The German MG42: Was Its Bark Worse Than Its Bite

1

1ABNDT

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
It was apparent to the U.S. Army in 1944 that it had a problem. And that problem was the German Machinengewehr 42, or MG42. How big a problem? Enough to make what, in retrospect, appears to be more of a propaganda movie than a training film. “War Department Film Bulletin No. 181—Automatic Weapons—American vs. German” (embedded above) was intended to allay the fears of young soldiers heading into combat facing what was dubbed “Hitler’s Buzz saw” by G.I.s.

[youtube]2dGxS1VT4kc[/youtube]


Indeed, the MG42 was the most fearsome rifle-caliber machine gun on the battlefield during World War II. The 25-lb. MG42 could be mounted on either a vehicle, its bipod or an ingenious tripod with a recoil-reducing mechanism, like the earlier MG34. But the belt-fed, roller-locking 7.92x57 mm MG42 machine gun could fire up to 1,500 rounds per minute and had quick-change barrel capability.

The narrator’s enthusiastic 1940s baseball announcer voice, however, cannot cheerily mask the ominous sound of an MG42 ripping off bursts. With such a high cyclic rate, individual shots cannot be discerned. “Their bark is worse than their bite,” the narrator implores. I would contend the buzz-saw’s bite is what one needed to worry about. “The German gun is good, but ours is better,” said the narrator like he was calling the Yankees chances at the pennant.

Of course, the U.S. Browning machine guns, including the then-brand-new M1919A6 and the water cooled 1917A1 demonstrated in the film, were very good indeed. But they reflected American tactical thinking and doctrine of the time; a slower rate of fire delivering less, more accurate fire. American belt-fed machine guns (and the Browning Automatic Rifle) performed admirably during the war, but much emphasis was placed on marksmanship and the individual rifleman with his M1 Garand. As pointed out in the film, much of the German infantryman’s job was to carry ammo for the MG42.

The film also covers the misnamed “Schmeisser” (Hugo designed many guns, but the MP38/40 was not one of them) and how it stacked up against the Thompson and then-new M3 “Grease Gun” in side-by-side test done by guys who were, no doubt, Thompson and Grease Gun instructors. You can see where the U.S. Army was trying to go with the slow rate of fire of the M3.

The MG42 changed where machine gun design would go for the next 70 years both developmentally and tactically, as it was the first true “general purpose” machine gun. Versions of the gun are still in service today (MG3, MG74), and the FN Mitrailleuse d’appui general or Mitrailleuse a gaz (MAG), based on the general-purpose concept of the MG42, is in service with American troops all over the world, both on vehicles and in ground use as the M240. Shrink that gun down to 5.56x45 mm NATO, and you have the M249 SAW.

Regardless of the narrator’s stretching the American point of view on small arms, “War Department Film Bulletin No. 181—Automatic Weapons—American vs. German” is a snapshot in time, and well worth watching.

Related Reading
Video - Shooting the MG42 Machine Gun
The U.S. Model 1919A4 Machine Gun
The Forgotten Guns of D-Day
The Guns of Operation Market Garden
I Have This Old Gun: German MG42
 
They made a mistake in their redesign to change the caliber. If they didn't, it might have been copied
The Spanish helped in the re design to 7.62 NATO after WW2
 
I think it's clear that the German MG doctrine was tremendously influential in reshaping many Western countries' view on the role of the MG. As you pointed out, post-ww2 many nations would end up integrating the GPMG idea into their infantry doctrine as is illustrated with the M60 with US forces and the FN MAG amongst Commonwealth militaries.
 
A lot of the mg42 's were converted to 308 until the made new ones in 308
Even the Vickers 8mm use mg42 belts
 
I watched this video a year ago.
Its a video to give the soldiers some kind of false hope that the M42 wasnt as terrifying as it sounded or looked.
the vidio showed the soldiers some footage that made the M42 look inaccurate Blah blah blah, ..and the slow firing American machine gun just as good or superior.

Ya ,,The hell with that. as a intelligent soldier , I wouldnt have bought it for a second.
Hitlers chainsaw is exactly what it was.

this video was made so the poor grunts didnt 5hit their pants and run when they heard it roar.
the germans were way ahead of all the other counties with their Fire power, on land , air and sea.

i wouldnt have wanted to be in the gun sites of the M42 or the bismark,.. Tiger Tank or the Messerschmitt

A small country like Germany with kids for soldiers with " Extream fire Power" just about took the entire globe.
 
Last edited:
I really liked the MG3 when doing my army service in the German army. We managed 3 shot bursts with a little practice, accuracy seemed very good to. Instructors were pissed off when we cut off the wooden legs that held the target with a few short bursts.
edi
 
Here's a little story from a closed forum magazine issued by RUSI in the UK. The article was about the marked lack of learning the lessons taught the Allies in WW2 by the German infantry and their use of the MG34 and then 42. Y'see, it would appear that the whole aim of a German infantry platoon - or Zug - was to take as many MG42s to the fight as was humanly possible, and to keep them fed, too. Hence the images of soldiers festooned with 250 round belts for the MG.

The writer of the article had been a brand-new sticky-beak second looey in one of the county regiments, hustled into Normandy during the breakout from the Beachhead as a replacement for his dead predecessor who had been sniped the previous day from about 300m. They had failed to locate the sniper. In those days, as now, the British infantry platoon held around 27 troops, including a platoon sergeant, at least three corporals, one for each section of eight men, and a dedicated support weapons section with a mortar or two. Each section also had a BREN gun - one BREN gun. So that's THREE BREN guns in a 28-man unit. On this occasion they had the luxury of moving down the lanes of the bocage in BREN-gun carriers [BCGs].

So, just a couple of hours after making the acquaintance of his new platoon, they set off in line astern roughly south towards Caen. After that it all got a mite hazy in the extreme. The looey had a vague recollection of lying beside his vehicle, which was blazing merrily, and listening to the crackling of ammunition cooking off. He couldn't move much, but by craning his neck until it really hurt, he caught a glimpse of another three or four BGCs, also on fire, strewn across the lane, and few bodies around them. He noted, with a degree of amazement tempered with a sense of growing agony, that he appeared to be able to see the distant landscape through the side of his BGC, which had the appearance of a table doily of the old style, caused, he remembered thinking, by the vast amount of ammunition that had passed through it in the previous few minutes.

He woke up as he was being lifted off the stretcher carrier from the ship, and into the train heading towards London, and had very little to wake up for for the next month or so.

When he did finally surface, he found that he had lost one eye, most of his right arm and a good chuck of his right leg. and had a hole just above his hip that could easily be used to contain a packet of cigarettes.

He and a corporal were the only survivors out of the 27+1 platoon - the rest were spread along about 100m the leafy lane. He and his platoon had had the misfortune to get in the way of a double reinforced platoon of German infantry situated on a handy rise about 800m away, with a marvellous overview of at least six routes of approach. There were, it was later discovered, ten MG42 and a mortar platoon as well, extremely well dug-in and there for the duration, it seemed. It later took six tanks and around 400 infantry to get the better of them - maybe even a bit of FGA to add some heavy hitting.

Let me just emphasise - he neither saw, nor heard, a single thing that gave him any notion that his war was only going to last about as long a a half-way decent cup of coffee.

The article was a call to bring back the MG platoon, or at the very least to increase the number of MGs to two per section.

Needless to say, it never happened.
 
Last edited:
I remember talking to WWII Canadian vets who said if you got hit by it, you got hit 3 or more times. It was a killer.
 
The MAG 58 was the product of the Bren and the MG42. The feed rail system of the MG42 and the removable barrel and adjustable gas setting from the bren.
 
The Germans, unlike the Americans, considered that riflemen were just bodyguards for the GPMG, which was at the center of their tactical thinking.
It seemed to have been the right idea, since most Western nations took the idea and kept going with it even after assault rifles became ubiquitous.
 
Volume of fire matters when it comes to suppressing the other side to enable your own maneuver and also for outright killing effect. Our people found this out the hard way in Korea when they had to issue extra BRENs to compensate for the firepower limitations of the No4 Lee Enfield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom