Lazy historical question to kill time while at work

[ricroma]

Hi guys,

sorry to bother you, but the work is superslow today and I don't really know what to do (work in a store, not the busiest time of the year...)

I was wondering... were MG42 really that common in Normandy and/or in the german army in general? I mean, I'm not historian, but it seemed to me that MG42s were really deadly and scary weapons, and it surprises me to see that almost every german squad in CM:BN has one. I don't know why I always thought that they were more like a rare goody (maybe not rare, but not so spread out too).

I don't know, of course no need for answer. Really a pointless topic!

Ricroma

[Sakai007]

The MG42 was developed as a more mass producible version of the MG34. She's made almost entirely of stamped steel, just like a Sten gun. The rate of fire was one of the things that made the weapons reputation. You can't hear the individual 'bang' of each round and it sounded more like a long burp. Really, I think the best description I've heard is that is sounds like canvas being torn. Anyway, that sound alone was enough to make men prostrate with fear. The US Army even put out a training video about the MG42 to un-scare the folks going over as replacements. The MG42 was a beauty tho, I think the main feature that makes it stand out is the quick change barrel. That allows someone with a commanding view to lay down suppressing fire for as long as they have new barrels and ammo. So, I guess to answer your question, yes they were spread around like candy on Halloween.

[Sergei]

This is also the reason why the MP 44 became so common so quickly: it was much cheaper to produce than the MP 40. Panther, too, was simple to manufacture compared to the "old fashioned" Pz IV and Tiger I.

The pre-war German designs were generally good and robust designs, but they relied on too complicated processes. The new armaments designed during the later years of the war were better suited for a total war.

[YankeeDog]

As noted, the MG42 was definitely not a "rare goody" by 1944. In general, the Germans had been steadily increasing the MGs in their infantry TOEs since the beginning of the war, and in comparison to other nationalities they had a high level of MGs even in 1939. Of course, 1939-1942, it was all MG34s, but IMHO the MG34 isn't really significantly inferior to the MG42 in terms of battlefield capability (if anything, I think that ROF over 900rpm is a liability rather than an asset for an infantry GPMG). But the MG42 was much cheaper manufacture and somewhat more reliable in difficult conditions (extreme temperatures, dirt/mud, etc.), so it definitely takes the crown as best infantry MG of the war.

There were some second line German units in Normandy that were equipped with older and/or captured weaponry, but by and large German units had the 1 (or sometimes 2) MG42 per squad, plus more in Company HW platoons, etc. that their TOEs called for.

[Sgt Schultz]

I believe the firing mechanism for the MG42 lives on in the guts of the US SAW.

When something works, stick with it and make lots.

[Squatdog]

The MG42 was basically the first true GMPG; light enough to be used as a LMG, but powerful and robust enough to be tripod-mounted in a sustained fire role.

Meanwhile, American rifle platoons had to make do with the BAR, which was terrible even in the LMG role.

I believe the firing mechanism for the MG42 lives on in the guts of the US SAW.

When something works, stick with it and make lots.

The M60 was basically designed as a space-age MG42.

[LongLeftFlank]

It seems that BARs still did make an outsize contribution to American squad killing power though, and there are numerous accounts from both WWII theatres and Korea of gutsy BAR men singlehandedly holding off or killing huge numbers of enemy. I can hypothesize several possible reasons for this (1) generally assigned to a reliable squad member; less special training required than for a machine gunner (2) full automatic fire capability, even if inferior to true LMGs, encouraged more aggressive suppression firing, especially in low visibility terrain like bocage (3) unlike the Garand toters, failure to fire would be more obvious to comrades. There may be other reasons as well. A close friend's grandfather was a BAR man in Korea and he liked the weapon much better than the 30 cal.

[Sergei]

BAR is an interesting piece of work. It seems to have been originally designed to be more of a "heavy SMG", fired from the hip while clearing trenches.

I think German army was the only army in WW2 that used belt-fed LMGs as their standard squad weapon (with exceptions like US airborne). People really loved their magazine fed LMGs following WW1.

[LukeFF]

I believe the firing mechanism for the MG42 lives on in the guts of the US SAW.

When something works, stick with it and make lots.

Heck, the MG42 lives on in the form of the MG3.

[Boche]

plus if there was ever a baeutiful weapon to look at, its the Mg42/Mg3

[Tarquelne]

Meanwhile, American rifle platoons had to make do with the BAR, which was terrible even in the LMG role.

Something I'm not clear on is why the BAR is considered a poor LMG rather than a poor assault rifle.

The use of rifle ammo? Doctrine?

[akd]

It uses rifle-caliber ammo, weighs over 20lbs and serves in the role of base of fire for the squad. How could it ever be compared to an assault rifle?

[YankeeDog]

Something I'm not clear on is why the BAR is considered a poor LMG rather than a poor assault rifle.

The use of rifle ammo? Doctrine?

the reason that the BAR gets compared a lot to LMGs is that the U.S. Army tried to use it as a squad-level base of fire weapon in WWII, a role for which it was not well suited, and for which the LMG was far better.

In technical military firearms discussion, the term "Assault Rifle" is usually reserved to denote specifically intermediate caliber semi-auto/auto weapons, a family that starts with the Stg44 and continues through the AK-47 and M16. Firing a full rifle-caliber round, The BAR is usually technically considered an "Automatic Rifle" (hence the name...), and would therefore be compared to contemporaries like the Soviet AVT-40 and post war weapons like the FN FAL and M-14.

IMHO, the BAR is probably the best automatic rifle designed and fielded prior to the end of WWII.

However, the weapon class as a whole suffers from the problem that it is neither fish nor fowl -- full rifle-caliber automatic weapons are usually too heavy to issue as a standard battle firearm to infantrymen, but lack the range and sustained fire capability that a squad or platoon-level base of fire weapon requires.

So generally militaries have trended towards eliminating the Automatic Rifle category, in favor Assault Rifles supported by GPMGs.

[Sergei]

Browning Automatic Rifle is a bit of an odd fish because it was rushed to the World War 1, for a role that wasn't any longer there afterwards. But it proved to be a reliable design, which is more than can be said of many LMGs of the time. Sweden, Poland and Belgium produced versions of BAR with features like pistol grip and quickly changeable barrel. This is the FN Model D:

.

This is a Swedish produced 6.5mm version:

[poesel]

One of the few joys I had as a conscript was to fire a MG3. I was told it was the same as the WWII gun but had a softer spring to reduce rate of fire. I was also told that some gunners back then would shorten the spring to achieve the same result.

On the firing range it was easy to fire and quite accurate. Obviously no one shot back but I definitely would not like to be on the receiving end of that.

Changing the barrel is really easy as pie. IIRC it could be easily done in under 5 seconds (if you have a protective glove). When I disassembled the MG at the end of the day a heap of sand fell out - and still it had worked without problems!

Btw the bipod has a very suspiciously overstamped swastika looking like marking on the front...

[JasonC]

Tarq - it is important to remember the WW I experience as well as the WW II, and not to pretend that only the latter (or later) exists.

In WW I, most MGs were far too heavy to be moved up with the infantry effectively, to defend captured trenchlines. Because there was an urgent need for portable MGs and none of the true heavy, belt fed and water cooled guns of the era remotely qualified as portable across an artillery-swept moonscape, nations developed *magazine fed* machineguns.

The most successful of these was the British Lewis gun. It weighed 28 pounds, the weight of a small aircooled MMG in WW II and distinctly heavily than an LMG, but much less than the 50 pounds or so of a Maxim or Vickers. They were pan magazine fed with 47 round magazines, and the most useful and battlefield-maneuverable MGs of that era.

The BAR comes from that era as a further progression toward portability. The magazine size falls by half, but in return the weight falls by a third, and the weapon becomes truly single-man usable, rather than only team usable. It is the light machine gun of 1918. No belt fed true LMGs of comparably low weight then existed.

In WW II, the British went with the Bren precisely because the lessons of WW I said portability was vastly more important, tactically, than belt fed sustained firepower, for anything but static defensive roles. The BAR remained in US use because it fit that assessment - but see the next paragraph as well. The Russians used pan fed LMGs quite similar to the Lewis for the same reasons.

The Germans used an air cooled multiple purpose MG, and the Americans believed that their light 30 cal Browning was the right heavier MG (barely heavier with the tripod than a WW I Lewis, air cooled, and belt fed), and that between it and the BAR they had both ends of the relevant portability spectrum most useful on the field, covered.

The BAR isn't an assault rifle, in the sense of a carbine-caliber weapon used as an individual small arm at 250 yards rather than squad base of fire with 500 plus yard range. The lighter half of the roles a Lewis was used for, the BAR was meant to perform, and the heavier half, a Browning 30 cal MMG was meant to perform. The American force design was to have the former at squad and the latter at platoon level.

FWIW...

[dan/california]

The German concept has dominated the post war era though. More or less completely in western armies. In many cases with weapons that essentially copy the MG42 feed system.

[JasonC]

dan - only sorta. The biggest change was assault rifles becoming common.

It is also worth mentioning that in WW I, there was an army that thought an air cooled belt fed, light MG weighing 20 lbs, would get them the best of all worlds. But it was an unreliably failure.

The army was the French and the weapon was the Chauchat. It was a lousy LMG and it jammed constantly. Why did it jam so much? Dirt got into the chamber from the feeding ammo. By 1924, the French abandoned belt fed LMGs for a top loading magazine that would keep dirt out and thus avoid jams.

Similarly, no one later wanted 1200 rpm cyclic fire rates, because it just went through ammo too fast. Instead all the post war MGs dialed back to 450 rpm or at most 600-800 - and assault rifles went to carbine ammo to enable men to carry twice as many rounds. Because firing *longer* typically matters more than firing farther or faster...

[Squatdog]

The 'Automatic Rifle' concept was an evolutionary dead-end and the BAR ended up in a role for which it was wholly unsuited.

This was compounded by the fact that dedicated MMGs often weren't even available at platoon level in the US Army.

[beatmasta]

Heck, the MG42 lives on in the form of the MG3.

And the MG34 lives in the Star Wars as the DLT-19 heavy blaster rifle

http://nl.starwars.wikia.com/wiki/DLT-19_Heavy_Blaster_Rifle

[Erwin]

Says a lot for German design that the Imperial troops still use an updated version...

Now can we have a CM: IMPERIAL TROOPERS?

[YankeeDog]

It is also worth mentioning that in WW I, there was an army that thought an air cooled belt fed, light MG weighing 20 lbs, would get them the best of all worlds. But it was an unreliably failure.

The army was the French and the weapon was the Chauchat. It was a lousy LMG and it jammed constantly. Why did it jam so much? Dirt got into the chamber from the feeding ammo.

I agree with the essential thrust of your statements here, Jason, but a correction here: The Chauchat was fed by a 20-round underslung magazine, not a belt. This puts it solidly into the same category as the BAR: Same weight, same mag size, similar cartridge weight & power.

In fact, the mag was apparently a significant source of the weapon's problems: It utilized an unusual, open-sided banana-shaped mag that easily picked up dirt and other debris, which then got carried into the action when the weapon was fired.

While most firearms experts reserve particular scorn for the Chauchat, I have read some who argue that the Chauchat wasn't actually as bad a design as its reputation. The ones American troops received were certainly awful, but this apparently had as much to do with particularly bad build quality coming from the factory that supplied the American weapons as shortcomings in the design itself. They also tried to modify the design to fire the American .30-'06 cartridge and this wasn't very successful -- the .30-06 chambering caused extraction problems. In the original, 8mm French chambering it was apparently much more reliable as long as it was kept clean. Eventually, Americans dropped the .30-'06 re-design and went over to using the original 8mm design (which must have made logistics fun), but by this point the damage to the weapon's reputation with American troops was already done.

Nevertheless, the Chauchat's only really unambiguously positive distinction is that it came first, beating the BAR to the battlefield by about 3 years and being the only Automatic Rifle to see extended use in large numbers in WWI. The BAR is certainly a better design. The Lewis isn't quite comparable because it's significantly heavier and also can't easily be fired from the hip, an attribute that was considered important for the "Marching Fire" doctrine of the time.

[Sublime]

As far as in CMBN terms.. my experience has been US paratrooper squads have a lot better firepower capability and flexibility with the 1919A4 over the regular grunts BAR in each team. The 1919A4 definitely seems more lethal, accurate, and is helped A LOT by its ability to keep firing beyond every 20 rounds. This I believe is the key problem, to lay down suppressive fire (which is key for the squad LMG role) you need to more than 20 rounds per mag, especially if its one type of this weapon per squad. You can get away with 20/30 round clips when everyones got assault rifles, but thats a different story.

I'd agree with what was posted above - the BAR is just a poor choice for the role needed. It isnt a true light machine gun in a role that calls for one.

[TrapOne]

The US Marine Corps is replacing the M249 SAW with the M27, an automatic rifle with a 30-round magazine.

http://www.military.com/news/article/corps-to-replace-saw-with-automatic-rifle.html

As best as I can gather, the Marines are attracted to the automatic rifle's greater accuracy and reduced ammunition expenditure. There were also concerns about the difficulty of employing the heavy SAW in urban environments.

[Squatdog]

The US Marine Corps is replacing the M249 SAW with the M27, an automatic rifle with a 30-round magazine.

http://www.military.com/news/article/corps-to-replace-saw-with-automatic-rifle.html

As best as I can gather, the Marines are attracted to the automatic rifle's greater accuracy and reduced ammunition expenditure. There were also concerns about the difficulty of employing the heavy SAW in urban environments.

Sounds awfully familiar...