The German view of US small arms in WW2.

What's this do? Oooops, sorry dude! Man that really has to hurt.

 

First rule of gun safety: Treat every gun as if it is loaded. F-A-I-L!
Second rule of gun safety: Never point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy. F-A-I-L!

 

I wonder what this does?...oops!

Dang it USMCPrice and I have been spending too much time together!

On second thought, I'm not sure I want to admit that!

 

Oooh Fritz, there is something coming out of this tube! Whatpffffhhh.....

 

hey guys as far as i can tell that tommy gun doesn't seem to have a stick in it.

 

Good eyes! But i think that the American Teufelhunden let a single bullet in the chamber.....

 

I would not wory too much, they look like MTO paratroopers to me, the real deal, not the hastily trained Hitler youth and Flakhelfer of 1944. I don't think we would have thaught them a lesson in gun safety.

 

I think the reason you don't see more photos and film of German troops using captured US weapons, may be because of Goebbel's censorship. It would probably not be good for the morale of the German people, to see a German soldier using captured weapons. Most but not all of the photos you see taken during the war, were taken by official Werhmacht photographers and they had to follow Goebeel's guidelines I'm guessing.

Also the Germans used a lot of Russian weapons, including even artillery, because they fought them for almost four years. If a German commander captured an artillery battery with plenty of ammo, it was typical of the Germans that they would keep it and use it on their former owners. Some Russian guns (particularly thier 76 mm piece, known to the Germans as the "Ratsch-boom" because of the high speed of its shell and the sound it made) were even re-barreled for a German caliber.

The Germans fought the Americans only from about 1943 on (North Africa, then Sicily/Italy, then D-day). So they were just exposed to a lot less American equipment to grab. When the Americans took a piece of real estate they usually kept it, unlike the Eastern front where the front line went back and forth all the time (Kharkov for instance, was captured and recaptured by the Germans three times). Also far fewer Americans surrender then Russians - during 1941 alost a million Soviet troops surrendered to the Germans, often bringing their weapons with them.

 

I remember this guy who was a big fan of Nazi Germany. Told me that German small arms were so high quality that none of them ever used weapons of the enemy. I find it funny because the Wehrmacht were known for using captured Soviet weapons, especially the PPSh-41. After I showed him dozens of pictures of Germans with Russian small arms he stopped talking to me. To be fair, there's a few photos of Russians with German small arms such as the MP-40. With the number of dead and prisoners on the Eastern Front, there isn't a shortage of small arms.

I recall Germans and Japanese soldiers value the Colt. 45 and neither were fans being on the receiving end of the BAR. I am not surprised by the number of pics of German paratroopers with American small arms. US and British paratroopers were also trained to use enemy small arms in case they run out of ammunition.

 

I've posted this picture on the forum before, but for those who haven't seen it these are 30th Division GI's at LaGlieze. The man on the right is carrying an STG44.

 

Back in the 70's I spent a few evenings drinking beer in Kingman, AZ, with a former SS officer who was a factory rep for the Plasser Company in Austria.

I did a lot of shooting and asked him about German attitudes towards American small arms. He had actually spent some time evaluating them. As near as I can recall, his attitudes were;
1903 Springfield: Good rugged design. As good as any other bolt action infantry weapon.
BAR: Durable, but needlessly heavy and very slow rate of fire compared to LMG's and SMG's
Mod. 1917 LMG: Counterintuitive trigger and aiming. Overheated. Fragile.
M2 Browning HMG: Way too heavy. Overkill for personnel and small vehicles, ineffective against armor. Usefull against light bombers, half tracks and steam locomotives.
M1 Carbine: Great design. Needed full auto selector (later added). Excellent firearm for youths and women. A little light in range and effect, but a good choice for fire superiority. Superior to all 9MM SMG's and PPsH variants.
M1 Garand: Too many machined parts. "The affectation of a rich army". Rugged and accurate, but with restricted magazine capacity. Slow to reload. Superior to all bolt-action infantry weapons.
1911 .45 Auto: "Pistols are useful only for executing prisoners. Accuracy at 20 centimeters is irrelevant. We all should have had .22's, preferably with hollow-points."
Thompson SMG: Too heavy. Too expensive. Inferior range to most other pistol calibers.
Hope this helps.....

 

Welcome to the forum darkh.

Very interesting input, and I'm surprised by a few of the things. Mainly, I don't understand his criticism of the Garand's "restricted" magazine capacity (8 rounds) when the standard K98k only held 5 rounds (ignoring the impractical 'trench magazines' that were experimented with) while the semiautomatic G43 held 10. Of course, if he was talking about the en-bloc clip rather than the number of cartridges in the magazine, this is a well-known a justifiable complaint.

Its also interesting how he compared the M1 Carbine to a SMG before the M2 variant with the selector switch entered battle.

 

According to Yugoslav trials posted by a fella over at TankNet, the Thompson had around 10% better hit probability than the MP-40 at 100 meters. PPSh series were the best of the lot in accuracy.

 

The weight of the Thompson was likely another big factor in the creation of the M1 Carbine: if they just wanted to give the rear echelon troops something between a pistol and a rifle, normally a submachine gun (especially a .45) would be perfectly decent. But the Thompson is way too heavy and bulky (especially the M1928) for its capacity, power, and range.

The M1, though? If I remember correctly, Audie Murphy pulled off a one-handed shot with his when he got surprised by an enemy soldier. I don't find this very hard to believe, as I'm not especially strong for my size but I can still toss that gun around like a toy. It's probably my favorite longarm period.

 

What were you drinking with him for? Sounds like a sweetheart. "Pistols are useful only for executing prisoners"

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans liked the M1903 Springfield as its design was stolen from Mauser by the Americans.
Also the M3 "Grease Gun" would be a handy little thing to pick up, especially if you get its 9mm barrel, that way you won't have to scavange for ammo as you would with other weapons.

 

It wasn't stolen. It was built under licence from Mauser.

 

Everybody seems to like the M1 carbine. It's LIGHT and handy. As a former infantryman, I can tell you that light and handy is a good thing! I was in the service when we changed over from the M-14 to the M-16. I, personally applauded the change. Unless you've done it, one doesn't understand what it's like to walk many klicks with a full infantry load. Therefore, I can really see German infantrymen grabbing them, especially if they could get their hands on 8-10 magazines of ammo.

I also feel that many soldiers over-regard the weapons of their enemy. This is entirely understandable given that they're on the receiving end of those weapons and thus they seem more potent than their own.

 

I thought the licence was aquired after the fact. Indeed wiki states at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1903_Springfield