US Army Units use of captured German Artilley in Europe - Page 3

Za Rodinu · #51 (**permalink**) March 24th, 2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcat

I know not american but its Russian so its still the allies, is this alright?

German made PaK 40's captured by the Russians

I had never seen this photo, which I find most interesting. First of all, these are not 7.5cm Pak40, they are 5cm Pak38, just notice the curved shield and much smaller size.

Being by design anti-tank guns, they are being fired at rather a high angle, therefore probably doing HE work. Which is surprising for the 5cm HE shell was rather negligible, and AFAIK these guns simply did not have high-angle sights, only direct fire, AT sights.

All this looks like rather pointless to me, I would dare say a propaganda shot. Or someone just disposing in the proper manner of the last rounds found in stock before shipping the guns to the smelters

Any way, great pic Tomcat, look at the 'professional' poses these fine artillerists display.

On the basic tpic, The Red Rabbi is re-reading Marshall Sokolovky's "Strategy" (a drudging 1963 work, with enough political content to make his commie stomach happy for a good time

), and one of the maxims is that in prolonged operations where there is a high risk of losing contact with the supply bases, "Your supply base is in front of you, not behind"!

--------

Addendum: Only the first two guns are Pak38, the others behind are Soviet 76.2mm divisional artillery pieces. Consider these two as some sort of mascots then!

Stefan · #52 (**permalink**) March 24th, 2008, 12:07 PM

Also worth noting that they have just one box of ammunition nearby and no one seems to be getting more. There are also no spent cases lying around suggesting this is the first round fired. If this were a serious bombardment you would expect to see more boxes of ammunition stacked up and shell cases thrown a safe distance away.

JCFalkenbergIII · #53 (**permalink**) March 24th, 2008, 04:03 PM

The scene does look a little too clean and staged doesn't it?

bigfun · #54 (**permalink**) March 24th, 2008, 05:16 PM

thanks for the trained eye Za!
It does look a little manufactured, now that you mention it! It looks to me as though they all fired simultaneously as well, would this have been done in a true battle?

JCFalkenbergIII · #55 (**permalink**) March 24th, 2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigfun

thanks for the trained eye Za!
It does look a little manufactured, now that you mention it! It looks to me as though they all fired simultaneously as well, would this have been done in a true battle?

Looks like they are firing along with some 76.2mm M1942 (ZiS-3) in the background.

Tomcat · #56 (**permalink**) March 25th, 2008, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

I had never seen this photo, which I find most interesting. First of all, these are not 7.5cm Pak40, they are 5cm Pak38, just notice the curved shield and much smaller size.

I went on what the blurb said without looking but good eye.

JCFalkenbergIII · #57 (**permalink**) March 27th, 2008, 09:56 PM

WWII - Testing German 155 mm Artillery Shells
Captured German 155 mm shells are tested and refurbished for Allied use. German shells can be used in Allied artillery.

WWII - Testing German 155 mm Artillery Shells

Za Rodinu · #58 (**permalink**) March 27th, 2008, 10:29 PM

That's all right, the M12 gun was a French design one, and tey're talking about French and Belgian ammunition stocks.

What I don't understand is

Quote:

Other story shows how local lumbar mills in Europe are used for supplies for the Allies.

What possile use would the Allies have for lumbar mills? Back pain ailments perhaps?

JCFalkenbergIII · #59 (**permalink**) March 27th, 2008, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

That's all right, the M12 gun was a French design one, and tey're talking about French and Belgian ammunition stocks.

What I don't understand is

What possile use would the Allies have for lumbar mills? Back pain ailments perhaps?

Boston accent? LOL

JCFalkenbergIII · #60 (**permalink**) April 6th, 2008, 05:50 PM

I love the look on the artilleryman's face when he was assembling the nose of the shell in the video LOL.

JCFalkenbergIII · #61 (**permalink**) April 24th, 2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

That's all right, the M12 gun was a French design one, and tey're talking about French and Belgian ammunition stocks.

Interesting that there was still ammunition stocks of French and Belgian ammunition around.Newer production or leftovers from 1939-40?

Carl W Schwamberger · #62 (**permalink**) April 28th, 2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCFalkenbergIII

Looks like they are firing along with some 76.2mm M1942 (ZiS-3) in the background.

Ya, I caught that as well. My best guess they emplaced the captured guns alongside a existing battery a organized some skeleton crews to supplement the 76mm fire till the ammo ran out. The trick is being able to translate the German firing tables into something the RKKA artillery men can use. The RKKA often used area fire techniques to harrass German artillery and support units or reserves, so pinpoint accuracy would not be required.

The US Army often laid tank destroyers and tanks of the independant battalions attched to the infantry divsions alongside the divsion artillery to supplement its fires. The TD or tank company would be laid on a preplanned target and blow off a couple truck loads of ammo to supplement the fires of the howitzer battalions. The TD & tank people hated it as they claimed a single mission like this could put a years worth of ordinary wear on the recoil system of the tank or TD. I dont know what the truth is there, but the field artillery logistics people of the Fifth Army in Italy found the Effective Round Count per cannon to exceed estimates by a factor of three or four. In 1943 the artillery commanders were restricting the shots per day of the heavy 8" or 203mm cannon until parts like breach seals and recoil mechanisms were brought into the threatre in suffcient quantity.

Carl W Schwamberger · #63 (**permalink**) April 28th, 2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCFalkenbergIII

Ammunition, particularly artillery ammunition, tended to be a much more pernicious problem. In the early stages of the Army's expansion there were plans calling for a high priority in the production of 105mm shells of all types, inasmuch as these were the standard, general-support divisional field piece. Ammunition for heavier guns was accorded a lower priority, under the assumption that mobile warfare would reduce the utility of large, unwieldy and relatively immobile large artillery pieces. Unfortunately, a number of factors then intervened. First, congressional criticism was raised over large over stocks of all types of artillery ammunition that had accumulated in Tunisia in 1943. The Army was pressured to scale back production, particularly of 105mm ammunition. Secondly, the perceived need for an expansion of the heavy and medium artillery was mirrored by an expansion of the production facilities for the heavier types of shells. The expansion in heavy shell production was facilitated by converting light ammunition production to heavy. Thus, by late 1943 priorities had shifted radically. Many plants were retooling for other production, while some 105mm plants were closed completely. Events in France and Italy in mid 1944 then changed all the assumptions again. The fierce German resistance in the bocage of Normandy and in the Appenine Mountains of Italy placed a premium on all types of ammunition - just as stocks of 105mm ammunition began to shrink. Rationing was instituted (and extended to most other types of mortar and artillery ammunition), and captured German weapons and ammunition were utilized against their former owners. By 1 January 1945 the entire ETO stock of 105mm ammunition was reduced to 2,524,000 rounds, a twenty-one-day supply according to War Department planning factors, which were widely acknowledged to be too optimistic. The poor flying weather encountered in Europe in the fall and winter exacerbated this near-disastrous situation: Allied airpower was not always available to take up the slack. Although emergency measures in theater and in the U.S. improved matters, artillery ammunition shortages were to remain a chronic problem until the end of the war in Europe. Military History Online - US Army in World War II

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipdigt

Well, I suppose when you consider the speed of the advance across Europe and the problems with getting supplies to forward units it is less surprising. Consider the situation before Market Garden, Generals vying to be the main effort so that they could have sufficient supplies to actually advance. I think the real surprise is that the US went to the effort of forming a unit specifically to use German artillery rather than soldiers just making the most of what they captured.[/url]

The speed of advance was the second part of the ammo shortage of 1944. The logistics planners back in 1942-43 had thought the advance across France would be much slower. COSSAC had assumed a sensible conservative German defense which would slow the Allied advance from the coast to the German border to six or seven months. Assuming a landing in May Paris would be captured in September and Metz secured in November. Consequently the scehdule for delivering locomotives, rail cars, and heavy trucks did not bring the full complement from the US until it was estimated they would be needed - when the rail centers of France were captured between Spetember and October. When Hitlers high risk strategy for defending Fortress Europe collapsed in Late July and France was overrun in a single month the Allied logistics commands found themselves without the heavy transport they badly needed. The Red Ball Express and other emergency measures were helpfull, but not up to the requirements.

This transportation shortage was aggravated by the failure to rapidly open the ports. The German defense of Brest and Antwerp prevented the timely use of either and the through sabatoge did not help. It was fortunate the artificial harbors on the Channel coast exceeded expectations.

The third leg of the ammo problem was consumption. The original estimates had been based on the sucess of the untried US Army infantry and armor. The doctrine trained to had required much more out of the US infantry than they delivered. Army doctrine also expected the armored divsions to do a lot more exploitation and manuver than they actually did. For whatever reasons both the US infantry regiments and the armored divsions found themselves frequently stalled by skilled German defenses, and blasting them out with air and artillery fires proved the fastest solution. we were fortunate the US and British both had a artillery doctrine that fit the situation.

This led to large scale overdraws of ammo stocks in Britian. As early as June 1944 Bradley found his artillery was shooting out the ammo into the hedgerows of Normandy faster than it could be brought across from Britian. Revamping the shipping plan or schedule across the Channel helped some, but the siege of Cherbourg and later the siege of Brest increased consumption. When the borde battle begain in September the demand on the artillery increased again as the weather begain restricting air operations.