Percentage of MG42 vs. MG34?

[Broadsword56]

This seems like the kind of research question our resident grogs would know:

What percentage of the 12th SS Pz and Panzer Lehr units featured in the CMBN time frame were likely to be fitted with the MG42, as opposed to the MG34?

I'm guessing a mix of the two gun types was normal in June 44, but realistically how many units had the MG42 by this time? And if they had it, how many of the 6 HMGs in the a battalion heavy weapons company would have been likely to have been MG42s? Would there likely be more of them in a Lehr unit compared to a Hitlerjugend unit, or the other way around?

[mjkerner]

OK, someone will come along and nail me for it, but I seem to remember reading in Meyers book that they had aall or almost all MG42's. But then, I suffer from Old Timer's Disease alot more these days.

[John Kettler]

Broadsword56,

For those two units, I'd say all of them, except for the AFV mounted MGs and such, which would still be MG34s. All bets are off with some of the lower category units. I've seen pics of Panzer IV/Ds in Normandy, MG34s and 5cm mortars.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

I'd agree with JK here. Standard MG on armored vehicles was the MG34 although as I understand it, later on in the war more MG42s began appearing as roof MGs. I think MG42s were common on HTs as well from an earlier date. Among the infantry, the MG42 had long since supplanted the MG34 as the standard company MG, although the latter could still be found here and there among many formations. The Germans tended to use whatever they could get their hands on. This included many foreign-made weapons. It was especially true among the early SS formations but was largely not the case by the time of Overlord. Anti-partisan formations usually got whatever was left over after the field formations had been supplied and this included lots of obsolete and captured weaponry.

Michael

[Broadsword56]

Thanks so much, everyone.

[John Kettler]

Broadsword56,

You're welcome! Also, wanted to let you know that, per the suggestion of Michael Emrys, I checked the MG fits for StuG III, StuG IV and Hetzer. All were fitted with the MG34.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Pak40]

MG34 was used in tanks because it had the round barrel and could easily fit, IIRC. Otherwise I'm sure they would have switched to the MG42. I'm sure the infantry in these units used all MG42 at this point in the war.

[womble]

MG34 was used in tanks because it had the round barrel and could easily fit, IIRC. Otherwise I'm sure they would have switched to the MG42. I'm sure the infantry in these units used all MG42 at this point in the war.

AIUI, it was the barrel change mechanism that made the MG42 less suited as a ball mount for tanks hull gunner/radioman and coax. The MG34 receiver basically swings aside to allow the operator to extract the barrel and replace it, whereas the MG42 swings the receiver-end of the barrel out through the side of the "don't touch the barrel" shroud (no, I don't know its proper name ). Tricky to displace something sideways when its mounted in a steel ball.

[JasonC]

The other thing to understand here is that the MG42 was not a special or advanced weapon. It was much easier to produce than the MG34. It was specifically designed to be easier to produce, using more stamped components and fewer components overall, not machined to quite as high tolerances, etc. And as an infantry / ground weapons (as opposed to on planes or in tanks etc) it was produced in far higher overall quantities than the MG34, even given the much longer production period MG34s were made. By 1944, it is the standard item, it is everywhere, only leftovers from old output are still MG34s.

[Fernando]

The other thing to understand here is that the MG42 was not a special or advanced weapon. It was much easier to produce than the MG34. It was specifically designed to be easier to produce, using more stamped components and fewer components overall, not machined to quite as high tolerances, etc. And as an infantry / ground weapons (as opposed to on planes or in tanks etc) it was produced in far higher overall quantities than the MG34, even given the much longer production period MG34s were made. By 1944, it is the standard item, it is everywhere, only leftovers from old output are still MG34s.

MG production:

1939:

44,000 MG34 (about 13,000 from September to December 1939)

1940:

59,000 MG34

1941:

85,000 MG34

1942:

67,000 MG34

1,700 MG34/41 (a shorter MG34)

16,000 MG42

1943:

51,000 MG34

120,000 MG42

1944:

62,000 MG34 (about 18,000 produced January-May 1944)

215,000 MG42 (about 73,000 produced January-May 1944)

1945:

20,000 MG34 (from January to March, April production unknown)

42,000 MG42 (23,000 in January and 19,000 in February, March and April production unknown)

About 25% of the MG produced in 1944-45 were MG34 while 75% were MG42. From 1939 to 1945 about 390,000 MG34 and 393,000 MG42 were produced.

MG34 was produced right to the end of the war by Waffenwerke Brünn (code "dot"). All other contractors had ceased production by 1943 (Rheinmetall in 1943, Mauser in 1942, Gustloff in 1943 while Steyr produced 7,000 MG34 in 1941 before turning production to the MG42).

[Michael Emrys]

AIUI, it was the barrel change mechanism that made the MG42 less suited as a ball mount for tanks hull gunner/radioman and coax. The MG34 receiver basically swings aside to allow the operator to extract the barrel and replace it, whereas the MG42 swings the receiver-end of the barrel out through the side of the "don't touch the barrel" shroud (no, I don't know its proper name ). Tricky to displace something sideways when its mounted in a steel ball.

That's interesting and I hadn't heard of it before. What I have read is that the MG34 was less resistant to jams or other malfunctions caused by dirt infiltrating the mechanism. Vehicle MGs suffer less exposure to mud and sand (wind blown dust might not be as different), so it is less of a problem there.

Michael

[Fernando]

That's interesting and I hadn't heard of it before. What I have read is that the MG34 was less resistant to jams or other malfunctions caused by dirt infiltrating the mechanism. Vehicle MGs suffer less exposure to mud and sand (wind blown dust might not be as different), so it is less of a problem there.

Both are correct. I have also read about MG34 beign less resistant to dirt infiltration, but is absolutely correct MG42 changes barrel sideways. It is impossible to do it if it is ball mounted. OTOH the MG34 just rotates the rear half of the weapon then the barrel is extracted. The barrel jacket may remain in the ball mount while you do it. In fact you can do more than just rotate the rear half. You can divide the MG34 in two separate halves. That's the way I store the MG34 in my collection in order to save some badly needed space

[Rokko]

I believe the early versions of Jagdpanzer IV had a Ball-Mounted MG42. The prototype even had two.

I think I have also seen a ball-mounted StG-44 on some late-war tank.

[Fernando]

I believe the early versions of Jagdpanzer IV had a Ball-Mounted MG42. The prototype even had two.

I think I have also seen a ball-mounted StG-44 on some late-war tank.

The exception proves the rule

[Snowbart]

In the book "7 Days in January" by Wolf Zoepf, I recall the author wishing that they had their old '34's as opposed to the '42's, b/c the '42's fired faster and did not have the select fire trigger mechanism of the 34's. This was a major issue when you are surrounded and have a very limited ammo supply!

[akd]

I believe the early versions of Jagdpanzer IV had a Ball-Mounted MG42. The prototype even had two.

I think I have also seen a ball-mounted StG-44 on some late-war tank.

Was it the same type of ball mount?

[Broadsword56]

OK you MG grogs, next question:

Ranges: Some data on the web show a Vickers-armed British MG platoon with a range of 1250 yards. The MG34's range is shown as identical They give the MG42 a range of about 1,750. Are these accurate?

Also: I believe those max ranges refer to indirect firing. Do we have evidence that either the Vickers or either German HMG were fired indirect much (or ever) in the Normandy battles? Or were they limited to close support of the infantry battalions? Clearly the terrain would have limited the practical ranges of these weapons much of the time. But in the more open country around Caen, for example, might there have been any use of indirect HMG fire?

[Michael Emrys]

Just guessing here, Broadsword, but I expect that Vickers using indirect firing would have been a normal part of the beginning of any major British offensive. Haven't a clue about what the Germans were up to in this regard though. I know that they had a doctrine for it, but that's about all.

Michael

[JonS]

Do we have evidence that ... the Vickers or ... were fired indirect much (or ever) in the Normandy battles?

Yes! Lots of it! But, unfortunately(?) it isn't even mentioned, or only mentioned in passing, in most of the standard accounts.

[John Kettler]

Rokko,

Here's a pretty good thread that gets into the AFV applications of the StG44.

http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=6709

The mount was also planned for the Panther II.

http://www.robomod.net/pipermail/soc-history-war-world-war-ii/2007-March/011483.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Broadsword56,

I believe those are Direct Fire ranges, rather than Indirect Fire. Here's why.

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

"The Vickers was used for indirect fire against enemy positions at ranges up to 4,500 yards (4,100 m). This plunging fire was used to great effect against road junctions, trench systems, forming up points, and other locations that might be observed by a forward observer, or zeroed in at one time for future attacks, or guessed at by men using maps and experience. Sometimes a location might be zeroed in during the day, and then attacked at night, much to the surprise and confusion of the enemy. New Zealand units were especially fond of this use. A white disc would be set up on a pole near the MMG, and the gunner would aim at a mark on it, knowing that this corresponded to aiming at the distant target. There was a special back-sight with a tall extension on it for this purpose. The only similar weapon of the time to use indirect fire was the German MG 08, which had a separate attachment sight with range calculator."

The Somme piece from Osprey Publishing goes into this in considerable detail. There can be no doubt the Vickers was used in an Indirect Fire role at thousands of yards.

http://www.essentialsomme.com/articles/british_machine_gun_tactics.htm

Similarly, the MG 34 in HMG configuration was also rated for thousands of yards, as shown here in the discussion of the indirect firing mechanism and the overhead fire troop safety tables.

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/german-infantry-weapons/mg34-machine-gun.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[kensal]

slightly off-topic but there seem to be a lot more MP43 / MP44 / StG44 in the German ranks than were actually at Normandy?

[Ts4EVER]

slightly off-topic but there seem to be a lot more MP43 / MP44 / StG44 in the German ranks than were actually at Normandy?

Yes, especially in units that are supposed to be Osttruppen (like in the demo). Generally speaking the only stg44s in normandy were issued on a trial basis, since no unit used there actually made the organisational changes for its employment.

[Duckman]

Ranges: Some data on the web show a Vickers-armed British MG platoon with a range of 1250 yards. The MG34's range is shown as identical They give the MG42 a range of about 1,750. Are these accurate?

Sounds strange since the MG 34 and 42 fire the same bullet and have the same muzzle velocity. The only difference I can think of is if the MG 42's higher rate of fire means lower dispersion and consequently a bit more accuracy at long range.