Real firing tests with CMBN weapons

[arpella72]

I found this interesting video in youtube.It's an old instruction movie from the War Department for the American GI during the Second WW.

Is this true or it's just propaganda?,Do you think the firing tests are trustworthy?.

[SlowMotion]

The part about ammo usage surely is true. Don't know about accuracy. How much does it matter how long you have used some weapon? The soldiers who used the weapons must have had much more experience of US weapons.

[womble]

There's a modern non-propaganda video comparing BAR and MG42. It's referred to in the CMFI forum. Have a look there, cos I don't expect many people will want to rehash the discussion so soon.

[Erwin]

I wish the in-game weapons sounded like the ones in the doc. (At least they don't sound quite like that on my rig.)

[John Kettler]

womble,

Actually, it's an MG-34 and an improved BAR. How can I be certain? I posted it!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

arpella72,

Welcome aboard!

I'd seen an excerpted version of this, focusing exclusively on the MG-42, so it's nice to have some context. From what I can tell, the shooters really know what they're doing, as evidenced by the impressive levels of weapon control exhibited when firing offhand. Also of interest was watching the recoil spring at work when the tripod mounted MG-42 fired.

Now, the assertion is made in the film that accuracy is the sine qua non of automatic weapon firing. That depends on your design philosophy, I think. If you go to the CMFI thread womble mentioned, you'll see that I discuss this vital difference. The Germans perceived the battlefield as being one of fleeting opportunities to catch the enemy on the hop and slice him up before he could get to cover. For that, you need volume of fire. Since the Germans went from the fast firing MG-34 to the much faster MG-42, this suggests even the MG-34 wasn't putting enough lead downrange to suit tactical reality. When dealing with dispersed men, moving by rushes, you need a large beaten zone (area in which the bullet impacts occur), rather than shooting the same man a whole bunch of times. Far better to hit several men once or twice.

Where American automatic weapons shine is against point targets. The early BAR even had single shot capability for potting individuals. The lower rate of fire makes weapons less prone to overheat or jam, does require less ammunition than do the German weapons and is really good when defending a position at the FPL (Final Protective Line), where the interlocking grazing fires are relentlessly applied, together with other means, until the enemy breaks.

What's alluded to in the film, but not explicitly addressed, are the morale effects of the Schmeisser, MG-34 and MG-42. The Allies found these weapons' high ROF intimidating, with one combat report's likening an MG-42's firing to sounding like "linen tearing," that is, one continuous ripping sound, with no individual shots distinguishable. That this is so is seen by the very fact the War Department had to produce a special classified training film to desensitize our soldiers to the German automatic weapons and assure them ors were better. What's also not discussed is weight. The Schmeisser (MP-38/MP-40) is considerably lighter than the Thompson SMG and was a GI favorite for use as a captured weapon. It , too, had a higher rate of fire than its Allied opposites, again with the same combat philosophy in mind--maximum fire, in the least possible time, on briefly exposed targets.

You're talking about two entirely different approaches to warfare, both developed on the basis of combat experience in WW I. The Germans pioneered the use of the SMG in that war, and the BAR was developed to give the GIs what the ghastly Chauchat (look it up) was supposed to have given them: mobile automatic firepower, especially in the assault. Each side configured its unit organization to maximize the effective use of the weapons it was armed with.

Regards,

John Kettler

[RockinHarry]

I found this interesting video in youtube.It's an old instruction movie from the War Department for the American GI during the Second WW.

Is this true or it's just propaganda?,Do you think the firing tests are trustworthy?.

Propaganda, as trustworthy, as any other either from US, german or other origin. How many GI´s got injured or killed after seeing this film, cause they thought, german MG´s were inaccurate ammo wasting devices? How many GI´s got injured or killed, cause they thought, there´s just a lone, way forward german HMG, that exposes a famous "flank"?

Who says the MG42 HMG gunner has set the various tripod adjusting possibilities correctly?

Who says the GI´s using the german weapons enjoyed appropiate training?

Who says used german weapons were in good (non worn out) condition?

Who says german MG´s were designed to rip apart an immovable target at 300 yds? (while they were designed to deliver an accurate hail of fire up to 1200 for the LMG and upto 2500m for the HMG)

Greetings from Hollywood

[Fenris]

Interesting film. Thanks for posting.

Agree the morale effects are obviously seem to be why the film was made in the first place. I've heard a US veteran who served in Italy describing the high ROF of the MG42 as something "you could sow your buttons on with if it hit you" as he prodded a row of hits up across his chest.

In the other comparison film we looked at last week with the BAR vs the MG34 it was commented on MG's wide fall of shot. Based on what we saw (despite discussions on the firers proficiency with the weapon) I think this shows again that whilst it might not have been as tight a group the knowledge that there's a large number of rounds and the sound would have a greater capacity to put the advancing troops to ground, pinning them in place.

Was also great to hear the weapons true sound. I was surprised at the grease gun's slower rate of fire, for some reason I previosuly thought it was the fastest of the three SMGs.

Cheers

F

[RockinHarry]

Interesting film. Thanks for posting.

Agree the morale effects are obviously seem to be why the film was made in the first place. I've heard a US veteran who served in Italy describing the high ROF of the MG42 as something "you could sow your buttons on with if it hit you" as he prodded a row of hits up across his chest.

In the other comparison film we looked at last week with the BAR vs the MG34 it was commented on MG's wide fall of shot. Based on what we saw (despite discussions on the firers proficiency with the weapon) I think this shows again that whilst it might not have been as tight a group the knowledge that there's a large number of rounds and the sound would have a greater capacity to put the advancing troops to ground, pinning them in place.

Was also great to hear the weapons true sound. I was surprised at the grease gun's slower rate of fire, for some reason I previosuly thought it was the fastest of the three SMGs.

Cheers

F

Agree, but...

...the main purpose of MG34/42 and applied tactics, wasn´t quite to put advancing troops to ground, pinning them, it was rather to hit/kill as many as quickly as possible, BEFORE they go to ground. Surely worked somewhat better on the eastern front, than it did on the western one.

AFAIK the MG42 was developed to deal better with "eastern front conditions".

Yep, thought the same about the Grease Guns ROF, while watching the vid. Maybe the US should have "lend leased" the russian PPSH41 in return of all the stuff they sent to the USSR.

[winkelried]

In the end we are comparing apples with oranges. The Allies and the Germans had completely different doctrines for their infantry:

Where the Brits and the Americans put the rifleman in the center and regarded the MG just to be a support weapon, the Germans built their infantry around the MG as their main weapon which was supported by the riflemen.

Therefore it made sense for the Germans to have a more powerful MG with a higher rate of fire and a belt feed instead of the BAR and the Bren which were magazine fed.

BTW: The MP 40 was first produced to be used by tank and armored vehicle crews. In addition usually it was distributed ot NCOs and officers. It was far less common than Hollywood makes us believe - The MG 42 replaced the MG 34 mainly because it was cheaper to produce and had lager tolerances in production which made it less prone to problems in the field.

[gunnergoz]

No denying, however, that weapons like the MP40, MG34/42, 88, Tiger and Nebelwerfer had a very significant psychological and morale impact on contemporary GI's that had to face them. We may know all about them now, including their weaknesses and drawbacks, but in WW2 those facts were known only to the Germans, if at all. Games have a hard time replicating the sense of worry, doom, even panic - that the sound or mention of some of those weapons had on ordinary WW2 GI's in the field. It took a lot of experience and training to overcome the fears and worry that those "latrine rumors" inflicted on the troops, and which retelling often began the first day that new GI draftees showed up for basic training.

[Sakai007]

Training really came into it's own during WWII, taking a horde of civilians and turning them into 'professional' soldiers in as little time as possible. I think they got basic time down to something like 6 weeks in WWII for infantry. My infantry basic at the same base they used then was 14 weeks, and then there was more training at the unit level before a deployment. This was in 05 before the surge in Iraq, and the rumors then were the time was being shortened again to get more infantrymen into the field quickly. Fear can work both ways. It can really make certain things stick in a mans head, things he needs to remember when he is too scared to really think. Films like this served an important purpose, to at least acclimate a green soldier to the sounds of weapons he has already heard horror stories about. I think the most important line in the whole thing was, "look at your squad leader". When you are in the weeds, look at the guy in charge, he will tell you what to do.

The thing that struck me was the way they described a weapon as being superior by the number of rounds on target. It only takes a single full rifle caliber round to kill you, just one. So when 17 of 30 hit a two man sized target, I am dead several times already, so is my buddy. Ahh, propoganda....

I had seen this film before, but it's been a while and I enjoyed this view, thank's for the link!

[Michael Emrys]

The thing that struck me was the way they described a weapon as being superior by the number of rounds on target. It only takes a single full rifle caliber round to kill you, just one. So when 17 of 30 hit a two man sized target, I am dead several times already, so is my buddy. Ahh, propoganda....

That was in my mind too. If you are trying to bring down an entire squad before they have time to "hit the dirt", some dispersion of rounds is not at all a bad thing.

Michael

[JonS]

Training really came into it's own during WWII, taking a horde of civilians and turning them into 'professional' soldiers in as little time as possible. I think they got basic time down to something like 6 weeks in WWII for infantry. My infantry basic at the same base they used then was 14 weeks, and then there was more training at the unit level before a deployment. This was in 05 ...

Yeah, the two time periods aren't really comparable, though.

I'm guessing that you spent a reasonable amount of time on LOAC, which was pretty much a non-event in the 1940s. You'd also have covered a fair bit of comms gear, which they wouldn't have needed to bother with in the 1940s. Then there's all the kit that you take for granted - body armour, humvees, Strykers, Bradleys, helos, IRADS, MOPS, and all the other aconyms, which no one had even dreamt of 70 years ago, but all needs to be explained, taught, and how to use it drilled.

Also, your tactical tool bag would have been MUCH more complex than your forbears, who never really had to deal with IEDs and patrols in a complex (geographically and politically) urban environment.

[nik mond]

The film lost credibility by having the M3 come out on top over the Tommy... The Thompson is an expensive precision manufactured weapon. To sum up has so much more going for it over the grease gun. Not saying the M3 was bad smg. But if soldiers were given a choice. So this was propaganda for sure, trying to sell the M3 concept over the thompson to the recruits. Simple economics.

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

This lack of dispersion issue has been around since the time of catapults, and by catapults, I mean torsion powered dart throwers, whose name meant "shield piercer." The story of the repeating catapult and the oh so contemporary gripes about it are here, just below a so-called Macedonian catapult, which is actually a ballista. Sigh.

http://www.historum.com/ancient-history/41287-ancient-artillery-siege-engines.html

gunnergoz,

Very careful post war Russian General Staff analyses concluded the surprise introduction of a powerful new weapon provided a temporary increase in combat power of 50% for the introducing side. If you look at Eastern Front experience, the Nebelwerfer and Katyusha introductions both had telling effect. First, the Germans smote the Russians with the Nebelwerfer, whose fires broke whole units, which fled in terror. Later, the Germans had the favor returned, with the same result. (Those who are not old CMBB hands will find detailed discussions of both weapons in the Archives).

You can see the same dynamics at work in the German encounters with mere handfuls of T-34s and KVs, in Tiger fright and a bunch of other phenomena, such as the sirens on Stukas, the whistles fitted to bombs and similar things. I can tell you from recent game experience that the chatter of the high ROF German automatic weapons is still unnerving, despite having read the books, understanding the weapons and just watched the War Department desensitization film.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

Very careful post war Russian General Staff analyses concluded the surprise introduction of a powerful new weapon provided a temporary increase in combat power of 50% for the introducing side.

[citation required]

[SelfLoadingRifle]

The MG 42 replaced the MG 34 mainly because it was cheaper to produce and had lager tolerances in production which made it less prone to problems in the field.

You raise an interesting point. Coors and Miller Lite will mess up the innards of just about anything. Brews such as Herforder and Lowenbrau are what the manufacturer actually recommended. Budweiser would be acceptable ONLY if it came from Eastern Europe:D

SLR

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Here you go. It's for a Medal of Honor.

Citation:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while defending a U.S. military installation against a fierce attack by hostile forces. Capt. Donlon was serving as the commanding officer of the U.S. Army Special Forces Detachment A-726 at Camp Nam Dong when a reinforced Viet Cong battalion suddenly launched a full-scale, predawn attack on the camp. During the violent battle that ensued, lasting 5 hours and resulting in heavy casualties on both sides, Capt. Donlon directed the defense operations in the midst of an enemy barrage of mortar shells, falling grenades, and extremely heavy gunfire. Upon the initial onslaught, he swiftly marshaled his forces and ordered the removal of the needed ammunition from a blazing building. He then dashed through a hail of small arms and exploding hand grenades to abort a breach of the main gate. En route to this position he detected an enemy demolition team of 3 in the proximity of the main gate and quickly annihilated them. Although exposed to the intense grenade attack, he then succeeded in reaching a 60mm mortar position despite sustaining a severe stomach wound as he was within 5 yards of the gun pit. When he discovered that most of the men in this gunpit were also wounded, he completely disregarded his own injury, directed their withdrawal to a location 30 meters away, and again risked his life by remaining behind and covering the movement with the utmost effectiveness. Noticing that his team sergeant was unable to evacuate the gun pit he crawled toward him and, while dragging the fallen soldier out of the gunpit, an enemy mortar exploded and inflicted a wound in Capt. Donlon's left shoulder. Although suffering from multiple wounds, he carried the abandoned 60mm mortar weapon to a new location 30 meters away where he found 3 wounded defenders. After administering first aid and encouragement to these men, he left the weapon with them, headed toward another position, and retrieved a 57mm recoilless rifle. Then with great courage and coolness under fire, he returned to the abandoned gun pit, evacuated ammunition for the 2 weapons, and while crawling and dragging the urgently needed ammunition, received a third wound on his leg by an enemy hand grenade. Despite his critical physical condition, he again crawled 175 meters to an 81mm mortar position and directed firing operations which protected the seriously threatened east sector of the camp. He then moved to an eastern 60mm mortar position and upon determining that the vicious enemy assault had weakened, crawled back to the gun pit with the 60mm mortar, set it up for defensive operations, and turned it over to 2 defenders with minor wounds. Without hesitation, he left this sheltered position, and moved from position to position around the beleaguered perimeter while hurling hand grenades at the enemy and inspiring his men to superhuman effort. As he bravely continued to move around the perimeter, a mortar shell exploded, wounding him in the face and body. As the long awaited daylight brought defeat to the enemy forces and their retreat back to the jungle leaving behind 54 of their dead, many weapons, and grenades, Capt. Donlon immediately reorganized his defenses and administered first aid to the wounded. His dynamic leadership, fortitude, and valiant efforts inspired not only the American personnel but the friendly Vietnamese defenders as well and resulted in the successful defense of the camp. Capt. Donlon's extraordinary heroism, at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty are in the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his country.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/vietnam-a-l.html

winkelried,

I agree that manufacturing the MG-42 from stampings, rather than machining most of the weapon, saved time and money. That doesn't explain the major jump in ROF, though.

This clearly says the Germans wanted a higher ROF, for both antiaircraft work and for engaging infantry targets. The MG-42 was therefore designed to provide the desired increased ROF. (Fair use)

"A high rate of fire was desirable both for AA applications and for surprise flanking fire against targets moving through the battlefield."

http://world.guns.ru/machine/de/mg-42-and-mg-3-e.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Hi John.

That article on the Medal of Honour matter doesn't really answer the question of how a new weapon system could increase its effectiveness against the enemy by up to 50% due to the element of the unknown causing morale problems to troops on the receiving end. I think you'll need a different example to reference the point made about new weapons!

Regards

KR

[John Kettler]

KR,

He asked for a citation, so I gave him one! On a more serious note, I've been trying to remember what, out of a ton of Soviet writings I read while in military aerospace, had the relevant passage. Internet digging has produced some staggering interviews (senior ex-Soviet strategic planners interviewed 1990) and Cold War period analyses, but not what I specifically need.

My recollection was that loads of analyses of the incredibly extensive Soviet case studies (CMBB scenario designers would be permanently incontinent) of pretty much every aspect of the Great Patriotic War showed that the surprise introduction of a powerful new weapon had the effects indicated, with an impact duration of days to a few weeks. Wish I could do better than that, but this is all I can come up with right now.

Regards,

John Kettler

[winkelried]

You raise an interesting point. Coors and Miller Lite will mess up the innards of just about anything. Brews such as Herforder and Lowenbrau are what the manufacturer actually recommended. Budweiser would be acceptable ONLY if it came from Eastern Europe:D

SLR

I prefer Kronenbourg and Swiss micro breweries (eg appezöller quöllfrisch) - but that's probably a French/Swiss taste deviation which can only be understood in this particular socio-psychological context.

[winkelried]

JonS,

I agree that manufacturing the MG-42 from stampings, rather than machining most of the weapon, saved time and money. That doesn't explain the major jump in ROF, though.

This clearly says the Germans wanted a higher ROF, for both antiaircraft work and for engaging infantry targets. The MG-42 was therefore designed to provide the desired increased ROF. (Fair use)

The stamping saved 50% of the work, which was interesting with the workforce shortage the Germans faced. The company which developed the MG-42 (Metall und Lackierwarenfabrik Johannes Großfuß AG) didn't have any experience in weapons manufacturing, but was specialised in manufacturing steel components using stamping processes.

I am not sure if the high technical ROF was a design goal in itself - maybe somebody can enlighten us with a reliable source. IMHO a high technical ROF certainly is welcome for engaging infantry targets. The main advantage of the whole design of the MG 42 was a much higher practical ROF due to its better resistance to dust (less jamming) and the possibility of a quick barrel change.

So the high technical ROF helps to fight individual targets better - you are able to put more bullets at appearing/disappearing infantry during their exposure. But in the end the higher practical ROF is more important to the effect on the battlefield - and the whole came at less production effort and cost.

[arpella72]

Thanks for your opinions.I think the movie is pointing so much on accuracy but in a close quarter fighting ,as the one in the bocage,firepower is even more important.You got a nasty surprise playing CMBN for the first time with the americans when a whole squad gets almost wiped out by a single MG-42.

I have heard that a very similar case happened in the Vietnam War between the Vietcong's AK-47 and the American M-16 assault rifles.It's told the kalashnikov was less accurate than the M-16 but in a close quarter fighting in the jungle that wasn't as important as it could be in another enviroments and types of combat.In the other hand,the AK-47 was a tougher and a more sturdy weapon that needed less maintenance,a clear advantage under a tropical weather.

[JonS]

He asked for a citation

KR is right; that so-called citation is worse than useless.

It is useless because:

* it is not "very careful"

* it is not "post war"

* it is not "Russian"

* it is not a "General Staff analysis"

* it has no "conclusions" about "surprise"

* it does not talk about "introduction of powerful new weapons"

* it does not show a "temporary increase in combat power of 50% for the introducing side"

In short, it does nothing to address any element of your claim. The MOH regurgitation you offered is about as useful as responding "Banana!" to a request for the current time.

It's worse than useless because it directly calls into question your competence and/or integrity. It would appear that either you have no idea what a citation is (and therefore no idea why they're important) or that you are prone to just making stuff up, and when called on it conduct feeble attempts at misdirection.

Either way, when you chose to conduct yourself in this way then your input has little value, except as an object of derision.

Your evasion of this citation request has not gone unnoticed.