Jump to content

M1919 vs Mg34 Machine guns


Recommended Posts

You need to be specific about how the weapons are mounted; there's a lot more to it than just the barrel, receiver and cartridge.

Assuming you're talking about the most common version of the M1919, the M1919A4, this is usually referred to as a "Medium Machine Gun" because it is mounted on a relatively simple lightweight tripod that provides better stability than a bipod mount, but does not provide the same kind of fine ranging and targeting control that heavier, more complex tripod provides.

The MG34 shows up in a variety of mounts; in its bipod or light tripod configuration it shouldn't have significantly better practical range than an M1919A4. But when placed on the heavy Lafette tripod (which is how you see it in HMG teams in CMBN), the MG34 gains much better stability and superior sighting equipment (including a telescopic sight), which gives it a much longer useful range.

A parallel would be the M1919A4 vs. the M1917A1 Browning. In terms of ballistics, the two weapons are virtually identical. The only real difference between the weapons themselves is that the M1917A1 has a water-cooled barrel, which will allow it to sustain a high rate of fire for longer, but this doesn't really affect range per se. Yet the game gives the M1917A1 twice the range of the M1919A4. What gives it the longer range is the much heavier, more complex tripod that comes with it.

Theoretically, you could mount an air-cooled M1919 on the M1917A1 heavy tripod, and increase the range of the weapon dramatically. This wasn't usually done, though, because for a long-range MG you generally want to be able to sustain fire for an extended period of time, which the air-cooled M1919 couldn't do without overheating. The MG34 had a quick-change barrel, which allowed it to keep up a high sustained rate of fire, even though it was air-cooled. The M1919 lacked any kind of quick change barrel feature; probably its biggest weakness as a weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you YankeeDog. I figured that there was somethings that I was unaware of. I didn't realize that there was that much difference in the mounts of the various machine guns, I can see how the stability of the mount would have a profound effect on the pattern/spread of the rounds at long range, or that some of them had telescopic sights or the barrel change speed differences between the 1919 and the 34. The slow barrel change out seems to be a strange oversight on the part of the 1919 design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is if you are lying on the ground the rounds don't have far to fall before they hit the ground, usually happens between 200 and 300 metres. Up on a tripod the barrel can be elevated and hence the rounds go further, then of course you get into "quality" of tripod. Then the sight and lastly on occasion some Sustained Fire MG's used "boat-tail" bullets that had a profound effect on the range, increasing it by half as much again in some instances.

The barrel on the MG34 was slightly longer but probably not enough to have a big effect on range, the MG 34 bullet was slightly larger too which could give it a little better carrying range, 7.92 as opposed to 7.62

The M1919 was never really meant to be a LMG so quick barrel changes were not a top priority at design stage, also as it was really an air cooled variant of the water cooled weapon the design did not lend itself to rapid barrel changes. Later models had a much heavier barrel and so required changes less often, probably not as often as an MG34.

Offsetting this is the fact that the MG34 fire from an open bolt, i.e. the breech is open and when you pull the trigger it flies forward, feeds the round into the chamber and then fires. The M1919 however effectively has 2 rounds in the breech/chamber at any one time and the bolt is closed against the round in the chamber.

This means the MG34 can get hotter and not run the risk of a round going off due to the heat of the barrel so barrels can be changed less often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good answers YankeeDog!

I suspect another reason for the M1917's longer range is the weight of the gun, thanks to the water filled cooling shroud. One of the problems with firing at longer ranges is the amount of "jump" from recoil. The more the weapon bounces around the less chance of a round going down range will do more than burry itself in the ground well ahead of the aim point, or sail off into the sunset never to be seen or heard from again. Anybody that has seen a M1919A4 fire on a tripod knows that sucker jumps a lot.

Let's not forget that the primary advantage of the Lafette tripod is the recoil absorption springs. I've fired a MG42 on a tripod and it's amazing how little recoil there is. Almost as important, the gunner does not actually make contact with the gun itself. This means the gunner doesn't have to deal with the recoil while aiming. Firing the M1919A4, by comparison, is a whole different experience. See comparison:

MG42:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwW31u6wYvE&feature=related

M1919A4

Further, here's the M1917A1 on its heavier tripod

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2nSnUGIBA4

And obviously mounted on bipods is far less effective.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Grog question. How about the 30cal and 50cal Mgs mounted on or in US tanks and half tracks, did they have a better effective range or rate of fire than the tripod mounted US 30 or 50 cal mgs?

Again, depends on the mounting. But often, yes.

Most stable and best MGs are the coaxial MGs on tanks. These have very stable mounts, good, and good telescopic sighting and ranging equipment (they use the same sighting equipment as the main gun). They're also sometimes equipped with a heavier barrel that's not as subject to overheating as lighter barrels found on MGs intended to be carried around on foot.

At the other end of the spectrum are pintle-mounted MGs, such as those on US halftracks, and the .50 cal on the roof of U.S. tanks -- this type of mount is little better than a post welded to the vehicle, and while it absorbs recoil fairly well, it doesn't add anything in the way of sighting or ranging; I would consider this type of mount fairly comparable in terms of stability as the basic tripod that the M1919A4 is usually seen on.

Somewhere inbetween would be a tank bow MG. These usually don't have any special sighting equipment, but they do often have a heavier barrel, and while mount limits the field of fire to a cone to the front of the tank, it is a very solid mounting, so the gunner doesn't have to really worry about recoil at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having fired 50 cals from vehicle pintel mounts, I can tell you the recoil simply isn't an issue. The gun barrel itself is so massive there is no appreciable climb. The issue with flexible mounts is simply that the aiming is all by the operator's sight and "feel", and that will inevitably be somewhat "loose", especially for longer ranges. You can still see the fall of shot and "walk" the rounds. But it is nothing like the optics-assisted and machinery-held stability of a coaxial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of good info in this thread. I wonder if the effective range of the various vehicle mounted Mgs is modeled in the game? At issue to me is whether or not to "light" fire at an infantry target at 1500 to 2000m with the tank mounted 30cals or would that be wasting my tanks time if it had another target. I see that in the manual the M1917A1 has an effective range of 2000m so hopefully the tank mounted 30cals are modeled for this range , or at least close to it. I didn't worry so much about about "light arms" specs in CMX1 but CMBN is a lot less forgiving of wrong choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...