Allies and Nazi forces usuing captured equipment

BritinAfrica said:
My take on the heavy barrelled version of the SLR, its too heavy for a rifle, and too light for an LMG.

What's wrong with bringing home a souvenir or two? This is what peeves me, during war the powers that be are only too happy to stick a gun in a blokes hand and say, "There you go son, go and get yourself killed." Yet at cease of hostilities the attitude to the same bloke is (if he survives), "YOU WANT A GUN??? Sorry you can't be trusted.

A few years ago there was a firearms amnesty in UK, people could hand in illegal firearm's without fear of prosecution. A little old lady phoned the local cop shop and asked if they could collect a "big gun." When she was asked to bring it in she told them she couldn't lift it. Plod went around to her house in a Panda car, went into the front room and saw a pristine Vickers, complete with water can and belt in the gun ready to go. By now plod is panicking, lots of radio calls to and fro and finally an Army unit was contacted and asked "Could they unload the gun?" Apparently a civi cleaner working in the office overheard the conversation and told them he was a Vickers gunner during WW2. The bloke was bundled into a Land Rover and taken to the house where he successfully unloaded the gun and took it off the tripod.

When asked where the gun came from she said her husband was given it during WW2 as he was a Home Guard Officer, when the war was over he tried to give it back, but as there was no paperwork no one wanted to take irresponsibility for it. So the old boy spent his days cleaning and polishing it.

I heard/read the gun was one of the best examples found finally ending up in a museum.

I wouldn't mind finding a Vickers in my front room
Click to expand...

At the same session with the ARV guys, they had a Vickers and two Brens confiscated when they raided a set of garages looking for drugs!
I went to a death behind closed doors at a farm some years ago.
The Police had gone there to do a check on the guys shotguns and found him dead, natural causes.
In his office, there was a Luger, two Walters, a P-38 and a PPK, a Colt .45 and a Webbley.445 mounted on the wall.
The Police officer thought they were replicas.
I picked up the Luger and worked the action and had a peak up the barrel.
"Excuse me officer, I think these are real!"
The ARV guys arrived and confirmed all the pistols were the real thing!
The guy was a "Collector" and they were unlicensed.
 
Trooper1854 said:
At the same session with the ARV guys, they had a Vickers and two Brens confiscated when they raided a set of garages looking for drugs!
I went to a death behind closed doors at a farm some years ago.
The Police had gone there to do a check on the guys shotguns and found him dead, natural causes.
In his office, there was a Luger, two Walters, a P-38 and a PPK, a Colt .45 and a Webbley.445 mounted on the wall.
The Police officer thought they were replicas.
I picked up the Luger and worked the action and had a peak up the barrel.
"Excuse me officer, I think these are real!"
The ARV guys arrived and confirmed all the pistols were the real thing!
The guy was a "Collector" and they were unlicensed.
Click to expand...

And I will bet a fiver to a pound of doggy poo they were never used in crime, even though they were unlicenced.

I really don't know why the British Police are so anti legal firearm ownership. Legal firearm owners are among the most law abiding people on the planet. Florida Police in the US and other "sensible states" have a realistic and common sense view on firearm ownership. Washington DC banned handguns for years, yet it was the murder capital of the US. It continues to amaze me how seemingly intelligent people cannot connect the dots.
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica said:
And I will bet a fiver to a pound of doggy poo they were never used in crime, even though they were unlicenced.

I really don't know why the British Police are so anti legal firearm ownership. Legal firearm owners are among the most law abiding people on the planet. Florida Police in the US and other "sensible states" have a realistic and common sense view on firearm ownership. Washington DC banned handguns for years, yet it was the murder capital of the US. It continues to amaze me how seemingly intelligent people cannot connect the dots.
Click to expand...

They think the PPK was never fired.
Its not the Police who are anti firearm, its been successive governments who have knee jerked to events such as Hungerford and Dunblane, where both killers had licensed weapons.
They ARV guys I know all say that if firearms are licensed they know where they are, and don't usualy cause problems, unless they are stolen or the owner goes beserk, like at Hungerford and Dunblane.
If you know who to speak to in the UK you can get want you want.
At the same firearms session they had an AK-47 which was taken from a guy who bought at a market in Croatia for something silly like £50!
He claimed he thought it was a replica.
He had driven across Europe and with the European Union there are no border controls, except from France to UK, but they only check the odd car, they're more interested in lorry loads of illegals!
 
I was a firearm dealer in UK before I came to South Africa. Luckily I was in the Essex area which had a fairly sensible attitude to private firearms. However, not the same can be said of the London Metropolitan Police area, Devon and Cornwall to name just two, it all depends on the attitude of the Chief Constable. A mate of mine applied to renew his shotgun certificate in Edmonton Police Station, the desk sergeant was a stroppy bugger who asked him why he wanted a gun in London for. My mate replied, "To hold up the nearest bank."

There are plenty of cases where an firearm certificate holder was refused his renewal, when it goes to court the applicant usually wins. BUT, it costs money.

I had a situation once with a new firearms officer in my area. I always applied for a renewal 3 months before my private certificate expired. I applied and waited and waited, the expiry date came and went and after a few days plod was at my front door saying they had come to take my firearms away as my Firearms Certificate had expired and I was holding firearms illegally. I waved my dealers licence under their noses and said "No I'm not, I'm a dealer and I am therefore holding them under my dealers ticket."

I use to assist the police a lot in UK, identifying firearms and ammunition and such, then one morning I was turned over by local plod. I was told they had received "information" I was holding illegal firearms. The house was searched and they found nothing. I told the copper never to ask for my help again. He replied, "Don't be like that we were acting on information." yea right.

As for Hungerford and Dunblane , Michael Ryan was known to have mental health problems, yet he was still issued a licence, as was the bloke at Dunblane. He was thrown out of a number of gun clubs (A legal requirement in UK to hold a licence) yet the police never pulled his licence.

Winston Churchill after his famous "we will fight them on the beaches" speech said to his bodyguard Inspector Thompson, "How can we fight any where when we had disarmed the great British public?"
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica said:
As for Hungerford and Dunblane , Michael Ryan was known to have mental health problems, yet he was still issued a licence, as was the bloke at Dunblane. He was thrown out of a number of gun clubs (A legal requirement in UK to hold a licence) yet the police never pulled his licence.
Click to expand...

They couldn't do that!
It would have been against their human rights!:-x

I have no idea how many people possesed firearms legally at the time of Hungerford and Dunblane, but it shows how spineless the government were.
It was easier to stop all firearm ownership than it was to tighten up and already stringent system.
Its strange how there are more crime commited with firearms since the law changed than before.
A Police officer I know said "More firearm crimes are comitted by people with illegal weapons than with legally owned ones"
 
Trooper1854 said:
They couldn't do that!
It would have been against their human rights!:-x

I have no idea how many people possesed firearms legally at the time of Hungerford and Dunblane, but it shows how spineless the government were.
It was easier to stop all firearm ownership than it was to tighten up and already stringent system.
Its strange how there are more crime commited with firearms since the law changed than before.
A Police officer I know said "More firearm crimes are comitted by people with illegal weapons than with legally owned ones"
Click to expand...

The thing is Trooper tightening up firearm laws don't work, restrictive laws have proven time and time again that crime actually increases. In UK handguns are banned, so are SMG's, but crimes with both are going through the roof.

Banning anything has the reverse effect that was intended, take for example the 18th Amendment in the USA, prohibition. What effect did it have? Mainly two.

First alcoholism increased by over 30%
Secondly it gave rise to the Mafia which blights the US today.

The bleeding hearts who demand these laws never think through what the effects they can have. They have blinkered idealist views and no amount of firm evidence will change their minds.

Thatcher wanted the law changed after Hungerford, the Tories rammed it through leading to many dealers who specialised in ex military SLR's to close down. The same after Dunblane. A buddy of mine went to Jo-berg a few years ago where there was a meeting of the anti's. He got a senior member of the Home Office to admit that the gun laws in UK have nothing to do with crime. My buddy (also a Brit) asked her "Then why ram these laws through?" she didn't answer. Simply put, they are political laws.

Florida was the rape capital of the USA, then concealed carry was introduced. Rapes have dropped considerably as to be almost insignificant statistically, not only rapes but other crimes. I am sure 5.56 will have the exact figures.

Kennesaw in the US passed a law that all home owners will be armed (with exceptions). Kennesaw is one of the safest towns in the world, let alone the US. Criminals are not stupid, they are not going to rape, rob or murder if they know their intended victim is armed.

I could give you more example's till the cows come home, but I suppose I have bored you enough lol.
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica said:
The thing is Trooper tightening up firearm laws don't work, restrictive laws have proven time and time again that crime actually increases. In UK handguns are banned, so are SMG's, but crimes with both are going through the roof.

Banning anything has the reverse effect that was intended, take for example the 18th Amendment in the USA, prohibition. What effect did it have? Mainly two.

First alcoholism increased by over 30%
Secondly it gave rise to the Mafia which blights the US today.

The bleeding hearts who demand these laws never think what the effects they can have.

Florida was the rape capital of the USA, then concealed carry was introduced. Rapes have dropped considerably as to be almost insignificant statistically, not only rapes but other crimes. I am sure 5.56 will have the exact figures.

Kennesaw in the US passed a law that all home owners will be armed (with exceptions). Kennesaw is one of the safest towns in the world, let alone the US. Criminals are not stupid, they are not going to rape, rob or murder if they know their intended victim is armed.

I could give you more example's till the cows come home, but I suppose I have bored you enough lol.
Click to expand...

The problem is that relaxing firearms laws don't work either.

The reality is that no amount of legislation or removal of legislation will stop gun crime all you can do is try and find the best balance between too restrictive and a free for all.
 
The main problem is not what law is made, but enforcing it.
Its illegal to use a mobile phone when driving, a day doesn't go by without me seeing at least a dozen people doing it.
Its illegal to go through a red traffic light, if a day goes by with out that happening it will be a miracle!
The last government did away with licensing hours claiming it would have no effect on people's drinking habbits. BIG mistake!
The Ambulance Service, and A&Es are full of clowns tanked up to the eyeballs, and not just at weekends.
The current government is now talking about introducing 'tough' new laws to curb 'binge drinking'.
All well and good but they have to enforce the laws, difficult when they've been cutting Police numbers.
Sad fact is, if they had listened to the advice when they were relaxing the law on pub hours, this would not be neccessary.
The only good thing that has recently happened is that they have gone easy on people who have defended themselves during home invasions that result in the injury, or death of the person breaking in.
There have been a number of instances where tooled up thugs have gone into a shop, or home and come off worse.
Following the two shootings in Hungerford and Dunblane, there was, rightly so a public out cry, and the media got into its usual frenzy.
One MP, I forget who, said "We have the toughest gun laws than anywhere in the world. What happened was terrible, but it was the exception, not the rule. There is nothing we can do to legislate for these appaling incidents".
He was spot on, but for the baying mob, it was not good enough.
The two murderes were dead, at their own hand, but the mob wanted justice, so all the honest, law abiding gun owners suffered.
More people are killed by cars. No out cry to ban them.
A man was sent to prison for 6 months for driving disqualified, drunk, failing to stop and assault on Police.
Got out after 2 months. Was caught driving while disqualified within a week. The court gave him community service and a fine!
The follow on from lack of enforcement is lack of detterence!
Rant over!
Lets get back on topic.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
The problem is that relaxing firearms laws don't work either.
Click to expand...

I know this is off topic, however, where is your proof Monty that relaxing firearm laws don't work? I can give you dozens of instances where relaxing them has worked against crime. Kennesaw being one, Florida another.

MontyB said:
The reality is that no amount of legislation or removal of legislation will stop gun crime all you can do is try and find the best balance between too restrictive and a free for all.
Click to expand...

There will always be gun crime no matter what the laws are. Criminals don't obey gun laws anyway.

If you wish we could take this to a new thread and let this one get back on topic.
 
BritinAfrica said:
I know this is off topic, however, where is your proof Monty that relaxing firearm laws don't work? I can give you dozens of instances where relaxing them has worked against crime. Kennesaw being one, Florida another.



There will always be gun crime no matter what the laws are. Criminals don't obey gun laws anyway.

If you wish we could take this to a new thread and let this one get back on topic.
Click to expand...

Make a new thread, but I have little doubt it will devolve into a shouting match within days, this isnt the thread for this discussion.
 
I have no doubt we both can either, I have grave doubts about others though.

You have to remember there are those on this forum that worship firearms and they tend to be extreme.

Anyway to move back to the original topic, here is a few pictures of Axis equipment in Allied hands...

Australians using Italian M13's.
AustraliansinItalianTanks.jpg


Free Polish forces in German Pz-III's
AlliedPzIIIs.jpg


American in a Pz-II
USinGermanTank.jpg
 
Last edited:
I never realised the Allies used enemy armour. It makes sense as so much was captured.

However, the only downside I can see is being taken out by your own side. At dusk or in low light Allied gunners see the silhouette of an enemy tank, BANG, cop hold of that.
 
The Germans were so impressed with the T-34 that they used as many as they could get their hands on.
They would even modify it by adding German style commander cupolas and changing the Russian Mgs for their own.
When designing a tank to counter the T-34s on of the designs was so like the T-34 it was rejected on the grounds of the possibility of friendly fire incidents.
The eventual winner was the Mark V Panther.
They also used Shermans, but were less impressed by them, especially as the early ones tended to burst into flames when hit, hence the nick names "Tommy Cooker" and "Ronson" it would light first strike!
 
Yes but interestingly enough the Panther had a tendency to brew up as well.

Allied Tanks in German Service...
Valentine's captured in Russia:
valentine-Russia.jpg


valentine-Russia2.jpg


Rebuilt Matilda in German war games:
matilda-Rebuilt.jpg


Firefly's:
firefly-German.jpg


Crusader:
CrusaderwithPzRegXIII.jpg
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
Yes but interestingly enough the Panther had a tendency to brew up as well.
Click to expand...

Allied and German tank designers insisted on using petrol engines, hence their propensity for going up in flames.
The Russians had diesels which were not as likely to cook up.
The Germans, despite all their engineering greatness, could not design a fuel system that was free of leaks, and suffered numerous problems as a result.
It was the tank crews greatest fear, getting caught in a tank "brewing up"
Modern tanks have special additives to their fuels to reduce the risk of flash fires, fire suppression systems and crew uniforms made of fire proof materials, but I still wouldn't fancy my chances if I took a direct hit.
 
On Suez troubles in 1956 we found that the Egyptians had scattered large numbers of AK 47's on the streets around the the towns along with magazines and bullets. As we were armed with the bolt action .303 rifle which was good but nothing like an AK 47 then it did not take us long to re-equip our selfs with AK 47's. We were quite upset when we had to turn them in when we went back to Cyprus
 
LeEnfield said:
On Suez troubles in 1956 we found that the Egyptians had scattered large numbers of AK 47's on the streets around the the towns along with magazines and bullets. As we were armed with the bolt action .303 rifle which was good but nothing like an AK 47 then it did not take us long to re-equip our selfs with AK 47's. We were quite upset when we had to turn them in when we went back to Cyprus
Click to expand...

It never fails to amaze me how we were still using a bolt action rifle, although a very good one up untill the mid 1950s when nearly every other country had gone over to semi automatic and, as with the Ak 47, fully automatics.:m16shoot:
I know guys in the Falklands who swaped their semi auto SLRs for the fully automatic Argentinian ones, and they too were fairley miffed when they had to give them up.
 
Talking to the Falklands Vets the fully automayic SLRs were not that good. On automatic they would go all over the place and were hard to keep on target on auto
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top