The German MG42: Was Its Bark Worse Than Its Bite
- Thread starter 1ABNDT
- Start date
They replaced it with the M249. Or so I thought. Not sure where they went and how many. I am guessing the SF. The M60E6 looks awesome. But same range, same caliber etc. I fail to see where the win is. Then again I have not handled it or played with it. Not sure it is a great change. But hey that is way past my service time and I am just about too old to get called up for the reserves russians or no russians
.
Last edited:
infideleggwelder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
got to fire the MG3, Norweigian version in 7.62 nato back in 1990ish. go thru a 200 rd belt pretty darn fast, would not want to be on the receiving end. accurate in that you had measurable groups under 12 inches at 100 yds from a bipod. lighter than a C6, but not as robust construction I don`t think
One thing that can be said about the German, 8mm 42s, they delivered a very small group with a quick pull of the trigger and if the gunner had some experience, it was quite easy to control. The quick rate of fire, smoothed it out very quickly
The Italian MG 42/59 increased the weight of the bolt to reduce the rate of fire from 1200 RPM down to 900 RPM.
The German MG 3 has two bolt weights. The first offers a rate of 1200-1300 RPM and the heavier bolt reduced the rate down to 900 RPM.
The Swiss Sig MG 710-3 reduced the rate of fire to 850-950 RPM.
Any existing GPMG can have its rate of fire boosted by reducing bolt weight or increasing gas pressure. No major power has done this. The MAG 58 has a variable gas system offering 650-1000 RPM. The M240 version of the MAG 58 holds the rate down to 650-750 RPM. The USMC version holds the rate to 650–950 rounds/min.
Many authorities assert the Russian PK machine gun is the finest GPMG in the world. It fires at 650-850 RPM.
It has been asserted here that the higher the rate of fire for a GPMG, the better. In this thread, the consensus of opinion seems that the high rate of fire is the chief advantage of the MG-42. If true, it seems odd that many current users of the MG-42 have reduced its rate of fire by modifying the bolt. Why would, for instance, the Germans themselves, work to reduce the rate of fire of this weapon?
Why would no major power adopt a GPMG with a rate of fire of 1300 RPM when they can easily do so?
Could it be that the high rate of fire was sought in the original MG-42 because of its use as an anti-aircraft weapon? Could it be that 1300 RPM leads to ammunition wastage and rapid barrel over heating? Well, I don't know. But despite the views of persons on CGN, it seems that every major power does not want a GPMG firing at 1300 RPM for ground combat.
I wonder who is correct?
The German MG 3 has two bolt weights. The first offers a rate of 1200-1300 RPM and the heavier bolt reduced the rate down to 900 RPM.
The Swiss Sig MG 710-3 reduced the rate of fire to 850-950 RPM.
Any existing GPMG can have its rate of fire boosted by reducing bolt weight or increasing gas pressure. No major power has done this. The MAG 58 has a variable gas system offering 650-1000 RPM. The M240 version of the MAG 58 holds the rate down to 650-750 RPM. The USMC version holds the rate to 650–950 rounds/min.
Many authorities assert the Russian PK machine gun is the finest GPMG in the world. It fires at 650-850 RPM.
It has been asserted here that the higher the rate of fire for a GPMG, the better. In this thread, the consensus of opinion seems that the high rate of fire is the chief advantage of the MG-42. If true, it seems odd that many current users of the MG-42 have reduced its rate of fire by modifying the bolt. Why would, for instance, the Germans themselves, work to reduce the rate of fire of this weapon?
Why would no major power adopt a GPMG with a rate of fire of 1300 RPM when they can easily do so?
Could it be that the high rate of fire was sought in the original MG-42 because of its use as an anti-aircraft weapon? Could it be that 1300 RPM leads to ammunition wastage and rapid barrel over heating? Well, I don't know. But despite the views of persons on CGN, it seems that every major power does not want a GPMG firing at 1300 RPM for ground combat.
I wonder who is correct?
It's easy to see why the rate of fire for modern machine guns is lower.
Less ammunition to be humped and fewer carriers needed would be #1 on most folks list.
There would be fewer barrel change outs and likely less maintenance.
But, a small group would seem to negate the purpose of a machine gun, which is more of an area weapon, a certain amount of dispersion is desirable.
Grizz
infideleggwelder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
an experienced machine gunner with a super accurate machine gun would be worth far more to me as a section commander than a mediocre gunner with an area weapon- I would be want my gunner to be able to place those rounds in a very specific area when necessary, also be able to use that same machine gun as an area weapon if needed.But, a small group would seem to negate the purpose of a machine gun, which is more of an area weapon, a certain amount of dispersion is desirable.
Grizz
My Mom's brother, John Gardner, fought in WW2 and Korea, as did his brother Albert. John told my Dad that the MG42 was "bloody awesome". He was a big, strong man with a lingering British accent. He retired from the Canadian Army as a s/m. Gawd, I would have shivered to have him yelling at me on the parade ground.
Your facetious statement of “I wonder who is correct", shows your ignorance of the deployment of machine guns, specifically from a historical perspective and the implementation of the order of battle of various armed forces.
I won’t go into a long winded discussion and explanation but here are some points to ponder:
Tactics between the allies and the German military were different. Whereas the allies built their military around the rifleman, the Germans were built around the machine gun crew. The German rifleman was there to support the machine gun. Nearly all rifle men carried extra ammo for the machine gun. The German use of the machine gun was designed around suppression fire. The allies, specifically the British prior to WW2 designed their military to fight small battles to protect their empire, specifically, Indian and African conflicts. The Germans on the other hand, had their order of battle designed around large scale battles on the European continent. There were also external political factors and limitations around the Germans rearmament which would be a whole other discussion which led them to their concept of the machine gun as the centre of their battles.
Conscription and minimal training of soldiers is another reason for slower cyclic rates in machine guns nowadays. When I say minimal training, its because time is given to other training aspects for the individual soldier and they are expected to be more well rounded. Training is nowhere near enough to learn the proper use of higher rate fire. It gets squandered through improper deployment, overheating, jamming etc. It becomes less than effective at best and a useless chunk of metal in the worst scenario.
The higher rate of fire, obviously puts greater stress on machine guns. Doctrine is now to employ them with less maintenance, this giving an overall higher use of slower rate machine guns. This also ties back to inexperienced troops messing up their equipment.
There is more, but this just a quick synopsis.
Alfreds
Your point that most MGs are built with lower rates of fire is correct. Your reasoning behind it is incorrect or dare I say , you didn’t really provide and real reasons, other than pointing out rates of fire of other machine guns in your “argument”.
I won’t go into a long winded discussion and explanation but here are some points to ponder:
Tactics between the allies and the German military were different. Whereas the allies built their military around the rifleman, the Germans were built around the machine gun crew. The German rifleman was there to support the machine gun. Nearly all rifle men carried extra ammo for the machine gun. The German use of the machine gun was designed around suppression fire. The allies, specifically the British prior to WW2 designed their military to fight small battles to protect their empire, specifically, Indian and African conflicts. The Germans on the other hand, had their order of battle designed around large scale battles on the European continent. There were also external political factors and limitations around the Germans rearmament which would be a whole other discussion which led them to their concept of the machine gun as the centre of their battles.
Conscription and minimal training of soldiers is another reason for slower cyclic rates in machine guns nowadays. When I say minimal training, its because time is given to other training aspects for the individual soldier and they are expected to be more well rounded. Training is nowhere near enough to learn the proper use of higher rate fire. It gets squandered through improper deployment, overheating, jamming etc. It becomes less than effective at best and a useless chunk of metal in the worst scenario.
The higher rate of fire, obviously puts greater stress on machine guns. Doctrine is now to employ them with less maintenance, this giving an overall higher use of slower rate machine guns. This also ties back to inexperienced troops messing up their equipment.
There is more, but this just a quick synopsis.
Alfreds
Your point that most MGs are built with lower rates of fire is correct. Your reasoning behind it is incorrect or dare I say , you didn’t really provide and real reasons, other than pointing out rates of fire of other machine guns in your “argument”.
Last edited:
Actually, the British and German approaches to the LMG weren't at odds, they just had different focus. Look at the LBG issued to British troops - Pattern 39, two large pouches (for Bren mags and a spare ammo bandolier - for the Bren, not the rifle). No rifle ammo pouches at all, just 1 bandoleer of 50 rounds for the rifle. It was expected that the Bren would do the initial shooting, and the rifle would be used once you were close. Also, every infantryman trained on the Bren, in case the gunner went down. The German doctrine was take, hold, defend. The British doctrine was based on constant forward movement - take, hold, move. Obviously the German defensive focus was because they had run out of places to take and static defence was their remaining option.
Agreed, but the Bren wasn’t static, it moved as well. So greater chance (arguable) of a Been gunner getting shot, and another soldier picking it up and moving forward, hence the bren mags in their load.
BTW, like that last sentence of yours! LOL.
BTW, like that last sentence of yours! LOL.
Your facetious statement of “I wonder who is correct", shows your ignorance of the deployment of machine guns, specifically from a historical perspective and the implementation of the order of battle of various armed forces.
I won’t go into a long winded discussion and explanation but here are some points to ponder:
Tactics between the allies and the German military were different. Whereas the allies built their military around the rifleman, the Germans were built around the machine gun crew. The German rifleman was there to support the machine gun. Nearly all rifle men carried extra ammo for the machine gun. The German use of the machine gun was designed around suppression fire. The allies, specifically the British prior to WW2 designed their military to fight small battles to protect their empire, specifically, Indian and African conflicts. The Germans on the other hand, had their order of battle designed around large scale battles on the European continent. There were also external political factors and limitations around the Germans rearmament which would be a whole other discussion which led them to their concept of the machine gun as the centre of their battles.
Conscription and minimal training of soldiers is another reason for slower cyclic rates in machine guns nowadays. When I say minimal training, its because time is given to other training aspects for the individual soldier and they are expected to be more well rounded. Training is nowhere near enough to learn the proper use of higher rate fire. It gets squandered through improper deployment, overheating, jamming etc. It becomes less than effective at best and a useless chunk of metal in the worst scenario.
The higher rate of fire, obviously puts greater stress on machine guns. Doctrine is now to employ them with less maintenance, this giving an overall higher use of slower rate machine guns. This also ties back to inexperienced troops messing up their equipment.
There is more, but this just a quick synopsis.
Alfreds
Your point that most MGs are built with lower rates of fire is correct. Your reasoning behind it is incorrect or dare I say , you didn’t really provide and real reasons, other than pointing out rates of fire of other machine guns in your “argument”
--------------------------------------------------
You are correct in that you have disposed of my argument with ease. Moreover, your victory is even more decisive in that you acknowledge I never made an argument. I merely pointed out that a no major power has adopted a GPMG with a rate of fire of 1300 RPM for ground combat. Thus, armchair commandos who extolle the benefit of a 1300 RPM machine gun for ground combat seem out of step with all the existing major powers thinking on the subject.
But notwithstanding any such observation about real facts, I will leave argument to others. In particular, I will leave the issue of who has the cooler, badder machine gun to those posing as military authorities. May they carry on their heroic endeavors on the Internet, saving the world from evil.
I won’t go into a long winded discussion and explanation but here are some points to ponder:
Tactics between the allies and the German military were different. Whereas the allies built their military around the rifleman, the Germans were built around the machine gun crew. The German rifleman was there to support the machine gun. Nearly all rifle men carried extra ammo for the machine gun. The German use of the machine gun was designed around suppression fire. The allies, specifically the British prior to WW2 designed their military to fight small battles to protect their empire, specifically, Indian and African conflicts. The Germans on the other hand, had their order of battle designed around large scale battles on the European continent. There were also external political factors and limitations around the Germans rearmament which would be a whole other discussion which led them to their concept of the machine gun as the centre of their battles.
Conscription and minimal training of soldiers is another reason for slower cyclic rates in machine guns nowadays. When I say minimal training, its because time is given to other training aspects for the individual soldier and they are expected to be more well rounded. Training is nowhere near enough to learn the proper use of higher rate fire. It gets squandered through improper deployment, overheating, jamming etc. It becomes less than effective at best and a useless chunk of metal in the worst scenario.
The higher rate of fire, obviously puts greater stress on machine guns. Doctrine is now to employ them with less maintenance, this giving an overall higher use of slower rate machine guns. This also ties back to inexperienced troops messing up their equipment.
There is more, but this just a quick synopsis.
Alfreds
Your point that most MGs are built with lower rates of fire is correct. Your reasoning behind it is incorrect or dare I say , you didn’t really provide and real reasons, other than pointing out rates of fire of other machine guns in your “argument”
--------------------------------------------------
You are correct in that you have disposed of my argument with ease. Moreover, your victory is even more decisive in that you acknowledge I never made an argument. I merely pointed out that a no major power has adopted a GPMG with a rate of fire of 1300 RPM for ground combat. Thus, armchair commandos who extolle the benefit of a 1300 RPM machine gun for ground combat seem out of step with all the existing major powers thinking on the subject.
But notwithstanding any such observation about real facts, I will leave argument to others. In particular, I will leave the issue of who has the cooler, badder machine gun to those posing as military authorities. May they carry on their heroic endeavors on the Internet, saving the world from evil.
But, a small group would seem to negate the purpose of a machine gun, which is more of an area weapon, a certain amount of dispersion is desirable.
Grizz
The MG42 was used as a GPMG but it wasn't designed as a GPMG, IMHO.
I've used both the MG42 and the MG38, both in 8mm. The 42 was like driving a Cadillac, the 38 was like driving a "Beetle" Volkswagen.
Both get the job done when all that is needed is a vehicle to go from point A to point B, but one has far better handling characteristics than the other and is capable of much more than "just getting there''
Both were very good, but the 42 was soooooo much better.
There was a very dire need for a multi purpose/accurate GPMG during WWII and the Germans tried to fill it. It was the Minimi of its day.
As Infedeleggwelder pointed out, in his post, there was great value to such an MG as the 42, when combined with an experienced and capable operator.
Like many such tools, just because it was very capable, when deployed properly, many commanders didn't understand its capabilities and missed out.
In 1977, I was in Austria with a friend. He was from Vienna, but had family in North Tyrol. We went to visit his old aunt and lo and behold she had an MG42 tucked away in the closet, with several tins of ammo on belts. It had been placed there by a gun crew during the closing days of WWII and never touched again.
This house was on a very hilly farm and quite common for the area. No electricity, rough roads, only open when there wasn't any snow, etc. It had 5 foot thick, stone walls, 7 foot ceiling and part of one wall was the stove/fireplace. There were three rooms. Total area of around 600 sq ft.
The gun crew had set up the MG42 in one of the windows, to cover the road from the North, which the Soviet troops were approaching down. It was a perfect set up for the MG42 as the road came through a pass at the bottom of a valley, with steep mountains up each side. The Austrian commander knew what the guns were capable of and had three of them, about 300 meters apart, set up with a clear field of fire into the pass.
Their mission was to hold back the Soviets, until one of the OTHER ALLIES showed up. It turned out to be "French" forces with British uniforms and American equipment. The gun crews held back the Soviets for over a week, along with other troops of course.
The MG42 crews were given the Lion's share of the credit for keeping the Soviet troops at bay. That pass opening was at least a kilometer from the gun positions. At that sort of range, the guns had to be accurate, not spray and pray in order to keep the enemy heads down.
They needed to inflict real damage.
There were all sorts of stories I was told about that fight, in the small village. It was apparently the only real fighting the area had seen during the whole war and had been used as a rehab area for wounded troops.
Last edited:
Just to be clear, I am far from being an “armchair commando”, but did serve many years in the military and trained with various forces around the world. As luck would have it, I was a bigger fellow, so guess who got the MG all the time. I did get quite proficient with the theoretical and practical aspects of MG’s and their deployment.
Also your statements again, do not acknowledge the real reasons why militaries round the world have the MG’s they do. I am sure you are a smart guy. Stick with what you know and don’t throw bs statements around on things you have no idea on. Anyone of us can comment on all sorts of things without the proper context, which is exactly what you have done here.
Tell me with a straight face you didn’t get the itch to crank off a few belts??!! LOL.
There are a few people who have FA mg42's registered in Canada
Back in the day, when you could shoot them, it was a fun gun.
Unlike a 50 cal Browning that you had to set up, a MG42 was ready to go and all you needed to do was bring spare barrels and lots of belts of 8mm
Back in the day, when you could shoot them, it was a fun gun.
Unlike a 50 cal Browning that you had to set up, a MG42 was ready to go and all you needed to do was bring spare barrels and lots of belts of 8mm
I would have loved to have had that gun a year earlier on the Negra River.
The gun was in good condition, seeing as it had been stored in a stone closet for over 30 years by the time I saw it. It was covered in grit and dust and it looked like it had been put away without cleaning, after its last use. The bore was solid rust. However, there was a spare barrel, worn, but serviceable.
This sort of thing wasn't at all unusual in Austria/Hungary/Czechoslovakia/Yugoslavia at the time. A lot of stuff was squirreled away, to keep it from the Soviets and just in case it may be needed for self preservation. All sorts of horror stories about civilians caught with firearms right after the war ended and occupation troops came in.
As for firing that MG42, the penalty for doing so was Draconian at best. Not only that, there was nowhere to shoot it and get away with it.
One thing about those rural inhabitants, they were a very tight knit and close mouthed group, until they got to know you. The thing is, there were no secrets among them. Outsiders were suspect and distrusted, even though they were openly treated with respect.
Heaven help anyone that was deemed undesirable. Even the Police in the region treaded carefully. You had to see it to believe it. It was like stepping back 50+ years in time. Garlic reaves hanging over the door and all along with huge crucifixes. Good people though and tough as nails. They walked everywhere and everything was either uphill or downhill. Hardly anything was flat. There were four telephones in the village. One at the Police compound, one at the Pharmacist, one at the Post Office and another at the Church. Of course it's likely mostly changed now. I don't know, never been back.
