Thanks to all the supporters on Patreon & Subscribestar for their questions! Note we recorded more than half a dozens of videos regarding your questions. They will be released over the course of the upcoming weeks, because some are more content-heavy and including quotes, because I kinda like those ;). » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
the use of captured equipment is realy interesting especially on the ost front. what about the allies? I know there was an American infantry division that got famous for basically mechanizing themselves with captured german half-tracks and trucks (there is a famous picture where one has a Calliope rocket launcher fitted). what about the various allied armies policies for dealing with captured equipment? the commonwealth seemed to use them mostly for special ops and technical evaluations.
Hi, great video - did the Germans try to copy engines in the captured aircraft and tanks? For the artillery pieces, I can see that the captured designs would not be better than what they were using. Was the arms industry pretty much set in developing their own engines?
Does "Beutewaffen" literally translate to "Booty Weapons"? If so, we have a case where a German word went from sounding scary in American English in one century to funny in the next.
I don't know how widespread the practice was on the Atlantic Wall in general but on the Channel Islands (which is the only book I have on this topic) turrets from captured French tanks were adapted for mounting on concrete weapons pits (Ringstand Panzerstellung). Seems Renault FT-17, R-35 and Hotchkiss 35-H were used for this.
D Day Through German Eyes (Holger Eckhertz) #1 & #2 speaks to the widespread use of foreign military equipment used on the Atlantic wall. Nothing is quantified. General impression: LOTS of repurposement.
I come from the Channel Islands, specifically Jersey. Yea the whole island is littered with bunkers and gun emplacements. Battery Moltke for example has some French guns on display there. But pretty much wherever you go it's pretty easy to find something left over from WW2.
bill blohm that book has been shown to be falsified and down right a fraud. The grandfather of the author seems to have never existed and the same for its publisher! You are better off reading WN62
Forgotten Weapons has a video about a book that is badically a reprint of the German inventory of captured small arms, how many were there of every subvariant and what they were renamed to. Its intended as a collectors guide, but it shows just how desperately Germany reused everything they could.
I remember that. It was also interesting that it listed the same weapons over and over again if captured from a different country. For instance there was Thompson sub-machine guns captured from the British, French, Americans and I'm pretty sure another country or two. Each one had their own listing. I think they were worried that some might be slightly different and spare parts might not fit.
I read in one the Battle of Berlin books that the German’s had stockpiles of Foreign Weapons that were being issued to the non Regular soldiers in an act of desperation. I don’t think the Regulars were ever issued non German arms but their rag tag home defense force was.
I think every one Desperately reused everything they could that's war maybe with the exception of America But they still took tones of equipment and reused it so be more accurate to say they used the lest amount. Germany taking France meant it basically doubled its inventory of everything then again in Russia its cheaper to reuses then spend two to 3x the time and resources sending it back to get melted down and all the ammunition was probably extremely abundant or it was sold or melted or left for later. Must remember Germany was short from 1941 to 1945 about 1.5 years of oil you could uses horses but its longer, cost feed and more man power.
@@Wallyworld30 well, depends on the type. Standard infantry rifles would have been an issue, due to the logistics at the front supplying different ammo types. Rear area and occupation troops got whatever. They have low ammo consumption so the issue is smaller. Anti tank rifles, mortarts and other more specialized equipment was also issued to frontline units, afaik.
@@rlosable That's why Germans used ex Polish rifles which were simply Mausers fully compatible with Germans ones. Also Polish pistols VIS were adopted and even produced by Germans.
My grandfather was a truck driver in a Schützenregiment in the 7th Panzer Division. After the fall of France he drove a captured British truck. He rarely spoke about the war, but he mentioned it when we spoke about left- and right-hand-traffic (his truck had the driver's seat on the right side).
There is also the important use of captured and obsolete guns to arm guards and internal security troops, thereby freeing up more standard guns for front line use. For someone manning a checkpoint or guarding prisoners it doesn't matter if you have some ancient obscure gun with only a handful of rounds available, chances are you'll never fire it so all you need in something to threaten people when necessary.
the "captured and obsolete guns" were given to various proxy armies including the UPA in Ukraine. On that note, the weapons supplied were readily captured from the Soviets.
It is refreshing for me to hear from young guys like you two who obviously go to great lengths to research and then present your findings ! I have always had more than a passing interest in Military History, since childhood and through to the present day and as an 'old fart' from before the days of computers when it was far more difficult to research these or any other subject of interest. The fact that you two are definitely 'cheating' because this is also a labour of love for both of you, does not detract from the fact that you both put in the hard yards of study and research ! Thank you for making the effort to prepare and present your work, it is much appreciated !!!
I remember coming home with a handful of "loot" (booklets on various countries tanks and armoured cars bought at the Imperial War Museum) that, thin as they were, increased our knowledge of WW2 armour by a factor of 20 or more Within a month, they were damn near memorised
Seriously, what's going on? Did Bernhard help Bismarck move or something? "No, you don't have to buy me dinner, just do me a little favor in return..."
The original Marder III used the Pak 36(r), which was a Soviet 76.2mm F-22 M1936 field gun rechambered to use the ammunition of the 75mm Pak 40, slightly modified to fit the wider calibre. The gun was originally designed to use much more powerful ammunition, but was later changed in order to use up stockpiled older 76.2mm shells. The conversion was made due to delays in producing the Pak 40, which was used on later models of the Marder.
@@johnd2058 maybe learn reality? Most of Soviet tanks were equivalent to T38, AKA light tanks with good cannon. Also, Soviets had over 20,000 tanks. Germany less than 4,000
There are quite a few captured guns used. Here are just a few. French Canone de 75 Mle 1897 field artillery piece became 7,5 cm Pak 97/38 (L/36) French 47mm/L53 SA37 Antichar became the 4,7 cm Pak 181 (f) Russian guns: The 76,2 mm Pushka obr. 1942 g/ZiS-3 (76-42) was known as 7,62 cm Feldkanone 288 (r) in German service. The 76,2 mm Pushka obr. 1941 g/ZiS-3 (76-41) as 288/1 (r). (I think the difference was the carriage) The 295/1 and 295/2 are two models of the 76,2 mm obr. 1902 L30m, L40 guns. 76-mm divizionnaya pushka obr.1936. (76 mm divisional cannon model 1936) F.K. 296 (r) rechambered to use German made ammo PaK 36 (r) 76-mm divizionnaya pushka obr.1939. (76 mm divisional cannon model 1939) F.K. 297 (r) rechambered to use German made ammo PaK 39 (r)
French tank chassis were used in various German self-propelled guns. For example, the Marder 1 used a French hull, while the Marder III used the Czech 38(t) hull.
I've heard that the Germans had so many captured PPSh submachine guns that they printed German-language manuals for the troops and might have even been producing ammo for them.
You don’t need to be producing ammo for it. The PPSh takes the 7.62mm Mauser pistol cartridge as well, thought the round flies at a lower velocity given how the Tokarev is higher pressure than the Mauser pistol cartridge (and is probably based on it). Conversely, you can’t use 7.62mm Tokarev in a Mauser C96/M712 unless you really want plastic surgery.
@@HaloFTW55 actually the Germans captured so many Soviet PPSh 41's that they rechambered them to 9 mm Parabellum and converted them to take the same 32-round magazines as the MP38/MP40.
@Sparky Puddins actually the German copies of the STEN was a weapon made in desperation in late 1944 and early 1945. They were intended to arm the Volkssturm and Volksgrenadier divisions and the Germans needed firearms that was faster and simpler to produce than what they already produced. The STEN used the same ammunition as the MP38, MP40 and MP41 from the outset as they were all chambered in 9 mm Parabellum. So there was never any issue for the Germans supplying captured STEN's with ammunition.
@@Verdunveteranit helps that 9mm and 7.62 tokarev are dimensionally similar enough that conversion wasn’t that difficult. During the Vietnam war the Vietcong were able to do a similar thing by converting 9mm MAT-49 submachine guns into 7.62 tokarev, and that was with incredibly limited industrial capacity.
I always find it funny how the Panzer 35(t) is overlooked. The 35(t) was used to fill out the early Panzer divisions. It was meant to stiffen the ranks since the majority of German tanks in 1939 were Panzer 1 and 2 which were basically "Tankettes on steroids". when Germany occupied Czechslovakia they took all produced 35(t) into their ranks (which were around 550 i think). Since this tank carried a 37 mm gun they treated it the same as the Panzer 3 although the 35(t) was only half the weight and had weaker side armor and a smaller crew (not to mention a lot of technical issues due to it's complex drivetrain). Germany modified those tanks by adding a crew member, reducing the ammo slightly and replacing some parts with German made ones. Those tanks served well until Operation Barbarossa where they proved useless against most Russian tanks. The last tanks were withdrawn from the front and converted into turret less carriers. The turrets were later used for the Altantikwall.
Well the Pz 35 (t) or LT vz. 35 whatever you want to call it had a shitton of problems with the gearbox, there is one functional/restored 35(t) (German configuration in pre-war Czechoslovakian camo) and the guy who always "reenacts" as the TC on tank day was always in a huge disbelieve that the Germans were able to keep them running from Poland to France to Balkans and to Russia. He even told a story that two tanks crossing some stream in Slovakia "slipped and flipped" and immediatelly burst into flames. So the 35t is overlooked for 38t for a reason. I dont think they were useless agains most russian tanks in 41, wast majority of red army fielded T-26 or BTs, the Kv and 34s were quite rare at that time and a lot of them did not even get to fight. It is also one of the reasons why there was order for LT vz. 38 in Czechoslovak army, because the ČKD tank was way more reliable, which is kinda funny as the vz. 35 should have replaced the vz. 34 (non of which exist nowadays unfortunately) which also had some big reliability issues (and was produced by ČKD). There was a huge rivality between ČKD and Škoda for every military contract. There was even a Heavy tank program (that even Tatra got a prototype for), medium tank programs all kinds of interesting stuff that German ocupation stopped and then unification of arms industry to do soviet stuff completely killed it.
@@SC0RCH3er well the thing is at the start of WW2 there were only a handful of PZ 38(t) ready. I think the PZ38(t) doesn't really classify as a 'Beutepnazer' since it was more or less finished under German rule. The 35(t) however is more in line with the 'Beutepanzer' concept the Germans used during WW2. But I agree the 35(t) was way more prone to technical issues (I think that's a longrunning theme for Axis tanks at least) since it's drive train was over complicated. Still for the first and second year it was a good tank to fill gaps in the MBT line of the German army.
Another aspect why allied planes could only be used sparingly is the quality of the fuel. Germans had mostly 87 and 100 octane fuel, Americans & Brits had fuel that had up to 150 octane. This make a very big difference in the performance one can harvest from an engine (manifold pressure to cite Greg's aeroplane channel). So without the high grade fuel, the allied plane would have performed poorly without substantial changes in the engines.
100 octane was first developed in the USA, by a Frenchman, and first supplied to the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Any pre Battle of Britain aircraft captured by the the Germans would have used 80 octane. Luftwaffe pilots reported the sudden increase in acceleration and speed of RAF fighters. An RAF Spitfire pilot, disobeying orders, flew over France and was shot down allowing Germans technicians to discover the secret. With reduced performance allied aircraft could still used lower octane fuel.
The entire build-up of the Wehrmacht seemed to be very chaotic. How much did inter-service rivalry and bureaucracy make it much harder in the build-up?
Probably a good bit with each branch of the Wehrmacht competing for money. I'm imagine that the Luftwaffe had the most influence with its head being Goering who was member of Hitler's inner circle.
There are also other examples of using the material or designes from the enemy. for example the Jerrycan for fuels and water. The Jerrycan as we know it was a German design, were the US and GB forces used a round tank. which was a pain to use. They soon copied the Jerrycan and it is still in use in more or less the same from, many times in plastic for weight reduction and to prevent rust problems. The Jerrycan was one of the backbones for logistical support for more then half a century.
@@truthseeker9163 Improving an existing item. They did not invent it. There is nothing wrong with adepting an existing design to match your own needs. In normal life there is, due to rights and licencing, but with military equipment it is different. The Israeli army captured hundreds of T-55 tanks from their Arab opponents. They improved the design and made APC's out of it. Partly payed by their opponents. The T-55 was already existing and good but old. The Israeli's gave it a better use.
Some non official versions say that Third Reich couldn't attack Soviet Union without additional supplies from Tchécoslovaque industry. Moreover if not Munich betrayal in 1938 Tscheqoslovakia was inpenetrable for Wehrmacht due to solid Sudeten bunkers line and what most ignore Tschechoslovakia Army was most motorized european army in 1938 (more than hippomobile Wehrmacht in 1938)
Czechoslovakia was quite easily penetrable, e.g. their fortifications on the border with Austria were weak. Even the CS generals agreed on the fact, that they would hold German army just for 2-3 weeks before the defensive line was penetrated. And that was only if both Poland and Hungary would stay neutral. But then again, Germans would not be able to loot equipment for 15 divisions afterwards...
@@SilesianusMaximus Even if they didn't manage to put up any defense at all and just detonated their equipment, that would still be 1/10 tanks fewer in France and 1/5 in barbarossa, along with 15 divisions worth of equipment less. Even then Czechoslovakia had a fairly huge, well equipped army ready to defend their borders in defensive terrain, attacking even through Austria would could have been very costly for the germans.
@@qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqw And that's what I've wrote. " But then again, Germans would not be able to loot equipment for 15 divisions afterwards..."
For aircraft in particular using captured equipment would have presented a recognition problem. The risk of a friendly shoot down would have been far too great to use them in combat roles in general.
@Jonas Pell Partly true, that issue was raised briefly in the video. Captured aircraft, mostly Spitfires, were used as dissimilar opponents for air combat training and shot down machines were cannibalised for spares. Where these issues become less relevant is when the production facilities and most of the fleet was captured. The French Dewoitine D.520 was used extensively by Axis air forces.
If you can find the book 'Strangers in a Strange Land' by Hans-Heiri Stapfer (Squadron/Signal publications) It gives brief history of several individual American aircraft that were captured and used by the Germans and Italians.
Just a small correction, Marder I was on a French Lorraine 37l chassis.I only make this observation because I've read that this vehicle was the only one that the Germans found satisfying. This implies that a policy of testing and adopting foreign equipment existed. And an interesting fact about improvisations, 21'st PzD in Normandy used French equipment to create some very cool stuff. Edit. As pointed out below by MHV I have misheard. Sorry about the confusion!
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Sorry! I've heard wrong. Anyway, the point was not that you didn't knowi the details, just that I've remembered that the Germans liked the suspension on the Lorraine 37l.
I believe the real reason they didn't use allied aircraft was the ability to identity friendlies. As much as you paint something you end up with a plane that still looks french. An example of this was the T-34 (r), they had painted German marking ALL OVER the thing and constantly terrified that they would be shot coming back at night especially. So imagine sighting a plane 4 km away, much more difficult IMO to know if it's friend or foe, especially if they're still being used by the Free French. (I'm not sure if they did but i assume some aircraft still made it out.
The situation during the invasion of Yugoslavia was wild, since RYAAF used Bf109s and Do17s. There are stories of Yugoslav pilots approaching enemy squadrons and shooting down planes without Germans ever shooting back and lots of friendly fire on both sides.
the only confirmed use of french artillery by the whermacht that i know of is the re-purposing of 75mm Mle 1897 gun tubes as anti tank guns by bolting them to 5cm PaK carriages, but that's about it. French artillery in general had shorter range than German artillery (except the light howitzers i believe) so they might have elected not to use them for the main forces
If I remember correctly from one of Forgotten Weapons video, french light howitzers were used in large quantities on Eastern front and were relatively liked (they were lighter than german counterparts).
It was hard enough to keep one's own equipment trained on and serviced. Has anyone written on the challenge of keeping the captured equipment in the field? The stories of scrounging ammo for domestic and captured weapons are anecdotes in some works. Either these machines were simpler and more rugged than described, capable of lasting long enough to train on and employ, or the use was rarer than implied , outside of a few select models. eg Pz38t. If the guys that made'em. complained about them breaking, the "joyriders" problems must have been mostly a huge tangential distraction, and diversion of resources. Still, if the German army was mostly horse drawn, there would have been people to do it, just not trained mechanics. Look at pictures of early artillery units , where the teamsters were 60% of the force, and most supply trains carried fodder. Cannoneers just made sexier pictures. The American advantage may not have just been a resource of drivers, but of a support culture that kept vehicles maintained.
There is also another thing. The German equipment was in many cases to complicated and to expensive to manufacture and exploitation. A wellknown example are the heavy motorcycles/sidecars BMW R75 and Zündapp 750. Some of the parts are interchangable, to give the repairshops more flexibiliy but still complicated, special gearboxes, special differentials. The Germans kept build them, until they found out the KdF Kübelwagen was 3 times cheaper to manufacture and was more usable. The US Harley 750 was in fact an old model, made as cheap as possible. The Americans made estimates about expected life on the battlefield and they were not optimistic. It is like that with many German equipment. Einheitsdiesel was also such thing, Despite the Schellplan which forced the automotive industry to reduce on types and parts to increase production and easier logistics for the users, it was far to expensive, the tare/payload was not good and a very complicated machine. They quit production soon and changed to simpeler machines.
WW2 in Europe for America lasted less than a year and mid way through they were drafting infantryman as tankers. I don't think the US had an over abundance of ppl familiar with driving. I think transport in N. Africa changed sides fairly easily. I know the Brits adopted lots and lots of Italian vehicles, they got some good use out of Italian artillery as well.
It goes far beyond having a "Support Culture". Basically, the Europeans (Not just the Axis - Germany, Italy, and the various absorbed (Czech, Austrian) or associated (Romania, Hungary, et. al) industries, but Britain and (especially) France as well, really didn't do mass production very well. Tolerances were poorly held, and a lot of hand-fitting was required. (This is one of the reasons that European Small Arms had the Serial Number stamped on every part of the weapon - replacing a part required a lot of dressing and adjusting.) They also had poor configuration control - at a Tank Factory, for example, parts from suncontractors were shoved into the warehouses, and pulled out as production required. So, if you hadn't used all of Widget Mk 1.3 in your production of the Panther Ausf X, and got a supply of Widget 1.4, you used all of the Widget 1.4s until the Mk 1.3s resurfaced. This turns maintenance into a FInal Assembly Shop, albeit out in the mud and the weather - If you're trying to fix something, there's a lot of HTSFTFPHIIPTM (Old Draftsmen's (sort ot) Joke - Hack to Shape, File to Fit, Hammer it In, Paint to Match) that had to happen. American techniques and configuration control meant that if you had to fix something, you got the part, whether it was a lock washer, a Sherman Transmission, or a Supercharger Impeller, took the old one out, and put the new one in. One of the things noted by Brits and Germans who observed American repair stations was the lack of vices and files visible. (They were in the trucks, but you only pulled them out when you needed them.) This actually goes back to the First World War - As owners or a 1918 FWD 3-tin truck, and a supplier of spares for other restorations - we have parts from 4 major manufacturers - All interchangeable. (Ours was in service after the Great War building roads and plowing snow in Central New England until 1965, so there was a lot of maintenance.) In applications where rapid changes were necessary - like, for example, aircraft, the Block System still used today was implemented to provide order from what could easily have been chaos - Aircraft within a particular block were built to the same standard - noted by the Block Number. Block Numbers on the production lines were issued by 5s - so, for example, the initial P-51Bs were P-51B-1s, the next block were P-51B-5 (Alternate air source for cold weather operation) , then the P-51B-10 (V1710-7 engine) etc. As aircraft were upgraded at depots in the field, those block numbers would be incremented (P-51B-7 (-4 with an added fuselage tank), and so forth.)
In general, when the Germans fielded foreign equipment and vehicles it was because they had captured tons of them so that they had enough spare parts and ammo for them.
@Sparky Puddins That's a pretty good point but the difference is that in the case of the Germans, captured weapons and vehicles were being formally pressed into service. They'd give them a new designation following Wehrmacht/Heer naming conventions and formally put them into their logistics system. What the GIs would do during Vietnam was informal and on an individual basis. I do agree that using enemy weapons has been and probably always will be a thing. In some cases it will be to supplement one's own supplies because you either don't have enough or you've captured so much you might as well put it to good use. But another reason is a matter of perception that the enemy's weapon is better. I've read stories that have said that during WWII US GIs would gladly ditch their Thompsons in favor of an MP40 because they were lighter. On the other hand, there's stories of German soldiers who would gladly ditch their MP40s in favor of the Thompson because they felt that they were better made.
Regarding the Atlantic Wall, I was born in Hel in Poland. It was a very important strategic location in the Baltic and one of the last places to surrender to the Germans (officially the last, but I think there were a few smaller villages which fought on, can't quite remember) in 1939. It had a large artillery battery that was mostly stripped by the Germans to ship to France as part of the Atlantic Wall.
I have read a lot that the Germans going back to even Prussia was very efficient at repurposing captured equipment. Thanks for the great copy of the Panzer regulations, I had no idea mine was one of the misprinted copies until I was sent another one. Thanks!!
Indeed. During WW1 the first German tanks were actually captured Mark 1and 2's. During WW2 it became common practive to scour the battlefields for useful equipment (though some were sent to the testing grounds for inspection). During Operation Barbarossa the German logistic could not keep with salavging Russian vehicles so a lot of T-34 and KV-1 literally rusted on the battlefields although they could have been salvaged and repaired. The KV-1 was a special case though since it was so heavy that most German salvage vehicles at that time could not transport it back.
The Luftwaffe deployed their 100 PzKpfw. 18R 730(f) Patrol tank throughout Europe as follows: - 45 in western France - 30 between northern France and Belgium - 25 in the Netherlands Source : The online Tank Museum
Ramble away my friends. Always fun to watch you two. Or either of you for that matter. Always get a small laugh when Bernhardt says drie instead of three, but one, two, four and even five he has down. For sure, you don't want to hear me speck German. Texas accent and 45 years since I took it in school...
Looking at Jentz, there were around 820 Pz35(t) and Pz38(t) on the start of the Barbarossa (this includes PzBef38t and PzBef35t). Yet there were more units. PzAbt 211 (deployed to Finland) was armed with 90 Somua S35, 82 Hotchkiss H38 (according to unreliable Wikipedia). Also there were 3 flammpanzer battalions - some of them with French tanks, Pz.Abt.(F) 100 even had 9 PzA13(e). So the number is a bit higher than 746 stated.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Sorry, I misheard, I thought about all the foreign tanks used. Still, not all Pz38(t) on stock were deployed to the east but the number of foreign tanks is substantial.
Thousands of the famous ww1 french 75mms were modified into anti-tank guns firing heat ammunition and sent to the Eastern front. Germany used these to bolster anti-tank defence against T34 & KV tanks when they mostly still had 37mm anti-tank guns. Many were given to allies like Romania when German Pak-40 anti-tank guns started arriving in numbers.
It wasn't only the Heer. There's several good scenes from "Band of Brothers" that shows them on the move with a proverbial traveling circus of vehicles. Everthing from DUCW''S to SDK 250's.
If the 7,62 cm PaK 36(r) was derived from the 7,62 cm FK 36(r) a/k/a the 76 mm F-22 then the chamber was rebored to take a different cartridge case. The F-22 was chambered for the 76x385(R90) mm case which was the Russian/Soviet standard since the 1900 field cannon (wwe.jaegerplatoon.net/artillery 3.html which relies on Finnish original military manuals). The PaK 36(r) used a ~714-718 mm long cartridge case "Patonenhülse.6340 St. der 7,5 cm Pak. 40" (H.Dv.481/85 "... Munition der 7,62 cm Panzerjägerkanone36"). This is based on the case for the 7,5 cm Pak 40 (6340 St.) which is over 300 mm longer with a rim some 10 mm larger (100 mm v a nominal 90mm: 75x714R100 v 76x385R90). (Blatt 38 of D460/7 "Ringbuch für Hülsen" & www.municon.org Fuego central > 19 mm.). :)
German units raised and used in Croatian war theater have all been equiped with conquered (beute) weapons and equipment, most of these being too obsolete to be used elsewhere.
Hmm never knew what MHV’s last name was... Bernhard was angry so Bernhard Kast. (The joke in this sentence doesn’t work if it’s pronounced like “kahst”)
It's pretty close... would have a long A sound so depends on the area in the USA. Could sound more like Cussed but with very much an "ah" sound so I guess "Cahssed?" lol I can't really type it out I'm not sure who from which nation would read it different - I like the way you described it though.
A large number of French 10.5cm [ 10.5cm K 331 (f) ] and Czech 4.7cm [ 4.7cm Pak K 36 (t) ] weapons were used in the channel islands, and I suppose in other areas of the Atlantic wall defences.
Aside from German T-34s, the Kriegsmarine made extensive use of foreign warships: Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Norwegian, Italian along with transport craft. I also believe the Lutwaffe used Dutch aircraft (Fokkey G.I and DXXI) for a while, though know the latter were later sold to Finland. I think French D.520s were also used as advanced trainers.
Your point of the massive cost of German rearmament, and TiK's of the failures of trying to be economically self-sufficient and socialist, show why Germany was so reliant upon Czechoslovak weapons.
Don't forget about the 14th SS Panzerdivision 'Hitlerjugend' - It's said that in 1943, when it was forming there was a severe lack of transportation equipment which was later partially solved with Italian trucks and ACs.
Just read General Halder’s diary section from the Battle of France to late October 1940. there are references to captured weapons to be used to protect the Rhine from British Bombing and the invasion.
Any ww2 metal detectotist coukd confirm that foreign rifles, mg’s and MPs saw widespread use. Level and mannlicher rifle rounds are very common finds on Artillerie and engineer positions or positions of Luftwaffe support personell. Also Dutch and French hand grenades pop up. Given that Lebel and Mannlicher don’t shoot the same ammo as the k98 there must have been some kind of logistics for these weapons. But the use was definitely widespread and not upto the individual soldier.
@Sparky Puddins it doesnt happen to be 40,000 different manufacturers, just 40,000 different types. and in no way was it confined to only europe as they absolutely used some ford trucks. thank you captain obvious, of course there are far more trucks now lol. and in fact, the german army of 1944 used more horses then the german army of 1940.
@Sparky Puddins "there were nowhere near that many different manufacturers. " that sure sounds like your referring to 40,000 manufacturers to me. i was the one not referring to 40,000 different manufacturers, but types. and a quick little bit of research shows over 70 variants of dodge wc/vc series with a further 10 different engine/powertrain options. and thats just dodge. multiply this by ford, chevy, studebaker etc. and theres no reason to think european maker variations were less prolific in variants. given the number of countries germany absorbed materials from, and given the wide range of countries those countries acquired material from over the previous 30+ years before the war, i think getting to 40,000 different types is pretty easy. no, the source i read was specifically referring types to illustrate the logistical problems this would cause. i think maybe it was "forgotten soldier" by guy sajer. but its been so long since i read it i might be thinking of another sources. which is why i didnt phrase my statement in terms of absolutes. i might be misremembering. the number was definitely in the 5 digit range and well above 10,000 which is why i found it so startling. and i also never said it was 40,000 types at one time either.
@Sparky Puddins but the person making the original observation might have. especially if they didnt have the part they needed to fix the engine in their truck, but only parts for another engine. to you perhaps, but im sure german bureaucracy counted each iteration differently. and is there some reason you keep splitting your replies up into 2?
The Germans used a lot of captured weapons and equipment. Sometimes organised, sometimes not. The captured Czech weapons were used in an organised way. They had a lot of it + the depots + the manufacting facilities. Czech weapons like the MG 26(t) fired the same 7.92 mm round as the German guns. On the other hand, German units used equipment captured from the Belgians against the remainig French resistand in June 1940, especially T-13 tankhunters, Ford Marmon Herrington armoured trucks, Belgian lorries, motorcycles etc. This was done by the units in the field. It seems that some of the captured stuff was replaced by standard equipment in preparation for Barbarossa. I have read that most of the Czech small arms were taken out of the frontline units. (except for trucks and vehicles) But they used a lot of captured weapons as the war dragged on. The units in the field picked up what they found useful. (PPSh, SVT-40, Field guns, T-34's...) Some Russian weapons were units in a more organized way. PPSh-41's were used with 7.63x25mm Mauser or converted to 9mm Parabellum. The 120mm Russians mortars were even copied. The Russian F-22 field gun was rebuilt into the 7.62 cm Pak 36(r). The French Canon de 155 C modèle 1917 Schneider was definately used by German units on the Eastern Front. The Spanish division Azul was equipped with a battalion of these.
Ground crew: Hey we captured this enemy airplane in tact or repairable. Pilots: Well let's give it a go! I want to fly everything I can at least once! Sometimes I believe they were called mascot aircraft. Good way to have fun and practice your aviation skills.
We (Bulgaria) got some Dewoitine D.520s from Germany after the fall of France. They were used in the defense of Sofia 1943-44 and afterwards against the Germans.
Great video as always! I wondered if you might be able to say more about the use of T-34s and other Russian tanks by the Wehrmacht. I believe I read somewhere that hundreds of T-34s were employed, at one point or another. Were these generally used together? Also, the T-34 had an enormous influence on German designs (notably the Panther), but how did the soldiers operating them feel about their charges? There must have been problems sourcing adequate ammunition for captured weapons. Was German industry able to improvise suitable shells and bullets?
I heard that the main problem with the use of T-34 by the Germans was fuel. All German tanks were carburator-based. Employing the diesel-powered T-34 presented logistical problems.
I’m curious what happened with all the French munition factories. Did the workers just stay home after France surrendered? Did the Germans convert them to making German arms, or continue making French arms for the Germans?
Czech being a German ethnic? Hmm, I understand why some people may think that way, but we don't like it. But yes, many technical norm and solutions were similar, so adoption of this tech was quite easy.
Are there any movies showing Germans with captured weapons? I can just remember "Cross of Iron" (Steiner - Das Eiserne Kreuz), where Germans use captured Russian SMGs. And then I have seen an animé ("Cockpit") recently, where the Luftwaffe uses a captured B-17. And that's it for me.
In the German propaganda photos showing German troops advancing past destroyed American vehicles during the opening states of the Battle of the Bulge, one of the German soldiers is carrying a U.S. M-1 Carbine. Not a movie, but one of the very few examples I've seen of Germans using captured weapons from western allies. I've also seen a picture of some German soldiers in Normandy with a captured U.S. .30 machine gun.
@@dongilleo9743 Thank you. Yes, I also know quite a lot propaganda photos showing German soldiers using captive weapons usually Russian ones, but I have seen American and Italia too. That's why I asked for movies.
You would think of all the countries the German army conquered these countries who had their own national defenses in place could have supplied Germany with quite an assortment of military arm’s tanks trucks artillery etc.think of the Norway Denmark Belgium France Poland Russia etc. but yet very little of this enormous loot was ever used....wondering why??
> but yet very little of this enormous loot was ever used....wondering why?? nope, a lot of stuff was actually used. The question was about "policy", which is a bit hard to answer unless you clearly define "policy" and also look at how it was done and implemented. Since, I assume a lot of was just improvisation.
I've wondered what happened with what must have been thousands of rifles and other small arms captured from the Dutch, Belgian, French, and English in May-June 1940. I could understand not using them simply out of the pain it would be logistically, but it would seem some use could have been made. I would think that the second and third rate divisions assigned for occupation and coastal defense in France could have used those rifles, at least temporarily, until production of German weapons provided extra to spare from the Eastern front. Weapons captured from the Soviet Union were much more commonplace. The only reference I can remember seeing about firearms captured from western countries being used was in regard to the Volkssturm. Towards the end of the war Volkssturm men were being issued rifles from "every country Germany had fought against". In some cases, there were plentiful examples of some rifles, but little ammunition, so that each man was being issued only ten rounds of ammunition each. In other cases, there was plentiful ammunition for a very limited number of other model rifles. In most circumstances, the various types and calibers of ammunition were not interchangeable. I've imagined some enterprising German officer, and his select command, setting up a system of collecting, processing, repairing when needed, and redistributing captured weapons. They could even put captured enemy factories back to work producing ammunition in the limited quantities needed. There were probably enough captured weapons in the west after May 1940 through Greece and North Africa, to keep a small command busy(and make indispensable enough to keep them from being sent to the Eastern front). These weapons could have been issued to garrison units, or to foreign auxiliary units in the Balkans and elsewhere.
The Wehrmacht actually captured large stores of Russian SVT-40s which were renamed (Selbstladegewehr 258(r) and Selbstladegewehr 259(r)) and restamped w/Nazi markings and became *very* popular with German troops, which is ironic because the weapon was detested by most Soviet troops because it was too complicated for the average peasant.
The Russian 7,62 × 25 Tokarev was based on the German 7.63×25mm Mauser. And they were interchangeable. So the Germans used their mauser ammo on the ppsh, the mauser ammo being only slightly less powerfull.
Captured pistols were not very uncommon. Especially since they captured factories in Poland and Belgium, so theoretically, you'd see a lot of 9mm ViS and Hi-Power pistols that were produced under Nazi oversight and with German proofmarks. IIRC Kongsberg 1911's were also built under occupation, but I doubt many of those left Norway.
@@DiggingForFacts For many jobs it doesn't really matter what kind of pistol or bullets you use, for pistols are for self defence in the first place. One doing officework somewhere like 50 km behind the frontline may probably never use his pistol for selfdefence. He may use it for training and msut take care not to shoot in his own foot or leg.
@@bertnl530 It matters inasmuch as you need to be able to supply ammunition, especially if you're giving them to Werkstattkompagnie or Ersatzkompagnie staff who are behind the front, but in the same supply chain as the more active parts of a division. The Vis and Hi-power are both chambered in 9x19, so you can supply the same packaged rounds as for your P08's and P38's. Not sure how accurate the info is, but the Vis would apparently be favoured by the Fallschirmjäger. Edit: important to note is that the Germans used a wide variety of other captured pistols, but that in Radom and Liege (and Brno if you want to throw in the ZB-26 LMG) they captured intact production lines, with piles of parts and a lot of skilled workers that could be forced into work because they were subjugated peoples anyway. All they had to do was supply raw materials from time to time and make sure that the workers didn't steal parts and assembled them at home for the resistance and they could crank out thousands more pistols. In that sense, the Vis and the Hi-power were the PzKpfw. 38(t) of handguns.
@@DiggingForFacts The best ofcourse is having exactly the same rounds. without doubt. As long as there is a working supply chain it is great, but if there is nothing else, you can be happy with everything you can lay your hands on. See it like this, every round can hurt kill an enemy. 9 rounds can help you out of a bad situation. And in case of units working in an hostile urban environment, say an occupied village: With a pistol you are somebody, without you are a possible target. No citizen will ask you about that pistol, it's origin or availability of parts and ammo,
Your logic hinges on the difference between Equipped, or Optimally Equipped. This difference became more blurred as statistics moved up the chain of Command, and wasn’t exclusive to the Germans, looking at the US policy of one battalion of light tanks in each Armoured Division, the British using equipment which could kindly be called Armoured Fighting Vehicles, despite deficiencies in all areas of specification. As Airborne Infantry we learnt to use enemy firearms, in case of disablement of our personal equipment, and on paper it could be argued that even with an one hundred year old bolt action rifle that man is equipped, but not Best Equipped. What makes the German policy unique starts in The Great War, junior officers seeing the use of Beute Panzer and deciding what they didn’t have could be taken from your enemy, and later as Senior Staff Officers decided to make such measures of desperation into regular policy. Is there any wonder that the mass of the military believes Commanders and their political overlords exist in a different universe?
Thanks to all the supporters on Patreon & Subscribestar for their questions! Note we recorded more than half a dozens of videos regarding your questions. They will be released over the course of the upcoming weeks, because some are more content-heavy and including quotes, because I kinda like those ;).
» patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
the use of captured equipment is realy interesting especially on the ost front. what about the allies? I know there was an American infantry division that got famous for basically mechanizing themselves with captured german half-tracks and trucks (there is a famous picture where one has a Calliope rocket launcher fitted). what about the various allied armies policies for dealing with captured equipment? the commonwealth seemed to use them mostly for special ops and technical evaluations.
Hi, great video - did the Germans try to copy engines in the captured aircraft and tanks? For the artillery pieces, I can see that the captured designs would not be better than what they were using. Was the arms industry pretty much set in developing their own engines?
I've heard that hundreds of r35, h35, r39, and h39s were used in the atlantic wall and siegfried line as repurposed bunkers.
Does "Beutewaffen" literally translate to "Booty Weapons"? If so, we have a case where a German word went from sounding scary in American English in one century to funny in the next.
12:00 Did you just cite yourself? Now that's a power move.
"Don't quote me on this"
@@Captain_Carrot More like, "Don't make me repeat myself."
I don't know how widespread the practice was on the Atlantic Wall in general but on the Channel Islands (which is the only book I have on this topic) turrets from captured French tanks were adapted for mounting on concrete weapons pits (Ringstand Panzerstellung). Seems Renault FT-17, R-35 and Hotchkiss 35-H were used for this.
Type "concrete tank turrets" in google. Tiger, Panther, PzII, Pz38(t), T-34, M4 and Crusader turrets were used this way too.
D Day Through German Eyes (Holger Eckhertz) #1 & #2 speaks to the widespread use of foreign military equipment used on the Atlantic wall. Nothing is quantified. General impression: LOTS of repurposement.
I come from the Channel Islands, specifically Jersey. Yea the whole island is littered with bunkers and gun emplacements. Battery Moltke
for example has some French guns on display there. But pretty much wherever you go it's pretty easy to find something left over from WW2.
bill blohm that book has been shown to be falsified and down right a fraud. The grandfather of the author seems to have never existed and the same for its publisher! You are better off reading WN62
German army in finland had armored batallion where platoon leaders had somuas and rest of the unit used hotchkisses.
Forgotten Weapons has a video about a book that is badically a reprint of the German inventory of captured small arms, how many were there of every subvariant and what they were renamed to. Its intended as a collectors guide, but it shows just how desperately Germany reused everything they could.
I remember that. It was also interesting that it listed the same weapons over and over again if captured from a different country. For instance there was Thompson sub-machine guns captured from the British, French, Americans and I'm pretty sure another country or two. Each one had their own listing. I think they were worried that some might be slightly different and spare parts might not fit.
I read in one the Battle of Berlin books that the German’s had stockpiles of Foreign Weapons that were being issued to the non Regular soldiers in an act of desperation. I don’t think the Regulars were ever issued non German arms but their rag tag home defense force was.
I think every one Desperately reused everything they could that's war maybe with the exception of America But they still took tones of equipment and reused it so be more accurate to say they used the lest amount.
Germany taking France meant it basically doubled its inventory of everything then again in Russia its cheaper to reuses then spend two to 3x the time and resources sending it back to get melted down and all the ammunition was probably extremely abundant or it was sold or melted or left for later.
Must remember Germany was short from 1941 to 1945 about 1.5 years of oil you could uses horses but its longer, cost feed and more man power.
@@Wallyworld30 well, depends on the type. Standard infantry rifles would have been an issue, due to the logistics at the front supplying different ammo types. Rear area and occupation troops got whatever. They have low ammo consumption so the issue is smaller. Anti tank rifles, mortarts and other more specialized equipment was also issued to frontline units, afaik.
@@rlosable That's why Germans used ex Polish rifles which were simply Mausers fully compatible with Germans ones.
Also Polish pistols VIS were adopted and even produced by Germans.
My grandfather was a truck driver in a Schützenregiment in the 7th Panzer Division. After the fall of France he drove a captured British truck. He rarely spoke about the war, but he mentioned it when we spoke about left- and right-hand-traffic (his truck had the driver's seat on the right side).
ah wow I wonder how they cared for the trucks ect.
There is also the important use of captured and obsolete guns to arm guards and internal security troops, thereby freeing up more standard guns for front line use. For someone manning a checkpoint or guarding prisoners it doesn't matter if you have some ancient obscure gun with only a handful of rounds available, chances are you'll never fire it so all you need in something to threaten people when necessary.
exactly why it's useful for them.
the "captured and obsolete guns" were given to various proxy armies including the UPA in Ukraine. On that note, the weapons supplied were readily captured from the Soviets.
It is refreshing for me to hear from young guys like you two who obviously go to great lengths to research and then present your findings ! I have always had more than a passing interest in Military History, since childhood and through to the present day and as an 'old fart' from before the days of computers when it was far more difficult to research these or any other subject of interest. The fact that you two are definitely 'cheating' because this is also a labour of love for both of you, does not detract from the fact that you both put in the hard yards of study and research ! Thank you for making the effort to prepare and present your work, it is much appreciated !!!
I remember coming home with a handful of "loot" (booklets on various countries tanks and armoured cars bought at the Imperial War Museum) that, thin as they were, increased our knowledge of WW2 armour by a factor of 20 or more
Within a month, they were damn near memorised
a guy called bismark who talks about airplanes is talking about captured tanks...
that swiss army level of versatile
@Vez Akino Sea Air and Land
Bernhard, let Bismark go home. His family misses him.
Seriously, what's going on? Did Bernhard help Bismarck move or something? "No, you don't have to buy me dinner, just do me a little favor in return..."
A lot of Polish 155mm guns were french made Schneider guns many of these went to the atlantic wall. Close to the source of ammo supply
True. A lot of WWII artillery was WWI guns given rubber tires.
wow never knew that.
The original Marder III used the Pak 36(r), which was a Soviet 76.2mm F-22 M1936 field gun rechambered to use the ammunition of the 75mm Pak 40, slightly modified to fit the wider calibre. The gun was originally designed to use much more powerful ammunition, but was later changed in order to use up stockpiled older 76.2mm shells. The conversion was made due to delays in producing the Pak 40, which was used on later models of the Marder.
Someone said that Operation Barbarossa was pretty much a rolling museum of equipment on the german side.
Thing is, that was true for the Reds as well. Most of their tanks were AWESOME ... when they were manufactured during the First Five-Year Plan.
@@johnd2058 maybe learn reality?
Most of Soviet tanks were equivalent to T38, AKA light tanks with good cannon.
Also, Soviets had over 20,000 tanks. Germany less than 4,000
There are quite a few captured guns used. Here are just a few.
French Canone de 75 Mle 1897 field artillery piece became 7,5 cm Pak 97/38 (L/36)
French 47mm/L53 SA37 Antichar became the 4,7 cm Pak 181 (f)
Russian guns:
The 76,2 mm Pushka obr. 1942 g/ZiS-3 (76-42) was known as 7,62 cm Feldkanone 288 (r) in German service.
The 76,2 mm Pushka obr. 1941 g/ZiS-3 (76-41) as 288/1 (r). (I think the difference was the carriage)
The 295/1 and 295/2 are two models of the 76,2 mm obr. 1902 L30m, L40 guns.
76-mm divizionnaya pushka obr.1936. (76 mm divisional cannon model 1936) F.K. 296 (r) rechambered to use German made ammo PaK 36 (r)
76-mm divizionnaya pushka obr.1939. (76 mm divisional cannon model 1939) F.K. 297 (r) rechambered to use German made ammo PaK 39 (r)
thank you!
We enjoy the educational ramblings!
French tank chassis were used in various German self-propelled guns. For example, the Marder 1 used a French hull, while the Marder III used the Czech 38(t) hull.
I've heard that the Germans had so many captured PPSh submachine guns that they printed German-language manuals for the troops and might have even been producing ammo for them.
You don’t need to be producing ammo for it. The PPSh takes the 7.62mm Mauser pistol cartridge as well, thought the round flies at a lower velocity given how the Tokarev is higher pressure than the Mauser pistol cartridge (and is probably based on it).
Conversely, you can’t use 7.62mm Tokarev in a Mauser C96/M712 unless you really want plastic surgery.
@@HaloFTW55 actually the Germans captured so many Soviet PPSh 41's that they rechambered them to 9 mm Parabellum and converted them to take the same 32-round magazines as the MP38/MP40.
@Sparky Puddins actually the German copies of the STEN was a weapon made in desperation in late 1944 and early 1945. They were intended to arm the Volkssturm and Volksgrenadier divisions and the Germans needed firearms that was faster and simpler to produce than what they already produced. The STEN used the same ammunition as the MP38, MP40 and MP41 from the outset as they were all chambered in 9 mm Parabellum. So there was never any issue for the Germans supplying captured STEN's with ammunition.
@@Verdunveteranit helps that 9mm and 7.62 tokarev are dimensionally similar enough that conversion wasn’t that difficult. During the Vietnam war the Vietcong were able to do a similar thing by converting 9mm MAT-49 submachine guns into 7.62 tokarev, and that was with incredibly limited industrial capacity.
I always find it funny how the Panzer 35(t) is overlooked. The 35(t) was used to fill out the early Panzer divisions. It was meant to stiffen the ranks since the majority of German tanks in 1939 were Panzer 1 and 2 which were basically "Tankettes on steroids". when Germany occupied Czechslovakia they took all produced 35(t) into their ranks (which were around 550 i think). Since this tank carried a 37 mm gun they treated it the same as the Panzer 3 although the 35(t) was only half the weight and had weaker side armor and a smaller crew (not to mention a lot of technical issues due to it's complex drivetrain). Germany modified those tanks by adding a crew member, reducing the ammo slightly and replacing some parts with German made ones. Those tanks served well until Operation Barbarossa where they proved useless against most Russian tanks. The last tanks were withdrawn from the front and converted into turret less carriers. The turrets were later used for the Altantikwall.
Well the Pz 35 (t) or LT vz. 35 whatever you want to call it had a shitton of problems with the gearbox, there is one functional/restored 35(t) (German configuration in pre-war Czechoslovakian camo) and the guy who always "reenacts" as the TC on tank day was always in a huge disbelieve that the Germans were able to keep them running from Poland to France to Balkans and to Russia. He even told a story that two tanks crossing some stream in Slovakia "slipped and flipped" and immediatelly burst into flames. So the 35t is overlooked for 38t for a reason.
I dont think they were useless agains most russian tanks in 41, wast majority of red army fielded T-26 or BTs, the Kv and 34s were quite rare at that time and a lot of them did not even get to fight.
It is also one of the reasons why there was order for LT vz. 38 in Czechoslovak army, because the ČKD tank was way more reliable, which is kinda funny as the vz. 35 should have replaced the vz. 34 (non of which exist nowadays unfortunately) which also had some big reliability issues (and was produced by ČKD).
There was a huge rivality between ČKD and Škoda for every military contract. There was even a Heavy tank program (that even Tatra got a prototype for), medium tank programs all kinds of interesting stuff that German ocupation stopped and then unification of arms industry to do soviet stuff completely killed it.
@@SC0RCH3er well the thing is at the start of WW2 there were only a handful of PZ 38(t) ready. I think the PZ38(t) doesn't really classify as a 'Beutepnazer' since it was more or less finished under German rule. The 35(t) however is more in line with the 'Beutepanzer' concept the Germans used during WW2. But I agree the 35(t) was way more prone to technical issues (I think that's a longrunning theme for Axis tanks at least) since it's drive train was over complicated. Still for the first and second year it was a good tank to fill gaps in the MBT line of the German army.
@@Athrun82 No spares and brutal wear and tear, "Otto the last" was the final 35T to give up the ghost with 6th Pz in Nov 41
Another aspect why allied planes could only be used sparingly is the quality of the fuel. Germans had mostly 87 and 100 octane fuel, Americans & Brits had fuel that had up to 150 octane. This make a very big difference in the performance one can harvest from an engine (manifold pressure to cite Greg's aeroplane channel). So without the high grade fuel, the allied plane would have performed poorly without substantial changes in the engines.
100 octane was first developed in the USA, by a Frenchman, and first supplied to the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Any pre Battle of Britain aircraft captured by the the Germans would have used 80 octane. Luftwaffe pilots reported the sudden increase in acceleration and speed of RAF fighters. An RAF Spitfire pilot, disobeying orders, flew over France and was shot down allowing Germans technicians to discover the secret. With reduced performance allied aircraft could still used lower octane fuel.
The entire build-up of the Wehrmacht seemed to be very chaotic. How much did inter-service rivalry and bureaucracy make it much harder in the build-up?
Probably a good bit with each branch of the Wehrmacht competing for money. I'm imagine that the Luftwaffe had the most influence with its head being Goering who was member of Hitler's inner circle.
There are also other examples of using the material or designes from the enemy. for example the Jerrycan for fuels and water. The Jerrycan as we know it was a German design, were the US and GB forces used a round tank. which was a pain to use. They soon copied the Jerrycan and it is still in use in more or less the same from, many times in plastic for weight reduction and to prevent rust problems. The Jerrycan was one of the backbones for logistical support for more then half a century.
Bert NL The allies improved the jerrycan.
@@truthseeker9163 Improving an existing item. They did not invent it. There is nothing wrong with adepting an existing design to match your own needs. In normal life there is, due to rights and licencing, but with military equipment it is different. The Israeli army captured hundreds of T-55 tanks from their Arab opponents. They improved the design and made APC's out of it. Partly payed by their opponents. The T-55 was already existing and good but old. The Israeli's gave it a better use.
@@truthseeker9163 It is the Achzarit.
As far as i know, they refittet the french model 1897 gun into an AT Gun and used it also on the eastern Front.
Wikipedia: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/7,5-cm-PaK_97/38
Some non official versions say that Third Reich couldn't attack Soviet Union without additional supplies from Tchécoslovaque industry. Moreover if not Munich betrayal in 1938 Tscheqoslovakia was inpenetrable for Wehrmacht due to solid Sudeten bunkers line and what most ignore Tschechoslovakia Army was most motorized european army in 1938 (more than hippomobile Wehrmacht in 1938)
Yeah if Chamberlain wasn't such an idiot, who knows how many years shorter the war would have been
Czechoslovakia was quite easily penetrable, e.g. their fortifications on the border with Austria were weak. Even the CS generals agreed on the fact, that they would hold German army just for 2-3 weeks before the defensive line was penetrated. And that was only if both Poland and Hungary would stay neutral. But then again, Germans would not be able to loot equipment for 15 divisions afterwards...
@@SilesianusMaximus Even if they didn't manage to put up any defense at all and just detonated their equipment, that would still be 1/10 tanks fewer in France and 1/5 in barbarossa, along with 15 divisions worth of equipment less.
Even then Czechoslovakia had a fairly huge, well equipped army ready to defend their borders in defensive terrain, attacking even through Austria would could have been very costly for the germans.
@@qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqw And that's what I've wrote. " But then again, Germans would not be able to loot equipment for 15 divisions afterwards..."
@@SilesianusMaximus It sure is
Reminds me of the German Sherman episode of Mark Felton.
For aircraft in particular using captured equipment would have presented a recognition problem. The risk of a friendly shoot down would have been far too great to use them in combat roles in general.
@Jonas Pell Partly true, that issue was raised briefly in the video. Captured aircraft, mostly Spitfires, were used as dissimilar opponents for air combat training and shot down machines were cannibalised for spares.
Where these issues become less relevant is when the production facilities and most of the fleet was captured. The French Dewoitine D.520 was used extensively by Axis air forces.
If you can find the book 'Strangers in a Strange Land' by Hans-Heiri Stapfer (Squadron/Signal publications) It gives brief history of several individual American aircraft that were captured and used by the Germans and Italians.
Just a small correction, Marder I was on a French Lorraine 37l chassis.I only make this observation because I've read that this vehicle was the only one that the Germans found satisfying. This implies that a policy of testing and adopting foreign equipment existed.
And an interesting fact about improvisations, 21'st PzD in Normandy used French equipment to create some very cool stuff.
Edit. As pointed out below by MHV I have misheard. Sorry about the confusion!
Thus, I said Marder III.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Sorry! I've heard wrong. Anyway, the point was not that you didn't knowi the details, just that I've remembered that the Germans liked the suspension on the Lorraine 37l.
I believe the real reason they didn't use allied aircraft was the ability to identity friendlies. As much as you paint something you end up with a plane that still looks french. An example of this was the T-34 (r), they had painted German marking ALL OVER the thing and constantly terrified that they would be shot coming back at night especially. So imagine sighting a plane 4 km away, much more difficult IMO to know if it's friend or foe, especially if they're still being used by the Free French. (I'm not sure if they did but i assume some aircraft still made it out.
The situation during the invasion of Yugoslavia was wild, since RYAAF used Bf109s and Do17s. There are stories of Yugoslav pilots approaching enemy squadrons and shooting down planes without Germans ever shooting back and lots of friendly fire on both sides.
Additionally, depending on conditions, ground crews often just see the silhouette of a plane.
While waiting for the pak38s to be built in enough numbers, they stuck French 75s on pak 38 legs as a stopgap.
the only confirmed use of french artillery by the whermacht that i know of is the re-purposing of 75mm Mle 1897 gun tubes as anti tank guns by bolting them to 5cm PaK carriages, but that's about it.
French artillery in general had shorter range than German artillery (except the light howitzers i believe) so they might have elected not to use them for the main forces
you are forgetting the thousands of Brandt 81mm mortars taken and used by the Germans, as well as the 105mm wheeld guns.
If I remember correctly from one of Forgotten Weapons video, french light howitzers were used in large quantities on Eastern front and were relatively liked (they were lighter than german counterparts).
Yeah, no. The troops who invaded at Normandy faced a bewildering array of French artillery and machine guns.
I knew a German Infantry officer who loved his PPSH MG. He carried it all over the Eastern Front.
My grandfather got into trouble for switching his Mp40 to it (he tossed it in rage, when it kept jamming during combat).
It was hard enough to keep one's own equipment trained on and serviced.
Has anyone written on the challenge of keeping the captured equipment in the field?
The stories of scrounging ammo for domestic and captured weapons are anecdotes in some works.
Either these machines were simpler and more rugged than described, capable of lasting long enough to train on and employ, or the use was rarer than implied , outside of a few select models. eg Pz38t.
If the guys that made'em. complained about them breaking, the "joyriders" problems must have been mostly a huge tangential distraction, and diversion of resources.
Still, if the German army was mostly horse drawn, there would have been people to do it, just not trained mechanics. Look at pictures of early artillery units , where the teamsters were 60% of the force, and most supply trains carried fodder. Cannoneers just made sexier pictures.
The American advantage may not have just been a resource of drivers, but of a support culture that kept vehicles maintained.
There is also another thing. The German equipment was in many cases to complicated and to expensive to manufacture and exploitation. A wellknown example are the heavy motorcycles/sidecars BMW R75 and Zündapp 750. Some of the parts are interchangable, to give the repairshops more flexibiliy but still complicated, special gearboxes, special differentials. The Germans kept build them, until they found out the KdF Kübelwagen was 3 times cheaper to manufacture and was more usable. The US Harley 750 was in fact an old model, made as cheap as possible. The Americans made estimates about expected life on the battlefield and they were not optimistic. It is like that with many German equipment. Einheitsdiesel was also such thing, Despite the Schellplan which forced the automotive industry to reduce on types and parts to increase production and easier logistics for the users, it was far to expensive, the tare/payload was not good and a very complicated machine. They quit production soon and changed to simpeler machines.
WW2 in Europe for America lasted less than a year and mid way through they were drafting infantryman as tankers. I don't think the US had an over abundance of ppl familiar with driving. I think transport in N. Africa changed sides fairly easily. I know the Brits adopted lots and lots of Italian vehicles, they got some good use out of Italian artillery as well.
It goes far beyond having a "Support Culture". Basically, the Europeans (Not just the Axis - Germany, Italy, and the various absorbed (Czech, Austrian) or associated (Romania, Hungary, et. al) industries, but Britain and (especially) France as well, really didn't do mass production very well. Tolerances were poorly held, and a lot of hand-fitting was required. (This is one of the reasons that European Small Arms had the Serial Number stamped on every part of the weapon - replacing a part required a lot of dressing and adjusting.) They also had poor configuration control - at a Tank Factory, for example, parts from suncontractors were shoved into the warehouses, and pulled out as production required. So, if you hadn't used all of Widget Mk 1.3 in your production of the Panther Ausf X, and got a supply of Widget 1.4, you used all of the Widget 1.4s until the Mk 1.3s resurfaced.
This turns maintenance into a FInal Assembly Shop, albeit out in the mud and the weather - If you're trying to fix something, there's a lot of HTSFTFPHIIPTM (Old Draftsmen's (sort ot) Joke - Hack to Shape, File to Fit, Hammer it In, Paint to Match) that had to happen.
American techniques and configuration control meant that if you had to fix something, you got the part, whether it was a lock washer, a Sherman Transmission, or a Supercharger Impeller, took the old one out, and put the new one in. One of the things noted by Brits and Germans who observed American repair stations was the lack of vices and files visible. (They were in the trucks, but you only pulled them out when you needed them.)
This actually goes back to the First World War - As owners or a 1918 FWD 3-tin truck, and a supplier of spares for other restorations - we have parts from 4 major manufacturers - All interchangeable. (Ours was in service after the Great War building roads and plowing snow in Central New England until 1965, so there was a lot of maintenance.)
In applications where rapid changes were necessary - like, for example, aircraft, the Block System still used today was implemented to provide order from what could easily have been chaos - Aircraft within a particular block were built to the same standard - noted by the Block Number. Block Numbers on the production lines were issued by 5s - so, for example, the initial P-51Bs were P-51B-1s, the next block were P-51B-5 (Alternate air source for cold weather operation) , then the P-51B-10 (V1710-7 engine) etc. As aircraft were upgraded at depots in the field, those block numbers would be incremented (P-51B-7 (-4 with an added fuselage tank), and so forth.)
In general, when the Germans fielded foreign equipment and vehicles it was because they had captured tons of them so that they had enough spare parts and ammo for them.
@Sparky Puddins That's a pretty good point but the difference is that in the case of the Germans, captured weapons and vehicles were being formally pressed into service. They'd give them a new designation following Wehrmacht/Heer naming conventions and formally put them into their logistics system. What the GIs would do during Vietnam was informal and on an individual basis.
I do agree that using enemy weapons has been and probably always will be a thing. In some cases it will be to supplement one's own supplies because you either don't have enough or you've captured so much you might as well put it to good use. But another reason is a matter of perception that the enemy's weapon is better. I've read stories that have said that during WWII US GIs would gladly ditch their Thompsons in favor of an MP40 because they were lighter. On the other hand, there's stories of German soldiers who would gladly ditch their MP40s in favor of the Thompson because they felt that they were better made.
Regarding the Atlantic Wall, I was born in Hel in Poland. It was a very important strategic location in the Baltic and one of the last places to surrender to the Germans (officially the last, but I think there were a few smaller villages which fought on, can't quite remember) in 1939. It had a large artillery battery that was mostly stripped by the Germans to ship to France as part of the Atlantic Wall.
I have read a lot that the Germans going back to even Prussia was very efficient at repurposing captured equipment.
Thanks for the great copy of the Panzer regulations, I had no idea mine was one of the misprinted copies until I was sent another one. Thanks!!
Indeed. During WW1 the first German tanks were actually captured Mark 1and 2's. During WW2 it became common practive to scour the battlefields for useful equipment (though some were sent to the testing grounds for inspection). During Operation Barbarossa the German logistic could not keep with salavging Russian vehicles so a lot of T-34 and KV-1 literally rusted on the battlefields although they could have been salvaged and repaired. The KV-1 was a special case though since it was so heavy that most German salvage vehicles at that time could not transport it back.
The Luftwaffe deployed their 100 PzKpfw. 18R 730(f) Patrol tank throughout Europe as follows:
- 45 in western France
- 30 between northern France and Belgium
- 25 in the Netherlands Source : The online Tank Museum
Ramble away my friends. Always fun to watch you two. Or either of you for that matter.
Always get a small laugh when Bernhardt says drie instead of three, but one, two, four and even five he has down.
For sure, you don't want to hear me speck German. Texas accent and 45 years since I took it in school...
Looking at Jentz, there were around 820 Pz35(t) and Pz38(t) on the start of the Barbarossa (this includes PzBef38t and PzBef35t). Yet there were more units. PzAbt 211 (deployed to Finland) was armed with 90 Somua S35, 82 Hotchkiss H38 (according to unreliable Wikipedia). Also there were 3 flammpanzer battalions - some of them with French tanks, Pz.Abt.(F) 100 even had 9 PzA13(e). So the number is a bit higher than 746 stated.
> Looking at Jentz, there were around 820 Pz35(t) and Pz38(t)
I said Panzer 38(t).
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Sorry, I misheard, I thought about all the foreign tanks used. Still, not all Pz38(t) on stock were deployed to the east but the number of foreign tanks is substantial.
Thousands of the famous ww1 french 75mms were modified into anti-tank guns firing heat ammunition and sent to the Eastern front. Germany used these to bolster anti-tank defence against T34 & KV tanks when they mostly still had 37mm anti-tank guns. Many were given to allies like Romania when German Pak-40 anti-tank guns started arriving in numbers.
if I remember right the Afrika Korps and the Romanians and Hungarians got a number of French AT guns rechambered to fire German ammunition.
It wasn't only the Heer. There's several good scenes from "Band of Brothers" that shows them on the move with a proverbial traveling circus of vehicles. Everthing from DUCW''S to SDK 250's.
If the 7,62 cm PaK 36(r) was derived from the 7,62 cm FK 36(r) a/k/a the 76 mm F-22 then the chamber was rebored to take a different cartridge case. The F-22 was chambered for the 76x385(R90) mm case which was the Russian/Soviet standard since the 1900 field cannon (wwe.jaegerplatoon.net/artillery 3.html which relies on Finnish original military manuals). The PaK 36(r) used a ~714-718 mm long cartridge case "Patonenhülse.6340 St. der 7,5 cm Pak. 40" (H.Dv.481/85 "... Munition der 7,62 cm Panzerjägerkanone36"). This is based on the case for the 7,5 cm Pak 40 (6340 St.) which is over 300 mm longer with a rim some 10 mm larger (100 mm v a nominal 90mm: 75x714R100 v 76x385R90). (Blatt 38 of D460/7 "Ringbuch für Hülsen" & www.municon.org Fuego central > 19 mm.). :)
SVT-40s and PPSh-41 were often used by troops but through personal capture, not issued, while Mauser Vz24s were issued widely early in the war.
German units raised and used in Croatian war theater have all been equiped with conquered (beute) weapons and equipment, most of these being too obsolete to be used elsewhere.
Hmm never knew what MHV’s last name was...
Bernhard was angry so Bernhard Kast.
(The joke in this sentence doesn’t work if it’s pronounced like “kahst”)
what did he kast? fireballs?
My assumption was that his name was pronounced like the American English “Cussed”.
It's pretty close... would have a long A sound so depends on the area in the USA. Could sound more like Cussed but with very much an "ah" sound so I guess "Cahssed?" lol I can't really type it out I'm not sure who from which nation would read it different - I like the way you described it though.
I lolled hard.
How effective were the BEF's attempts to destroy equipment at dunkirk?
I would assume not good I think Germany got something like 100,000 working motor vehicles of all types from the BEF alone.
A large number of French 10.5cm [ 10.5cm K 331 (f) ] and Czech 4.7cm [ 4.7cm Pak K 36 (t) ] weapons were used in the channel islands, and I suppose in other areas of the Atlantic wall defences.
Aside from German T-34s, the Kriegsmarine made extensive use of foreign warships: Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Norwegian, Italian along with transport craft.
I also believe the Lutwaffe used Dutch aircraft (Fokkey G.I and DXXI) for a while, though know the latter were later sold to Finland. I think French D.520s were also used as advanced trainers.
Captured US-made Curtiss Hawks they sell in Finland(France and Norwegian). They was in german colours when they arrived. Deal was made 1.10.1940.
Your point of the massive cost of German rearmament, and TiK's of the failures of trying to be economically self-sufficient and socialist, show why Germany was so reliant upon Czechoslovak weapons.
Don't forget about the 14th SS Panzerdivision 'Hitlerjugend' - It's said that in 1943, when it was forming there was a severe lack of transportation equipment which was later partially solved with Italian trucks and ACs.
Just read General Halder’s diary section from the Battle of France to late October 1940. there are references to captured weapons to be used to protect the Rhine from British Bombing and the invasion.
Any ww2 metal detectotist coukd confirm that foreign rifles, mg’s and MPs saw widespread use. Level and mannlicher rifle rounds are very common finds on Artillerie and engineer positions or positions of Luftwaffe support personell. Also Dutch and French hand grenades pop up. Given that Lebel and Mannlicher don’t shoot the same ammo as the k98 there must have been some kind of logistics for these weapons. But the use was definitely widespread and not upto the individual soldier.
Could you look into captured weapons form the allies side?
At 5 56 you talk about the arti of the pnzr lehr division. I didnt get what type of arti it was. Was it soviet ?
Yes
i seem to remember reading somewhere that the germans used 40,000 different TYPES of trucks.
@Sparky Puddins it doesnt happen to be 40,000 different manufacturers, just 40,000 different types. and in no way was it confined to only europe as they absolutely used some ford trucks. thank you captain obvious, of course there are far more trucks now lol. and in fact, the german army of 1944 used more horses then the german army of 1940.
@Sparky Puddins "there were nowhere near that many different manufacturers. " that sure sounds like your referring to 40,000 manufacturers to me. i was the one not referring to 40,000 different manufacturers, but types. and a quick little bit of research shows over 70 variants of dodge wc/vc series with a further 10 different engine/powertrain options. and thats just dodge. multiply this by ford, chevy, studebaker etc. and theres no reason to think european maker variations were less prolific in variants. given the number of countries germany absorbed materials from, and given the wide range of countries those countries acquired material from over the previous 30+ years before the war, i think getting to 40,000 different types is pretty easy. no, the source i read was specifically referring types to illustrate the logistical problems this would cause. i think maybe it was "forgotten soldier" by guy sajer. but its been so long since i read it i might be thinking of another sources. which is why i didnt phrase my statement in terms of absolutes. i might be misremembering. the number was definitely in the 5 digit range and well above 10,000 which is why i found it so startling. and i also never said it was 40,000 types at one time either.
@Sparky Puddins but the person making the original observation might have. especially if they didnt have the part they needed to fix the engine in their truck, but only parts for another engine. to you perhaps, but im sure german bureaucracy counted each iteration differently. and is there some reason you keep splitting your replies up into 2?
@Sparky Puddins its annoying to have to open 2 pages just to reply to one thread.
The Germans used a lot of captured weapons and equipment. Sometimes organised, sometimes not. The captured Czech weapons were used in an organised way. They had a lot of it + the depots + the manufacting facilities. Czech weapons like the MG 26(t) fired the same 7.92 mm round as the German guns.
On the other hand, German units used equipment captured from the Belgians against the remainig French resistand in June 1940, especially T-13 tankhunters, Ford Marmon Herrington armoured trucks, Belgian lorries, motorcycles etc. This was done by the units in the field.
It seems that some of the captured stuff was replaced by standard equipment in preparation for Barbarossa. I have read that most of the Czech small arms were taken out of the frontline units. (except for trucks and vehicles) But they used a lot of captured weapons as the war dragged on. The units in the field picked up what they found useful. (PPSh, SVT-40, Field guns, T-34's...)
Some Russian weapons were units in a more organized way. PPSh-41's were used with 7.63x25mm Mauser or converted to 9mm Parabellum. The 120mm Russians mortars were even copied. The Russian F-22 field gun was rebuilt into the 7.62 cm Pak 36(r).
The French Canon de 155 C modèle 1917 Schneider was definately used by German units on the Eastern Front. The Spanish division Azul was equipped with a battalion of these.
Ground crew: Hey we captured this enemy airplane in tact or repairable. Pilots: Well let's give it a go! I want to fly everything I can at least once! Sometimes I believe they were called mascot aircraft. Good way to have fun and practice your aviation skills.
We (Bulgaria) got some Dewoitine D.520s from Germany after the fall of France. They were used in the defense of Sofia 1943-44 and afterwards against the Germans.
Great video as always! I wondered if you might be able to say more about the use of T-34s and other Russian tanks by the Wehrmacht. I believe I read somewhere that hundreds of T-34s were employed, at one point or another. Were these generally used together? Also, the T-34 had an enormous influence on German designs (notably the Panther), but how did the soldiers operating them feel about their charges? There must have been problems sourcing adequate ammunition for captured weapons. Was German industry able to improvise suitable shells and bullets?
I heard that the main problem with the use of T-34 by the Germans was fuel. All German tanks were carburator-based. Employing the diesel-powered T-34 presented logistical problems.
The Germans used alot of PPSH41's as they could fire 30 mauser pistol ammo, as well as 7.62x25 Torkarev
Does anyone know of any photos of German soldiers using the PIAT or Blacker Bombard, please can you reply and post a link? Thank you 👍
Watching this video from my captured T-34...
If I may, Bismark, do you know if records of tests done at Rechlin survived, especially those on French prototypes?
I will honest, when first encounter that term i read it as 'beauty panzer'.
Useful video, thankyou
Might be a stupid question, but do austrian weapons taken over after the Anschluss count as Beutewaffen?
I would say yes, although I am not sure if they got their own designation... I need to check.
I’m curious what happened with all the French munition factories. Did the workers just stay home after France surrendered? Did the Germans convert them to making German arms, or continue making French arms for the Germans?
Czech being a German ethnic? Hmm, I understand why some people may think that way, but we don't like it. But yes, many technical norm and solutions were similar, so adoption of this tech was quite easy.
I was referring to the Sudeten Germans and the organization etc. Was a bit imprecise there.
Russian Artillery: To my knowledge we (DE) did even produce 1:1 copies of Russian equipment, like the “Granatwerfer 42” and some artillery peace.
Are there any movies showing Germans with captured weapons? I can just remember "Cross of Iron" (Steiner - Das Eiserne Kreuz), where Germans use captured Russian SMGs.
And then I have seen an animé ("Cockpit") recently, where the Luftwaffe uses a captured B-17.
And that's it for me.
In the German propaganda photos showing German troops advancing past destroyed American vehicles during the opening states of the Battle of the Bulge, one of the German soldiers is carrying a U.S. M-1 Carbine. Not a movie, but one of the very few examples I've seen of Germans using captured weapons from western allies. I've also seen a picture of some German soldiers in Normandy with a captured U.S. .30 machine gun.
@@dongilleo9743 Thank you. Yes, I also know quite a lot propaganda photos showing German soldiers using captive weapons usually Russian ones, but I have seen American and Italia too. That's why I asked for movies.
Look up Major Becker and his work.
You would think of all the countries the German army conquered these countries who had their own national defenses in place could have supplied Germany with quite an assortment of military arm’s tanks trucks artillery etc.think of the Norway Denmark Belgium France Poland Russia etc. but yet very little of this enormous loot was ever used....wondering why??
> but yet very little of this enormous loot was ever used....wondering why??
nope, a lot of stuff was actually used. The question was about "policy", which is a bit hard to answer unless you clearly define "policy" and also look at how it was done and implemented. Since, I assume a lot of was just improvisation.
I've wondered what happened with what must have been thousands of rifles and other small arms captured from the Dutch, Belgian, French, and English in May-June 1940. I could understand not using them simply out of the pain it would be logistically, but it would seem some use could have been made. I would think that the second and third rate divisions assigned for occupation and coastal defense in France could have used those rifles, at least temporarily, until production of German weapons provided extra to spare from the Eastern front.
Weapons captured from the Soviet Union were much more commonplace. The only reference I can remember seeing about firearms captured from western countries being used was in regard to the Volkssturm. Towards the end of the war Volkssturm men were being issued rifles from "every country Germany had fought against". In some cases, there were plentiful examples of some rifles, but little ammunition, so that each man was being issued only ten rounds of ammunition each. In other cases, there was plentiful ammunition for a very limited number of other model rifles. In most circumstances, the various types and calibers of ammunition were not interchangeable.
I've imagined some enterprising German officer, and his select command, setting up a system of collecting, processing, repairing when needed, and redistributing captured weapons. They could even put captured enemy factories back to work producing ammunition in the limited quantities needed. There were probably enough captured weapons in the west after May 1940 through Greece and North Africa, to keep a small command busy(and make indispensable enough to keep them from being sent to the Eastern front). These weapons could have been issued to garrison units, or to foreign auxiliary units in the Balkans and elsewhere.
If the cruiser mk4 was such an unreliable tank for the British how did the Germans manage to take it to Russia to fight?
German tanks were more reliable? Really?
What do you think about German infantry using the Soviet PPSH 41 in Russia... "It never jams"
The Wehrmacht actually captured large stores of Russian SVT-40s which were renamed (Selbstladegewehr 258(r) and Selbstladegewehr 259(r)) and restamped w/Nazi markings and became *very* popular with German troops, which is ironic because the weapon was detested by most Soviet troops because it was too complicated for the average peasant.
My grandpa told me about being straffed by captured p-47s that the Germans flew
I see Bismarck, I click like.
The German's had the ammo for the ppsh in production cause they captured so many of them...i think
The Russian 7,62 × 25 Tokarev was based on the German 7.63×25mm Mauser. And they were interchangeable. So the Germans used their mauser ammo on the ppsh, the mauser ammo being only slightly less powerfull.
@@rannug89 Cool thanks
Try using captured Russian planes, and return to base at night after a long day... See what sort of welcome party you will get.....
I used finished a tamiya 1/35 scale panzer 38 t ausf e or f. So this helped abit
Now how common were captured pistols used? Then hand grenades and so forth.
Captured pistols were not very uncommon. Especially since they captured factories in Poland and Belgium, so theoretically, you'd see a lot of 9mm ViS and Hi-Power pistols that were produced under Nazi oversight and with German proofmarks. IIRC Kongsberg 1911's were also built under occupation, but I doubt many of those left Norway.
My father brought home a Hi Power with the German markings. Also a P38 and two PPK. I still use his Zeiss binoculars.
@@DiggingForFacts For many jobs it doesn't really matter what kind of pistol or bullets you use, for pistols are for self defence in the first place. One doing officework somewhere like 50 km behind the frontline may probably never use his pistol for selfdefence. He may use it for training and msut take care not to shoot in his own foot or leg.
@@bertnl530 It matters inasmuch as you need to be able to supply ammunition, especially if you're giving them to Werkstattkompagnie or Ersatzkompagnie staff who are behind the front, but in the same supply chain as the more active parts of a division. The Vis and Hi-power are both chambered in 9x19, so you can supply the same packaged rounds as for your P08's and P38's. Not sure how accurate the info is, but the Vis would apparently be favoured by the Fallschirmjäger.
Edit: important to note is that the Germans used a wide variety of other captured pistols, but that in Radom and Liege (and Brno if you want to throw in the ZB-26 LMG) they captured intact production lines, with piles of parts and a lot of skilled workers that could be forced into work because they were subjugated peoples anyway. All they had to do was supply raw materials from time to time and make sure that the workers didn't steal parts and assembled them at home for the resistance and they could crank out thousands more pistols. In that sense, the Vis and the Hi-power were the PzKpfw. 38(t) of handguns.
@@DiggingForFacts The best ofcourse is having exactly the same rounds. without doubt. As long as there is a working supply chain it is great, but if there is nothing else, you can be happy with everything you can lay your hands on. See it like this, every round can hurt kill an enemy. 9 rounds can help you out of a bad situation. And in case of units working in an hostile urban environment, say an occupied village: With a pistol you are somebody, without you are a possible target. No citizen will ask you about that pistol, it's origin or availability of parts and ammo,
Donut!
Your logic hinges on the difference between Equipped, or Optimally Equipped. This difference became more blurred as statistics moved up the chain of Command, and wasn’t exclusive to the Germans, looking at the US policy of one battalion of light tanks in each Armoured Division, the British using equipment which could kindly be called Armoured Fighting Vehicles, despite deficiencies in all areas of specification. As Airborne Infantry we learnt to use enemy firearms, in case of disablement of our personal equipment, and on paper it could be argued that even with an one hundred year old bolt action rifle that man is equipped, but not Best Equipped. What makes the German policy unique starts in The Great War, junior officers seeing the use of Beute Panzer and deciding what they didn’t have could be taken from your enemy, and later as Senior Staff Officers decided to make such measures of desperation into regular policy. Is there any wonder that the mass of the military believes Commanders and their political overlords exist in a different universe?