"Using Enemy Weapons?" Topic

Did soldiers in WWII pick up and use enemy weapons, such as an American GI taking an MP40 and ammo off a dead German? Curious how often this happened. I would imagine finding enemy ammo could be a problem? How difficult would it be for say a GI or Russian to figure out how to use an MP40 for example or any enemy weapon?

General James Gavin of the 82nd Airborne was perhaps the US army's most vociferous critic of the bazooka. (Read his book "On to Berlin".) He witnessed bazooka rounds "bounce off" the armour of Tigers and Panzer IVs "from as close as 10 yards" at Biazza Ridge in Sicily in 1943, and he was extremely bitter about being mislead into believing that the bazooka was capable of easily destroying any German tank, as the manual claimed. He was even more angered to find that one member of the bazooka's development team had resigned in protest because it was well known that the weapon could not destroy the heavier German tanks that were coming out in 1943. He caustically said that his men never received an effective man portable anti-tank weapon until they captured stocks of German Panzerfausts in late 1944.

Wow. That is amazing Mobius.

I know one platoon commander at Kokoda, a veteran of the North Africa campaigns, ran around with an MP40 he had picked up.

These weapons weren't especially difficult to use, the ammo problem would have been the bigger issue. With the example above, the MP40 used the same 9x19mm cartrdige used in the Australian Owen SMG so he would of been able to get rounds – replacement clips would have been a challenge.

Yes. The Germans did on an industrial scale, even making ammunition for them. So did the Soviets; captured armor was often given as a reward to a good crew, and would be used until it broke down beyond repair, and panzerfausts were issued to scouts and assault pioneers.

Both sides used enemy weapons and vehicles in North Africa; the British and Australians had whole squadrons of Italian M13 tanks. A British unit in Italy had a battery of four captured Flak 88's!

But to be captured with an enemy weapon was instant death for a PoW so GI's were wary of the practice.

One sad story amplifies the danger though. US Rangers surrounded on Pointe du Hoc were low on ammo and picked up German weapons; the distinctive sound they made led to a firefight between them and elements of the 116th RCT coming to their relief.

Some memoirs indicate Americans were discouraged from using German weapons because the MP and the MG, at least, made distinctive sounds and GIs would fire at the sound. I think Roscoe Blunt mentioned it for one, because he was playing with a German gun and got chewed out for firing it.

For the Allies, the temptation would have been to use captured German SMGs and particularly MGs. However, I've come across a number of references in histories and memoirs that mention that this was discouraged and in some units strictly forbidden. The common explanation seems to be the distinctive sound, especially WRT the MG 34 and MG 42. As I'm sure you're aware, every WWII memoir by an Allied soldier emphasizes the psychologically crippling sound of a "Spandau" going full tilt.

So, imagine 12 Platoon decides to use a captured MG 42 to beef up it's firepower. Once the shooting starts, 12 Platoon is well pleased with their captured Wunderwaffe, but the platoons on their flanks and rear are wondering why that "Spandau" is so close as they scramble for cover. Even if they know about 12 Platoon's new toy, how do they know if it's them or the enemy?

In an interesting twist on this dilemma, Brig. Denis Whitaker describes a Canadian raiding force in the Scheldt battles that went behind German lines armed partly with German weapons. The Canadians theorized, quite rightly as it turns out, that the sound of German weapons firing behind the lines raised less alarm, enabling the Canadians to surprise a number of enemy units. Furthermore, once the engagements started the Germans were unable to direct their return fire based on the distinctive sound of the Bren and Sten guns.

Well, the Amis may discourage the use of captured German weaponry, but not this group of British Red Devils:

link

At Stalingrad, it was apparently fairly common.

Probably less so in other theaters, due to the sound issue, and not wanting to be shot by friendly troops, and/or caught by the enemy while using one of their weapons (presumably since they might assume you killed the guy you took it from, so would be less likely to be compassionate with the users).

Somewhere I read that a german battalion was issued US m1 carbines, don't know wherre tho.

And wasn't one of the US inf div unofficially called a 'panzergrenadier' because they used stugs and panzerfausts? The div number was in the '80's.

I have heard tales of Germans using the Russian SMG because they appreciated its ruggedness.

My father was in the RAF's Second Tactical Airforce and when they went into Europe after D-Day they were shown a huge pile of german pistols and told to help themselves and carry them as personal protection.

the practice before was to be armed with a sten gun but my Dad (along with most of his mates) kept it in pieces in his toolbox so not really handy so the reason for the pistols.

On their way home for demobilisation they were told they would be searched and delayed if they have any (loot) so a whole train load threw their pistols into the Rhine when crossing a bridge back into Holland.

so a semi official issue of enemy weapons

I sometimes get the impression that at Arnhem/Oosterbeek British Paras and their German opponents used each others weapons more than their own! There does seem to be a bit of the other mans weapon is always better in this. The Sten seemed to be universally hated by the Brits but the Germans liked it because it could be fired lying down. One of the Germans in It Never Snows in December states he picked up a Sten and kept it for months afterwards. One on the German Paras in the famous sequence of photos on the Tiger II's in the Bulge is carrying a Sten. There is also the Waffen SS Panzer Grenadier with M1 Carbine pictured in the Ardennes.

Interesting comments about the Bazooka from Gavin. Have been reading a lot about Sicily recently and there were deficiencies in the Bazooka which came to light in Tunisia but the modified version was not ready for Husky so they took the old one because they had nothing else. There were a number of suggestions on how to get them to work but they were ignored more often than not in the heat of battle.

There is a difference between ad-hoc battlefield pickups and the deliberate accumulation and issue of captured weapons. In fact we've just had the PPSH debate, it was the second most widely issued German SMG after the MP38/40. MP717(r). Some one million captured SVT-40s were also issued and informed the designs for the GW41/43.

You can find photos of almost anything though, including Germans on the Eastern Front with Thompsons, they are however the exception rather than the rule.

9mm SMGs weren't a problem for British/German exchanges as Sten/MP40 mags were interchangeable, hilariously you find some Germans preferring the Sten and some Brits preferring MP40s…. I guess the grass is always greener. The Sovs were big fans of MP40s, which again is odd given the very high issue of PPSH/PPD. They are lighter I suppose.

MGs are more a problem, particularly in terms of ammo supply, as well as attracting the unwelcome and accidental attention of HE firing tanks if misidentified as enemy. Captured MGs were used extensively in fortifications though, and similar the Germans didn't seem to have any great aversion to use e.g. captured Bren guns.

wrt difficulty of use, an MP40 is no harder to use than a Sten, althogh obvoiously field stripping etc is going ot be different. Mk III pouches also hold MP40 mags very handily.

You might be a little hard pressed to put thompson or MP40 mags in K98 or Garand ammo pouches though, so along with looting your dead enemy, you'll need to strip his webbing as well.

The use of captured disposable one shot AT weapons (panzerfausts) is a no brainer, especially if your army doesn't have any to start with.

I suppose the main question wrt the OP is why bother? The vast majority of troops used the weapons they were issued, and I can only imagine situations of utter desperation where you might have no opton but to use a captured weapon or some personal preference. Armies in general don't encourage personal preferences. SS Brigadefuhrer Heinz Harmel deciding he wants to use a Sten Mark V is a bit different to Private Bloggs telling his platoon sergeant that he doesn't want to use a rifle any more, and he'd much rather use this nice shiny Bergmann MP18 he's just found. Yea, right.

IIRC soldiers in the Falklands using captured FALs were very careful to hang onto their SLRs as well, you can't be losing your issued rifle.

As wargamers we're used to being able to look down on a table and easily identify which models are ours and which our opponents.
That's not how real combat worked.
Using an enemy weapon was that much more likely to get you killed. So using enemy weapons was that bit less likely than anecdotes might suggest. People tend to tell you good stories rather than the boring truth.

There's a US unit which were so unimpressed by the bazooka they did a series of tests and wrote a letter of complaint with the experimental proof to support it.
This was with the "impoved" design of round which still had to hit pretty much flat on to go off.
The shreck was a way better weapon in their opinion and likely to go off if you fired at infantry in a field whilst the bazooka round was most likely to just bounce along the ground. Plus the shreck gavce a bigger bang.

Gremans & Stens – they liked it so much that they even produced their own 'copy' – MP4004 was one code allegedly found stamped on some.

The Germans were very keen on the Airborne Sten – the one with wooden stock, pistol grip and foregrip and which actually seemed to have some quality control in its manufacture! Nevertheless, one soldier's memoir from D Coy, 2nd Ox & Bucks LI (John Howard's unit) records how he carried an MP40 as a secondary weapon when out sniping between the lines.

The Commandos were armed to the teeth with MG42s when they were in the siege lines around Dunkirk in the autumn of 1944.

No.1 Army Commando was equipped with 'captured' M1 Garands in the Med and took these with them to Burma.

On a somewhat similar theme I recently watched a documentary on Daniel Ellsburg of Pentagon Papers fame. There was some footage of him during his time as a US Marine company commander in Vietnam c1965. His weapon of choice? An MP40!

Now whether that was ex-French stock or captured from the VC I don't know but it was a fascinating photo. So who makes a Vietnam era Marine with an MP40……?

The Germans began producing ammo for the Russian 76mm field gun. Ian Hogg's 'The Guns: 1939-1945' describes the Germans using British, French and even Belgian artillery in fixed positions in western Europe. There's also a fairly well-known example of a Panther being repainted green and having a large wihte star applied by a British armored unit. They apparently used it quite successfully until the transmission gave out. Beutepanzers (sp?) (captured Russian tanks) were very common on the eastern front.

There's even a picture of a US Marine in Iraq carrying a PPSh!

Use of enemy weapons happens, the problem is that poorly-trained troops will shoot at the sound of the weapon. US troops in Vietnam loved the reliability of the AK, but hated the distinctive sound of the safety coming off. Most Americans would unload a magazine in the direction of that sound!

Somewhere I read that a german battalion was issued US m1 carbines, don't know wherre tho.

In this well-known image. usually associated with the Battle of the Bulge, the man on the right seems to be carring a U.S. carbine:

link

But to be captured with an enemy weapon was instant death for a PoW so GI's were wary of the practice.

I have never heard of such a thing. Can you cite some sources for this? Getting caught in an enemy uniform would very likely get you executed as a spy, but I do not recall any army having such a stance towards the usage of captured weapons.

Finnish army was very happy to utilise captured Red Army weaponry, especially DP LMG which was considered superior to the Finnish Lahti-Saloranta LMG. Of course it helped a lot that both Finnish army and Soviet army used the same rifle cartridge for their small arms (as a legacy from the Imperial Russian military).

I recall a b&w photo of a german soldier using a M1 carbine to clear the area around some destroyed american vehicles. I can't find it now online to post a link?

"Can you cite some sources for this?"

Never official policy for obvious reasons, but it happened on both sides :

John Troy, a soldier with the 8th Infantry Division, who writes of finding the body of an American officer the Germans had tied up and killed because he had been caught carrying a captured German P-38 pistol. Troy describes his reaction in the following way: "When I saw that, I said no souvenirs for me. But, of course, we did it too when we caught (Germans) with American cigarettes on them, or American wristwatches they had on their arms."

I read an account (in the Army Green Books) of some American troops using a captured German "pupchen" (sp?) to knock out a German tank.

John Troy, a soldier with the 8th Infantry Division, who writes of finding the body of an American officer the Germans had tied up and killed because he had been caught carrying a captured German P-38 pistol.

I'm curious as to how he knew the reason the officer was killed.