Remarkable comparison and contrasting of the MG-34 and the improved BAR

[John Kettler]

Everyone interested,

I found this while looking for WW II pistol training vids. Well worth a look and full of groggery and surprises. Weapon analysis combined with firing trial results on identical courses, then a discussion of how the weapon was used in its squad. Believe you'll find this both informative and thought provoking. I sure did, starting with a BAR version I'd never heard of before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=idAdqQsarxA

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

That was fun

[womble]

Interesting that the good colonel describes the German squad as being designed for the rifle team to move separately from the MG team.

[Mord]

Very cool and interesting.

Mord.

[MikeyD]

I was somewhat surprised at the MG34 not knocking things down reliably. B.A.R. seemed to be more of a precision weapon, something I've never really associated with B.A.R.

[womble]

I was somewhat surprised at the MG34 not knocking things down reliably. B.A.R. seemed to be more of a precision weapon, something I've never really associated with B.A.R.

The presenter was at pains to point out why the german weapon was less controllable than the american one. It'd be interesting to see a comparison of the BAR vs a snail-drum fed MG34/42.

[Chek]

Isn't it a bit like comparing oranges and apples.

One is an automatic rifle used to add weight of fire to the squad where the beaten zone is provided by the whole squad.

The other is a machine gun which basically is the squads firepower and a larger beaten zone would've been a necessity.

I should add that there are plenty of pictures of MG 34s operating without tripods( a quick web search will turn up plenty) and have always been under the impression that tripods were only used in the sustained fire role in the heavy weapons units.

This was the first dual purpose machine gun so pics of both are to be expected.

[RockinHarry]

lol...what a FAIL! Just watched til 04:00. Maybe the MG34 gunner should have considered setting the sights, when switching to the target farer away? Bipod must be set straight, perpendicular to the barrel, to allow accurate firing. And why already change the barrel, when hardly expended ~50 shots (can be at 250 rounds and high ROF) in several very short bursts, with longish pauses between? Love those "comparisons"...

Wondering those guys can afford these guns, but fail to learn the "basics" from the operations manual. ..ridiculous

lol...the remaining video is equally crappy.

[womble]

...why already change the barrel, when hardly expended...

The colonel does mention this: the ejector tore the base off a cartridge, and the most expedient way to clear this jam would be to replace the barrel so the gunner can continue while the assistant uses the toolkit to extract the damaged brass.

[RockinHarry]

The colonel does mention this: the ejector tore the base off a cartridge, and the most expedient way to clear this jam would be to replace the barrel so the gunner can continue while the assistant uses the toolkit to extract the damaged brass.

Anyway...the guy operating the MG34 appears to be quite untrained on this gun, compared to his handling of the BAR (adjusting sights, bipod positioning, body/gun positioning).

With regard to the odd german squad composition, it must be noted that (beside mixed up with a HMG team), the 4 man lmg troop and 7 men rifle troop was a pre war type, only used in the Poland campaign, after which it was changed (october 1939) to the type lasting through remainder of WW2. Same goes for squad movement & fire tactics and appropiate regulations.

[WriterJWA]

Weapon-for-weapon, this is an entirely "apples and oranges" comparison. In a rifle squad the MG34 is akin to the M-60 of later years in terms of its employment (most notably in Vietnam). It's a platoon/company level medium machinegun used at the squad level to pick up the slack in fire left by the K98s in the base-of-fire element, and in some cases supplant platoon/company machineguns when used on a tripod (the most preferred method of fire for an MG). As the video describes, the BAR wasn't designed for that purpose, but rather as supplement to the already higher rate of fire of the Garands.

I'm not sure I would ever use a MG-34 on a bipod to suppress targets as far out as 680 meters. It's not that it's not capable of doing it, but it has to be mounted on a tripod with a T&E mount to be effect at that range. I suspect I would never use a rifle squad with BAR to suppress targets that far away. It's a waste of ammunition.

[eltorrente]

Of course it's an apples to oranges comparison.

He clearly states that it is in the video, and points out how they have different functions in a squad, are used differently, and that neither one can be said to be better or worse than the other because they have different uses.

[eltorrente]

lol...what a FAIL! Just watched til 04:00. Maybe the MG34 gunner should have considered setting the sights, when switching to the target farer away? Bipod must be set straight, perpendicular to the barrel, to allow accurate firing. And why already change the barrel, when hardly expended ~50 shots (can be at 250 rounds and high ROF) in several very short bursts, with longish pauses between? Love those "comparisons"...

Wondering those guys can afford these guns, but fail to learn the "basics" from the operations manual. ..ridiculous

lol...the remaining video is equally crappy.

Feel free to post your video showing off your MG34 handling skills.

[Tequila]

as eltorrente points out, the lt.col. in the video goes on to explain that the differing statistics surrounding the weapons don't necessarily translate directly into combat effectiveness. Instead he says it is up to the leader to know the strenghts and weaknesses of his and his enemies weapons. Or in other words that weapon, organisation and employment must always fit together to be effective.

The BAR is clearly illustrated as beeing a truely mobile weapon which can keep up with any rifleman and can be used similarly to a rifle, with a higher rate of fire(carried and operated by one man in any stance) as well as a mediocre base of fire weapon with (sub-)mediocre sustained fire capability.

The MG34 is illustrated as a weapon requiring the organisation to be taylored around it. It needs thorough and specially tailored training and tactics. Two men operate the gun and the rest of the squad carry ammunition for it and represents the vast majority of the squads firepower. In exchange for that need of thorough specialst training and organisation it is an excellent base of fire weapon with good sustained fire capability.

I see nothing wrong with this evaluation.

Of course it is true that the firers weren't exactly performing exceptionally, but that just reinforces the earlier point that the BAR needed little extra training for a rifleman to use, while the MG34 needed specialist training and teamwork to function perfectly. Americans had more firepower for each individual(Semi- or fully automatic weapons for everyone) while Germans had it rather concentrated.

RockinHarry I recommend you listen to the whole argument and have a good 'ol think before commenting in future.

[Sgt Joch]

very interesting.

The MG34 has more recoil than the BAR which makes it less accurate, especially when they fire long bursts. The video shows this quite well. Of course, the main purpose of a LMG/MMG like the MG34 is area suppression, so accuracy is secondary to ROF.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Interesting video that makes you think. The presenter is excellent, albeit LOUD. Also is that a military regulation comb over? Snigger. Sorry, can't help myself. I'm childish.

Anyway...

So shouldn't CM allow you split German squads with a specific option for "MG Team", consisting of a gunner and his assistant, and leaving the rest of the rifle squad intact? At the point the Admin options don't easily allow you to do this. CM is already reflecting doctrine to some extent, for example by not allowing Italian squads to be further broken down, so why not add some Nation-specific Admin options?

Even better, allow us an option to exactly pick 'n' choose who is in each team? Might be open to 'gamey' abuse though...

[Fernando]

very interesting.

The MG34 has more recoil than the BAR which makes it less accurate, especially when they fire long bursts. The video shows this quite well.

That's the reason German LMG gunners were trained to fire 3-8 round AIMED bursts which would follow each other closely. The gaps between burst were used to observe the target area. Novices were able to do 1-2 round bursts at first, but it was as undesirable as long bursts.

[Chek]

The video does imply that it is a test of accuracy and no doubt it is probably easier to pick up a BAR and for an average 'grunt' to get semi sustained accurate fire from it.In this aspect it is a successful design.

The MG-34 was designed as a squad support weapon and as a sustained fire H/MMG and I have no doubt that a trained crew had no problem putting bullets where they wanted them.Again another successful design which a variant of is still in use by the German armed forces today!Also a philosophy in regards to the squad support weapon that has been adopted by pretty much every armed force on the face of the planet.

Morever by the time the BAR was facing the MG-34 it was being replaced by the MG-42 and there wasn't just one in a squad but two.

Sooo although comparing them against each other is interesting it is kind of irrelevant as their use in the test bears no relation to how they were actually used.

[Sgt Joch]

That's the reason German LMG gunners were trained to fire 3-8 round AIMED bursts which would follow each other closely. The gaps between burst were used to observe the target area. Novices were able to do 1-2 round bursts at first, but it was as undesirable as long bursts.

In the video, he fires mostly 2-3 second bursts and you can see the barrel jumping from the recoil. It does not matter if the aim is true, the recoil will deflect any bullet. This is a problem with any machine gun, especially when firing those heavy WW2 7.92x57mm rounds.

[Fernando]

In the video, he fires mostly 2-3 second bursts and you can see the barrel jumping from the recoil. It does not matter if the aim is true, the recoil will deflect any bullet. This is a problem with any machine gun, especially when firing those heavy WW2 7.92x57mm rounds.

2-3 second burst are too long bursts. 900-1200 round ROF, means about 15-20 rounds a second. 3-8 rounds are less than half a second burst. That's true for the LMG.

OTOH the Lafette for the MG34 was a rigid mount with recoil system and a mechanism for controling area fire. It could also mount a sight. In fact each tripod costed the German styate more RM than the MG itself. That sophisticated tripod means German HMG could fire longer bursts at longer range than the LMG version, use indirect fire etc.

[Erwin]

If anyone watched the video to the end, the colonel quite rightly says neither is "better" - they were each "excellent" when used in conjunction with the other weapons available to their side.

[John Kettler]

I'm delighted this vid has occasioned an excellent discussion of the issues raised. In fact, the response has been more than I hoped for. The original BAR had single shot capability and automatic fire. Later, the reworked one had no single shot capability and two rates of automatic fire, 350 and 650 rpm. One point left out of the BAR discussion was its ability to deliver marching fire in the attack, for which purpose a sling was provided. A displacing MG-34 team had no such capability, as the vid clearly showed.

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

One point left out of the BAR discussion was its ability to deliver marching fire in the attack, for which purpose a sling was provided. A displacing MG-34 team had no such capability, as the vid clearly showed.

At least not without resting it on the shoulders of the assistant...

So, BFC, when are we going to get indirect fires from tripod mounted MGs? AIUI, the Vickers tripod was particularly suited to that sort of use.

And the Bren tripod even more so

[Chek]

I'm delighted this vid has occasioned an excellent discussion of the issues raised. In fact, the response has been more than I hoped for. The original BAR had single shot capability and automatic fire. Later, the reworked one had no single shot capability and two rates of automatic fire, 350 and 650 rpm. One point left out of the BAR discussion was its ability to deliver marching fire in the attack, for which purpose a sling was provided. A displacing MG-34 team had no such capability, as the vid clearly showed.

Regards,

John Kettler

Fernando has already answered this in another thread,I forget which one it was but basically the MG 34 could provide fire in the assault and it was German army doctrine to do so.It came with a strap also and the gunner fired it from the hip while grasping the front bipod legs firmly...very firmly one would imagine.

[Fernando]

Fernando has already answered this in another thread,I forget which one it was but basically the MG 34 could provide fire in the assault and it was German army doctrine to do so.It came with a strap also and the gunner fired it from the hip while grasping the front bipod legs firmly...very firmly one would imagine.

And don't forget there were 50-round drum magazines as well (the 75-round saddle drum magazine was not usually carried by the infantry), so the MG crew didn't have to battle with half used ammo belts. They were designed for the attack and AA fire.

However it is true that as war went on drum were less and less used. MG34 came with 8 drums in four carrying frames if it was going to be used as an LMG (= no tripod issued) and 6 drums if it was going to be used as an HMG, but the MG42 came with just 2 drums no matter its was going to be used as LMG or HMG.

Loading an MG drum:

(Note: the belt in the video has no 50 rounds and there should be an starter tab)