Herr Jung

Agreed. The FJ helmet camo argument was just too trivial and speculative for his own good. I think people can just filter those out. But I thought the exchanging of code words - if true - was very informational because I wondered about that when in SPR the 101st were still using Flash-Thunder well after the drop when its security would have been compromised. I also enjoyed the dissing of Dale Dye.

As for BOB use of .50 cal. in Ep. 3, I found this: http://www.101airborneww2.com/bandofbrothers4.html By writer of '101st Airborne-The Screaming Eagles at Normandy' The Battle of Bloody Gulch In one scene on 13 June, the Perconte character comments:"It's 9:30 in the morning back home." I really don't know why that line was even inserted. The battle started before 0600AM French time that day, and 2nd Armored tanks showed-up to assist around 2:30 in the afternoon,which is what time it would've been when Perconte made his statement. The detail about it raining off and on, on the 12-13th June was correct. Actually, when the 2nd AD showed-up, the 66th Armored Regiment expended some 75,000 rounds of .50 caliber MG ammo, as well as 225 rounds from their main batteries. The troopers were almost out of ammo when the tankers arrived and many of them cried when given additional ammo to kill the enemy with. Others were seen to kiss the tanks in gratitude. Some paratroopers jumped aboard the Shermans and manned the .50 caliber MGs, quickly depleting the ammo supply. "They were an angry bunch", a 66th officer commented.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: But until then, I'll have the clearest recording I can get to last me a lifetime. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's coming to DVD for sure (although a few months late)! I hear the series will be comparable to SPR. Since we won't get a chance to see it on the big screen, the next best thing is cranking up the Schweres Maschinen DVD with DD/DTS 5.1 with anamorphic 16x9 display. It will last a lifetime too as opposed to VHS recordings which will be barely watchable 10 years from now. Time to wake up the neighbors again who had peace and quiet for some time now. Herr Jung

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: The names, light medium and heavy mean nothing really. Its semantics. The weapons are characterized by what they can do, not what they are called. Lewis [ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Username ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An MG able to lay down a continuous volume of fire with reasonable accuracy and reliability by firing full-power rifle cartridges or above (but just below "cannon") at around 450rpm or above at some distance should be classified as an HMG. To achieve this, the MG is usually accompanied by stable mounting, good supply of ammo, cooling system, etc. Of course, not all LMG, MMG, and HMG are the same, it's just classification for convenience. US .50 cal was first classified as an AT gun by the US Army which - like the other armies - thought of the water-cooled .30 (M1919?) as the HMG. As armor gradually thickened, .50 cal's role had to be redefined. It excelled in certain areas, but was quite a bit of overkill and not so efficient for anti-personnel work. I know it's darn heavy, but it's classification? I honestly can't say because it doesn't fit the classic HMG definition -- an MG doesn't have to fire the big bullet to become one. The Germans also had large caliber machine guns sometimes used for the ground role. Some Germans probably even called it the Schweres Maschinengewehr (i.e., HMG). Herr Jung

Since it looks like MP44 is getting the bum rap, I went to my source "German Automatic Weapons of WWII" by Robert Bruce: ... MKb42 machine carbine and subsequent developments were cheaply and quickly mass-produced from welded and riveted sheet metal stampings. They used a simple and hardy gas operating and bolt locking system that was exceptionally reliable despite soldier abuse and severe environmental conditions. The remarkable battlefield effectiveness of these weapons came from a newly invented cartridge midway in power and range between 9mm pistol/sub-machine gun and 8mm rifle/machine gun ammunition. This unique gun and ammunition package gave the German rifleman a single weapon that could adequately (though not fully) perform many of the tasks previously assigned to specialized firearms. Battle reports from the civil war in Spain . . . "fire superiority" was decisive . . . troops either press forward or retreat, based on their instinctive perceptions of the effectiveness of their outgoing fire and that of incoming rounds. But mere volume was not enough, German observers insisted; the fire had to be "hard-hitting" as well. Weighing almost 11lbs (4.9kg), it was rather on the heavy side but extremely sturdy, and simple to manufacture due to the sheet metal stampings ... reveals its inherent strength and reliability ... simplicity ... dust cover ... Manufacturing tolerances were purposely kept loose so that the weapon would continue to function reliably with minimal attention. Even so, field stripping is easily accomplished with the single take-down took issued, and cleaning is fast and simple. It is easy to see why the weapon became a favourite of the Wehrmacht in Russia. More powerful, accurate, and a lot safer to handle than a sub-machine gun. Production contracts were soon awarded to several manufacturers, and thousands of the newly-designed Machinenpistole 43 began to find their way to the Eastern Front. The effect on the morale of the soldiers lucky enough to receive these new weapons must have been spectacular. Its effectiveness and "soldier-proof" reliability instilled great confidence. The StG 44 - with its compactness, accuracy, selective fire capability, simplicity and economy of manufacture, and deadly efficient 7.92mm Kurz cartridge - was an outstanding combat and industrial success story. In spite of all dificulties more than 425,000 are said to have been manufactured; luckily for the Allies, less than one third of these are estimated to have reached the front line, most of them in the East. The first open mention ... mid-1944 ... (US) Army's monthly "Intelligence Bulletin" ... the gun was rated as inferior to the woefully underpowered American M1 carbine, largely on the basis of the MP43's supposedly excessive weight, and was said to offer "no apparent advantage except for the slightly higher muzzle velocity." Shameless progaganda was not exclusively a German and Russian practice. (discussing live fire testing) recoil (light, as expected), muzzle jump (negligible), sound report (moderate), trigger release (as most modern assault rifles) ... slow, deliverate single shots ... acceptable group ... fast semi-auto ... not nearly as accurate as that of comparable weapons directly attributable to magazine as monopod ... full auto ... jagged upward right disgonals, confirming common tendency of all hand-held automatic weapons ... short full auto bursts were found to be impressively controllable, also when shap shooting from the hip (due to weight, ammo, cyclic rate, front heavy balance, good ergonomics, linear recoiling mass over the barrel, etc.) A lot of practical shooting experience had obviously gone into the original MKb design. ... several stoppages were experienced; all, however, were directly attributable to the 50-year-old steel cased ammunition, and to one dented magazine. All told, the performance of this remarkable seminal design was soberingly impressive. Given that the weapon was of 1945 vintage, built under the worst possible conditions, and fed distinctly "utility grade" ammunition, it was impressive that it still functioned at all. That it shot so well is yet another testimony to the genius of Hugo Schmeisser. Herr Jung

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: MG42 gunner, One thing that went into consideration, I think, was that the MP44 was not a very reliable weapon when compared to the MP40 and especially the Thompson. It is a beautiful looking weapon but it's actually made of cheap stamped metal parts. Here's a quote from the HANDBOOK ON GERMAN MILITARY FORCES: This weapon has not proved very successfull because it is impossible to repair in the field and because of its poor firing characteristics. The stampings forming the gas cylinder and body casings are made of thin material and are very easily damaged. [ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, well, do I sense a bias here? When we are talking about the US Army's official take on German weaponry, we are inevitably fed with the cliche "MG42 bark is worse than its bite," "MG42's cheap metal stampings and loose specs are indicative of the material strain the Germans are experiencing," etc. To them, it is obvious that .30 cal. Browning is better than MG42, Colt .45 is better than P08/P38, Grease gun is better than Thompson is better than Schmeisser (MP38/40), etc. MP44 was also one of the most underrated and misunderstood weapons by the US Army which could not embrace the concept of selective fire assault rifles using reduced power rifle rounds until much later on. The German Army ventured ahead, and the troops using it - especially on the Eastern front - immediately saw its utility. Hitler later became a convert of the weapon, and christened it 'Sturmgewehr.' I don't know what the heck "poor firing characteristics" means. The fact of the matter is that metal stampings are the way to go for military small arms because milling chunks of steel blocks into intricate parts just is not cost effective. The cost and weight advantage of metal stamping construction is negated if the design and production flaws make it prone to breakage. The idea is to make it strong enough so it will survive most battlefield usage. I forgot which but several (US Army?) weapons going the way of metal stampings were considered to be failures because of sorely lacking stamping designs. The accounts I've heard of front line soldiers actually using the MG42 and MP44 are nothing but positive. Some people who have handled the weapons later on claim MP44 cannot hit the side of a barn or that they are unreliable. A simple case of a weapon outliving its shelf life? Sure it may not be as reliable as MP40 or Thompson, but does that mean it was so unreliable as to become a liability (surely better than a Sten)? It's a quite an interesting subject that I'd appreciate hearing more of. Herr Jung

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: It occured to me that to answer the question of whether the Bren could be considered a proper LMG you might want to investigate how the Germans and satellite countries deployed the original Czech designed equivalent in their squads. Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> MG 26(t)/ZB 1926 and MG 30(t)/ZB 1930 were LMGs which have seen quite a bit of action early the early war at the hands of the German Army and especially the Waffen SS - which initially had some problems procuring weapons. Other major customers were the armies of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. The weapons were almost identical to the Bren in design, but normally used a straight or curved 20-rd magazine. (Other sources claim that up to 40-rd magazines were available as well.) The following is a quote from -- http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust5.htm When Germany occupied Czechoslovakia in March 1939, the ZB 1926 was incorporated into the German army under the designation MG 26(t), the suffix (t) denominating a captured weapon of Czech ("Tschechisch") origin. Together, the Germans acquired 31,204 machine guns of the types ZB 1926 and it's successor, the ZB 1930. Another source for these weapons were those captured in Yugoslavia that had originally bought 1,500 ZB 1926, although it is unknown how many of these exactly were captured by the Germans. With the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1939 the Germans captured 31,204 machine guns of the types ZB 1926 and ZB 1930, mostly the latter. From these, 1,500 were sold to Bulgaria. The ZB 1930 was integrated into German army service under the designation MG 30(t). Production of the weapon was continued under German occupation for the German forces: 10,430 were produced for the SS. In 1941 production was switched over to the German MG34 and production of the MG 30(t) / ZB 1930 ceased. It is said the ZB26 and ZB30 were slow and expensive to manufacture, and required complicated machining from large steel blocks much like MG34, which probably lead to its early cease of production. So what happened to these Czech weapons later in the war? My guess is they were mostly sold off to German allies and/or redistributed to second line units, fixed defenses, anti-partisan patrols, etc. I¡¯ve seen a photo of one being used by the SS against captured enemies/partisans cut loose (maybe a doctored propaganda). I¡¯ve seen a footage of them being used for the French coastal defense around the time of Normandy invasion. The Bren is an excellent LMG and maybe an MMG on a tripod, but not a GPMG which the Germans preferred. As for the weapon system weight issue, different sources give slightly different numbers: Belt of 50-rd (7.92mm) --- 1.5kg Box of 4 x 50-rd belt --- 8.35kg MG34 w/ bipod --- 12.1kg MG42 w/ bipod --- 11.6kg Lafette34 tripod --- 23.6kg Lafette42 tripod --- 20.5kg MG30(t)/ZB 1930 --- 9.65kg Magazine of 20-rd --- 0.8kg Source http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm Herr Jung

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: The assault drums for the MG34/42 are based on the same principle as the assault magazine for the FN MAG; a snail drum which holds a few ready rounds so that the GPMG gunner can fire on the move. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> MG34, designed to do just about everything possible with a machine gun, came with all sorts of adaptors and interesting accessories (some not used all that often). The following is a quote from: http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust5.htm#mg34 The MG 34 could use both magazine-fed and belt-fed ammunition (the above-mentioned 7.92mm standard infantry ammuntion). Available were Doppeltrommel ("double drum") saddle drum magazines of 75 rounds and gegurtete Munition ("linked/belted ammunition") belts of 50 rounds (weight: 1.5 kg) and 250 rounds (boxed; weight of a filled 250-round belt box: 8.35 kg). The single belts of course could be connected to make an endless belt. In the role as a light machine gun with bipod the weapon often was used with 50-round Gurttrommel, a small drum magazine containing the 50-round belt. To prepare the weapon to fire the drum magazines - by default all later produced models of the weapon were set to fire belted ammunition - the top cover part of the casing housing the breech mechanism had to be changed to a cover part that could accomodate the saddle magazine ammunition. Note that different feed cover was necessary to use the non-belt, double "saddle" drum magazine -- a completely different set up in the LMG configuration only but with pretty good 75 round capacity. Loading on the field may have been a problem. It is also my understanding the ROF increased for MG34 when you used the magazine feed using springs. MG42, which was to be the cheaper substitute, did away with all the fancy accessories of MG34, and thus did not have the "saddle" drum magazine (Doppeltrommel). But it did retain the regular assault drum carrying the 50-round belted ammunition (Gurttrommel), and to the best of my knowledge it was used throughout the war. The Gurttrommel drum itself is just a hollow can housing the rolled up 50-round belt, and the fully loaded assault drum set up really unbalances the weapon, so I don't think the gunners would've liked to have it on all the time. I'm not sure how the assault magazine for the FN MAG works, but the same type is used for MG3. It is almost impossible to fire the MG34/42 from the shoulder because it is very front heavy (you have seen the picture of poor fellow holding up the barrel). But you can use the sling hung around the neck and the bipod as the fore grip to fire it from the hip (as in the FM) for assaults. A veteran Gebirgsjaeger once said this was not even possible with MG42 because of the strong recoil. As for the fire on the move argument, you are just trying to suppress the enemy in front of you, right? Herr Jung

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: WOW! Nobody else seems to have noticed but good ol' Herr Jung is still classified as a Junior Member yet has a membership number of 221! Obviously not the outgoing type. Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He-he. I've been coming here for several years, and love reading many of the posts and the accumulated pool of knowledge. Maybe some of my pre-release date postings may have been cut and not counted in? :confused: I didn't know anybody noticed. Maybe I'll just write some more from now on toward the veteran status. My qualifications: general knowledge of weaponry & vehicles, intermediate collector of uniforms and equipments, been in it since AH's 'Panzer Leader' & 'Squad Leader', etc. :cool: Herr Jung

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hanns: The main point is that if the Enfield was as good as the Garand, then why did both the Germans and the British attempt to copy it during the war? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know about the Brits, but the Germans? The Germans were also interested in semi-auto battle rifles long before the American involvement in WWII, and Walter's G41 design won over that of Mauser in 1940/41. G41 had some faults and its bolt mechanism was combined with a Russian Tokarev-style gas system to produce G43 (10 shot magazine) which was made in considerable numbers (402,713 of which 53,435 were for sniper). Of course there were also the fallschirmjaeger specific FG42 (full-auto, semi-auto selective fire, 7.92 X 57 mm) and world's first true assault rifle MP43/44 (full-auto, semi-auto selective fire, 7.92 X 33 mm "Kurz"). No, the Garand did not win the war for the Allies. Despite whatever Patton had to say about the weapon, a rifle is just a rifle, and the enemy is just not going to stand around begging to be shot. The German Army learned the lesson well in WWI, and decided to built its infantry unit based on the machine gun which was to be the main source of firepower. And, the German infantry was generally superior to any of its foes in large part because of the basic superiority of its machine guns. The G43 was the next generation K98k and MP44 was the next generation MP40 and K98k, and the Germans did not have any reason to revere the Garand used by the Amis whose fighting ability was not regarded to be much by the Germans. Eventually, G43 and MP44 would've replaced the old weapons. And most of the armies went the way of reduced power, selective fire rifle as their predecessor. Herr Jung

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M?jager: The question that actually has me bothered is why the Geramns never(?) employed the MG131 as a ground support weapon like the US HMG .5 M?jager ( hic*)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably because of the doctrine and logistics. Germans stressed standardization of ammunition even though they ended up with a whole mixture of weaponry. 7.92 X 57 mm ammuntion was the standard Infanteriepatrone for K98k, G41/43, MG34/42, ZB26/30, FG42, etc. The 9mm pistol round was used for P08/38, MP38/40, etc. So it was a huge task to take on the 7.92 Kurz development and supply for Stg44 as well as other calibers for the ground role. There are accounts that the heavier MGs were indeed used for the ground role as the war progressed on. Germans did seem to have this 'machine gun fetish' and the mindset was that the new universal machine guns (i.e., MG34/42) could do all the jobs with the high rate of fire and sophisticated tripod mounting for long range accuracy and effect. This belief could have been so strong that they felt they didn't really need to introduce different caliber machine guns which lacked mobility and would put strain on the logistics (except for specialized roles). Maybe they preferred to go with more portable MGs along with the combined arms and seizing of the initiative. Anti-vehicle work could be achieved with AT guns, FLAKs, etc. My question to others is: how does the German 7.92 X 57 mm round compare to others such as the US .30-06 (7.62 x xx mm) and the British .303 and the Nato 7.62 X 51 mm? In simple terms please. My understanding is that the Nato round owes much to the German round which produced less smoke and all the rounds are pretty much comparable in terms of performance. Herr Jung

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nathan: i distinctly remember one of the great thing about the 42 is the fact that it had the handle that made it so you didnt need the glove. it got issued but from what i understand if you werent in a fixed position firing thousands of rounds then it was never used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've seen and read many things about MG42, but I've never heard of this feature. MG34 and 42 barrels are sleek without any appendages so they would slide in nicely in the barrel jackets of the guns. MG42's unique barrel changing system is based on the hinge design to the side which when pressed, will pop the barrel out of the barrel jacket so that it would be easier to remove the barrel. To handle the hot barrels, MG34/42 gunners were issued with asbestos pads (I've never seen gloves) which were often hung on the face of MG tool pouches (as shown in the photo above). German MG34/42 spare barrels were usually carried inside special metal containers carried by the second or the third MG gunner. An LMG section would have two to three spare barrels, and a HMG section would have three to five barrels. So when changing, a spare barrel container will be opened, hot barrel removed with an asbestos pad and placed next to the fresh barrel, fresh barrel inserted in the barrel jacket, etc. I've timed this with MG34, and I could do it in about 8 seconds with every thing nicely laid out and within arms's reach, but at most 15 seconds should do it in most situations. MG42 will be much faster. For a look of MG42 parts, see: http://www.brpguns.com/mg42.htm http://www.dragonmodelsltd.com/html/71089p2-1.html Herr Jung

I've been playing the game for a few days now, and I must agree with the original post. I've played the Villers-Bocage scenario over and over last night as Wittman, and I want him to make smart moves during the 60 seconds. The computer AI is very nimble, and does a great job of dodging the 60 ton monster, playing hide-and-seek and making Wittman's Tiger look like a fool during the no-control phase. I want him to level a building with the PIAT team and HQ, and look for other AT threats, but he puts in 5-6 HE shots into the rubble during the full minute. I don't dig control-at-all-times, but this area fire feature might be improved by selecting time or round limit? Herr Jung

Try Liszt's 'Les Preludes - Poem No. 3 in C' at 2 min., 7 min., and 11 min. mark. This was used very often in German newsreels involving combat footage. http://www.prs.net/liszt.html Wagner's 'Die Meistersinger von Nuremberg - Vorspiel' has the awe-inspiring feel of 'Pomp and Circumstances' and was also used often in newsreels. 'Die Walkure' preludes to acts 1 & 2 are also great for background music. http://www.prs.net/midi-t-z.html#WAGNER Herr Jung

As others have pointed out, the German doctrine was to use the MG as the main source of firepower. I take it that this also meant very aggressive deployment of various types of MGs. HMGs were indeed used for laying down suppressing fire. I've seen, however, several instances from wartime documentary/training films where German HMGs were moved about in close support of attacking infantry such as in town fighting. They fired away seemingly without cover at close range, and I thought it was a mighty brave thing. As for movement, a crew handling an MG34/42 on Lafette tripod mount would be weighed down when trying to move the whole package for a short distance. But when the system is all disassembled and distributed to the crew for moving to a distant spot, I think their movement should not be penalized too greatly compared to a regular rifle infantry squad. MG34 w/ bipod = 12.1 kg Lafette34 tripod = 23.6 kg Combined = 35.7 kg MG42 w/ bipod = 11.6 kg Lafette42 tripod = 20.5 kg Combined = 32.1 kg The mounting and dismounting of the MGs would probably take less than 20 seconds, respectively. The folding up of the tripod for portage would also be quite easy. The setting up of a good firing position would take much longer. I'm not sure if this could be modeled in CM. HerrJung