PDA

View Full Version : Beutepanzers : Items Captured By the German Military



GermanSoldier
03-09-2007, 07:25 PM
If you have any pictures or information on Captured Items of the German Military please post it here.
Here is a captured Sherman British tank captured by the German Military.
http://i15.tinypic.com/2vc9sty.jpg

If you have any more information please post here. It would be very interesting! Sorry I could not post more.

Egorka
03-10-2007, 05:44 PM
Soviet KV-1 tank manufactured in 1942 and captured by the Finns in April 1942, displayed in Finnish Tank Museum (Panssarimuseo) in Parola.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Kv1_m1942_parola_1.jpg/800px-Kv1_m1942_parola_1.jpg

Chevan
03-10-2007, 05:58 PM
I heared in the Gemans army it were the whole regiments armed by the capturing Soviet tanks.Mostly T-34.

Dani
03-10-2007, 06:59 PM
Please enjoy http://beute.narod.ru/Beutepanzer/main.htm

;)

GermanSoldier
03-11-2007, 11:47 AM
Thank you for the site Dani. It is awesome!

Captured T-34 tank
http://i13.tinypic.com/402cjk4.jpg

Captured Crusader Tank
http://i16.tinypic.com/43e7ign.jpg

Please post more!

GermanSoldier
03-11-2007, 02:26 PM
Some info on Captured Tommy-Guns by the German Military.
http://i13.tinypic.com/2ih3wjd.jpg

brighton boy
03-12-2007, 04:39 AM
hi, just wondered why i can't see the pictures posted by German Soldier. have i got my setting wrong ?
cheers, fantastic site by the way

Egorka
03-12-2007, 08:20 AM
try to delete temporaly internet files and reload from the site (Ctrl-F5)

Egorka
03-12-2007, 08:23 AM
Regarding the captured armored veicles. I read that they normally had excessive markings on them. This is becasue they were under constant danger not only from the enemy fire but were prone to atract frendly fire, especialy air strikes, thus crosses all over, also on top of the turret.
It was reported, that the russian captures Panters were atracting some thing like 3 times more fire from german troops compared to other russian tanks on the battlefield.

veldm. keitel
03-31-2007, 03:11 PM
http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/galleries/ruscaptured/T_34color.htm
please watch it is truth

jungleguerilla
08-10-2010, 12:26 AM
Okay. These are the German Version of captured Allied Tanks. But, I don't think they are effective against the Allied Armor Divisions. Some of them were upgunned, reinforced their armors, their engines have been changed or even the tracks.

M3 'German Stuart' Light Tank
http://beute.narod.ru/Beutepanzer/us/M3_stuart/stuart-04.jpg

M4 'German Sherman 76mm' Medium Tank
http://beute.narod.ru/Beutepanzer/us/M4_sherman/sherman-76-02.jpg

M4 'German Sherman 75mm' Medium Tank
http://beute.narod.ru/Beutepanzer/us/M4_sherman/sherman-75-04.jpg

Mark III 'German Valentine' Infantry Tank
http://beute.narod.ru/Beutepanzer/uk/A_valentine/valentine-04.jpg

Mark IV 'German Churchill' Infantry Tank (with Cromwell Turret)
http://beute.narod.ru/Beutepanzer/uk/A22_churchill/churchill-03.jpg


Regards, your friendly neighborhood, Jungleguerilla... :)

Nickdfresh
08-10-2010, 08:44 AM
You really need to start less threads and search through the forums more. The poll-topic is overly broad and silly and adds little to the discussion. All nations used their enemies equipment as a short term military necessity or even as a means to field superior equipment to his own. And beutepanzers were less effective than what? German tanks that didn't exist? What was their alternative? It's not as if the Heer decided to not produce a Panther so they could field a Stuart. And a captured Sherman in the Firefly or Easy-Eight configuration was more than effective enough against Allied armor, and the Heer fielded whole squadrons of T-34s that are considered to be one of the best overall tanks in history...

Rising Sun*
08-10-2010, 08:55 AM
Okay. These are the German Version of captured Allied Tanks. But, I don't think they are effective against the Allied Armor Divisions. Some of them were upgunned, reinforced their armors, their engines have been changed or even the tracks.

Wouldn't logic dictate that a captured Allied tank used against the same model tank in Allied hands would be equally effective as the Allied tank, assuming both crews were equally capable?

And if they're upgunned with heavier armour, surely they have the advantage?

I don't understand or see the point of this poll thread.

Nickdfresh
08-10-2010, 09:06 AM
And we're assuming that captured tanks used by the Wehrmacht were merely used against Allied tanks. In fact, they were used for ancillary roles such as reconnaissance, internal security (French-made tanks for instance), and even obsolete battlefield tanks could still be useful as infantry support weapons against enemy infantry and positions. This freed up more modern German designs for use as tank killers and the beutepanzers could augment them in roles, where tanks such as Mark IV, would have been wasted..

Uyraell
08-11-2010, 01:33 AM
And lets not forget, there were Allied units using captured German and Italian equipment.
Classic example is 2 allied armoured regiments equipped with M13/41's in the Western desert.

Nor, in fairness, can it be said that the German employment of Beutepanzers in WW2 was driven/impelled by the same ethic that had fueled it in WW1.
By WW2, Germany pretty much understood Panzers and the employment thereof.
It was the Allies who had to catch up, "improve their game" so to speak. Eventually, they did so, and once the US and Russian production of vehicles got into full stride, the writing was on the wall for both Germany and Japan.

{{So far, I'm trying hard to be tolerant of our new member.
I feel he genuinely seeks to learn about the period this forum references.
However: I do admit, my back is (like the angry cat) arching a little, and the claws are wanting to extend.....
Patience is at times not one of my greater virtues......
it is perhaps fortunate I'm not a Moderator.}}

Kind and respectful Regards Gentlemen, Uyraell.

leccy
08-11-2010, 02:35 AM
Hmmm the Churchill looks like it has a Chrchill turret (welded variant not cast).

That Valentine pic I have seen elsewhere with a comment that it was used to lead a German attack in Tunisia (around Kasserine somewhere) to fool the allies.

Captured equipment was used by all sides from a tin of spam going up to ships, all were useful in some way.

Nickdfresh
08-11-2010, 07:26 AM
I read something recently about the Afrika Korp launching an attack using the Valentine leading several captured British vehicles as a Trojan Horse operation...

jungleguerilla
08-11-2010, 08:26 AM
{{So far, I'm trying hard to be tolerant of our new member.
I feel he genuinely seeks to learn about the period this forum references.
However: I do admit, my back is (like the angry cat) arching a little, and the claws are wanting to extend.....
Patience is at times not one of my greater virtues......
it is perhaps fortunate I'm not a Moderator.}}



My apologies there, Uyraell. And I'm sorry guys for such being a big annoyance in this forums. :( .I think I'll just shut up for awhile.

Rising Sun*
08-11-2010, 11:08 AM
My apologies there, Uyraell. And I'm sorry guys for such being a big annoyance in this forums. :( .I think I'll just shut up for awhile.

You don't need to shut up.

Just think a little more and Google "WWII in Color and [insert the topic you're thinking about]" before posting.

Your participation is welcome and we're glad to inform people about WWII, but some of your topics have already been covered in detail in previous threads and don't require fresh discussion.

Uyraell
08-12-2010, 11:26 PM
My apologies there, Uyraell. And I'm sorry guys for such being a big annoyance in this forums. :( .I think I'll just shut up for awhile.

Relax.
Apology Accepted.

As Rising Sun* says, there is a vast wealth of information available on this forum, contributed over time by very worthy members.

It isn't always the easiest thing to sit and read through the lists of threads on the multitude of topics this forum covers and refers to.
That said, it is an exercise well-worth doing, because among those threads are some exceptionally rare gems of information that heretofore has not seen light of day.

I have found some exceptionally interesting information here in the last couple of years, and regard the site pretty-much as "Home" as far as online fora are concerned.

Also, I'm at times inclined to be somewhat "sharp" because the site went through a bad period of "wally posters" and various trolls, and I took a very dim view of those persons, which possibly influenced my post above, from which you've quoted.

Be certain: you're Very welcome here, Jungleguerilla.
And as Rising Sun* suggests, researching the topics in the threads here may well provide you with information you'd not have thought to be available.
There *is* the facility to re-open a previously Archived Thread if the topic warrants it, or if there is sufficient interest in doing so. And the various Moderators are often willing to do so.

Kind and Respectful Regards, Jungleguerilla, Uyraell.

Uyraell
08-13-2010, 12:06 AM
Hmmm the Churchill looks like it has a Chrchill turret (welded variant not cast).

That Valentine pic I have seen elsewhere with a comment that it was used to lead a German attack in Tunisia (around Kasserine somewhere) to fool the allies.

Captured equipment was used by all sides from a tin of spam going up to ships, all were useful in some way.

Positive identification of almost any but the earliest Churchill tanks is both a fraught and intricate process.

That there were so very many of the vehicles mongrelised has a lot to do with the difficulties in a positive identification.

There were welded turrets with extra plates welded over the original, there were cast turrets with extra plates welded over the original, there were cupolas added that had not previously been fitted at the factory, there were suspension components changed in both model and position of mounting, there were differences in gun mounts and hull gun mounts, between any two vehicles which had been produced side by side in the factory, etc etc.

All of this, without even making mention of the comparatively large numbers of "factory mongrels" which were produced as expediency at various times.

In fact, it is reasonable to say that for the British, the Churchill tank was every bit as mongrelised as the Sherman was for the Americans, and for much the same reasons, with the possible exception of engine issues in re: the Sherman.

Kind and Respectful Regards Leccy, Uyraell.

leccy
08-13-2010, 04:44 PM
Positive identification of almost any but the earliest Churchill tanks is both a fraught and intricate process.

That there were so very many of the vehicles mongrelised has a lot to do with the difficulties in a positive identification.

There were welded turrets with extra plates welded over the original, there were cast turrets with extra plates welded over the original, there were cupolas added that had not previously been fitted at the factory, there were suspension components changed in both model and position of mounting, there were differences in gun mounts and hull gun mounts, between any two vehicles which had been produced side by side in the factory, etc etc.

All of this, without even making mention of the comparatively large numbers of "factory mongrels" which were produced as expediency at various times.

In fact, it is reasonable to say that for the British, the Churchill tank was every bit as mongrelised as the Sherman was for the Americans, and for much the same reasons, with the possible exception of engine issues in re: the Sherman.

Kind and Respectful Regards Leccy, Uyraell.

Uyraell

My post was in reference to a pic posted by jungleguerilla in post #1 saying the Churchill had a Cromwell turret fitted.

Uyraell
08-13-2010, 05:29 PM
Uyraell

My post was in reference to a pic posted by jungleguerilla in post #1 saying the Churchill had a Cromwell turret fitted.

Yes, your post certainly was as you say, and it was my intention in my post to support yours.

I'm not sure at all that a Cromwell turret would have fit a Churchill in any case, it being that while the turret rings are close-enough the same diameter, the number of teeth in the traverse-ring differs, by about 6, iIrc.
This brings into the equation having to adapt the gearing etc etc, which then leads to further issues, all of which add to the complexity of the matter, and argue against making the attempt.

My intent had been to support your post, Leccy, rather than to criticise it.
I Apologise to you if my post gave the impression of criticism: I certainly did not mean to create any such impression in the reader.

Kind and Respectful Regards Leccy my friend, Uyraell.

leccy
08-13-2010, 06:10 PM
Uyrael no need to apologise, I thought you may have missed my intent so wished to clarify without editing my previous post. I would not like to imagine the difficulty of adding a Cromwell turret to a Churchill, it seemed a difficult enough proposition to do the NA75 conversions.

I have rather a fondness for the Churchill Being as it were the real forerunner of Engineer Armour in the British Army and me being a Sapper of good standing.

The use of them as various 'AVRE' for want of a better word alongside their original intent as 'I' Tanks interests me despite there being a paucity of information on the tactics and use of them.

Uyraell
08-13-2010, 09:53 PM
Uyrael no need to apologise, I thought you may have missed my intent so wished to clarify without editing my previous post. I would not like to imagine the difficulty of adding a Cromwell turret to a Churchill, it seemed a difficult enough proposition to do the NA75 conversions.

I have rather a fondness for the Churchill Being as it were the real forerunner of Engineer Armour in the British Army and me being a Sapper of good standing.

The use of them as various 'AVRE' for want of a better word alongside their original intent as 'I' Tanks interests me despite there being a paucity of information on the tactics and use of them.

Completely understood, and Thank you for your kindly reply, Leccy.

As to the dear old Churchill in various AVRE forms: the vehicle certainly found its' metier there.

There were limited successes in combat, with the very clear exception of the Churchill Crocodile, a thread unto itself, in many ways, because of that model's successes in combat contrasting so heavily with the other models of Churchill.

The NA75 was also a success, I agree there, and equally worthy of a thread on its' own for the same reasons as support the notion in the case of the Crocodile. There just were not enough NA75's in action at any given time.

It is somewhat of a "What if?" thought, because the Churchill itself was not able to accept a replacement powerplant, but I've often pondered the likely results of having an RR Meteor (as used in Comet and Centurion) in the Churchill chassis.
Such a vehicle as I suggest here may well have gone on to an exceptionally illustrious career which outshone the many achievements of its' original Churchill ancestor.

Kind and Respectful Regards Leccy my friend, Uyraell.

burp
08-16-2010, 04:29 AM
In some situations like Western Front in 1941 the beute panzer are better than Nazist one. For example, Panzerkampfwagen T-34 (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-t-34r-soviet-t-34-in-german-service.htm). And with German modification better than original.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/gert34_5.jpg

Luft46
05-08-2011, 10:24 PM
There was a complete german battalion equiped with T-34 and they where very successfull.

burp
05-09-2011, 04:26 AM
A lot of the Panzer Division, even elite Panzer Division Grossdeutschland use T-34. Even two Panzer Division Waffen-SS, 2nd from Das Reich and 3rd from Totenkopf, use T-34.

Nickdfresh
05-09-2011, 08:21 AM
Of course in turn, there was a Soviet Red Army unit of Panthers, and I believe even the British utilized a small number of Panthers...

skorzeny57
05-15-2011, 02:02 PM
Here's a link with a lot of pics of many tanks captured by Germans.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ctpic.htm

steben
08-04-2011, 09:55 AM
For once, playing computer games helps to grow a correct view. :mrgreen:
A captured tool is always effective, since you didn't need to manufacture it.
In case of the Allies, it was as simple as that.
For the Germans however, the early batch of russian material was not only effective, it was very much needed. And not only in the quality, but also quantity.
One thing is for sure, the Germans excell(ed) in engineering and technical craftmanship. Very useful if you capture "raw" material that is produced by the mass industry of your enemy. Rechambering the 76mm russian field gun for example and utilizing it in assault guns and tank killers proved very effective. Just as the Czech tanks were in the Blitzkrieg. I'm sure the Blitzkrieg would have shown less smoothness if there waren't any Czech tanks available. Rechambering the PPsh guns as well, making them work with German 9mm ammo.

Think of it as ripping off a Mustang from the boy you hate most in the street and only putting a Roots compressor on it yourself.
Now think whether it was effective in your quest for "developing a muscle car".

steben
09-05-2011, 08:18 AM
And with German modification better than original.


PzKpfw 756(r) !!! :mrgreen:
http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/mauspic/kv1.jpg

relic
02-11-2012, 03:54 PM
Wasn't there a time that Rommel had more captured gear than German ? The DAK was famous for making do with stuff left behind by other armies.

leccy
02-11-2012, 07:00 PM
Wasn't there a time that Rommel had more captured gear than German ? The DAK was famous for making do with stuff left behind by other armies.

In the Western Desert all sides made liberal use of captured equipment.

flamethrowerguy
02-12-2012, 04:08 AM
Wasn't there a time that Rommel had more captured gear than German ? The DAK was famous for making do with stuff left behind by other armies.

Yes, he set a good example himself concerning his command vehicle.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/150455-2/max_rommel_189

leccy
02-12-2012, 06:10 AM
He liked them so much he used 2 of the Dorchester ACV, Max WH-819-835 and Moritz WH-819-834


Among the vehicles captured by the DAK on the outskirts of Mechili during 7 - 8 April, 1941, were three Armored Command Vehicles. These originally belonged to Maj.-Gen. Gambier-Parry, commander of 2nd Armoured Division; Lt.-Gen. Sir Phillip Neame V.C., commander of 8th Army; and Lt.-Gen. Sir Richard O'Connor, Assistant Commander 8th Army

In one of them is where he is reputed to have found his trademark goggles (a box of them were inside one of the ACV's).

Evillittlekenny
02-12-2012, 11:13 AM
Regarding the Afrikakorps, I think that I read once that at times the number of foreign supply vehicles made up to 80% of the overall supply vehicles of the DAK. That would be quite a lot!

Also, I think you could say that Germany ran a business with captured equipment, often selling them to other Axis members (especially smaller ones which did not have sufficient industry to produce the equipment themselves).

Nickdfresh
02-12-2012, 11:43 AM
Thread merged with earlier source featuring some nice pictures. Here are some pic's of the H-39's used by the Heer in Normandy during the first days after Overlord. These were used as stopgap, expendable AFV's stationed close to the coast to delay Allied advances before the panzers could get there, and were easily handled by anti-tank weapons and Allied tanks: