely be in English.
Think the word "trophy" is what mainly used in academic circle. But I agree, "booty" would sound much more like what a regular grunt would use.
@@AnhTrieu90 in Dutch, we say Buit, which means loot, or booty, same as Beute. So booty, as unprofessional as it is, is relatively accurate.
I suspect there is some relation to 'prize' which is how you would refer to a captured ship in the age of sail.
Prize weapons. Dutch is 'buit' It's the naval word for 'Prize' so I'd go with that as well
@@AnhTrieu90 Trophy would be something presented, not something used. In English one talks typically of captured weapons but beute and booty are basically the same word. it can also mean prey or catch.
The thing I think of whenever this topic comes up is there's a fairly famous pic of two guys from the Dirlewanger Brigade with their masks on and one of them is carrying PPsH.
The Germans Panzer units was short on equipment They have to adopt convert and use everything what was captured from the opponent's
Great video thanks for posting
For anyone wondering: on the thoumbnail is Hauptmann Wilhelm Traub from 305 Infantry Division during the attack on the Barrikady gun factory in Stalingrad also he has an amoeba helmet cover
Great video. Need more pics though!
Fascinating discussion. It would be interesting to know the type(s) and what percentages of these Beutewaffen were part of the Atlantic Wall. How would this affect the training/doctrine of the Bodenständige Divisionen? Oh dear, you've identified more Ph.D. dissertation subjects for energetic graduate students.
Interestingly enough, officer on the thumbnail also has a Hungarian helmet cover.
This was a great video - More questions are a great sign. I would love you to make some connection to British mechanised infantry/armoured divisions if possible :) Or perhaps share what the Axis powers thought about designs from the Brits - Of course every nation had their own approach it's very cool.
You need to publicize this channel more prominently on the main channel. I watch every one of your videos and only just now discovered this treasure trove!
I think I mentioned it at least 10-20 times since I have it.
Interesting chat, thanks for sharing the knowledge 🇬🇧
Ever time he finds an historian who manages a museum you know it is going to be a good show!!!!
It's difficult hearing the phrase 'The German auto industry was not very good.' Oh, how times have changed.
Car industry in Germany was very well developed before the war.
Opel was the largest car manufacturer of Europe!
But civilian car production was shut down in 1940.
I am no expert, but I have a few thoughts and questions.
So I'm operating on the assumption that many beutewaffen were used on the Atlantic wall largely because although it was necessary to have the weapons necessary to defend the coastline, the Atlantic coastline was largely considered a backwater theater that is not nearly as deserving of attention and concern as the Eastern front. The best stuff and stuff that fits the logistical system best goes east, what's left goes west. So in that case, why would the Germans put the Soviet artillery on the Atlantic wall if it was considered better than German artillery?
As for the what the beutewaffen user thought, I would have to imagine that being issued a weapon for which there were no spare parts, no spare ammunition, isn't even a national design, and is essentially a leftover or hand-me-down would be demoralizing. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Atlantic wall. The Czech tanks used earlier probably did not have this effect as I believe there was still production going at the time they were used.
With regards to the Atlantikwall we have to consider that it was mostly a tool for coastal defence. Also, the Western theater of operations was far from a backwater, even if it did not have the same immediate priority as the 'Ostkampf'. Therefore it received significant attention and supplies. The Atlantikwall may have used a lot of varied weapons, but a good portion of those weapons was expected to reach and hit targets out at sea, so any foreign divisional type gun or naval gun could potentially be a great benefit to its firepower. For a good example of this we can look at the storming of Pointe-du-Hoc which was in part conducted in anticipation of the potential threat that could be posed to the amphibious force by the guns that were presumed to be there. The guns in question were captured French 155mm pieces. For the specific mention of the 152mm ML-20 guns of the 130. Panzer Lehr Division, it has to be remembered that they were a mobile division. It was formed and trained in both France and Hungary before being assigned to Panzergruppe West. The ML-20's might not have been an excellent solution, but by 1944 they were apparently sufficiently good enough to equip a first-rate division and be able to at least supply it for the foreseeable future.
From the morale-perspective, it's of course difficult to know for sure how that was considered without reading ample contemporary reports, but it occurs to me that there were far more pressing issues for Germany that strained morale. Using captured weapons and equipment is a military expedient as old as time and soldiers being soldiers, the general thought would have been something along the lines of "We know this enemy gear is great because we've had to fight it, and now at least get to fight with it." It reminds me of a story I heard about the M1 carbine during the Battle of the Bulge, where captured American weapons were piled in the front yard of a house and of all the American weapons there, the pile there that frequently shrank was that with M1 carbines. Garands, Thompsons, Grease guns (which now all have a much better reputation than the M1 carbine) and the like were more or less ignored.
My Dad's area was Artillery and I was trained as an Artillery Mechanic. When you fire an artillery piece there are two main factors that go into where the shell will land. 1) Azimuth and Elevation; 2) Powder Charge.
Each Shell has two basic parts - the Projectile and the Powder Charge that is going to propel the projectile out of the gun towards the target.
The types of Artillery Shells I remember are - Fixed, Semi-Fixed, Semi-Fixed Separate Loading and uncased powder bags.
Fixed Shells: - have the projectile attached to the casing at the factory. You load the shell into the gun and fire it. There is no adjustment to the powder charge.
Semi-Fixed: - These rounds are fired just like the fixed rounds BUT the projectile can be taken off the casing - and you can reach down inside the casing and adjust the powder charge before putting the projectile back on it to fire. There are typically a number of little powder bags there and you can take some of them out to adjust the charge. Leaving all the little powder bags in is referred to (iirc) as Charge 7. Each round you fire from the Artillery Piece is recorded - with the Charge it was fired at. The reason for this - is that Charge 7 takes a lot more out of the gun to shoot it - than the other charges. Thus - a tube may be rated as being able to fire a certain number of rounds - that number will vary depending on the number of Charge 7 rounds that were fired. After so many rounds - the tube needs to be checked for wear. The rifling can be stripped out and the gun will become less accurate. Also - the gun can become unsafe to shoot. These records are kept for every gun barrel. Sometimes the barrels can be refurbished - mostly (iirc) they cannot.
Semi-Fixed Separate Loading: These are typically larger rounds that function the same was as the Semi Fixed Rounds - but the Projectile and casing may be loaded into the weapon separately.
Powder Bags: Here you do not have a casing. You have a projectile that is loaded into the gun on it's own - followed by Powder Bags that are loaded after it. These were typically the types of rounds Battleships used - but not always. IIRC ... (which I may not) The Germans tended to have Semi-Fixed Separate Loading rounds - with casings - for their naval artillery.
OK - so - when you are trying to fire on a target you can do it several ways. You have Direct Fire - where the gunner sees the target - aims the gun at it and fires. Then you have Indirect Fire - where the gun crew cannot see the target but is firing on a set of coordinates. Adjustments can be made to shoot over something that is in the way - even if the gun COULD directly engage the target if it weren't. Here - you determine how far the round is going to go and at what angle it is going to approach it - by adjusting your powder charges and the elevation of the gun.
>>>>> WHAT POWDER CHARGE AND ELEVATION TO USE ARE IN THE FIRING TABLES
Bob Smith I am totally saving this for my novel later.
@@kingslushie1018 Make sure you double check all that - I was doing it from memory - and for one thing - could not remember the correct name for the version of the ammunition that used Powder Bags - so I KNOW that that's not complete.
Another thing you want to get straight is the different types of breeches they had.
The Fixed and Semi-Fixed shells were used with vertical and horizontal Sliding Wedge Breech Blocks where the thing was a wedge that would be thicker at one end than the other. You would slide the thin end across the breech to the far side until the thickness of the rear part of the wedge sealed the breach. This, like the Semi-Fixed Separate Loading - was the type of Breech Blocks the Germans liked. When loading these types of shells you insert the nose of the projectile into the chamber but then make a fist and push it against the base of the shell until the base trips a release that sends the wedge across the breech. You want to make sure no fingers are going to get caught or it will cut them off. With a fist the breech block will just knock your hand out of the way, though you don't have to wait for it to do that. You can just give it a good shove and then jerk your hand away.
The other type that comes to mind is the Screw type which were used with Powder Bags (not sure of the real name here) where there were slots in the breech and in the breech block that had intersecting ridges. You'd close the breech with the ridges on the breech block inserting in gaps in the ridges of the breech - then when fully closed - turn them to seal it.
You also had different types of igniting mechanisms. With the shells that had a casing holding the powder - much like a rifle bullet - these shells (iirc) had a primer in the base of the shell - that was struck by a firing pin. The version that used powder bags had to have a new primer that was screwed into the breech block for each shot fired.
AGAIN, I was being trained as an Artillery Repairman - I was not an Artilleryman. So - a real Artilleryman would give you better information on all of this. Compared to one of those guys - my knowledge is cursory at best.
.
Bob Smith your beginning knowledge, is a gateway to Enlightenment. I will uses the basis of the knowledge you provided for me here to do further research into the future! Thank you for that! ❤️
@@kingslushie1018 Yeah. Get some better research than my vague memories from 1970 - and - you're welcome.
.
@@BobSmith-dk8nw As an artillery mechanic you probably have better technical knowledge of various artillery equipment than the crewmen do. The crew only knows the particular items they're in charge of using. Everyone gets a crash course of most of the info at basic training but once you get out there people tend to stick to the same one or two roles in the gun crew. The driver for example knows how to work the gearshift and the periscope on his hatch, but will usually have to be reminded how to prepare and load the ammo if he has to help with that. No more than 2-3 members (of a crew of 6-12) will have a good idea of how the turret controls work, let alone how to use the GPS and targeting computer in modern artillery pieces.
LUCKILY, I am very happy to report that in modern mechanized artillery, the firing tables have been replaced with computerized GPS targeting. The battery command vehicle will usually distribute exact firing coordinates for each individual gun.
In a war of movement (Normandy for example), where one side was in a state of almost constant advance, it made sense to make use where safe of abandoned equipment.
My father (a field gunner) picked up a BMW combination in Falaise and used it right through to the German border. He also had a German pistol and ammunition for it. He preferred it and found it easier to use and more reliable than his issued revolver.
He gave up both the combination and the pistol when his regiment got a new CO in early 1945 and the order came down that the use of enemy equipment should cease, as it might give the impression that it was superior to allied equipment.
He was reluctant to switch back. He said the German equipment WAS superior.
The motorcycle combination was interesting. It had a differential and 2WD. It also had exhausts that were directed in part to exit across the handlebars, to keep the rider warm in winter.
It's worth noting, that the sovjet soldiers favored german weapons over their own. Eespecialy the the MP 40 was prized, for it was easier to control then the PPSh-41, not as cumbersome and it was quicker to reload.
Huh I asked a similar question earlier. This is extremely informative, thank you very much for this video.
Always a good discussion when Jens and Bernhard gets together.
It really surprises me how much there's still to study and it saddens me how many questions were never asked in time (when grandfather was still around)...
Good video with more Q's at end than A's. I think you should divide the Beutewaffen into the categories of vehicles (Sea, air, & land), artillery, and small arms--simply from the photo history of them for simplicity sake in my opinion. Example on what did a better weapon do for morale? Wehrmacht-Heer/ and Waffen SS units with tons of pix using the PPSH-41 submachine gun for example, or other Ostfront units using Soviet small arms. 5million USSR PW's leaves a lot of handguns and rifles, and SMG's behind. The one T-35 working land-tank taken from Dubno (?) that was used in Berlin's defense as an armored pillbox; Kampfgruppe 200's enemy aircraft squadron...and so on. The Soviet 76mm AT gun was captured in great numbers and employed as it was, and mounted on tank chassis as a hasty Self Propelled Gun, was it not? Until the German production of the 75mm AT gun came online after Barbarossa's first year, that piece got used a lot..
P.S. Just watched the whole video. My original query was answered very clearly.
Not only can not having my firing tables can be a problem but what about not having fuse setting "keys" and sighting equipment?
Much of Polish, French, Yugoslavian, & Belgian artillery was WW I leftovers based upon review of various sources ("Merkblatt" "Fremden Gerät" [plz excuse any misspellings this from memory] & Wikipedia). For example, the 105 mm French cannon Mle 1913 S(chneider) was captured from the French, Yugoslav, Italian and Polish armies. So were many French WW I era 75 mm field cannons (France, Yugoslavia & Poland).
„Now we have more questions than before the video“ - The only way to do science 😆
Now I have more questions than I did when I started... When your Lego set doesn't look like the box and your holding some extra pieces
I read in a book that at least some of the command tanks used by panzer regiments had the turret weld and the gun removed replaced with a mock up. Any chance on how common it was?
I have seen in on the french lee tank.
I read the same, some German tanks were used as command tanks and equipped with enhanced communication capabilities etc and because not having a gun could attract attention a mock up was fitted. Not sure how common this was but it seems a good idea to be able to have a tactical overview of the battle ...
@@haydnroberts7434 I think this was displayed in one of the pictures in Dr. Toeppel's "Kursk" book (that Bernhard/MHV has talked with in the past, there are some vids)
That was a standart practice. The Panzerbefehlswagen III(armored command vehicle) was made in the Ausf. D, E and H.
Later they replace the halftracks uses by forward artillery observers with the Panzerbeobachtungwagen III with the false cannon moved to the right and an MG in the center and aditional radio.
Everyone used captured weapons when their own supplies were low, or the enemy's were better for the particular purpose. See US 3rd Armored Division.
one has to wonder why we don't see more Beutewaffen t-34s. the ones we do see in historical photos are most earlier ones with the 76mm and the German cupola modifications. was it the case that the Germans just weren't interested in capturing them, or if they were capturing them modifying them and using them for other duties basically as tractors? or perhaps they were using in significant numbers but only on the front lines and only till they broke down so that any individual tank just wasn't in service long enough to be photographed due to the rarity of photographers on the eastern front.
You might want to remind yourselves of the extensive use made by 21st Panzer of "Captures" both in N. Africa and Normandy(Feuchtinger).
There seem to have been slightly different philosophies in each theater.
Von Luck and several other good books on Normandy discuss the adaptations and "Specials" they created from "Beute" notably, I seem to remember... this is all from old memory, Sturmgeschütz-Abteilung 200 whose Commander Major Alfred Becker a mechanical engineer put a lot of effort into it.
A discussion of Becker's adaptations might be interesting.
If you as an infantryman get a PPSH it makes sense to use it instead of a Mauser. Just that might be enough to save your life and makes you a deadlier soldier. Case in point, the study done on the Stg44 in the eastern front. Even though it lacked ammunition, where the ammunition was available, it made a huge difference. This is why the Soviets used it to pattern their first generation Ak47's.
Ich hätte mal zwei Fragen, was genau waren die Kradschützen Battalione eigentlich? Also es gab ja in fast jeder Panzerdivision, neben den beiden Panzergrenadierregimentern, ein Kradschützen Battalion. War das einfach nur ein Battalion voll mit Kradmeldern oder haben die wie leichte Kavallerie funktioniert? Heißt, sie sind wo hingefahren und haben dann dort als Infanterie gekämpft?
Und: Was hat man eigentlich gemacht wenn man beispielsweise an der Ostfront in einer Kesselschlacht meinetwegen 100.000 Gewehre erbeutet hat, hat man die dann auch regulär an die Truppe ausgegeben? Oder nur an Osttruppen, Korück, Sicherungsdivisionen oder eben auch die bodenständigen Divisionen? Weil bei Fahrzeugen ist es klar, aber ob Handfeuerwaffen auch einfach weiter verwendet wurden würde mich echt mal interessieren.
zu 1) Kradschützen ist was geplant.
zu 2) Wie im Video gesagt, wir wissen sehr wenig. Generell waren weniger "wichtige" Verbände mit Beutematerial ausgestattet, aber wie, wo, wann das organisiert wurde kA. Vermutlich Armee oder Heeresgruppe Ebene, aber für schweres Gerät wohl noch höher.
By way of comparison the US gave the Soviet Union 150,000 Studebaker deuce and a halfs through Lend Lease.
These small French rebuilt Tankette fascinates me, they exist in a myriad of editions.
If I recalled correctly, they were used priamrily as ammo carriers or gun tractors. No unlike the Universal Carrier in the same role.
@@skoshman1No there is a whole series of them with machine guns "security vehicle" for airfields and such.
the Russian allies seemed to have great mobility in period of 1943/44, have you or do you have the information on truck numbers for both sides
I guess the main reason is simple: the German industry wasn't strong enough to mass produce German-build weapons to outfit it's armies (at the beginning of WW2 it wasn't even on a full war footing that came when Speer was made minister of war production) especially in the later stages. So they used what they captured. It was a German military tradtion (for example during WW1 the first tanks Germany had were captured English Mark tanks). And with Baukommando Becker and Baukommando Ost Germany made "Beutewaffen into an art form.
This is a great vid, thanks for the content. I
A lot of Volkssturm weapons were Beutewaffen, and this was a real logistical problem. Like finding Dutch ammunition for Dutch bolt-action rifles captured in 1940.
You shouldn't overthink that point. When they "Captured" Dutch small arms, they also captured millions of rounds of ammunition to go with it. The Dutch also had ammunition plants for defense use. Unless they were scrapped or appropriated and converted to 8x57, they would have continued to produce cartridges.
I once owned a Norwegian Krag 1912 carbine that was captured at Normandy. I was told there was plenty of ammunition captured along with it. (No, it was not an 8x57 conversion) I enjoyed that rifle for some time, and the "Duffel Cut" hidden under the rear band was never an issue.....Anyway...
The picture points out a Wehrmacht soldier with a PPSh-41 but the video doesn't discuss the use of Soviet (or other) Infantry arms.
Don't forget the small arms. Lots of Czech and Polish rifles and automatic weapons were sent to rear area troops to use, and after Barbarossa large numbers of Soviet SVT-40 self loading rifles were reissued to Wehrmacht troops. (Ironically, though the Russian soldiers hated the SVT yet German troops loved it. Having had one I can attest that it's more complex than most WW II Russian weapons and was less of an enigma to the more mechanically literate Germans.
Also M1 Garands, PPShs, HiPowers, STENs,. In the case on the PPSh, the 7.63x25 Mauser ammunition which was already available in Germany could be used instead of 7.62x25 Tokarev since they have the same external cartridge dimensions, and the chamber pressure on the Mauser is only slightly lower than Tokarev, so the weapon will still cycle effectively.
@@colbunkmust I don't know about other weapons, but my CZ-52 only cycles about 60% of the time with 7.65 Mauser. Poor enough performance that I've stopped using it and sold my surplus.
This is very interesting after reading Gottlob Biedermann's book! I was surprised when he mentioned their PAK tractor and being able to carry a PPSh.
Would you make video about reuse and conversion of infantry weapons? Like PPSh (some were converted in 9mm, for example), SVT?
Was this filmed in the restricted area of the museum ? I hope I can visit this year .
Yeah
ASMR-Waffen.
great video.
Very good points, as long as you are not in Hearts of Iron 4 but in real life there must be a difference in what you use. I've also read some on forums about the captured rifles in Poland, France etc. Look, for some equipment, yes you have no problems but with many of them you do. Calibres for example, it is the exception if it works fine most of time, not the rule.
A great basic account of logistics was written a few years back by the brilliant Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld - "Supplying War." Lots of stuff on WWII.
These videos are great and educational.
3 interesting things :
1. Even the helmet cover on the thumbnail is captured. It's Russian amoeba camo.
2. The Wehrmacht used T26 and BT series tanks in second line roles or with police and auxiliary units
3. The most weird captured tank is a hotchkiss tank with a T26 turret that I saw. It was used in the eastern front.
Isn't the thumbnail that Hungarian helmet cover some Wehrmacht soldiers got?
Also, I'd say the weirdest one I've seen is a flamethrower Char B1 or a turretless ARV T-34. Tanks with swapped turrets, not as rare as you might think.
@@JohnsonTheSecond
It is amoeba. I ve seen some other pictures with captured amoeba helmet cover and the one in the thumbnail is very similar to the others I seen.
I don't know much about swapped turrets tanks in ww2 but I think it's still pretty odd and notable that they even did that with those two completely different tanks.
@@theairbourne1019 I've seen hungarian helmet covers and the one in the thumbnail is identical to what I've seen... go ask any reenactor or expert on this
@@JohnsonTheSecond first nice you reenact too, good. What do you reenact? I do mostly German and Russian Reenactment.
Second and main point: most Reenactors don't know either of those camos. I saw both and the Hungarian one has way more different different spots then the one in the thumbnail. The Russian one has bigger spots and less on the helmet cover. There is even another picture of the same guy with that helmet cover and you can see it pretty good, that it's a amoeba cover.
@@theairbourne1019 th-cam.com/video/SzmC3D_w1GU/w-d-xo.html
Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of trying to maintain the various trucks of every nation from which they captured equipment? Ideally they would've used all spare parts up, while they retooled those factories to make standardised parts for German equipment.
More questions after the discussion than before. That is the nature of intellectual inquiry, as opposed to mere repetition of what other historians said.
It makes more sense to put your limited stock weapons in the Atlantic wall than in your army. In your army your carting around something that will quickly become useless whereas in the wall its not being used until its needed and its static. In the army you would be using them for months at a time, in the Atlantic wall your expecting to only be using them for a few hours or days at most until troops can arrive to reinforce, your not expecting a coastal position to hold out for weeks. Finally by putting your recycled stuff in the Wall your allowing your newly produced weapons to go straight to where they are needed and will be of most use, the Army.
I love listening to these guys
The Wehrmacht evaluated the captured hardware and classed them according to their performance. Most artillery pieces were used in defensive, well prepared strong points in western Europe and this in conjunction with German guns. Many were manned by soldiers from the countries that produced them, Ukrainians, Czech, Russian, French etc. Many airfields, factories, depots, railyards etc needed AA protection. And some of these captured weapons were deployed there. In the transport section, most vehicles of the time were easy to repair and they could part out some to keep others running. Supplies were transported by rail (especially from Germany ), which was faster, and then by trucks to the destination. In addition many of these hardware were used for internal policing of occupied territories - the towns and cities etc.