Mg42 greatest weakness

[Guest Scott Clinton]

My 2 cents:

The Mg42's greatest weakness was its ROF. Most posts regarding this MG focus on its incredible ROF as SOLELY a good thing. In reality it was not, especially considering the (lack of) training German infantry were receiving in '44-45.

Even a well-trained infantryman will fire his weapon at much too high a ROF. Men with the lower level of training that the German infantry were receiving in '44-45 would have been much worse. This excessive use of ammo (ROF) has been born-out in study after study in the US and other NATO countries where it has been shown that any round fired after the third has virtually no chance to hit the target.

I use as practical evidence not only the current German squad MG which is simply an updated MG42 with a much LOWER ROF but the M16a3 that is restricted to three shot bursts to help alleviate this problem. Other examples also exist.

The Mg42's ROF was just too high. It ate up ammo at such a high rate that it was impossible to keep one in action on the attack where ammo had to be carried forward on a continuous basis. On the defensive where ammo supplies could be pre-placed this was (of course) less of a problem. This assumes that the Germans always had sufficient TACTICAL supply. And this IMHO is NOT a valid assumption. Maintaining tactical supply as probably the single largest problem the Germans faced in '44-45.

Bottom line is IMHO the Mg42 is very easy to over-rate in a wargame if a game only looks at statistics like the ROF. But, I will wait and see how this weapon is modeled in CM along with ammo. As long as the German's are not constantly 'swimming' in ammo it should not be a problem from what I have seen.

All that said, if it came down to a BAR or a Mg42…give me the Mg42! ! ! !

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[elwood]

Don't spit on me for playing CC3, but what is said here actually happens in that game. If you don't monitor the MG42 closely, it will chew through the ammo in a couple of minutes. While CC3 isn't what I'd call a model for WW2 infantry tactics, it does get some things right.

[PanzerShark]

I think the biggest problem of the mg42 was:

Not being inventid by the Allies

Would have made d-day slightly easier

[scoop88]

Another weakness of the MG42 was that the barrel had to be changed frequently because of the heat generated by the extremely high ROF. The other night The History Channel had a special about German WWII small arms and showed how the barrel had to be changed, using re-enactors in German uniform and equipped with a real-live MG42. Also, if you remember during Saving Private Ryan, during the firefight with the machine-gun nest at the knocked-out radar station there was a lull in the MG42 firing and Tom Hanks ordered his men forward because, as he said, "they must be changing the barrel."

I wonder how THAT can be modelled in CM?

[rwcanuck]

I do not think that was an MG42 in SPR judging from the rate of fire sound you here...I think it is the MG3 which came out with a lower rate of fire after the war but looks very similar.

The MG42 has the correct sound in CC3..that is why it has been referred to as the "Canvas Ripper"

[Guest Big Time Software]

Good stuff in this thread...

Yes, the MG42 had the same problem as the BAR (in a sense) and that was limited ammo. The benefit of the BAR was that the grunt was forced to stop firing so that he could swap mags, while a green MG42 gunner with 250 rounds linked up might try to peel through them. Having fired a HMG MG2 (actual WWII MG42 modified to have slightly lower rate of fire, but higher than MG3 I think) I can tell you that good fire discipline was a must.

One thing that is being forgot here about the LMG version of the MG42 is that there was another limiting factor -> recoil. It kicked like a mule and therefore would be VERY difficult to fire more than a couple of belts of ammo (100rnds) in one long burst. The HMG has no such recoil problem though. Also, the German practice was to link up 250, fire through that, and then load in another 250. It isn't like it has 3000 rounds all connected and ready to go I saw a M60 gunner try to do 500rnds and BOY was that a long belt of ammo

As for changing the barrel, we don't simulate that. My book on live firing German automatic weapons states that a trained crew could do it in 6 seconds. Since CM's weapons aren't firing all the time there is no need to specifically simulate barrel changes and ammo reloading. Lower quality troops do fire more frequently though, which does chew through their ammo faster.

Steve

[Lee]

Having had first-hand experience with some of these German

weapons, I can confirm that the ripping canvas description of

the sound is accurate. It really does sound like that, amazingly

high ROF. And Lord have mercy on anyone caught out in the open

when one of those things opens up on em.

My standard preferred loadout is 225 rounds per belt.

[This message has been edited by Lee (edited 09-30-99).]

[buddy]

I think the German MG42 is an outstanding example of fine German craftsmanship. Anyone notice the similarity of this weapon and of the US Army M60 machine gun? Seems like I heard somewhere that the weapon is a pretty good copy of the old German weapon from the barrel back (with some modifications, of course). Find a picture of both if you don't believe it. Course I could be wrong . . . ah well, food for thought . . .

[Rob Deans]

The greatest weakness was its ROF.

This merits discussion as to the strength it had due to its ROF. I think this has been talked about before, but a short mention.....

The psycological impact that its weight of fire had was a strength unto itself. Automatic fire is not used to kill as much as it is to suppress, espcially in an offensive capacity. The same as indirect fire. NOW, it does a good job in causing cas too but the weight of fire laid down by one of these machine guns has a marked psycological advantage over rapid rifle fire from a section or the bup-bup-bup of even a 50cal, to list a few.

On the ammo thing, I recently had a most interesting conversation with a German vetran. He started the war in the labour corps and followed the army into Poland, repairing roads and bridges. After conscription into the army shortly thereafter, he served in the 95th Infantry Division and marched 3000km into France and back in 1940. After being moved to the East he and his division took part in Barbrossa and was wounded in the head in late 41. After convelessing (sp) in Germany he found himself as an infantryman in the 21 Panzer Div. He was captured at El Alamein and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp in Alberta. The conversation was a little more in depth than that......One of the many interesting points he made was that the panzergrenadier sections had two MGs in them and that more often than not, the setion was simply an ammo carrying party for the MGs. He talked of "50 rounds for my rifle and 500 for the gun" and the like. He spoke of the difference between the infantry (1 MG) sections and the Panzergrenadier (2 MG) sections and how the two half sections would cover each other forward. Almost ever aspect of his stories was in some way related to, or had mention of the MGs and the ammo. "carry this and carry that........we had so much ammo to carry....". It was two of the best hours of conversation that I had in a long time.

Rob Deans

[LT CANADA]

Hey sorry to be off topic but what do u guys think is better the BAR or the BREN in the LMG catagory? I think the Bren, but im partial to Brit made weapons becouse Canada used them in World war 2. My brother and I used to get in terrible fights about the lee enfield rifle and should the British and commonwealth switched to the m1 Garand or not? I think that it was good they didnt, but again im partial to British weapons

[Guest Big Time Software]

Rob makes a VERY good point. The US Army had to make a training film SPECIFICALLY to deal with the MG42's high RoF sound. The announcer kept saying that its bark was worse than its bite. Right But the footage clearly showed that the average US soldier was not all that convinced he should be sticking his head up when one of those things let loose.

In infantry combat, staying in one place for too long is often equal to death, so the MG42 could do a lot of damage without even nicking anybody. The Germans used to have fields of fire designed to simply pin down the attcker so that mortars and artillery could be called in to finish up. In that regard, the MG42's high RoF was a plus.

Still, the RoF was obviously too much since the Germans knocked it down after the war.

Steve

[Los]

RE: Garand vs Bren:

Well even though the Granad was probably a better weapon for it's role at the time I just love the way the Lee Enfield No.1 Mk III looks (I have one muyslef) so would be hard pressed to cast the slightest disparagement its way.

RE: BRen vs BAR. WHile the Bren may have been a better weapon,it was not significantly so, and as far as I'm concern the absolute loyalty that the BAR engendered from its users speaks well for its performance. SO both were pretty much legendar weapons, even if neitehr were in the same league as the MG42.

"Another weakness of the MG42 was that the barrel had to be changed frequently because of the heat generated by the extremely high ROF."

This is (and remains) a problem for ALL machineguns. The MG42 was better off than any of its counterparts because you could swap out the barrel in seconds. Whereas an M1919A3 you'd be long dead before you could fix that porblem. And a fifty cal? Yeesh you have to reset the headspace and timing after each barrel change!

Los

[Guest R Cunningham]

Scott,

Though the high ROF of the MG42 could be a drawback, it was specifically designed that way on the theory that with a high ROF more rounds would hit where aimed in a short burst. I don't know how successful this really was in practice, but the theory was latter demonstrated on the G11 rifle that the Bundeswehr almost fielded. It could fire three-round bursts and all three rounds would leave the muzzle before the firer felt any kick.

[This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 10-01-99).]

[Guest aaronb]

LOS:

"RE: BRen vs BAR. WHile the Bren may have been a better weapon,it was not significantly so, and as far as I'm concern the absolute loyalty that the BAR engendered from its users speaks well for its performance."

Absolute loyalty is a matter of perception: I know people who actually like Fords, for example . The Bren: more accurate, higher mag capacity, far more reliable, quick-change barrel. I've fired them (in .303 British and 7.62 NATO), and they're a joy to work with. IMHO, the real issues are reliability and quick barrel-change.

"The MG42 was better off than any of its counterparts because you could swap out the barrel in seconds."

Perhaps we could change this from 'any' to 'many'. As mentioned, the Bren barrel change is quick and easy. The only hazard is burned fingers.

[Herr Jung]

Most of the disadvantages, as well as the advantages, of MG42 is attributed to the 25 rounds per second cyclic rate of fire that inevitably leads to high ammunition expenditure. However, the contention that the high ROF often rendered it inaccurate and thus ineffective is subject to debate. Afterall, we are talking about a weapon that is rated as one of the greatest weapons of WWII.

To begin with, comparing the automatic fire characteristics of MG42 and M16A3 is meaningless - especially the argument for 3 round burst. Also, MG3 is designed to accept either lighter bolt for about 1,300 rpm or heavier bolt for about 800 rpm. Belgian FN MAG 7.62mm GPMG, which seems to be replacing M60 GPMG, fires 750-1,000 rpm which seems requisite of today's best MGs.

Daniel Musgrave in 'German Machineguns' writes: After a few years of experience with the MG 34 (900 rpm), the users requested an increased rate of fire. This was probably required because technical studies had shown that dispersion could be reduced in short-burst firing of light machineguns by increasing the cyclic rate. Experimental modified versions of the MG 34 were demonstrated with firing rates as high as 1,650 rounds per minute . . . In order to increase the cyclic rate . . . a complete redevelopment was accomplished by Rheinmetall. The MG 34/41 had a cyclic rate of about 1,200 rounds . . .

A quote from a 1943 issue of the US Army 'Intelligence Bulletin' states: The Germans are instructed to fire bursts of from 5 to 7 rounds when they employ the MG42 as a light machine gun, since an operator cannot hold his gun on the target for a longer period. The Germans believe that when the weapon is properly employed the compactness and density of its fire pattern justify the high ammunition expenditure.

The US Army in WWII and many years thereafter seemed to have adopted a diametrically opposite view regarding the ROF of automatic weapons. 30 cal. Browning and M60 have very slow 500-600 ROF for MGs. In one wartime US Army footage, the Browning and MG34/42 went head-to-head on the range, and voila! the American MGs were proven to be more accurate (after 30 rounds) and of course it was claimed that 'accuracy' was what mattered on the battlefields. However, I think they forgot to take into account that the German weapons were meant to be operated with a lot shoter trigger pulls than their American counterparts - especially .

Accuracy is a many-faceted problem with automatic weapons. Even under ideal conditions, good fire discipline and skill with the particular weapon are a must. MG42 was subject to all the common problems of comparable maching guns, but still managed to hit what it aimed. I particularly like the description that an MG with high cyclic rate of fire under ideal circumstances was used like a long-range shotgun where bullets impacted the target area at about the same time.

As several posters noted above, the Germans regarded their MGs as their main source of firepower and keeping them well supplied was probably a top concern for field commanders. IMO, the assumption that German MG42 crews were inadequately trained after 43/44 so as to render the guns not as effective is unsubstantiated. The modern trend is towards providing more automatic weapons per squad as no rifles can match the firepower of machine guns.

Young

[Herr Jung]

To address some other points in this thread:

As weapons design usually go, M60 also borrowed several well-known features of previous works. Its feed plate and feed cover mechanism are identical to MG42's. Its bolt mechanism is from Lewis gun. Its quick-change barrel is from the Bren gun.

The sound of MG42s in SPR is peculiar. I initially thought they were MG3s with heavier bolts. Now I tend to think the lower powered propellant of blank ammunition is the culprit. I know some of the movie prop guns have to use certain boosters placed on the muzzle to keep the guns functioning automatically. Also I think the distance of listener from the gun can result in different sound effects. Can anybody compare the sound of live firing vs. blank firing in reenactment shows?

The psychologically debilitating effect of MG42 sound was an important factor in determing who came out ahead in engagements, IMO. According to one German veteran, the enemy just kept running away when he shot the weapon over the heads of the enemy because they couldn't stand the roar. The fast burp and the thundering echos must've done a number on the psyche of men who had to overcome it.

Cpt. Miller in SPR instructing his squad to take advantage of the 6 second barrel changing of MG42 just seem so desperate. Had the men known any better . . .

Young

[Guest Bryan Corkill]

I get to shoot an MP40 this weekend!!!!! My girlfriends grandfather, after stating he talks to me more often than her, said he'ld head off to his storage room and dig out some stuff he 'found' in his duffle when he made it back to the states. (MP40, Luger, Walther, German Paybooks, couple of iron crosses, and some pictures he took.) Said the MP40 took more effort to get back than he put out in the entire war. As to the barrel change, he stated that by the time you realized it just wasn't a pause, they were done. Their solution was a base of fire w/ BAR and Garand, (he loved the BAR) and a flanking action to w/in grenade range. He also stated that about all the 60mm was good for was smoke and taking out MG nests.

[This message has been edited by Bryan Corkill (edited 10-01-99).]

[Moon]

Well, in my army time in the Bundeswehr I have fired the MG3 (which is an MG42 with some changes, a lower ROF is one of them) extensively. Three round bursts were regarded as ideal (but difficult to achive, you basically had to pull the trigger with your fingernail, otherwise you would fire off 5-6 shots easily). Usually, the first two rounds would be pretty much on target, but from the third on you can forget any aiming. 5th or 6th round often would end up in the dirt beside the target plate (fired as LMG using a bipod in prone position).

I cannot remember unfortunately exactly after how many shots you were supposed to change barrels, but I do remember that after a few bursts already the barrel would start smoking slightly and would often become red hot after several long bursts.

[Los]

"He also stated that about all the 60mm was good for was smoke and taking out MG nests."

Interesting. It is believed by some that the 60mm mortar did not fire smoke rounds. (I know the modern ones do). I might have to go dig up my machineguns and mortars book and confirm this. That would make a difference.

Was your girlfriend's grandfather a grunt? Ask him about smoke grenades. (Use carrying etc)

BTW, regarding the MG sound in SPR. Hmmm, I would seriously doubt that they took the sound right off of the live shoot into the movie. They usually redo the sound in the studio. There is a big difference between a blank firing and a live firing and even a big difference between firing blanks through an open muzzle and a BFA (Blank firing adapter).

Los

[Guest Big Time Software]

Los,

Ammo types came out of the definitive book on US weapons (The American Arsenal) from what I recall. I think what we have here is yet another faulty vet memory (like the ones I have seen talking about being shot at by 77mm and 88mm guns on Panthers )

The usefulness of the 60mm mortar has been something we have seen debated before. I have a great collection of veteran stories in The Deadly Brotherhood. In it some swear by them, others at them. Same thing with weapons like the BAR. Sounds like they typical "can't please everybody" kind of thing Our understanding, and they way they naturally work in CM, is that the 60mm mortar was good for keeping the enemy's heads down, but not for taking them off. This was true, but worse, for the German 50mm mortar. The Germans eventually figured it wasn't worth having around so they got rid of them from front line units.

Steve

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I think most of these type "60mm debates" all revolve not around the weapon, but how it was used.

It was not heavy arty. What it was supposed to be was a LOCAL light support weapon the LOCAL commanders could call on and (most importantly) count on being ready for them to use whenever they needed it. A pea-shooter is better than a 12 gauge that is not loaded.

I read a book about a USMC vet that humped 60mm from Peliku to Okanawa (sp) and from what he said it did its job and the front line grunts were happy to have them so close. And the company commander loved them because he 'owned' them. Sorry don't recall the name of the book, its at home (damn good read). He also never mentioned smoke...

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[Gespenster]

Guys the M60 is actually copied from the German MG34 whcih had a ROF of Approx 800-900 RPM. The MG42 is also a copy of the MG34 with an upgraded ROF and a few other changes. The MG34 is in reality the Grandfather of all modern LMG's. And while I agree the ROF of the MG42 was probably TOO high, the Soldiers trained to use it were very good at changing the barrel, as someone mentioned earlier it took an average of 6 seconds... My Great Uncle was in the 101st Airborne in WWII... and he told me when he heard an MG42 begin to rip into the woods it scared everyone to death. So not only was it effective mechanically but also mentally.

JT

------------------

Those who forget our history, are doomed to repeat it.

[MikeLopez]

I thought the M60 was based off the MG42 design, not the MG32.

------------------

Its in the game, baby!

[MikeLopez]

oops, my bad... MG34 hehehe

------------------

Its in the game, baby!

[Tim]

Regarding the M60, it is considered to be a very bad copy of the MG42. After WW2, US engineers were ordered to make a new machinegun based on the lessons learned from the MG42. What they came up with was an almost identical weapon to the MG42, and it was aparently ( aleast according to my book), scrapped because of this. The Engineers were again sent to the drawingboard and designed, as far as I remember, what was to be known as the M60. One thing perticuarly stupid about the M60 was its barrel. It had to be unscrewed from the breech in order to be changed and could not be done while the barrel was hot. After inserting a new barrel, the sight had to be recalibrated. As far as I know this problem was not rectified until the 80'es.

Gotta go.