Soviet 746th Tank Regiment

[James Langham]

As the war progressed, large numbers of captured vehicles became available to both sides. The Soviets took advantage of this and created a number of units using captured equipment. The best documented unit is the 746th Tank Regiment formed in early 1998. This unit was made up as follows:

* Regimental headquarters in 2 M1A1 plus 2 M577

* 1st tank battalion with 41 M1A1

* 2nd tank battalion with 41 Leopard 2

* 3rd tank battalion with 41 M1/IMP M1

* Motor rifle battalion with 31 M113s (mortars were towed behind trucks) – one source states that one company was in British FV432s and that the mortars were US M106s.

* Anti-aircraft battery with 4 M163 PIVAD


* A combined artillery/ howitzer battery with 8 (as opposed to the normal 6) M109 (assorted models). Sources indicate MLRS was considered as an alternative but not enough ammunition was available.

* A recce company with 6 M2/M3 Bradleys, 3 M1A1 and 2 BRDM2 Rkhs.

* No anti-tank battery was included.

* Logistic vehicles were a mix of NATO types.

This unit was thrown into the front along the Baltic Coast in where it performed well. Gradually however the lack of spares started to show and one by one the NATO vehicles were abandoned until the few survivors were incorporated into the 20th Tank Division when it was withdrawn to the Ukraine in 1999.

Despite common misconceptions, the unit was never used as a deception unit only as a front line combat unit. Vehicles were usually repainted in standard Soviet colours with larger than usual red stars added.

[Legbreaker]

How were such large numbers of serviceable armoured vehicles captured? APC's (as a rule) tend to get destroyed pretty much outright when hit by anything substantial and tanks don't fare too well either when knocked out.
Also, to my knowledge, tank crews are supposed to destroy their vehicles by utilising a number of methods if knocked out and likely to be captured before the engineers can recover them.
It is more likely that only a single battalion could be outfitted with NATO vehicles, many of which would sport battle damage and/or be cobbled together from a number of other damaged and stripped vehicles. I'd also be inclined to raise the percentage of British vehicles as they were heavily involved in the fighting and I believe penetrated the furthest into the USSR in 1997 prior to the PACT counter offensive.

[pmulcahy11b]

Kind of makes you wonder how many chimera vehicles are out there -- hulls from here, turrets from there, tracks from here, engines from there, etc.

[James Langham]

How were such large numbers of serviceable armoured vehicles captured? APC's (as a rule) tend to get destroyed pretty much outright when hit by anything substantial and tanks don't fare too well either when knocked out.
Also, to my knowledge, tank crews are supposed to destroy their vehicles by utilising a number of methods if knocked out and likely to be captured before the engineers can recover them.
It is more likely that only a single battalion could be outfitted with NATO vehicles, many of which would sport battle damage and/or be cobbled together from a number of other damaged and stripped vehicles. I'd also be inclined to raise the percentage of British vehicles as they were heavily involved in the fighting and I believe penetrated the furthest into the USSR in 1997 prior to the PACT counter offensive.

My gut feeling is that numbers captured would be higher than we expect. Consider the Arab-Israeli wars and the numbers of vehicles captured there. What crews are supposed to do when they abandon their vehicles and what really happens is often different, especially with the poorer trained replacements. Consider that the Russians had REGIMENTS of Panthers in WW2.

APCs do suffer badly when hit but there are plenty of ways that they can be lost.

Good point with the British kit, I'll use that for another regiment. I envision about three or four such regiments using foreign equipment. On the NATO side I imagine the Germans will inherit the bulk as they already have reservists trained on it!

[Adm.Lee]

I'm very pessimistic that the Soviets would be able to restore and operate that many NATO vehicles. Panthers weren't that far technically from T-34's, M1A1 and Leopards are something else. All the high-tech goodies would seem to be irreplaceable.

The Soviets have been very good historically at reverse-engineering captured stuff, but in 1997-98, when this might happen (using stuff captured during the drive back across Poland), that seems a waste of time & effort to try and rebuild the computer elements.

IMO, anyway.

On second thought, I think my objection is more that there would not be enough operating to fill a TO&E like you have. I can definitely see some running vehicles here and there, and perhaps more turned into static defenses.

[Raellus]

I like the idea of an entire unit equipped with captured enemy vehicles but I too think that the numbers are too high.

That's a lot of bogged-down, out of gas, or broken down M1s. Killing one is tough and I don't see too many dead M1s being brought back to life by Soviet maintainance crews, especially after the TDM. I agree with you that not all crews are going follow SOPs and destroy their disabled tanks, but enough will and there are other ways besides crew-initiated scuttling to destroy a tank.

In the book Thunder Run, an M1 from an RCT from the U.S. 3rd Mech ID on its way into Baghdad, is hit in the engine by at least one RPG or ATGM and disabled. The crew tries desperately to restart it but the column to which they're attached needs to move on and they can't slow down to tow it. So, the crew dutifully sets a few thermite grenades inside the turret and bails out for good. Another M1 in the column then puts a couple of 120mm APFDS rounds into it (from behind) for good measure. This was SOP and was executed under enemy small arms, RPG, and mortar fire.

I just don't see 90 M1s being captured in less than two years in good enough shape to be used against their previous owners.

Perhaps, you could replace one of your M1 battalions with Brit Challengers and/or Chieftains or throw in a few M60s and Leopard Is to lessen the numbers of M1s and Leopard IIs. Reserve units would be more likely equipped with older tanks and reservist crews would be a little more likely to panic and bail out without first assuring their tank would not fall into the wrong hands.

[helbent4]

I like the idea of an entire unit equipped with captured enemy vehicles but I too think that the numbers are too high.



Rae,

I mostly agree with you, the numbers do seem high.

After all, unlike the Iraq war there was a liberal use of nuclear and chemical weapons. A tank company could have been wiped out by a nerve agent, leaving their tanks intact, more captured tanks might be on the, ah, "hot" side, and so on.

It's hard to prove a negative, and I agree that some crews would be able to render their tanks ineffective while abandoning them as ordered. If the incoming mail is upgraded from small arms, RPGs and mortars to wire-guided ATGMs/autocannons, enemy tank fire, 155mm howitzers or Katyushas, etc, then I could see things being a bit different. That is, a unit reeling under the determined attack of a Guards Tank regiment might well be too busy bugging out to fully TCB.

Technically, I think that at least in the broader sense that if a tank can be fixed, the Russians would be capable of fixing them. Maybe not to the same standards and not with the same replacement parts.

Overall, I do think the numbers are high, and think there would be other tanks mixed in for a real "grab bag" effect.

Tony

[Raellus]

Those are some good points, Tony. I hadn't considered factoring in the use of NBC weapons. Their use could help explain larger numbers of intact, captured armor in WWIII. I think we agree that James' numbers seem a little high though.

I suppose as long as the crews were caught outside of their vehicles by a sudden, unexpected NBC attack, they could be killed or driven off while the vehicles are left intact to be captured by follow up enemy forces. On the other hand, one would think that WWIII tank crews would be ready for this sort of NBC attack and, once buttoned up inside their tracks, safer than most from its effects.

I wonder how long it would take to make an irradiated/radiologically contaminated tank safe to operate again. I'm sure it could be done and the WWII Red Army wasn't averse to "asking" its soldiers to take great risks in defense of the Motherland.

As for scuttling, your point about the threat environment is well taken. WWIII Europe is bound to be a lot deadlier than 2003 Iraq and that might chase off or kill greater proportions of imobilized tanks' crews. One of the points that I was trying to make is that other, operational tanks can be used to destroy damaged or crewless tanks that need to be abandoned. A couple of APFDS or HEAT rounds from behind will likely render an Abrams dead or too badly damaged to repair.

[helbent4]

I wonder how long it would take to make an irradiated/radiologically contaminated tank safe to operate again. I'm sure it could be done and the WWII Red Army wasn't averse to "asking" its soldiers to take great risks in defense of the Motherland.


Rae,

An American robot is on the roof [cleaning up Chernobyl reactor debris] for five minutes, and then it breaks down. The Japanese robot is on the roof for five minutes, and then breaks down.The Russian robot is up there two hours! Then a command comes in over the loudspeaker: "Private Ivanov! In two hours, you're welcome to come down and have a cigarette break."

I think after the use of "Green Robotniki" (named after their uniforms) in the cleanup of Chernobyl, we can guess what they Soviets would think of as a "safe" level. Of course, conscript labour is a little different than trained and experienced tank crews.

To a large degree, I think tank crews will be contaminated by surface fallout while outside the tank or due to not using the CBW system for whatever reason, not actually irradiated (giving off secondary particles). For the most part the scenario I envision is a tank crew that unexpectedly succumbs to contamination or abandons their tank in a panic, leaving a vehicle that can be decontaminated (mostly).

Likewise, you can't live in bunny suits all the time, and nerve agents are a lot quicker acting than the chemical agents in the Great War. Not to mention in a mobile battlefield where used of chemical agents and nuclear weapons are released to low-level commands, things would be very unpredictable. A chemical attack in support of a local effort could come in completely out of the blue. Some nerve agents can persist for hours or days, making simple travel from one area to another very hazardous.

I agree that other tanks will take out disable tanks, when they can. From the example you posted, those tankers weren't really facing opposition by enemy armour and had an abundant supply chain to replace munitions. Hypothetically, if you have a situation where you had a precious APFSDS round loaded with the choice between a disabled friendly tank and an enemy T-64 in sight, which would you prioritise? Even using HEAT wouldn't be an easy choice, if you thought there was a chance of running into some BMPs in the near future.

That's not to say tanks would never deliberately destroy abandoned vehicles when they could, just that it doesn't always seem clear-cut. Much of the time I imagine they will have the time and munitions to do a proper job, just not all the time.

Tony

[Raellus]

I agree that other tanks will take out disable tanks, when they can. From the example you posted, those tankers weren't really facing opposition by enemy armour and had an abundant supply chain to replace munitions. Hypothetically, if you have a situation where you had a precious APFSDS round loaded with the choice between a disabled friendly tank and an enemy T-64 in sight, which would you prioritise? Even using HEAT wouldn't be an easy choice, if you thought there was a chance of running into some BMPs in the near future.

That's not to say tanks would never deliberately destroy abandoned vehicles when they could, just that it doesn't always seem clear-cut. Much of the time I imagine they will have the time and munitions to do a proper job, just not all the time.


That's a very good point, Tony. I think that we agree that both sides are going to capture working (or repairable) enemy MBTs and use them against their former owners. My point- and I think you're more or less on the same page- is that it wouldn't be a common enough occurance for one side (or the other) to equip an entire armored regiment exclusively with first-line [former] enemy MBTs.

The WWIII battlefield is going to be very hostile to armor and I think attrition is going to be high, even before the stream of new and remanufactured tanks and spare parts dries up in early '98. In the v1.0 Soviet Vehicle Guide there's a plate (E4) of ex-Finish, Romanian-made M-81 (RW TR-85) in the service of the U.S. 6th ID in Germany c.'97. If the Americans are going to go to the trouble of shipping what's basically a glorified T-55 from Norway to Germany (and refitting it with a 120mm gun) before the TDM, you know that armored forces are losing a hell of a lot of vehicles.

[Abbott Shaull]

That's a very good point, Tony. I think that we agree that both sides are going to capture working (or repairable) enemy MBTs and use them against their former owners. My point- and I think you're more or less on the same page- is that it wouldn't be a common enough occurance for one side (or the other) to equip an entire armored regiment exclusively with first-line [former] enemy MBTs.

The WWIII battlefield is going to be very hostile to armor and I think attrition is going to be high, even before the stream of new and remanufactured tanks and spare parts dries up in early '98. In the v1.0 Soviet Vehicle Guide there's a plate (E4) of ex-Finish, Romanian-made M-81 (RW TR-85) in the service of the U.S. 6th ID in Germany c.'97. If the Americans are going to go to the trouble of shipping what's basically a glorified T-55 from Norway to Germany (and refitting it with a 120mm gun) before the TDM, you know that armored forces are losing a hell of a lot of vehicles.

Um...As I recall several Mechanized and Armored Divisions were outfitted their Armor units with LAV-75s a vehicle that didn't make it out of the blocks and Stingrays which are nice light tanks. So yeah I think both side wouldn't take time to outfit who units.... They would want to place anything that could be considered a tank back to the front as soon as possible..

[dragoon500ly]

I agree that other tanks will take out disable tanks, when they can. From the example you posted, those tankers weren't really facing opposition by enemy armour and had an abundant supply chain to replace munitions. Hypothetically, if you have a situation where you had a precious APFSDS round loaded with the choice between a disabled friendly tank and an enemy T-64 in sight, which would you prioritise? Even using HEAT wouldn't be an easy choice, if you thought there was a chance of running into some BMPs in the near future.

That's not to say tanks would never deliberately destroy abandoned vehicles when they could, just that it doesn't always seem clear-cut. Much of the time I imagine they will have the time and munitions to do a proper job, just not all the time.

Tony

That's something that has been bothering me about the stories out of Desert Storm/Iraq and combat loss M1s...

SOP for the 2nd ACR was that each tank would carry certain additional ordnance; 4 anti-tank mines, 4 claymore mines and 12 hand grenades, 4 of which are thermite grenades according to my old journal.

If we were required to abandon a tank, you manually opened the turret ammo rack, and pulled several rounds out and left them on the turret floor, you then pulled the AT mines out and dropped one in the driver's compartment, one in the gunner's seat, one on top of the radio and one in the engine compartment. Last thing the tank commander did as he left the vehicle was to arm and drop a thermite grenade into the driver's compartment, the turret and the engine compartment...between the thermite, the AT mines and the main gun rounds, there would have been very little left to salvage.

And then you hear stories of crews just leaving the tank...WTF, over!?!?!

[Abbott Shaull]

That's something that has been bothering me about the stories out of Desert Storm/Iraq and combat loss M1s...

SOP for the 2nd ACR was that each tank would carry certain additional ordnance; 4 anti-tank mines, 4 claymore mines and 12 hand grenades, 4 of which are thermite grenades according to my old journal.

If we were required to abandon a tank, you manually opened the turret ammo rack, and pulled several rounds out and left them on the turret floor, you then pulled the AT mines out and dropped one in the driver's compartment, one in the gunner's seat, one on top of the radio and one in the engine compartment. Last thing the tank commander did as he left the vehicle was to arm and drop a thermite grenade into the driver's compartment, the turret and the engine compartment...between the thermite, the AT mines and the main gun rounds, there would have been very little left to salvage.

And then you hear stories of crews just leaving the tank...WTF, over!?!?!

Yeah I was wondering the same thing too. What was more shocking were some of the photos of M1s that had been 'disabled' then 'stripped'. You could still see it was M1. Being a former paratrooper, I even knew that there use to be SOP in place that would leave just a hulk of worthless scrap once everything was said and done. I total agree WTF.

Now with that said and realizing that some of these vehicle if not most were later recovered and dispose of properly. It was still one hell of gamble since our supplies lines were at best paper thin.

I think it was just another thing where priorities went askew. Remember the price tag of said M1. Why make it unrecoverable, there was a high likely hood that we would recover it and then send it to the depot to be resurrected. Then they wonder why when something has to be done it isn't done properly....

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah I would agree the number of M1 recovered to outfit the Regiment seem awful hi... Then again even what I said with my previous post, I can see things going to hell for both sides as they fought across Poland. I can see us recovering several Soviet and Pact AFVs on trip across because things were moving that fast. On the flip side when the Soviets and Pact counter attack and push back into Germany that NATO tank crew not having the time to properly dispose of their tanks due to panic. (Unlike in Iraq where the crews in many cases had time to do the proper job on their old tank)

I would have to agree with having everything brought to one Regiment a stretch. I can see Platoons and some Companies...

[dragoon500ly]

Yeah I was wondering the same thing too. What was more shocking were some of the photos of M1s that had been 'disabled' then 'stripped'. You could still see it was M1. Being a former paratrooper, I even knew that there use to be SOP in place that would leave just a hulk of worthless scrap once everything was said and done. I total agree WTF.

Now with that said and realizing that some of these vehicle if not most were later recovered and dispose of properly. It was still one hell of gamble since our supplies lines were at best paper thin.

I think it was just another thing where priorities went askew. Remember the price tag of said M1. Why make it unrecoverable, there was a high likely hood that we would recover it and then send it to the depot to be resurrected. Then they wonder why when something has to be done it isn't done properly....

There is a major world of difference between leaving a damaged tank with a security section or for a following unit to recover, and leaving a tank loaded with ammo and with its fire control/radios intact so that some gomer could salvage it and use it aginst US forces.

When I was active duty, we trained for dismounted action, how to disable the vehicle, what equipment had to be stripped and taken with you , etc. Yet here are reports of a M-1 being left in the street, and some Iraqis trying to use it against other M-1s...makes no sense what so ever.

[Raellus]

There is a major world of difference between leaving a damaged tank with a security section or for a following unit to recover...

I hadn't considered that, either. This sort of goes against my original argument but I suppose there could be instances when a commander orders his men not to scuttle disabled/immobile tanks because he believes that a counterattack can get them back. When the counterattack fails, the enemy has gained some trophy tanks to use against their former owners.

[Abbott Shaull]

There is a major world of difference between leaving a damaged tank with a security section or for a following unit to recover, and leaving a tank loaded with ammo and with its fire control/radios intact so that some gomer could salvage it and use it aginst US forces.

When I was active duty, we trained for dismounted action, how to disable the vehicle, what equipment had to be stripped and taken with you , etc. Yet here are reports of a M-1 being left in the street, and some Iraqis trying to use it against other M-1s...makes no sense what so ever.

Yeah I would think some officer would of grew a brain and realize it could be used against anyone else coming along later.

[dragoon500ly]

Yeah I would think some officer would of grew a brain and realize it could be used against anyone else coming along later.

When you disable a tank, there are certain items that are taken...the firing pin for the main cannon, the back plates and recoil springs for the machineguns. Items that you couldn't take, like radios, you zeroed the voice security system (cleared it), took the radios off the operational freqs, common sense stuff.

There was even a drill for a "quicky" disable, you simply dumped thermite grenades in the turret and let it do its thing.

So I kinda doubt that 40+ M-1 would have been left in fighting condition...at the very least I would expect the radios to be burned, the gunner's primary sights to be damaged if not outright destroyed. There may be a chance of the gunner's secondary sight remaining operational...but with the computer and primary sight being knocked out...

[Abbott Shaull]

When you disable a tank, there are certain items that are taken...the firing pin for the main cannon, the back plates and recoil springs for the machineguns. Items that you couldn't take, like radios, you zeroed the voice security system (cleared it), took the radios off the operational freqs, common sense stuff.

There was even a drill for a "quicky" disable, you simply dumped thermite grenades in the turret and let it do its thing.

So I kinda doubt that 40+ M-1 would have been left in fighting condition...at the very least I would expect the radios to be burned, the gunner's primary sights to be damaged if not outright destroyed. There may be a chance of the gunner's secondary sight remaining operational...but with the computer and primary sight being knocked out...

Yeah that would be the Soviets hurdle they would have to overcome with most US systems and lot of NATO systems is to get the computer up and going if everything else is relatively intact.

[helbent4]

Yeah that would be the Soviets hurdle they would have to overcome with most US systems and lot of NATO systems is to get the computer up and going if everything else is relatively intact.

Abbott,

It's possible there could be turncoats or others aiding this, although most likely the Russians would do without advanced systems. The usual view is that western systems are overly complicated, if only out of sour grapes. ("We can't do it ourselves, therefore it must suck!")

Particularly germane about the possibility of the Soviets using advanced equipment is the revelation that Iraqi insurgents hacked the video feed of Predator drones. One can certainly dismiss this as being something only relevant to the modern age. The truth is the Russians were perfectly capable of figuring out anything left behind by, say, M1A1 or Challenger II tanks abandoned by sick and dying crews after a nuclear or chemical attack.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/17/skygrabber-american-drones-hacked

Tony

[Fusilier]

I like the idea. There was a single battalion of the East German Army that was equipped with American armor and gear (bought from Vietnam), and I've used the concept before in my games.

I do think the numbers are way too high though.

[Legbreaker]

I vaguely recall there was an American unit in WWII using captured Tigers....
Anyone know anything about it?

[dragoon500ly]

I vaguely recall there was an American unit in WWII using captured Tigers....
Anyone know anything about it?

Examples of captured equipment was shipped back to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for testing, there is quite an extensive collection of equipment on public display if you happen to be in the area.

The only reference to any organized unit using captured equipment are five field artillery battalions that used former German 105mm howitzers due to shipping problems. The combat records for these units indicate that this was a short-term use only and by 1945, they had been re-equipped with US artillery pieces.

There are references to several companies using a captured Panther or Tiger but again, this was during a period when there were no replacement Shermans and as soon as Shermans arrived, the German tank was disabled.

What a lot of people forget is that the Panther/Tiger/King Tiger had a very poor maintenance record. Part of this was due to sabotage by the slave labor, but even more of it was caused by the over-engineering by the design staff.

For example, the Panther was designed to ford rivers via a snorkel, due to the large weight of the vehicle, and that most bridges in Eastern Europe were not designed to support the weight. Not a bad idea, right?

The Panther engine was carefully designed to be water-tight. When the first Panthers went into service in Russia, they were found to have two major problems. The engines overheated rapidly, in the drive to be water-tight, the designers failed to allow room for air-circulation around the radiator. The other problem lay at the other end of the engine-cooling system, the intake fan. On the back deck of the Panther is something that looks like a overturned bucket, this is the cover for the intake fan. When the Panthers moved through forest, the vibrations caused by their movement would cause leaves to fall and soon blanket the vehicle. The leaves would actually cover the intake fan and eventually jam it. The Panther crews resorted to punching holes in buckets and tieing them to the intake vent and eventually welding them in place. You may see pictures of Panthers on the march with the rear escape hatch open and a crewman sitting in it, usually with a caption about getting fresh air in the turret. What was actually happening is that the crewman was sitting on the rim of the hatch, getting fresh air and watching over the intake filter to make sure that it wasn't covered in debris!

When you look on the back deck, on either side of the "overturned bucket" are two large fans, these are the exhaust fans for the radiators.

[helbent4]

There are references to several companies using a captured Panther or Tiger but again, this was during a period when there were no replacement Shermans and as soon as Shermans arrived, the German tank was disabled.



Lee,

Do you have something more to go on? I'd like to follow up on. Using captured artillery wasn't all that uncommon for the western allies, but I'm unable to find reference anywhere captured tanks were used. (Motorcycles, trucks, even half-tracks, but not tanks.) In a way, it wasn't worth it. The western allies were never short of equipment and vehicles could be replaced within days or a week at most.

Unlike the Russians, who trained crews and support personnel on German equipment and organised a logistical chain, Americans/Commonwealth/etc. crews climbing into a Panther would be confronted by a completely unfamiliar and overly complicated machine with no spares and little chance of repair or resupply. Tactically it would seem like only in the most dire situation would a crew bother to man a captured German tank, but not out of the question.

There's also the danger of attack from the "American Luftwaffe". That is, the USAAF. Fratricide from ground-attack aircraft against marked Shermans were common enough, I can just imagine how a captured tank would fare!

At any rate, doing some research I see that that the British did use captured Italian tanks in North Africa and the Australians used both German and Italian tanks, but can't find any references in Europe after Normandy of the western allies or specifically Americans using captured German tanks.

Unrelated but fascinating: the "German Tank Problem". How statistical analysis of the serial numbers on captured tanks allowed for really accurate estimates of German tank production in WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem

Tony

[James Langham]

Lee,

Do you have something more to go on? I'd like to follow up on. Using captured artillery wasn't all that uncommon for the western allies, but I'm unable to find reference anywhere captured tanks were used. (Motorcycles, trucks, even half-tracks, but not tanks.) In a way, it wasn't worth it. The western allies were never short of equipment and vehicles could be replaced within days or a week at most.

Unlike the Russians, who trained crews and support personnel on German equipment and organised a logistical chain, Americans/Commonwealth/etc. crews climbing into a Panther would be confronted by a completely unfamiliar and overly complicated machine with no spares and little chance of repair or resupply. Tactically it would seem like only in the most dire situation would a crew bother to man a captured German tank, but not out of the question.

There's also the danger of attack from the "American Luftwaffe". That is, the USAAF. Fratricide from ground-attack aircraft against marked Shermans were common enough, I can just imagine how a captured tank would fare!

At any rate, doing some research I see that that the British did use captured Italian tanks in North Africa and the Australians used both German and Italian tanks, but can't find any references in Europe after Normandy of the western allies or specifically Americans using captured German tanks.

Unrelated but fascinating: the "German Tank Problem". How statistical analysis of the serial numbers on captured tanks allowed for really accurate estimates of German tank production in WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem

Tony

Somewhere I have a photo of a British Panther crew in the winter of 44/45 in Europe. I seem to remember the vehicle was abandoned when it broke down.

Statistics can however be misleading, I seem to remember different factories were allocated different runs of numbers which weren't always used leaving gaps in the series.

[helbent4]

Somewhere I have a photo of a British Panther crew in the winter of 44/45 in Europe. I seem to remember the vehicle was abandoned when it broke down.

Statistics can however be misleading, I seem to remember different factories were allocated different runs of numbers which weren't always used leaving gaps in the series.

James,

That would be a cool photo! I'll keep looking.

Using the above formula on the serial numbers of captured German tanks, (both serviceable and destroyed) the number was calculated to be 256 a month. After the war captured German production figures from the ministry of Albert Speer show the actual number to be 255.

Only 1 off in a run of 255... not too shabby.

Shortly before D-Day, following rumors of large Panther tank production collected by conventional intelligence, analysis of road wheels from two tanks (consisting of 48 wheels each, for 96 wheels total) yielded an estimate of 270 Panthers produced in February 1944, substantially more than had previously been suspected; German records after the war showed production for that month was 276.[9] Specifically, analysis of the wheels yielded an estimate for the number of wheel molds; discussion with British road wheel makers then estimated the number of wheels that could be produced from this many molds.

Off by 6 out of an estimated 276. That's, like a 1% error? Still pretty good!

Reading further in the article, I see it depended on where they got the serial. Some are more reliable than others.

Tony

[James Langham]

James,

That would be a cool photo! I'll keep looking.



Only 1 off in a run of 255... not too shabby.



Off by 6 out of an estimated 276. That's, like a 1% error? Still pretty good!

Reading further in the article, I see it depended on where they got the serial. Some are more reliable than others.

Tony

Have a look at this link it shows a photo of a 6th Coldstream Guards Panther. Not the pic I'm thinking of but some useful bits. The detail on Soviet use is interesting and may provide some trivia for TW2000.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-v-panther-sd-kfz-171.htm

I'm impressed at the accuracy of the statistics. Shame that pre-D Day we didn't even know that the Panther wasn't just being used in smaller heavy tank battalions like the Tiger.

[dragoon500ly]

Lee,

Do you have something more to go on? I'd like to follow up on. Using captured artillery wasn't all that uncommon for the western allies, but I'm unable to find reference anywhere captured tanks were used. (Motorcycles, trucks, even half-tracks, but not tanks.) In a way, it wasn't worth it. The western allies were never short of equipment and vehicles could be replaced within days or a week at most.

Official records are really skimpy on this, the best source would be the Signal Corps photo collection, where there are several photos of Panthers with the Allied star painted on. There is a pitfall to watch for, Panzer Brigade 150, the outfit that tried to pass itself off as American armor during the Battle of the Bulge. This is sort of an ongoing research for me, if only because the SC collection is impressive to look over; I've only found three photos that show allied tankers using Panthers, the captions on the photos, however, indicate that this was being done as a training aid for inbound personnel, "know your enemy" sort of thing. The second source is the oral records of the Eisenhower Collection at the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans. There are two soldiers who talk about manning a captured German tank in Italy. Those are the only "official" records that I have seen.

Unlike the Russians, who trained crews and support personnel on German equipment and organised a logistical chain, Americans/Commonwealth/etc. crews climbing into a Panther would be confronted by a completely unfamiliar and overly complicated machine with no spares and little chance of repair or resupply. Tactically it would seem like only in the most dire situation would a crew bother to man a captured German tank, but not out of the question.

That's the problem in a nut shell.

There's also the danger of attack from the "American Luftwaffe". That is, the USAAF. Fratricide from ground-attack aircraft against marked Shermans were common enough, I can just imagine how a captured tank would fare!

At any rate, doing some research I see that that the British did use captured Italian tanks in North Africa and the Australians used both German and Italian tanks, but can't find any references in Europe after Normandy of the western allies or specifically Americans using captured German tanks.

The only references that I can find are for the late 1940/early 1941 fighting, as things moved into the Crusader battles, the Commonwealth use of captured armor seems to have ended. Records for the Germans do show the use of captured Crusaders (turrets removed and used to move fuel/ammo to front line units) and Stuarts (Rommel's HQ escort unit appears to have used over a dozen).

[Abbott Shaull]

I think during WWII especially 1944 on, things moved too fast for pilots to know where there front was on the western front. Especially since both sides various vehicles that looked similar. One of the things that you think the guy on the ground has hard time telling various vehicles with night vision devices.

Think about someone flying at tree top or higher where they have less time to debate what they have seen on the ground...

[dragoon500ly]

I think during WWII especially 1944 on, things moved too fast for pilots to know where there front was on the western front. Especially since both sides various vehicles that looked similar. One of the things that you think the guy on the ground has hard time telling various vehicles with night vision devices.

Think about someone flying at tree top or higher where they have less time to debate what they have seen on the ground...

Don't forget that the Air Forces training at that time was concerned with aircraft ID NOT vehicle ID.

This was often taken advantage of, especially in the Western Desert. The British Long Range Desert Group used a specialized item of equipment to fool enemy aircraft, taking advantage of the lack of knowledge about ground vehicles that the average airdale had, they issued a plywood "roundal" that would be strapped in place on the hoods of their vehicles when they entered enemy territory. One side had the Italian facist insignia, the other the nazi twisteed cross insignia. If they saw an aircraft heading toward and could ID as italian, then the nazi emblem was flipped upwards and every body waved at the "friendly" aircraft. How effective was it? Not a lot of hard data behind oral/written accounts of the troopers who believed that it worked most of the time. And taking into account the tendency of people to "see" what they want to see....

[helbent4]

Official records are really skimpy on this, the best source would be the Signal Corps photo collection, where there are several photos of Panthers with the Allied star painted on.

Records for the Germans do show the use of captured Crusaders (turrets removed and used to move fuel/ammo to front line units) and Stuarts (Rommel's HQ escort unit appears to have used over a dozen).

Lee,

I can see the use of captured armour in recognition and training roles. Regarding the conversion of Panthers to allied tanks, several were made to look like M10 tank destroyers with wood applique and allies paint schemes.

As an anecdote, the Germans used captured Shermans as reccee tanks on the East Front (captured from the Russians who were supplied them via lend-lease). I saw a picture of a captured M5 Stuart, clearly painted to show the Austrian cross.

Tony

[Abbott Shaull]

Ah the lend-lease program was sure source of many of Germans capture vehicles on the Eastern Front. If there a country more stubborn about if-it-not-invented-here attitude it would be the Russians/Soviets.

[dragoon500ly]

Lee,

I can see the use of captured armour in recognition and training roles. Regarding the conversion of Panthers to allied tanks, several were made to look like M10 tank destroyers with wood applique and allies paint schemes.

As an anecdote, the Germans used captured Shermans as reccee tanks on the East Front (captured from the Russians who were supplied them via lend-lease). I saw a picture of a captured M5 Stuart, clearly painted to show the Austrian cross.

Tony

The photos of Panthers made to look like M-10 tank destroyers are photos of the attempt by Panzer Brigade 150 to infiltrate the American lines. As Skorzeny said about the attempt, "it would have confused green American soldiers in the night, from a distance...."

The original question was about Allied use of captured German vehicles. The Germans used anything and everything they captured, there are numerous pics of captured Allied equipment, as well as mentions of German battalions equippede with captured T-34s. Like all captured equipment, it was used until it broke down and then was abandoned.

[helbent4]

Ah the lend-lease program was sure source of many of Germans capture vehicles on the Eastern Front. If there a country more stubborn about if-it-not-invented-here attitude it would be the Russians/Soviets.

Abbott,

I would tend to disagree, the Soviets were desperate for any equipment and pretty much used it all if they could. Including M4 Shermans, M3A1 scout cars, M5 halftracks, Cromwells, Valentines, Bren/Universal carriers, M10 TDs, Aircobras, many, many trucks, etc.

Perhaps if they had better industrial production they would have been more picky, but the Soviets used pretty much anything they could get their hands on! Maybe they didn't like a lot of non-Russian equipment at least partly due to Chauvinism, but they used it all. They were so needy, units of the Karelian front salvaged 12x lend-lease M3 Stuarts from the deck of a sunken cargo ship and pushed them into service.

http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/LL_general1.htm#Start

The Germans then captured some of these vehicles and used them for the same reason. Not specifically because the Russians didn't like lend-lease equipment and therefore abandoned or otherwise gave them to the Germans!

Tony

[helbent4]

The photos of Panthers made to look like M-10 tank destroyers are photos of the attempt by Panzer Brigade 150 to infiltrate the American lines. As Skorzeny said about the attempt, "it would have confused green American soldiers in the night, from a distance...."


Lee,

I guess that's not that unrealistic for the situation, considering they could well encounter green American troops in less-than perfect visibility. While Skorzeny was of course an impressive soldier in his own right, I wonder how regular American soldiers would have done?

Tony

[dragoon500ly]

Lee,

I guess that's not that unrealistic for the situation, considering they could well encounter green American troops in less-than perfect visibility. While Skorzeny was of course an impressive soldier in his own right, I wonder how regular American soldiers would have done?

Tony

If memory serves correctly, Panzer Brigade 150 was committed into the fighting on the northern shoulder and ran into elements of 1st Infantry and 3rd Armored Divisions and was promptly shot to pieces by bazooka teams and the most formidable weapon on the Western Front, US Artillery. These was part of the attack on Eisenborn Ridge that you hear descriptions of "artillery pieces standing virtually hub to hub." A lot of people don't realize just how much effect regular artillery had played in stopping the German advance.

[Abbott Shaull]

A lot of people don't realize just how much effect regular artillery had played in stopping the German advance.


The Soviets/Russians have understood this. It one of the points they seemed to love making that no matter if it is at Division level on up. That there seemed to be way more 'Batteries' of various type of field artillery, multi-missile, and heavy mortars than there were Rifle Companies in MRD or Tank Companies in Tank Division. This before you add the various other Batteries that would populate a Division such as Air Defense and Anti-Tank and so on...

[dragoon500ly]

The Soviets/Russians have understood this. It one of the points they seemed to love making that no matter if it is at Division level on up. That there seemed to be way more 'Batteries' of various type of field artillery, multi-missile, and heavy mortars than there were Rifle Companies in MRD or Tank Companies in Tank Division. This before you add the various other Batteries that would populate a Division such as Air Defense and Anti-Tank and so on...

There was a sorta-joke running around about how the Soviets had replaced "Love of God" with "Love of Artillery"...needless to say, the Russians have always enjoyed damned-capable guns...but German officers who had experience on both fronts, always claimed that as bad as it was to be shot at by the Soviets, being under American artillery was much worse because we had so much of it and we used so much ammunition.

During the post-war interviews, when asked what stopped the Germans at Eisenborn Ridge, the opinion of several German officers was the assembly of so much American artillery...

[James Langham]

There was a sorta-joke running around about how the Soviets had replaced "Love of God" with "Love of Artillery"...needless to say, the Russians have always enjoyed damned-capable guns...but German officers who had experience on both fronts, always claimed that as bad as it was to be shot at by the Soviets, being under American artillery was much worse because we had so much of it and we used so much ammunition.

During the post-war interviews, when asked what stopped the Germans at Eisenborn Ridge, the opinion of several German officers was the assembly of so much American artillery...

US Artillery wasn't always plentiful so much as well used, the communications abilities added to the Time on Target technique for simultaneous arrival of shells made it deadly. another forgotten aspect is the cartography service resulting in a better ability to use predictive fire.

[Abbott Shaull]

That and in the US Army any unit could call for Fire. While in the Soviet Army the use of the artillery is more or less planned out.

[James Langham]

If memory serves correctly, Panzer Brigade 150 was committed into the fighting on the northern shoulder and ran into elements of 1st Infantry and 3rd Armored Divisions and was promptly shot to pieces by bazooka teams and the most formidable weapon on the Western Front, US Artillery. These was part of the attack on Eisenborn Ridge that you hear descriptions of "artillery pieces standing virtually hub to hub." A lot of people don't realize just how much effect regular artillery had played in stopping the German advance.

Bear in mind the Brigade was committed to fight as "normal" armour after the failure of Operation Greif. How it would have fared if used as plans is open to conjecture.

My belief is that used correctly they may well have achieved at least a partial success. If you are in a US position and stragglers are coming through you will not take the time to check the next batch of clearly US marked vehicles. Even if you do and they look odd are they just a variation on a vehicle you haven't seen before? Even if you have doubts you will be unlikely to fire until they are MUCH closer than normal.

[dragoon500ly]

Bear in mind the Brigade was committed to fight as "normal" armour after the failure of Operation Greif. How it would have fared if used as plans is open to conjecture.

My belief is that used correctly they may well have achieved at least a partial success. If you are in a US position and stragglers are coming through you will not take the time to check the next batch of clearly US marked vehicles. Even if you do and they look odd are they just a variation on a vehicle you haven't seen before? Even if you have doubts you will be unlikely to fire until they are MUCH closer than normal.

But the rub is that PzBde150 was never committed as intended

Operation Grief, for all of the writing up in post-war histories and the Hollywood treatment of it the few movies on the Bulge, was a failure. While it did cause disruption in the American rear, most of this was caused by GIs ignoring the proper passwords and making up thier own tests to "verify" other GIs. This was the only true success of Grief. They didn't manage to blow any key bridges, they were unable to misdirect the flow of reinforcements, most of the jeep teams were either killed or captured and later shot, only a handful ever made it back to German lines. For the number of personal it lost vs. the successes it gained, Grief was an utter failure.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

There was a sorta-joke running around about how the Soviets had replaced "Love of God" with "Love of Artillery"...needless to say, the Russians have always enjoyed damned-capable guns...but German officers who had experience on both fronts, always claimed that as bad as it was to be shot at by the Soviets, being under American artillery was much worse because we had so much of it and we used so much ammunition.

During the post-war interviews, when asked what stopped the Germans at Eisenborn Ridge, the opinion of several German officers was the assembly of so much American artillery...

I recall something from an Ambrose book (Citizen Soldiers, IIRC) about the Battle of the Bulge that a former German officer related. He said (and this is not verbatim, mind you, but essentially) that they'd overrun an American supply depot and as they drove through it in his (captured) Jeep they started passing pallet after pallet of 105mm shells. Just 105s. He realized that this hastily abandoned dump of shells was bigger than the village he'd grown up in, and at that point he realized that the war was utterly lost.

[Raellus]

I'm still looking for the exact reference but there was an American infantry division that used all kinds of captured German vehicles to increase its mobility and give it a competetive edge during the race into German territory during the last couple of months of the war. It earned a nickname like "travelling circus" or something like that. IIRC, they even used a captured BF-109 to scout ahead of the vehicle column. I'll post more detailed info as soon as I can track it down.

[dragoon500ly]

I'm still looking for the exact reference but there was an American infantry division that used all kinds of captured German vehicles to increase its mobility and give it a competetive edge during the race into German territory during the last couple of months of the war. It earned a nickname like "travelling circus" or something like that. IIRC, they even used a captured BF-109 to scout ahead of the vehicle column. I'll post more detailed info as soon as I can track it down.

There are a lot of references to the use of captured trucks (kubelwagens were a special favorite). GIs were also known to be fond of jackboots, MP-40s and Panzerfausts! Its references to the use of captured German tanks that are short.

Another favorite target of the front line divisons were the Army Air Force bases, especially since the airdales always seemed to have large numbers of jeeps. Any static unit, such as an antiaircraft battalion, could count on light-fingered GIs helping themselves to jeeps, trucks, the occasional quad .50 mount.

And if the target unit was a Quartermaster Battalion......well, let's just say that when the woke up, the would often find their motor pool stripped bare.

[helbent4]

I recall something from an Ambrose book (Citizen Soldiers, IIRC) about the Battle of the Bulge that a former German officer related. He said (and this is not verbatim, mind you, but essentially) that they'd overrun an American supply depot and as they drove through it in his (captured) Jeep they started passing pallet after pallet of 105mm shells. Just 105s. He realized that this hastily abandoned dump of shells was bigger than the village he'd grown up in, and at that point he realized that the war was utterly lost.

RakJpz,

Man, if he was only figuring it out then, he was a slow learner! And/or hadn't been to the Eastern front, where the Russians used far more artillery in general, if not as well as the Americans/western allied forces.

Personally, I'm a believer when it comes to US (or other) artillery when it comes to wargames. My miniature wargame buddies and I did a few Bulge scenarios, and a couple of nail-biters were decided in the US's favour by a Foo in a jeep directing a well-supplied battery of 105mms.

As for Rae's point of a "circus" unit making use of captured German equipment, I've heard of wide-spread of small arms/side arms, not to mention some Kubelwagens and half-tracks (popular as armoured ambulances) but anything else would be difficult to maintain and supply, especially considering the mountains of your own supply. A captured Storch for observation, I could see, but an Me109 has pretty poor ground visibility and it would be almost suicide considering Allied air superiority. All possible in theory, however. This also may have also been a "training" unit of some kind.

Tony

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Personally, I'm a believer when it comes to US (or other) artillery when it comes to wargames. My miniature wargame buddies and I did a few Bulge scenarios, and a couple of nail-biters were decided in the US's favour by a Foo in a jeep directing a well-supplied battery of 105mms.


Indeed; the German attacks on Bastogne were almost entirely piecemeal after the siege was laid in. The US result was to use it's tiny handful of 105s and throw concentrations at the German spearheads, helping to drive them back. POW interviews and postwar document combing showed that the Germans thought they were facing units reinforced by a battalion strength artillery unit, rather than two or three guns that were being shuffled around by very adroit cannon-cockers.

Had the Nazis pushed hard from multiple directions, it'd have been much different.

[Raellus]

RakJpz,
As for Rae's point of a "circus" unit making use of captured German equipment, I've heard of wide-spread of small arms/side arms, not to mention some Kubelwagens and half-tracks (popular as armoured ambulances) but anything else would be difficult to maintain and supply, especially considering the mountains of your own supply. A captured Storch for observation, I could see, but an Me109 has pretty poor ground visibility and it would be almost suicide considering Allied air superiority. All possible in theory, however. This also may have also been a "training" unit of some kind.


I'm still looking for the reference (no luck so far). I think I read it in Max Hastings' Armageddon but I'm not seeing it. I posted about it before here (a couple of years ago) but I have no idea in which thread.

[dragoon500ly]

Indeed; the German attacks on Bastogne were almost entirely piecemeal after the siege was laid in. The US result was to use it's tiny handful of 105s and throw concentrations at the German spearheads, helping to drive them back. POW interviews and postwar document combing showed that the Germans thought they were facing units reinforced by a battalion strength artillery unit, rather than two or three guns that were being shuffled around by very adroit cannon-cockers.

Had the Nazis pushed hard from multiple directions, it'd have been much different.

Bastogne had a bit more than a handful of guns...CCR, 9th Armored and CCB, 10th Armored would field a battalion of M-7 HMC apiece, 101st Airborne would have three battalions of 75mm pack howitzers and a battalion of M-3 105mm howitzers, there were also three battalions of corps artillery (two battalions of 155mm howitzers and one of 4.5-inch guns)....so supporting two tank, two armored infantry, one tank destroyer, three glider infantry and nine parachute infantry battalions (17 combat battalions) are a total of nine battalions of artillery. This would be one of the largest concretrations of artillery on the southern shoulder of the Bulge until Third Army made its swing north.

[Abbott Shaull]

Bastogne had a bit more than a handful of guns...CCR, 9th Armored and CCB, 10th Armored would field a battalion of M-7 HMC apiece, 101st Airborne would have three battalions of 75mm pack howitzers and a battalion of M-3 105mm howitzers, there were also three battalions of corps artillery (two battalions of 155mm howitzers and one of 4.5-inch guns)....so supporting two tank, two armored infantry, one tank destroyer, three glider infantry and nine parachute infantry battalions (17 combat battalions) are a total of nine battalions of artillery. This would be one of the largest concretrations of artillery on the southern shoulder of the Bulge until Third Army made its swing north.

The only trouble is that most of the time ammo for these batteries was/were an issue after the battle started. There were times when they were down to two or three round per tube....

[dragoon500ly]

The only trouble is that most of the time ammo for these batteries was/were an issue after the battle started. There were times when they were down to two or three round per tube....

Bastogne was a corps headquarters location so they had several supply dumps to draw from, the initial fighting as the perimeter developed saw the use of a lot of artillery to blunt German attacks. After these inital attacks were stopped the decision was made to ration the artillery rounds as relief was uncertain. While supplies certainly ran short, whenever there was a major attack, there was still plenty of artillery to stop it.

When the aerial resupply drops started, about the only artillery ammunition that was dropped was 75mm pack howitzer, the heavy guns had barely adequate supplies to last until the breakthrough.

[HorseSoldier]

Getting back to the original post, I don't think it's too plausible as depicted. The Soviets are on the defensive for the beginning of the war, and so acquiring shot up or abandoned NATO armor wouldn't be a really common turn of events. By the time they're back on the offensive, nukes are flying and everything is getting very ragged in terms of higher organization being able to divert the resources necessary to pull in a regimental sized group of captured armor, spare parts to get it running again and keep it running, ammunition for main guns, etc.

With all the talk about precedents from WW2, it should be born in mind that there's a lot less US armor on the ground in the Twilight War than there was back then, and the Soviets in WW3 aren't the Germans in WW2 (or the Soviets in WW2 for that matter) and desperate for working kit in the same way.

Even with modern Soviet armor (T-72+) to generate a sustainable force you'd probably need to be capturing depots, not isolated battlefield mobility kills and abandoned hulls, and you'd need to capture the spares to go with them. The Israelis pulled this off by developing ties to spare parts supplies or replacing stuff with in house equipment during peace time. I don't recall any cases where they were stuffing their crews in captured tanks on the fly, even in '73 when everything was spiralling the drain pretty hard.

[helbent4]

Getting back to the original post, I don't think it's too plausible as depicted. The Soviets are on the defensive for the beginning of the war, and so acquiring shot up or abandoned NATO armor wouldn't be a really common turn of events. By the time they're back on the offensive, nukes are flying and everything is getting very ragged in terms of higher organization being able to divert the resources necessary to pull in a regimental sized group of captured armor, spare parts to get it running again and keep it running, ammunition for main guns, etc.


HS,

When the nukes (and chemicals) start flying during the Soviets counter-attack, these weapons themselves may allow for the capture of hundreds of intact tanks and even supply depots as they drive west. We can debate how ragged things are for the Soviets but they keep it together long enough to push NATO back past their start lines in many circumstances.

I think the Soviets would see the need by mid-war, and given favourable circumstances they may well attempt something like this. It wouldn't be done on the fly; as in WWII there would be a conventional system of support units trained to recover, salvage and repair the necessary components. Getting new spare parts would be a problem, so I think there would be serious attrition in the long term even if they could make do in some fashion.

Tony

[HorseSoldier]

I'm pretty skeptical that with all the training NATO devoted to chemical warfare, and how veteran crews on both sides would be by that stage in the war, that chemical weapons would contribute anything to helping account for hundreds of captured AFVs.

Nukes could result in abandoned equipment -- but it would be irradiated and more trouble than its worth, even in a casaulties don't matter sort of classically Soviet mindset. Not to mention that nukes would also be likely to destroy fire control, radios and assorted other essential components.

[Legbreaker]

I'm with HorseSoldier on this. While a few scattered AFVs are likely to have been captured and put to work, it seems EXTREMELY unlikely a unit of such vehicles could be put together.

[Rainbow Six]

Just a thought, which I don't think has come up on this so far (apologies if it has - this is a quick post from work, so I've only had a quick skim read just now).

There's been a fair amount of discussion about the Sovs capturing western AFV's from NATO forces, but what about the AFV's being captured from the Chinese?

There's been several threads on this board and its predeccessors about possible western military sales to the PRC, particularly in the period 1995 / 96. Whilst it's unlikely that the Chinese would be offered brand new M1A1's or Chally 2's, what if they bought quantities of M60's, M1's, Leopard I's, Chieftains, etc? Perhaps it's feasable that the Sovs managed to capture some of these tanks in China and shipped them west, where it was felt there was a greater need for them? I suppose they could even have got some Scimitars and Foxes from the 6th UK Division.

Just a thought...

[helbent4]

I'm pretty skeptical that with all the training NATO devoted to chemical warfare, and how veteran crews on both sides would be by that stage in the war, that chemical weapons would contribute anything to helping account for hundreds of captured AFVs.

Nukes could result in abandoned equipment -- but it would be irradiated and more trouble than its worth, even in a casaulties don't matter sort of classically Soviet mindset. Not to mention that nukes would also be likely to destroy fire control, radios and assorted other essential components.

HS,

Regarding chemicals, I can't find where the BYB specifies when (or if) they are first used against NATO. Assuming this doesn't happen until theatre nuclear weapons are deployed, this happens months after NATO attacks. While US forces in the 1st US Gulf War did routinely wear chemical protection suits, this was for a period of weeks and not several months. I wonder how "sharp" that edge could be maintained under far heavier fighting for far longer.

Under the best of circumstances training reduces but doesn't eliminate casualties from chemical weapons. Some of the unluckier crews could be caught with their pants down, literally and figuratively speaking. Vehicles are not permanently irradiated by fallout except if they've been used to clean up Chernobyl.

More to the point, NATO was in pell-mell retreat. Equipment and especially supplies awaiting decontamination might well be abandoned in the retreat. The Soviets would easily be able to capture enough vehicles and stocks of parts and ammunition to equip at least a Battalion, if not an entire Tank Regiment.

James:

Why not make this a Motor Rifle Regiment? I think the Soviets could scrape together a tank battalion for an MRR.

Tony

[Tackleberry]

During my time in Saudi Arabia, around 2000 I got chatting to the guys training the Saudi Army equipped with M1's and M2's. The price of oil was very low, this caused a shortage of cash with the Saudi military. They were reduced to 2 serviceable M1's and 3 M2's from a complete battalion. These guys had all of the manuals and tools with some ability to actually do the job as well, admittedly not a lot of ability.

I would have thought that even if the Soviets had captured some NATO kit they would struggle to keep it operational, Cheiftans, M60's, Leopard 1's maybe useable, but M1's, Chally1 or 2's and Leopard 2's would just be static pill boxes with greatly reduced aiming abilities. Probably using the coax as a ranging machine gun on the M1, the 7.62 machine guns on the Leopard 2 and Chally's could be used, but it wouldn't have been as good as the .50 on the M1.

[Legbreaker]

I can't see even M60's etc being given to the Chinese - older M48's, 105mm armed Centurions and the like yes, but nothing much newer.
Why? Because of the obvious risk of the relatively unskilled Chinese (with western tanks) loosing them to the Soviets.

[Raellus]

As NATO forces pushed through Poland and moved closer to the Soviet border, I think that they would have been especially ready for a Soviet NBC attack. The Soviets are going to pull out all the stops to keep NATO off of its territory and NATO will be expecting that. Once a few chem attacks have been launched, and word gets out about how they affect the unprepared (or underprepared), vigilance and preparedness are both going to be extremely high from then on out.

[Legbreaker]

I agree. Chemical weapons are unlikely to deliver large amounts of equipment into the hands of the Soviets (or Nato for that matter).
Most modern AFVs include some measure of NBC protection. This alone will assist in keeping most vehicles out of enemy hands. NBC decontamination would also be a high priority for commanders - decontaminating a vehicle should take less time than repairing a knocked out AFV. Of course there are a number of situational factors to take into account such as the availability of the necessary decon equipment.

I can see chemical weapons being fairly effective against infantry, but not so much against armoured formations.

[helbent4]

As NATO forces pushed through Poland and moved closer to the Soviet border, I think that they would have been especially ready for a Soviet NBC attack. The Soviets are going to pull out all the stops to keep NATO off of its territory and NATO will be expecting that. Once a few chem attacks have been launched, and word gets out about how they affect the unprepared (or underprepared), vigilance and preparedness are both going to be extremely high from then on out.

Rae,

We can certainly go into "dueling hypotheticals" here! ;)

Hypothetically, a unit under the circumstances would be hyper-vigilant and not likely to be caught in the open by a chemical attack. Indeed during the Great War, after the first gas attacks any offensive advantage was offset by an upgrade in equipment coupled with constant preparation and well-motivated practice.

One thing that is radically different in this situation is the mobile nature of modern war and the persistence of chemicals and fallout (not permanent but dangerous until decontaminated). I can see vehicles, equipment and supplies awaiting decontamination being abandoned and captured. If there's a depot of some kind about to be overrun the priority would be to save the trained personnel if possible. Again the hypothetical is that all abandoned equipment and supplies would be destroyed or booby-trapped in an orderly fashion.

As we've recently seen, this doesn't always happen and in much less critical circumstances than a war that would be as "hot" as it gets. In other words, tank crews always destroy their vehicles when they abandon them... except when they don't.

Tony

[Raellus]

One thing that is radically different in this situation is the mobile nature of modern war and the persistence of chemicals and fallout (not permanent but dangerous until decontaminated). I can see vehicles, equipment and supplies awaiting decontamination being abandoned and captured. If there's a depot of some kind about to be overrun the priority would be to save the trained personnel if possible.

Tony, to clarify, I think that this is a valid point and I agree. I just don't agree with the other part of your hypothetical where hundreds of MBT crews are gassed leaving pristine tanks behind for the enemy, that's all.

[helbent4]

Tony, to clarify, I think that this is a valid point and I agree. I just don't agree with the other part of your hypothetical where hundreds of MBT crews are gassed leaving pristine tanks behind for the enemy, that's all.

Rae,

Understood, and I'm with you on that. The premise is intriguing, but anything more than a battalion of captured armour would be seriously pushing creditability!

Tony

[Legbreaker]

Even a battalion is probably pushing it a bit unless there's been sufficient time between capture of individual units and supporting stores to transport it all into one place, train the new crews and deploy them (probably months I'd think if they were intended to survive very long).
Finding the crews themselves might be difficult. They'd probably need to read English (or German, or whatever language was in use). Yes, relabelling could be done, but something could be lost in the translation, or the translator may place a lower priority on some things than others leaving the crew in the lurch during maintenance for example.

[dragoon500ly]

One thing that is radically different in this situation is the mobile nature of modern war and the persistence of chemicals and fallout (not permanent but dangerous until decontaminated). I can see vehicles, equipment and supplies awaiting decontamination being abandoned and captured. If there's a depot of some kind about to be overrun the priority would be to save the trained personnel if possible. Again the hypothetical is that all abandoned equipment and supplies would be destroyed or booby-trapped in an orderly fashion.


There was always a lot of debate about how the Soviet Union would use its rather extensive collection of chemicals. The best guessimates would have the Soviets nailing NATO airfields, the Pershing/Lance/Land Based Cruise Missile sites, the NATO SAM belt, the French IRBM site, the REFORGER storage areas and possible the major ports...there was always an expectation that they would use chem as a strategic weapon.

My own take on this is that there would be no regiment sized unit, and perhaps not even a battalion sized unit...on the other hand the Spetsnaz are equipped with NATO uniforms and weapons...a company sized unit would be a more logical approach.

[Matt Wiser]

The unit Rae's referring to is the 83rd ID. They became known as The Rag-Tag Circus because of their extensive use of any and all captured German equipment they "acquired." If it was on wheels or tracks, and could move and shoot, it got a coat of olive-drab paint, a white U.S. star, and was immediately put to use. They drove everything from trucks to half-tracks, tanks (Mark IVs and Panthers are mentioned), even two fire trucks, with GIs riding on the ladders. And yes, they did fly a captured Me-109. They are mentioned in Ryan's The Last Battle, Hastings' book, and Antony Beevor's book on the battle for Berlin.

[helbent4]

The unit Rae's referring to is the 83rd ID. They became known as The Rag-Tag Circus because of their extensive use of any and all captured German equipment they "acquired." If it was on wheels or tracks, and could move and shoot, it got a coat of olive-drab paint, a white U.S. star, and was immediately put to use. They drove everything from trucks to half-tracks, tanks (Mark IVs and Panthers are mentioned), even two fire trucks, with GIs riding on the ladders. And yes, they did fly a captured Me-109. They are mentioned in Ryan's The Last Battle, Hastings' book, and Antony Beevor's book on the battle for Berlin.

Matt,

Fascinating! I saw the reference in Last Battle. Hard to believe someone would risk flying an Me 109, but I guess they did.

At least in this case the approach of using captures vehicles makes some sense, because they were using them to capture towns in the collapsing Reich, outrunning their supply lines.

The cited reference was a little vague on what vehicles this unit used, I can't see any reference to tanks. Trucks, kubelwagens, armoured cars and halftracks (the latter used as ambulances) I was already aware of.

Tony

[Raellus]

The unit Rae's referring to is the 83rd ID. They became known as The Rag-Tag Circus because of their extensive use of any and all captured German equipment they "acquired." If it was on wheels or tracks, and could move and shoot, it got a coat of olive-drab paint, a white U.S. star, and was immediately put to use. They drove everything from trucks to half-tracks, tanks (Mark IVs and Panthers are mentioned), even two fire trucks, with GIs riding on the ladders. And yes, they did fly a captured Me-109. They are mentioned in Ryan's The Last Battle, Hastings' book, and Antony Beevor's book on the battle for Berlin.

Thanks, Matt! It's good to know that I'm not completely senile yet.

[Legbreaker]

I'm guessing this is the unit I heard about that used the German tanks.

[Matt Wiser]

83rd ID had as many motor vehicles (captured and U.S.) as the 2nd Armored Division on their right flank. They had a race from the Rhine to the Elbe, and both wanted to be first into Berlin when the order to halt on the Elbe came.

The 83rd ID wasn't the only American unit to use captured German equipment: Third Army had several provisional artillery battalions using captured German guns against their former owners.

[HorseSoldier]

Even a battalion is probably pushing it a bit unless there's been sufficient time between capture of individual units and supporting stores to transport it all into one place, train the new crews and deploy them (probably months I'd think if they were intended to survive very long).

The other problem then becomes some of the other ways mechanized warfare has changed since the WW2 era as well. If you've only got a battalion or so sized unit of NATO armor, putting those guys in the field for continuous, 24-hour operations under limited visibility conditions and such is just a screaming recipe for blue-on-blue (or red-on-red, I suppose, in this case) fratricide incidents.

That stuff was a major concern and consideration in Gulf War One given the Coalition warfare aspects of stuff, but I think it would be a nightmare in the more complex terrain of central Europe. There might be the plus side of being able to confuse guys on the NATO side, but then NATO optics and sensors are better, and I'm pretty sure if I was a Soviet or Polish AFV crewman catching glimpses of distant M1s behind my lines I'd expect the medal I'd get for opening up on them to be especially shiny and impressive . . .

If such a unit were formed I think the crewmen in it would be justifiably paranoid and just as terrified of their side as the enemy. About the only place I can see it being workable would be more of a SOF kind of scenario that's been discussed already -- if you could airlift in a couple company teams of mixed NATO armor to an airfield seized by desantniki or something, for instance, they could go tearing around the German countryside in the NATO rear area with relative impunity for a little while at least.

Did someone already talk about the idea of sending the AFVs and logistics for this sort of unit to the Chinese front? That would be a scenario where the fratricide angle would be reduced.

[Legbreaker]

At the time of the Pact counteroffensive in 1997, China had been virtually destroyed and all effective resistance crushed (the units involved in the counteroffensive were mostly released from China and shipped west). There'd be little need for armour in China at that time, or certainly not enough to justify shipping a few individual vehicles across the continent and halfway around the world from potential supplies and support for them.
Some stores may have been captured in Korea, but it's extremely doubtful there'd be enough to justify shipping anywhere.

[Rainbow Six]

Did someone already talk about the idea of sending the AFVs and logistics for this sort of unit to the Chinese front? That would be a scenario where the fratricide angle would be reduced.

My suggestion was that the Sovs might be able to capture sufficient numbers of western equipment from the Chinese to equip a unit such as the 746th Tank Regiment (the equipment itself having been sold to the Chinese during 1995/96 and being older vehicles such as M60's, Chieftains, or even, as has been suggested M48,s Centurions, etc).

However, whilst I agree with you 100% that the risk of fratricide would be much less for Sovs using western vehicles on the Chinese front, I also agree fully with Leg that by the time we get into the summer of 1997 the Sovs would see no value in shipping armour east...by then they were starting to move units from the Chinese theatre to the European theatre en masse...(hence my original suggestion)

About the only place I can see it being workable would be more of a SOF kind of scenario that's been discussed already -- .

Another possibility would be to use them for rear area security (by rear area, I mean hundreds of kilometres behind the front line, for example as part of the force protecting what's left of the Central Government).

[helbent4]

83rd ID had as many motor vehicles (captured and U.S.) as the 2nd Armored Division on their right flank. They had a race from the Rhine to the Elbe, and both wanted to be first into Berlin when the order to halt on the Elbe came.

The 83rd ID wasn't the only American unit to use captured German equipment: Third Army had several provisional artillery battalions using captured German guns against their former owners.

Matt,

Seems plausible, and I can buy the use of German transports (trucks/Kubelwagens) and light armour. Despite anecdotes stating the Americans used German tanks, I still can't quite credit it. I'm not disagreeing with you in particular, just voicing some personal skepticism.

My logic is that at that stage of WWII units like the 83rd were struggling to keep up with the pace of advance into Germany. They were literally outrunning their own supply lines and therefore couldn't easily get replacement vehicles for their tank crews. Fair enough. Using captured armour would keep up the rapid pace of advance because it is available. Despite the far superior combat ability of German tanks they would be a nightmare to maintain and supply, thus slowing down the division overall and defeating the main reason for using captured armour in the first place.

Tony

[pmulcahy11b]

Matt,

Seems plausible, and I can buy the use of German transports (trucks/Kubelwagens) and light armour. Despite anecdotes stating the Americans used German tanks, I still can't quite credit it.

Seems like a book I may have of US and British troops using German armor...I'll have to check my library. I know the Germans did it with US, British, and Russian tanks. Back later.

[helbent4]

Seems like a book I may have of US and British troops using German armor...I'll have to check my library. I know the Germans did it with US, British, and Russian tanks. Back later.

Paul,

That would be awesome!

There's no disputing Germans and Russians used each others' captured tanks.

Check out the following page, with pictures of German tanks captured in North Africa in allied service (British, US and Australian). There's no evidence they were used in combat, only maybe in training.

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/weapons-technology-equipment/9960-german-firefly-captured-allied-vehicles-german-service-3.html

Tony

[James Langham2]

An update taking a few of the points above into account (still a work in progress):

As the war progressed, large numbers of captured vehicles became available to both sides. The Soviets took advantage of this and created a number of units using captured equipment. The best documented unit is the 746th Independent Tank Regiment formed in early 1998.
The cadre for this unit was made up of staff from the Kubinka Tank Museum. These were familiar with a range of NATO vehicles that were held as exhibits (the museum was the official Soviet Army Tank Museum which was not open to the public and was manned entirely by military staff. These exhibits came from all over the world, known examples were captured and transferred by friendly Arab countries, China prior to the split, Cuba and North Vietnam. Some M113s were also believed to have come from Somalia after it changed allegiance to the Soviet Block.
This unit was made up as follows:

* Regimental headquarters in 2 M1 plus 2 M577

* 1st tank battalion with 21 M1A1 and 10 Leopard 2 (made up of vehicles captured and repaired during the fighting in 1997)

* 2nd tank battalion with 3 M60A3, 2 M60A4 and 6 M60A1, 3 M48A5 (at least one with Blazer armour), 6 Centurions (all 105mm 2 are believed to be South African Oliphants and the remaining 4 were probably ex-IDF although 1 might have been a British model), 7 Leopard 1 (third company only has two platoons) – these vehicles were predominantly taken from museum exhibits

* 3rd tank battalion with 21 M1/IMP M1 (only two companies strong) – made up primarily of captured vehicles

* Motor rifle battalion with 21 M113s and 10 M2 Bradleys (mortars were towed behind trucks) - one source states that one company was in British FV432s and that the mortars were US M106s. The M113s were a mix of captured and museum exhibits. The M113s include at least one with a German MG3 as the pintel mount.

* Anti-aircraft battery with 2 M163 PIVAD and 2 Gepard

* A combined artillery/ howitzer battery with 8 (as opposed to the normal 6) M109 (assorted models). Sources indicate MLRS was considered as an alternative but not enough ammunition was available.

* A recce company with 3 Panhard AML, 1 South African Eland, 3 M1 and 2 BRDM2 Rkhs.

* No anti-tank battery was included.

* Logistic vehicles were a mix of NATO types.

It is interesting that no Chieftains or Challengers were included in the 746th (these were however seen in the 789th Independent Tank Regiment) – it has been suggested that this was to reduce the number of main gun calibres in use as the British used a different (rifled) 120mm gun).

This unit was thrown into the front along the Baltic Coast in where it performed well. Gradually however the lack of spares started to show and one by one the NATO vehicles were abandoned until the few survivors were incorporated into the 20th Tank Division when it was withdrawn to the Ukraine in 1999. It is noticeable that tanks of the Regiment coped much better regarding reliability, probably due to the standards of maintenance taught by the original cadre.

Despite common misconceptions, the unit was never used as a deception unit only as a front line combat unit. Vehicles were usually repainted in standard Soviet colours with larger than usual red stars added.

I plan to add:
* vehicle numbering
* a possible orbat for later war
* personalities
* quotes
* illustrations

[.45cultist]

An update taking a few of the points above into account (still a work in progress):

As the war progressed, large numbers of captured vehicles became available to both sides. The Soviets took advantage of this and created a number of units using captured equipment. The best documented unit is the 746th Independent Tank Regiment formed in early 1998.
The cadre for this unit was made up of staff from the Kubinka Tank Museum. These were familiar with a range of NATO vehicles that were held as exhibits (the museum was the official Soviet Army Tank Museum which was not open to the public and was manned entirely by military staff. These exhibits came from all over the world, known examples were captured and transferred by friendly Arab countries, China prior to the split, Cuba and North Vietnam. Some M113s were also believed to have come from Somalia after it changed allegiance to the Soviet Block.
This unit was made up as follows:

* Regimental headquarters in 2 M1 plus 2 M577

* 1st tank battalion with 21 M1A1 and 10 Leopard 2 (made up of vehicles captured and repaired during the fighting in 1997)

* 2nd tank battalion with 3 M60A3, 2 M60A4 and 6 M60A1, 3 M48A5 (at least one with Blazer armour), 6 Centurions (all 105mm 2 are believed to be South African Oliphants and the remaining 4 were probably ex-IDF although 1 might have been a British model), 7 Leopard 1 (third company only has two platoons) – these vehicles were predominantly taken from museum exhibits

* 3rd tank battalion with 21 M1/IMP M1 (only two companies strong) – made up primarily of captured vehicles

* Motor rifle battalion with 21 M113s and 10 M2 Bradleys (mortars were towed behind trucks) - one source states that one company was in British FV432s and that the mortars were US M106s. The M113s were a mix of captured and museum exhibits. The M113s include at least one with a German MG3 as the pintel mount.

* Anti-aircraft battery with 2 M163 PIVAD and 2 Gepard

* A combined artillery/ howitzer battery with 8 (as opposed to the normal 6) M109 (assorted models). Sources indicate MLRS was considered as an alternative but not enough ammunition was available.

* A recce company with 3 Panhard AML, 1 South African Eland, 3 M1 and 2 BRDM2 Rkhs.

* No anti-tank battery was included.

* Logistic vehicles were a mix of NATO types.

It is interesting that no Chieftains or Challengers were included in the 746th (these were however seen in the 789th Independent Tank Regiment) – it has been suggested that this was to reduce the number of main gun calibres in use as the British used a different (rifled) 120mm gun).

This unit was thrown into the front along the Baltic Coast in where it performed well. Gradually however the lack of spares started to show and one by one the NATO vehicles were abandoned until the few survivors were incorporated into the 20th Tank Division when it was withdrawn to the Ukraine in 1999. It is noticeable that tanks of the Regiment coped much better regarding reliability, probably due to the standards of maintenance taught by the original cadre.

Despite common misconceptions, the unit was never used as a deception unit only as a front line combat unit. Vehicles were usually repainted in standard Soviet colours with larger than usual red stars added.

I plan to add:
* vehicle numbering
* a possible orbat for later war
* personalities
* quotes
* illustrations

How many Russian mechanics can maintain the Western turbines?

[James Langham2]

There is at least one Russian tank with one... one of the background quotes I have in mind is one where they have problems, not realising the fuel consumption is the same flat out as at idle.

[.45cultist]

There is at least one Russian tank with one... one of the background quotes I have in mind is one where they have problems, not realising the fuel consumption is the same flat out as at idle.

They'll be angry they can't get drunk from the brake fluid either.

[Olefin]

the US units in Kenya took any useable equipment they could from Tanzania and Somalia - which I based on multiple earlier canon entries about Soviet equipment ending up in US units - you would figure as the war went on it was very common -

[The Dark]

There is at least one Russian tank with one... one of the background quotes I have in mind is one where they have problems, not realising the fuel consumption is the same flat out as at idle.
The T-80 was the only Soviet turbine tank. About 5,000 were in service in the 90s, but some were the T-80UD diesel version. The fuel consumption issue was a problem even for soldiers assigned to the T-80; during the First Chechen War, T-80 tankers ran their fuel tanks dry while idling.

[cawest]

nice updates. I was watching the battle of 73 easting.... they talked about how a Silver bullet went threw a bmp, the crew ran. but some came back later and fired up a Brad. This made me think that you might have repairable APC/IFV's just look out for the 30mm hole in the side. just put you rucksack over it Ivan.

[James Langham2]

The T-80 was the only Soviet turbine tank. About 5,000 were in service in the 90s, but some were the T-80UD diesel version. The fuel consumption issue was a problem even for soldiers assigned to the T-80; during the First Chechen War, T-80 tankers ran their fuel tanks dry while idling.

I could remember reading that at the time, I just didn't have the material handy to check. That was going to be the basis of the quote.

[James Langham2]

Photoshoped image for the article - Leopard I with DShK added for the gunner. Note the Soviet vehicle number and the large number of clues that it is under Soviet control.

[unkated]

How many Russian mechanics can maintain the Western turbines?

They may not have practice, but I'll wager that by 1995, they have access to a translated maintenance manual.

IMHO, by late 1997, I would more expect vehicles to be retained for use by the unit that captured it (for either side), rather than turned back to a central authority.

Picture any unit commander - "While I'd rather have a magnificent vehicle (tank, APC, IFV, SPG) produced by my nation to match the others in my battalion, I cannot get any more (I have been told I will receive them later - much later). Meanwhile, this foreign beast is still working (mostly) and shoots, so while it works, it is better than the crews I have running around as leg infantry."

In the middle of a campaign season, I think few commanders would want to waste the troops (crew + escort) or fuel to send a captured vehicle back to some higher command to be accumulated with other captured vehicles.

And yes, this view seems to be carried in the various vehicle guides.

Uncle Ted

[Raellus]

Nice image, James.

Earlier in the war, I think small units made up exclusively of captured vehicles (for relative ease of resupply) are plausible. Later in the war, I see local commanders making use of whatever is at hand- there'd be a lot more mixing than matching. There's historical precedent for this pattern in how the Germans made use of captured war material throughout the course of WWII.

[Rainbow Six]

Nice image, James.

Earlier in the war, I think small units made up exclusively of captured vehicles (for relative ease of resupply) are plausible.

While I don't think it was ever confirmed one way or the other, I believe there were rumours that the East German NVA had a unit equipped with West German vehicles / uniforms etc whose mission in time of War was to operate behind NATO lines a la Otto Skorzeny.

[Adm.Lee]

IMHO, by late 1997, I would more expect vehicles to be retained for use by the unit that captured it (for either side), rather than turned back to a central authority.

Picture any unit commander - "While I'd rather have a magnificent vehicle (tank, APC, IFV, SPG) produced by my nation to match the others in my battalion, I cannot get any more (I have been told I will receive them later - much later). Meanwhile, this foreign beast is still working (mostly) and shoots, so while it works, it is better than the crews I have running around as leg infantry."

In the middle of a campaign season, I think few commanders would want to waste the troops (crew + escort) or fuel to send a captured vehicle back to some higher command to be accumulated with other captured vehicles.


IMO, in '97, it seems more likely that the command & logistical structures would be still be strong enough to push captured vehicles to a few units, rather than leave them with the captors. That is, before the nukes fly, captured equipment would just be removed & stored. By winter, they'd be forming units with that captured gear, probably at the army or front level.

It's in '98 and later that divisions & smaller would be hanging onto vehicles as described above.

[swaghauler]

Nice image, James.

Earlier in the war, I think small units made up exclusively of captured vehicles (for relative ease of resupply) are plausible. Later in the war, I see local commanders making use of whatever is at hand- there'd be a lot more mixing than matching. There's historical precedent for this pattern in how the Germans made use of captured war material throughout the course of WWII.

I wouldn't want to use enemy vehicles too early in the War. Too many heavily armed aircraft still flying to be riding around in a "commandeered" AFV (no matter how many US markings you put on it). Later on (when the Exchange is over), I'd love to play "chameleon" with captured enemy equipment. It might just keep you alive long enough to "grab them by the belt and settle things."

Reading this thread, I cannot help but remember in Band of Brothers when the guy wearing a German smock got bayoneted by his squad mate as he woke him up for guard duty. Fratricide is a thing in war.

[Raellus]

+1 to Adm. Lee.

I wouldn't want to use enemy vehicles too early in the War. Too many heavily armed aircraft still flying to be riding around in a "commandeered" AFV (no matter how many US markings you put on it). Later on (when the Exchange is over), I'd love to play "chameleon" with captured enemy equipment. It might just keep you alive long enough to "grab them by the belt and settle things."

You make a very valid point, but even not using captured AFVs can result in blue-on-blue incidents. Unfortunately, it's simply a side-effect of the inevitable "fog of war". For a recent example, during the 1st Gulf War, at least one Bradley IFV was destroyed by U.S. aircraft. During Barbarosa, and until the Germans lost air superiority on the eastern front, many of their Panzers had Nazi flags spread out on their topside as a recognition symbol to keep their own Stukas from bombing mistakenly bombing them.

Obviously, troops would take every reasonable precaution to avoid becoming the target of friendly-fire, but I see the need for armor outweighing any increased risk. Also, PACT weapons were already an integral part of the reunified German army (in the v.1.0 timeline) so I think improved training would be the solution, instead of avoiding the use of enemy armor.

[James Langham2]

+1 to Adm. Lee.



You make a very valid point, but even not using captured AFVs can result in blue-on-blue incidents. Unfortunately, it's simply a side-effect of the inevitable "fog of war". For a recent example, during the 1st Gulf War, at least one Bradley IFV was destroyed by U.S. aircraft. During Barbarosa, and until the Germans lost air superiority on the eastern front, many of their Panzers had Nazi flags spread out on their topside as a recognition symbol to keep their own Stukas from bombing mistakenly bombing them.

Obviously, troops would take every reasonable precaution to avoid becoming the target of friendly-fire, but I see the need for armor outweighing any increased risk. Also, PACT weapons were already an integral part of the reunified German army (in the v.1.0 timeline) so I think improved training would be the solution, instead of avoiding the use of enemy armor.

There is a good argument that the German Army in later versions would still have some of the kit in storage.

[James Langham2]

Updated with a few extra thoughts on the creation of the unit.