Jump to content

FG42


Recommended Posts

I've read a lot of weapon books and there never seems to be enough info for me for this unique weapon. What can you tell me about it? How the allies saw it, what they though when facing any, how many issued per squad, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

There were two versions of the FG42. Both were made in REALLY SMALL quantities. The gun itself was not a great success. It offered only slightly better firepower over a G-41/43, though it was much lighter. Reason was that it could only be fired full auto if you were the size of Arnold Schwarzeneger smile.gif It was a full 8mm rifle round in a short, fairly light weapon. Not something any sane man would ever want to muck with! Oh, and the fireball from this sucker would light up the night sky (looks like a flamethrower, I kid you not!) so there was another reason to not go full auto. So in effect it became a light carbine instead of the assault rifle it was intended to be.

The FG42's main contribution to German small arms was serving as a basis for the MP43/44. Many lessons were learned and incorporated into this fine weapon directly from the FG42.

Because of the limited production run we will most likely NOT include this weapon. No matter what the TO&E states, there were never enough made to have made this happen in reality.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sniff :-(. I know it makes sense but boy I just like the old FG42.

Pity it isn't included.

One other weapon question, will crews from damaged tanks be able to strip the MGs from the tanks as happened in real life ? I hear that's one reason the Germans emplaced Stg 44s in tanks in 1944 ( so that crews could take 'em out quickly if it got damaged).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

I know some Stugs had MP44s instead of MG34s, but I'm not sure how widespread that was. Personally, I always thought it was because they didn't get an MG issued and the MP44 was the next closest thing to grab.

In any case, there is NO way that a crew would take the time to remove an MG34 from the top of the turret (ie most exposed position) during a firefight at CM's scale. First of all, I'm fairly certain that none (or next to none) of the German MGs had bipods, while NONE of the US MGs had tripods. This would make them useless off the vehicle. Second, most, if not all, of the German tank MG34s didn't have buttstocks. Again, pretty hard to use off a tank. Third, they would have to lug ammo cans out from within the tank to get anything more than a couple of good bursts.

The overwhelming majority of the time a crew bails from their vehicle because of extreme and imediate danger. Grabbing anything that is even remotely difficult isn't going to happen. Also, crews weren't supposed to fight once outside of their vehicle. This would be a HUGE waste of training. Instead, they were to go back to the motor pool and look for something else to get into.

I'd be interested in hearing anything to the contrary. Personally, I have never read about this sort of thing, but can picture it happening in certain, limited circumstances.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Webmaster (edited 03-04-99).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard about it in Stugs and some later variants of the Tiger I and more especially Tiger II.

It was a modification made to the co-ax position which allowed Stg44s to be used instead of MG34s since the STG44s could be simply unclipped from their position quickly and taken by the crew to provide self-defence.

Of course this would only be for late-44 tanks at the earliest and only small numbers of these so probably wouldn't be the sort of thing to be realistically modelled.

This is from memory so any errors are mine ;). If it's a big deal I can check my books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...