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

[ASL Veteran]

The main problem with the BAR is that it only has a 20 round box magazine and it loads from the bottom which is less convenient than the top feeding 30 round box magazine for the Bren if you are firing from the prone position. You are almost guaranteed to lose your aim when reloading a BAR. I don't think the BAR has a barrel change either, although I'm going from memory on that.

[JonS]

I see nothing wrong with this evaluation.

Good summary. I think it's reasonable to compare the BAR to the MG34, since although they are obviously different weapons, and those differences drove internal squad organisation and tactics, they both still provided the lion's share of squad firepower.

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.

It did seem to me that when using the MG34 they went out of their way to look like Keystone Kops. Among other things ... why unload the belt when moving forward? Just flick it over the breechblock and jog forward.

And, despite their efforts to make it loook like a tool only fit for the Keystone Kops, history tells us that the belt-fed LMG/GPMG is a far superior weapon to an Arthur/Martha automatic rifle

[RockinHarry]

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.

Don´t think functions in both the US/german squads were really different and as said, after the 1939 squad composition and doctrinal changes, the german one was quite flexible and there was no schematical "shoot here, flank there" approach as so oftenly propagated for US infantry squads, might that have been true or not.

[Fenris]

It was an enjoyable vid to watch, I watched it all the way through. Thanks for sharing.

Definitely apples and oranges and the presenter makes this very clear so no bones to pick on that topic.

The guys firing the MG34 did seem a little ham fisted but then they probably had very little experience with it and it's employment as stated is a little more involved compared to the BAR. To bad it wasn't an MG42, thought that would be more of a contemporary of BAR in so far as going up against US forces.

I too have seen footage of the MG used on the assault fired over the shoulder and one clip also from the hip using the shoulder strap but I agree the BAR was more portable. He may have overstated in comparison to the MG but it's a valid point.

So yes very different beasts but as JonS points out the LMG was the one to last the test of time and be adopted as pretty much standard post WW2 for all armies. This is perhaps the indicator which tells us which was best in the end.

Anyone note the handle on the MG34? Did it belong to Patton or something?

Fenris

[RockinHarry]

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

Well...maybe if I get to the US anytime and working through original MG34 technical and training manuals (that are in my possession!) first!

But...I´m not a knowledgable US colonel, putting a rookie at the gun, doing obvious faults and then deriving any technical or tactical results from that.

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Pray explain your remark about me in the artillery portion of this discussion. Also, what is an "Arthur/Martha" automatic rifle? This is an expression I've never before encountered.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Fenris,

Here's hip shooting and shoulder shooting. Unfortunately, the former is largely out of frame. I note with interest that tripods are clearly shown being carried in the same clip.

Regards,

John Kettler

[eltorrente]

Well...maybe if I get to the US anytime and working through original MG34 technical and training manuals (that are in my possession!) first!

But...I´m not a knowledgable US colonel, putting a rookie at the gun, doing obvious faults and then deriving any technical or tactical results from that.

fair enough. I enjoyed the video and watched another one by the same people that talked about fire power and it was also very interesting. That Colonel seemed like a badass - I wouldn't want him shooting at me.

[RockinHarry]

very interesting.

......Of course, the main purpose of a LMG/MMG like the MG34 is area suppression, so accuracy is secondary to ROF.

Very very wrong, in particular for the MG34/42 in any the roles. The gun was designed to put maximum amount of bullets, accurately into a "good target" (infantry in the open). Off course the high ROF also provides good suppression effects on "covered" targets, but that is rather second (tactical) nature and NOT main purpose. Key features for these particular weapons was proper individual training and correct application of fire, as well as ammunition tactics for the given combat tasks. Few special terms to name is "surprise fire" (Feueruberfall), "fire concentrations" (Feuerzusammenfassung) and others, to prevent any weapons from beeing ineffective ammo wasters.

Maybe little known, but due to faulty german weapon/ammo production politics in 1940/41 (production numbers for many sorts of weaponry and ammo were significantly lowered, as Mr. Hitler thought he could smash the USSR in about 3 months, with the UK begging for peace after), germans were constantly underproducing much needed ammo, of which part also was small arms (rifle/MG) one. Expenditure became much higher than expected (strategically) and neither production, nor resupply was sufficient for small arms/ammo for remainder of the war.

So germans simply couldn´t afford to keep weapons in use, that is just inaccurate ammo wasters. But they did (even introduced MG42), cause when these weapons were flexibly used under given tactical doctrines and by trained personel, these weapons were used very effectively. Same off course counts for the BAR, BREN, DP ect., though with providing far less general firepower.

and to forestall...no, I´m anything but a german weapons fanboi.

[JonS]

The gun was designed to put maximum amount of bullets, accurately into a "good target" (infantry in the open).

If that's true, the designers must have been delusional idots who'd never heard of 'the empty battlefield'.

[RockinHarry]

If that's true, the designers must have been delusional idots who'd never heard of 'the empty battlefield'.

Well, that could be worked out more. With the MG34 developed and invented in first half of 1930ies, the past battlefield experience still related to the less "empty" ones of WW1. In WW2 it also depended (or proofed) upon beeing either in the german (empty) or i.e russian (more crowded) part of a battlefield. :eek: Maybe germans initially had a better idea of the "empty battlefield" theory as their upcoming opponents, but I can´t tell....

[RockinHarry]

Fenris,

Here's hip shooting and shoulder shooting. Unfortunately, the former is largely out of frame. I note with interest that tripods are clearly shown being carried in the same clip.

Regards,

John Kettler

Interesting clip and bit hard to nail. That could possibly be from poland or french campaign and shown units stumbled into a city ambush? By evaluating shown equipment, it likely is part of a german heavy weapons Cpy. (HMG section). Fixed bayonets also indicate that due to the environment (town/city) and area obviously not yet combed from the enemy, close combat was to be expected anytime.

Normally the shoulder shooting was trained and applied vs. low flying aircraft in emergency situations (surprise attacks), but obviously was found to be useful in other situations as well (although not officially anchored in the regulations).

[Sgt Joch]

Very very wrong, in particular for the MG34/42 in any the roles. (rifle/MG) one. .

No, you just don't understand the role of squad level LMG/MMG/HMGs.

Squad level firearms do not exist to kill enemy infantry, mortars/artillery do that more effectively. The major role of firearms is to suppress enemy troops so you can maneuver around them and/or pin them in place while you call up heavy weapons.

For that ROF is more important than accuracy. That is the reason why modern infantry moved to fully automatic weapons and 5.56 lighter weight ammo after WW2.

[RockinHarry]

No, you just don't understand the role of squad level LMG/MMG/HMGs.

Squad level firearms do not exist to kill enemy infantry, mortars/artillery do that more effectively. The major role of firearms is to suppress enemy troops so you can maneuver around them and/or pin them in place while you call up heavy weapons.

For that ROF is more important than accuracy. That is the reason why modern infantry moved to fully automatic weapons and 5.56 lighter weight ammo after WW2.

Well...I mainly study 1930-1940 era regulations, tactical manuals, combat reports and so forth and that´s what it´s about in this discussion, right? However, I can´t derive any your named schematisms from the stuff I have and applied doctrines obviously aren´t all the same for nations involved in WW2. Not that it´s usefull for you (wished all my stuff would be available in english translations), but these are parts of resources I refer to:

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18276

[JasonC]

Sgt Joch - one military moved to 5.56mm, 20 years after WW II. Until then it still used full rifle ammunition. Another used carbine caliber ammo but not that bore. The rest of the world went to selective fire magazine fed full rifle caliber weapons and stayed there for much longer. A G3 isn't an M-16, nor is an FAL. The G3, FAL, and M14 are all rather closer to a lightened BAR...

Just disputing the hasty generalization...

[MikeyD]

I think its interesting the Marines are moving away from the SAW (squad mg concept) to the M27 IAR (more of a B.A.R. concept). I suppose this is something BFC will have to keep in mind when they come to redoing the Marines for CMSF2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

[John Kettler]

RockinHarry,

I agree with your argument as to the MG-34 ROF and the subsequent jump to the even faster firing MG-42. The whole idea was to catch enemy troops on the hop and maul them before they could get into cover. I've argued this before in another thread, where I drew an analogy to the JMEM (Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals) methodology for evaluating mortar and artillery fire. For the first volley, troops are considered to be standing. For all subsequent volleys, the troops are considered to be prone. The MG-34 and MG-42 were the German approach to getting in that vital first volley.

Speaking of German ammunition consumption, I remember reading somewhere that one German division went hog wild during the early days of Barbarossa and shot through it's whole ammunition load. Kleist taught the unit an unforgettable lesson by making it spend the night without ammo!

Everyone,

I feel constrained to point out that not only is the MG-3 an MG-42 which shoots NATO 7.62 mm, but that the "Pig," the M-60, is also essentially an MG-42. Last I checked, some of our units still have them.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

JK - the cyclic rate of the M-60 is 550 rounds per minute - less than half the M-42. The US did not buy the idea of going that high a cyclic rate, in either ammo use or gun control terms.

[poesel]

AFAIK the MG3 is (more or less) the MG42 with a softer spring to reduce ROF. I was also told that during WW2 units would saw off a spiral or two of the spring of their MG42 to reduce spring force and thus reducing ROF, too.

[Sgt Joch]

Sgt Joch - one military moved to 5.56mm, 20 years after WW II. Until then it still used full rifle ammunition. Another used carbine caliber ammo but not that bore. The rest of the world went to selective fire magazine fed full rifle caliber weapons and stayed there for much longer. A G3 isn't an M-16, nor is an FAL. The G3, FAL, and M14 are all rather closer to a lightened BAR...

Just disputing the hasty generalization...

The current standard infantry firearms of U.S. Army (M4), Russia (AK-74), China (QBZ95), Germany (G36), Britain (SA80), France (FAMAS) all use lightweight ammo, can all be fired full auto and are closer in design to a WW2 SMG than a rifle. All follow the design philosophy that short range ROF is more important than long range accuracy.

To paraphrase Capt. Willard, being accused of using a hasty generalization around here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

Back on topic..

There seem to be few videos showing actual combat use of a MG34/42 in action. If anyone has a link, I would love to see it. This video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4CWClQSJM8&feature=em-share_video_user

starting at 6:20 seems to show the MGs keeping up a fairly high ROF, namely a long series of short bursts, which would be more consistent with a suppression role. Although these could also be propaganda shots.

More recent video from the helmet cam of a M249 SAW gunner shows the proper use of a LMG. The M249 fulfills a role in a U.S. squad similar to the MG34/42 in a WW2 German squad.

You can see the SAW provides most of the firepower for the squad and is obviously being used just to provide suppressing fire. The video also shows that in RL, it is hard to spot enemy soldiers when they are shooting at you.

[Chek]

To paraphrase Capt. Willard, being accused of using a hasty generalization around here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. )

LOL hard to argue with that one

[Fernando]

This video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4CWClQSJM8&feature=em-share_video_user

starting at 6:20 seems to show the MGs keeping up a fairly high ROF, namely a long series of short bursts, which would be more consistent with a suppression role. Although these could also be propaganda shots.

The weapons seems to be the same with it is not the same an MG34 in an LMG role than in an HMG one. They are very different weapons. The HMG can convert in an LMG at any time but it doesn't means it is the same weapon.

The HMG version had a searching fire unit (Einstellring für Tiefenfeuer) installed on the Lafette. When the cradle recoiled, the actuator activated the searching fire device. It elevated the unit with the first five round then depressed it with the next four rounds in a cycle that went on for the whole burst. That way the area covered by the MG fire increased improving the suppression effect and enlarging the beaten area, so fire didn't concentrate in a too small area. If you didn't want searching fire then you just had to set the searching fire device at 0. Depending on range and desired beaten zone, you could set different values.

[JasonC]

Sgt Joch - you can then say that most armies made such a move 50 years after WW II, but not that they all did so right after WW II. The US took 20 years to make that change, preferring a full caliber rifle round until then. And much of the world took about twice as long.

Meanwhile, these days body armor has improved enough that opponents using such carbine rounds find them ineffective; we get to use them because poorly equipped opponents don't have any. Personally, against modern armor tech I'd take a full 7.62mm NATO any day of the week.

[ZPB II]

The FDF never adopted a carbine round. RK-62/95s fire the 7.62x39mm.

As far as I know, this is a bit of a cost-saving measure but mostly it has to do with the trees and foliage. There are so many forests covering the country, that a light carbine round simply doesn't cut it. The AK round, while not a full-size rifle cartridge still features a bullet roughly twice as heavy as a 5.56/5.45 so it's more likely to penetrate light foliage and less likely to deflect all over the place.

I would prefer a full rifle cartridge, myself. You won't hit anything if you fire an interim round on full automatic, so why not maximize the single shot potential?

Do the Russians field a modern battle rifle? The Abakan apparently solves the body armor dilemma, but is so expensive it will never see widespread service and it doesn't fire rifle cartridges. A quick search only comes up with prototype level weaponry, most dropped long ago. They do have plenty of Dragunovs, though.

[JonS]

Sgt Joch - you can then say that most armies made such a move 50 years after WW II, but not that they all did so right after WW II.

... of course, no one - except you - has said that