Captured Weapons

[shippingsteel]

Not sure if THIS photo from Flickr has been posted before, but I think its worthwhile having a look at. Shows an amount of captured British equipment.

An array of different types of equipment that was arranged for display as 'war trophies'. Note the mud covered butts of the rifles from standing in trenches.

Makes you think of the huge volumes of materiel that must have regularly changed hands as the front shifted back and forth, and also through smaller raids.

Just how much of this equipment was recycled and put back into use against its former owners.? You expect it would have been quite a valuable resource.

Cheers, S>S

[Tom W.]

The Germans rechambered thousands of Lewis guns and issued them to assault troops and the Automatic Rifle Battalions.

[WhiteStarLine]

shippingsteel, it is just as you say. At one stage duirng the advance along the north of the Somme in August 1918 the 11th AIF Brigade had their own weapons carried forward and used German rifles and machine guns, the Australian rifles being transported forward for later use [11th Brigade unit war diary]. During the month of August, the brigade captured 171 guns and howitzers, 153 trench mortars,1,089 machine guns and 1 aeroplane. The signallers used 135 kilometres of recovered cable and salvaged 129 kilometresfrom old battlefields. At Hamel and after Amiens (August 8), British war stocks originally captured by the Germans in March 1918 were re-captured.

[centurion]

The Germans rechambered thousands of Lewis guns and issued them to assault troops and the Automatic Rifle Battalions.

This has been covered before. The Lewis gun required a new barrel and other parts, however the conversion was relatively simple and kits were made and issued so that conversions of captured Lewises were possible in the field. AKAIK the majority were used in the line by ordinary infantry rather than issued to assault troops and Automatic Rifle Battalions. The Vickers machine gun and the Russian Maxims were a more complex problem requiring the replacement of a lot of parts and a special conversion line was set up at Spandau just to handle these. Belgian Maxims were also 'turned' but I have no information as to how complex this was.

[TonyE]

Conversion of enemy Maxim guns to use the German 7.92mm round was not that complex. For the Russian guns a 1 inch threaded muzzle sleeve was fitted to allow German barrels to be used, this because the Russian Maxim used a different muzzle booster assembly. The normal German lock was fitted, modified by the addition of a suitable connecting rod and the Russian feed block was "squeezed" slightly so that it would just accept the German round which is narrower in the body than the Russian. The forward edge of the feedway also needed to be milled out slightly as the German round is slightly longer.

For the Belgian Maxims conversion should have been simpler as they had originally been purchased from DWM in 1912. Probably only the barrels would have neded to be changed as the lock would work, the German 7.92x57mm round having a similar rim diameter to the Belgian 7.65x53mm. The feed block may have needed some adjustment but I suspect not.

Conversion of Vickers guns would have need more work mainly because it was not a true Maxim, having the action inverted, and partly because it was made to Imperial and not metric dimensions. It would thus have needed a new barrel, lock and feedway and the Germans also fitted the MG08 muzzle booster. A sheet metal plate stamped with a large "S" was also rivetted to the gun to indicate conversion to 7.92x57mm Spitzegeschoss.

Of course the opposite conversions were carried out by the British, cnaging German Maxims to .303 inch calibre.

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

Conversion of enemy Maxim guns to use the German 7.92mm round was not that complex. For the Russian guns a 1 inch threaded muzzle sleeve was fitted to allow German barrels to be used, this because the Russian Maxim used a different muzzle booster assembly. The normal German lock was fitted, modified by the addition of a suitable connecting rod and the Russian feed block was "squeezed" slightly so that it would just accept the German round which is narrower in the body than the Russian. The forward edge of the feedway also needed to be milled out slightly as the German round is slightly longer.

TonyE

It appears that the Russian Maxims were more difficult to convert. Changes included included new barrels, feed blocks and back plates (complete with trigger and spade grips), down to water tubes for the barrel jackets. The Vickers was apparently easier.

This required the barrel, barrel bush and muzzle cone. The backsight assembly, feed cover, feed block. feed claws (x2), belt pawl, carrier block, cartridge retainer, spring plate and breech block cam plates. 15 parts in all

The Lewis required only 7 parts replacing or modifying

[TonyE]

Interesting about the need to change the back plate as well. I would be interested to know the source for this.

Re. the Vickers, I was talking about assemblies rather than counting parts, so when I said "feed block" I was including feed pawls etc. Similarly for the lock etc.

Dolf Goldsmith (The Devil's Paintbrush)and I once changed one of his guns from .303 inch to 11mm on the range in a very short space of time. Firing black powder 11mm ammo it was a spectacular sight and gave a very good indication of how the old .45 Maxims must have looked.

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

Beutemaschenengewhere 1916.

I think you're looking at this from the "what does it take to get it to fire a different calbre" point of view. The Germans also needed to ensure that the gun was compatible as a whole so that a man trained up on the Mg 08 could aim and fire it (and clear blockages etc) without too much difficulty. Hence things like changing the sight, trigger etc etc would also require attention. What might be easy for a "gun nut" used to this sort of thing might be trickier for an ordinary soldier under artillery fire and with other things on his mind (like those bayonet waving Frenchmen heading his way). Thus the need to make the gun as familiar (and "comfortable") as possible.

[TonyE]

I understand where you are comimg from, but a man trained on the MG08 could move to a Belgian or Russian Maxim and immediately be at home. The Vickers would be very much the same, despite the inverted action. The only difference would be the position of the cocking handle for various stoppages.

Of course, the sights would need to be replaced/recalibrated to reflect the different ballistics as would be expected.

I shall overlook the appellation of "gun nut", but I would prefer "smallarms student" or similar!

Regards

TonyE

[bob lembke]

The Germans captured thousands of cannon and millions of artillery shells on the East Front, especially when taking the large fortresses. I have a lot of data on this, at one fort the Germans captured 1300 cannon and 900,000 artillery shells. At another I have an accout by a Feuerwekk Offizier (Explosives Officer, like my grand-father), he was charged with, at one fort, to select useful shells and ship them west; for 50 days he shipped out two 50 car trains of Russian shells. Most of the captured guns were junk (often very valuable bronze junk), but there were good guns, and if you look in the Reicharchiv volumes some have diagrams of German units that show that many German units had many artillery units armed with Russian artillery, and of course they happily fired off this immense amount of ammunition. Many other examples. From Day One the Germans knew that they were in a Materielschlacht ("War of Materiel"), and there were immense efforts to find and recycle all sorts of materiel.

Re: another post many German troops were cross-trained on enemy weapons that they might encounter. (My father even trained for a week in a Mark IV, but that is another story.) Two-thirds of the tanks that the Germans used in combat were Mark IVs, one third German A7Vs. My father's flame company at Verdun carried the Chauchat LMG, which in the original French ammunition was not quite as bad as the popular conception, instead of the few German MG 08/15 that the army allowed them. They were lighter, and if you took a position you usually could find ammunition and even magazines for the weapon, if you had to hold it for a while.

I was reading a narrative of a small German MG unit, and they were using MG 08s, but had with them three Russian MGs and one Vickers in case they needed spares.

Bob Lembke

[Latze]

This is from "BATTERY "B" OF THE TWELFTH FIELD ARTILLERY DURING THE LATE WAR" by CAPTAIN GEORGE D. WAHL of the AEF, published in 1924 in the 'Field artillery journal', describing an action at Soisson:

"A detail from the battery took over and fired a battery of German 77s which were found in position near Vierzy at point (175.7-285.9). It was more or less a question of, "We shot some shots into the air and they fell to earth we knew not where." We were not able to locate the bursts. As we had no range tables, sights or even an elementary knowledge of how the fuses were supposed to work, this was not unexpected. However, if the wishes of the shooters were heard, the Germans must have noticed our fire."

So, even the AEF very late in the war was not adverse to use captured German guns.

regards

Matt

[Latze]

I came upon this interesting statistic from the regimental history of the German Infanterie Regiment 26. As of 17th of March 1915 it possessed:

HQ: German rifles 0, captured rifles 35

1st bat: German rifles 961, captured rifles 25

2nd bat: German rifles 954, captured rifles 60

3rd bat: German rifles 988, captured rifles 1

regards

Matt

[Robert Dunlop]

Matt, where was the regiment operating at that time?

Robert

[bob lembke]

Lots of German reserve units, especially the Landwehr (usually in combat only on the Eastern Front) and even older Landsturm (generally not in combat at all, but guarding bridges, POWs, etc.) units, were armed with French Lebel and Russian rifles.

Bob Lembke

[Latze]

Hi Robert,

IR 26 was around Mercatel with rear-area services at Vis-en-Artois.

@Bob: I think the interesting part about this statistic is that it shows what amount of captured stuff was held by active duty units. I thought that shipping-steels original question referred to this informal arrangements and not so much towards war booty processed through official channels.

regards

Matt

[shippingsteel]

I came upon this interesting statistic from the regimental history of the German Infanterie Regiment 26. As of 17th of March 1915 it possessed:

HQ: German rifles 0, captured rifles 35

1st bat: German rifles 961, captured rifles 25

2nd bat: German rifles 954, captured rifles 60

3rd bat: German rifles 988, captured rifles 1

Thank you for adding this Matt. While it is fairly well known that the German army was short of weapons early on in the war, it is interesting to see such a report of captured weapons being held by a frontline regiment. Is there any mention of them being in regular use or would they have simply been held after capture until being passed back down the line at a later time.?

The general concensus has always been that the supply and re-supply of the correct ammunition would have prevented different types of weapons being used together in the frontlines by the same unit. Obviously the captured rifles could be used in a pinch, but were they put into regular use as a stop-gap measure, until the complement of German rifles could be built up to normal levels once again.?

Cheers, S>S

[Latze]

Hi shippingsteel,

it is never really mentioned but I infer that these weapons were in use. Supply strength and also combat strength of the various sub-units are higher than the number of German rifles on hand. But it is really hard to get a clear picture because there is constant 'coming and going'. I can mail you the relevant pages (I hope you can read some German fraktur ?), they are unfortunately bigger than the 100kB limit.

regards

Matt

[shippingsteel]

Thanks Matt. I don't doubt what you are saying for an instant - it has always been my personal opinion that when there was a need they would have 'made do'.

When there was a shortage of weapons and a continual pressing need for replacement weapons, the most sensible answer was to use captured weapons.

They would have been in the right place at the right time, and when weapons are captured you would also expect to find quantities of suitable ammunition.

And don't worry about mailing me anything in the 'olde German' - I'm still battling to teach myself the intricacies of Osmanli - one language at a time please.!

Cheers, S>S

[bmg17a1]

Tom W writes:

>The Germans rechambered thousands of Lewis guns and issued them to assault troops and the Automatic Rifle Battalions.

Centurion writes:

>The Lewis gun required a new barrel and other parts, however the conversion was relatively simple and kits were made and issued so that conversions of captured Lewises were possible in the field.<

Can you post some resources for verification of this conversion please? I'm sorry to say that there is no possibility of converting a .303 Lewis to fire 7.92 in the field for one very simple and obvious reason: drums. A .303 drum cannot be loaded with 7.92 ammo. Further, there are absolutely no surplus military issue 7.92 Lewis drums anywhere and none have ever surfaced at any time in the extensive international military surplus market. I do own one Lewis drum in 7.92, made by Mauser and so marked, but it is a very unusual and unique drum most likely made as an experiment for a drum fed LMG during the interwar years. It is next to impossible to find any information on this drum, and impossible to find any other examples of Lewis drums that were made in any quantity to handle the 7.92 Mauser round. The only drum that will hold 7.92 is the Savage made US Lewis drum in 30-06, but even with the use of that drum if available in quantity, there are further problems with the conversion beyond acquiring drums.

The second major issue with converting a .303 to fire 7.92 is REDUCING the width of the feed opening in the top of the Lewis receiver. It must also be lengthened and contoured correctly to hold the round at the correct depth, securely, so as to feed reliably. I would then ask how the feed slot could possibly be reduced in width in the field to reliably hold and feed the 7.92 round without a process such as welding? It is just not possible and was not done.

And then there are 7.92 barrels. Where are all the 7.92 Lewis barrels to support the use of that round in the Lewis guns? To this day, after almost 50 years of involvement with MGs, I have yet to encounter a surplus, military issue 7.92 Lewis barrel.

I suspect that the Germans would have dearly loved to employ the Lewis in 7.92, but what is the problem with their use in .303? No doubt caches of .303 would have been secured as welll as drums.

Converson by the Germans of .303 Lewis LMGs to fire the 7.92 Mauser just does not have any credibility, and continues to be forwarded as a fact, but there is absolutely no hardware in existence to support this myth.

I have converted a .303 Lewis to fire the 7.62X54R cartridge, and the work involved in altering the feed slot in the top of the receiver, which must be widened and contoured, in this conversion, is a job for specialists with skill. There is military surplus hardware, barrels, bolts, feed parts and drums in 7.62X54R that were made by BSA for the Russian contract Lewis guns. Lewis parts made for the Russian Lewis and so marked are very scarce, but at least they were actually produced and fielded. The Russian contract Lewis guns are quite scarce in the US as registered, live LMGs, but there are only a few.

I would ask the readers of this board to assist in scrapping the myth that the Gremans converted .303 Lewis LMGs to fire the 7.92 round, as I hjave never found any credible historic evidence to support this, especially in the availability on the world surplus MG parts market of the important pieces of the hardware for such a conversion.

Centurion writes:

>It appears that the Russian Maxims were more difficult to convert. Changes included included new barrels, feed blocks and back plates (complete with trigger and spade grips), down to water tubes for the barrel jackets.<

German Maxim feedblocks will not fit into the feedblock cutouts in the Russian 1910 receiver, which are about 1/8" shorter. The Russian feedblock had to be enlarged on axis as noted by Tony E to accomodate the 7.92 or the cutouts lengthened at the front end to fit the 08 block. Grip frames of the MG08 cannot be assembled onto the rear of a 1910 Russian Maxim because they swing down on a pin and the 1910 uses dovetails to hold the backplate. The topcovers are different lengths and use different latches. The backplate of the 1910 is fine for use with a converted system. Barrel jacket steam tubes do not need to be altered with conversion of any Maxim. I have converted many MG08s and 08/15s and Vickers to fire 54R, using 1910 Maxim parts installed in the German guns, which is an excellent conversion for these types of MGs.

While there is evidently some history to the Brits converting German 7.92 Maxims to use the .303 round, I suspect it was a very limited program. Enfield Maxim .303 barrels and locks could be adapted and used, which I suspect is what was done. Alteration to the feedlbock would also be required, along with .303 sights. While Dolf's Maxim volume shows an example of an MG01 that was converted to .303, I am curious as to the numbers actually done. The Vickers was a far more serviceable MMG compated the the enfield .303 Maxims and available, so why convert MG01s and 08s? Conversion of 08/15s in any number seems farfetched.

Anyway, that's my offering and hope this is useful information.

Bob Naess

Black River Militaria CII

USA

[apple]

Conversion of 08/15s in any number seems farfetched.

Black River Militaria CII

USA

I'm veering off topic. But during WW2, Australia, apparently, converted 1,400 08/15s to .303 which, by Australian standards, is a pretty big number.

Australian .303 MG 08/15

[Tom W.]

Tom W writes:

>The Germans rechambered thousands of Lewis guns and issued them to assault troops and the Automatic Rifle Battalions.

Centurion writes:

>The Lewis gun required a new barrel and other parts, however the conversion was relatively simple and kits were made and issued so that conversions of captured Lewises were possible in the field.<

Can you post some resources for verification of this conversion please?

John Walter, Central Powers' Small Arms of World War One (Ramsey, Marlborough, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press, 1999), p. 187:

The Lewis Gun required a few machining revisions in the receiver, a new barrel, a new gas-regulator plug, new extractors, a new feed plate, altered sights, a new magazine top, and a new stop-screw for the magazine spring.

[Tom W.]

To show the dangers of making definitive statements about almost anything related to World War I, here are dismounted German tankers serving as assault troops during Operation Michael. They are armed with a Lewis with the buttstock removed to save room in the tank. In all the years I've studied World War I, I've never heard of German tank crews doing this. How hard would it be to fire a Lewis without a buttstock?

[CharlieBris]

The tankers probably came from a Mark IV Beutepanzer. The Germans tried to refit the Mark IVs with MG 08/15s but found they had to use the original

Lewis guns (modified to fire 7.92mm). On the tank the Lewis plugged into a ball mount so it didn't need the stock. The German tankers were trained

operate as infantry if their tank was knocked out. The Germans are recorded as disliking the Lewis as a tank gun because it didn't have an armoured

sleeve to protect the barrel and was vulnerable to splinter and bullet strikes - Mark IV Beutepanzers often carried multiple spare Lewis guns.

There is a reference in Strasheim's book on the Beutepanzers to a repair shop for captured machine guns (Beute-Maschinengewehr-Instandsetzungs-Werkstatte)

in Brussels.

Regards,

Charlie

[Tom W.]

The tankers probably came from a Mark IV Beutepanzer.

Thanks for the reply. Actually, these guys are from A7V 506. I can't post the rest of the photo because it's at the publisher's, but the crew are armed with this Lewis gun, P08 pistols, Kar 98AZ carbines, and an unknown model of flamethrower. I've read that the A7Vs carried boxes of hand grenades, and I've seen drawings that showed racks for the carbines. It could be that these men had been trained on both the Mark IV and the A7V and were accustomed to using Lewis guns in ball mounts. They may have decided to carry one along in their A7V for when they dismounted. The writing on the back of the postcard says "In memory of the time my tank crew and I served as shock troops."

[CharlieBris]

A7V #506 Mephisto was only in two actions: with Abt 1 on 21 Mar 1918 and with Abt 3 on 24 April 1918. It was lost in this action (fell into a hole), the crew

bailed out and fought on as assault troops. Mephisto is now at the Queensland Museum about 7km from my house. The Beute Mark IVs were operated

from March 1918 so it's reasonable that the tankers would be competent with the Lewis.

Regards,

Charlie