Beutepanzers : Items Captured By the German Military

World War II German Military
#21

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.

#22

Uyraell

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

#23

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.

#24

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.

#25

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.

#26

In some situations like Western Front in 1941 the beute panzer are better than Nazist one. For example, Panzerkampfwagen T-34. And with German modification better than original.

#27

There was a complete german battalion equiped with T-34 and they where very successfull.

#28

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.

#29

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…

#30

Here’s a link with a lot of pics of many tanks captured by Germans.

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

#31

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”.

#32

PzKpfw 756(r) !!! :mrgreen:

#33

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.

#34

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

#35

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

#36

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).

#37

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).

#38

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:

german-army-hotchkiss-h39-with-heavy-rocket-launcher.jpg

Hotchkiss_H-39.jpg

h39-02.jpg