K Jonsson Posted September 5, 1999 Share Posted September 5, 1999 Greetings BTS and everyone else! I have a question about tankmounted machineguns, especially germans. If I have understood it correctly they used MG34 and MG 42. If so, were they aircooled or a special watercooled type made only for tanks? Because if aircooloed they would become too hot after a while and then you would have too change the barrel and I dont think that could have been very easy to do inside a tank. If so, how is it handled in the game? I seem to remember that you dont track ammo for tankmounted MGs. Does that mean that you can fire it the whole game without any interruption while the MG is getting red hot? Does my ranting make any sense? I guess you already have thought about this , but I still want to know how its handled. Kristian PS: Im really looking forward to the release. The battle on TGN was a very good idea, but I want to play it myself. NOW! Or maybe yesterday. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted September 5, 1999 Share Posted September 5, 1999 Kristian: The Germans used a stripped down (air cooled) version of the MG 34 as the coax MG in pretty much all their tanks. I had a copy of the crew manual for the Tiger I, and it listed something like 41 different things that could cause a stoppage! The gun was easily removable probably just for that reason alone, but I would think that an experienced crew would not overheat the gun in any case. I am not sure how this is going to be modeled in the game itself. I have read of an instance where some M4's were supporting infantry in some house-to-house fighting near Koln, and the coax thirties were fired until the rifling wore out and the bullets were going all over the place. Sorry this doesn't answer your question, but it just passed five more minutes until the game does come out, at least. [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-05-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted September 5, 1999 Share Posted September 5, 1999 Kristian, To the best of my knowledge Kevin is correct. The MG's used in German tanks, and halftracks for that matter, were the same air cooled versions used by the infantry. I imagine the only differences were that the tank versions had some type of adapater for the MG to be placed into the swivel mount in the tank. I also think Kevin is correct in that the crews would be smart enough to not fire the weapons continuously so overheating probably wasn't a problem unless there were hordes of enemy infantry nearby. And even then, if they kept to short bursts with a small rest period every minute or so, I doubt overheating would become an issue. Kevin, Where did you find that Tiger I manual? Do you still have it? Do you know where I could get one?? Would be a really interesting thing to take a look at. Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-05-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted September 5, 1999 Share Posted September 5, 1999 Mike: I got it loaned to me from a friend of mine- had to give it back, but I will email him ASAP and ask where he got it. Pretty sure he had to mail order it- but I will let you know soonest. It was called "Tiger Fibel" (literally, "Tiger Primer"), and it was translated into English, original spelling mistakes, forged signature of Guderian, and the whole shot. Covered all aspects of vehicle running and maintenance, weapons, ammo, and had a very comprehensive section on how to determine target size, distance, and how to aim at them. That part was actually very complex, and my hats off to the gunner who could remember all that drill in the heat of battle! Also a section on how to deal with specific threats, such as the T-34 and Sherman, plus an ID silhouette section at the end, with details of each vehicle. Apparently the real book was about as big as a small pocket bible, and pretty tough to read. This one is way bigger. Absorbing reading. [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-05-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Jung Posted September 6, 1999 Share Posted September 6, 1999 German coaxial and hull MG34 had different design from regular MG34. It is sometimes called 'heavy bore' design. Didn't have the perforated barrel jacket and the barrel was thicker (like BAR). It came without all the regular clutter of field MG34 such as AA sight mount, bipod mount & catch, butt stock etc. But the crew was provided with a box containing these missing items to be used when dismounted. I doubt the barrel was changed too often in the heat of combat. Naturally, a tank costs far more than an MG. A good reference on the German MGs is 'German Machineguns' by Daniel Musgrave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Jung Posted September 6, 1999 Share Posted September 6, 1999 *** please ignore this post *** [This message has been edited by Herr Jung (edited 09-06-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted September 6, 1999 Share Posted September 6, 1999 Kevin, Thanks for the info. The complexity of the firing procedure is interesting in that in one of the books I'm currently reading it describes how one of the crack shot gunners in the Liebstandarte's Tiger I company in Russia simply set his sights at 500m range at all times and left it there. He had apparantly trained himself so well that together with his experience he simply gauged the distance to the target (with use of sighting equipment of course) as compared to the 500m ref. point and then automatically compensated for the difference in his head, quickly made the necessary adjustments to aim, and fired. Sounds like it was a highly effective method as well, for if I am remembering correctly this guy was the gunner for tanker ace Michael Wittman. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted September 6, 1999 Share Posted September 6, 1999 Two questions: I seem to recall that the MG42 was of the wrong shape to be fitted easily into hull MG mounts, so they continued to use the MG34 in those mounts. Has anyone else read this? The MG42 was a brilliantly easy design to manufacture, but something about the machine-stamped casing around the block made it too awkward for AFV mounts. Secondly, does anyone recall who the German general was who began the practice of making field manuals and technical manuals use a comic-book style presentation? I believe it might have been Guderian, but I'm not sure. I just recall they started presenting the material in a more light-hearted fashion, using cartoon drawings of scantily-clad babes to present technical info and keep the attention of the average Soldat-reader (and probably led to the beginning of that dominatrix-in-the-Gestapo-uniform fetish). Damn--I *swear* I saw a picture of such a manual somewhere on the Web in the last week or two, but I can't find it. I'll post a URL if I can find it. Thanks, Dar Steckelberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted September 6, 1999 Share Posted September 6, 1999 Mike and Dar: The acquisition, aiming, and firing procedures were easily the biggest part of the whole Tiger manual, and numerous tips on how to do this more easily are included- your example of the 500m sight-line sounds pretty close to one of them, Mike. And Dar, the manual is exactly as you described- comic book fashion with cartoon characters. The gunner's girlfriend seemed to play a big part in the book. Guess where the rounds went when they were right on target, for example? I think it was mentioned in the historical epilogue that Guderian did not approve officially of the books (can't recall the reason, if any was given), but his signature was forged on every copy, because the Panzertruppen respected him, even after he had fallen from grace in higher circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 6, 1999 Share Posted September 6, 1999 I think Dar might be right about the shape of the MG34 vs the MG42. I've read in places that late-war runs of Panther and TigerrII were modified to accept the 42, as it was clearly a much better weapon. That is, I *think* I've read of this. Could be off... DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted September 6, 1999 Share Posted September 6, 1999 When Finnish army received its first Stu-40s their MG34s were taken out and replaced with captured Soviet Degtyarev LMGs (that's the weapon with "phonograph record magazine" on top of it). The persons in charge of the project gave two rationalizations for this decision: 1) MG34's caliber was 7.92mm, and there were no other weapons in Finnish use with the same caliber and it would have been necessary to buy all the ammo from Germany. On the other hand, Finland had _lots_ of captured Soviet weapons and ammunition for them. 2) They found out that MG34 was not as reliable as Degtyarev. While the first reason was quite clear I'm having some trouble with the second one. Does anyone know about any study that compares reliabilities of different MGs in battlefield conditions? It is possible that MG34 was too over-engineered for front line duty, but it is also possible that the testers were very experienced in using Soviet MG and knew how to operate it correctly but didn't know how to operate MG34. It would be interesting to know which one of the above hypothesises is closer to truth. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted September 6, 1999 Share Posted September 6, 1999 according to the Handbook of German Military Forces, the MG34 has a cyclic rate of 900 rounds per minute, but the practical rate as a LMG is listed as 100 to 120 per minute. I's assume that as long as they dont go above 120 rounds per minute they wouldnt have to worry about changing the barrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted September 6, 1999 Share Posted September 6, 1999 tss, Re:MG34 vs MG42 and Degtyarev in tanks. I find it entirely reasonable that the Finns swapped out the MG34 for the Russian LMG. The MG34 was a beautifully made weapon with very precise tolerances. While it was a superb design, it was susceptible to dirt and grime. This weakness was one of the reasons behind the development of the MG42, which owing to its manner of manufacture was much more able to withstand the rigors of field use. An given the situation Finland was in, counting on German ammo later in the war was not a good idea. Doug Beman, Related to this is the usage on German AFVs. It is my understanding that the Germans kept the MG34 on the tanks for three reasons. First that this MG34 vulnerability to jamming was less inside a vehicle where it was somewhat more protected from the elements than a gun in an infantry section. Second, the Germans couldn't produce enough guns to meet all of their requirements so it made sense to commit MG42 production for the infantry while keeping MG34s for tanks, And thirdly the standard Kugelblende(ballmounts) were all designed to take the MG34. Together it seems very reasonable for the Germans to have kept the MG34 on tanks. PaK40, The difference in the cyclic ROF and the "practical" ROF is ammo supply. In "real" LMG mode the MG34 used a drum magazine. The ROF is limited by the need to swap magazines, not barrels (though human operator selection of targets, reaiming after a burst etc has a very significant effect as well). I have no idea how long a MG34 could sustain either the cyclic rate of the "LMG pratical" rate before it became necessary to swap barrels. The MG34 had he same cyclic ROF regardless of configuration, just that when it was setup as an HMG with a multiman crew and linked belts of ammo it could theoretically achieve the cyclic rate. (I really sucked at typing today!) [This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 09-06-99).] [This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 09-06-99).] [This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 09-06-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Jonsson Posted September 6, 1999 Author Share Posted September 6, 1999 Thanks for the answers. Now I can go back to lurking again. Kristian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Jung Posted September 7, 1999 Share Posted September 7, 1999 The observation that MG42 was better than MG34 has to be qualified. MG34's problem from technical standpoint was that its precision machined parts proved to be very sensitive and prone to malfunction in the harsh conditions of field use. From logistical standpoint, it was expensive to produce and too few factories were able to produce some 400 parts need to assemble the gun. Such considerations did not figure much in choosing subsidiary armaments for armored vehicles to be used from the inside. MG34 was specifically designed for such use and even had special 'heavy barrel' design. Its barrel was 60-70mm longer than MG42's (MG34 S had shorter barrel and had 1700 rpm), it was more finely made, and had single shot capability. Its 900 RPM was lesser than 1200-1500 RPM of MG42, but it may have been preferable as quick barrel change from tank mounted MG was probably difficult. I very much doubt reliability was any factor in fitting tanks to be sent to Finland with Russian MGs. And contrary to some people's belief, MG34 was produced in quantity until the end of the war in 1945. To simply put it, MG34 was the best choice for subsidiary armament for tanks. MG42, however, was widely seen above halftracks and assault guns which makes more sense. You can check out the picture of MG34 'schwerer lauf' or 'panzer lauf' here: http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust5.htm#mg34 Young Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisPick Posted September 7, 1999 Share Posted September 7, 1999 All, Does anyone know if the mount for the MG34 was metal-to-metal? If so, the tiger would be a pretty good heat sink, and I am sure that the mounted MG would cool significantly faster than it's air-cooled bretheren... CP ------------------ Chris Pick chris@chris-and-donna.com [This message has been edited by ChrisPick (edited 09-07-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted September 7, 1999 Share Posted September 7, 1999 Very interesting idea about the tank as a heat sink. I'm sure that the actual mounting within the Kugelblende for the gun was made out of metal as well the ball and armored socket. What remains to be determined is where did this mount contact the gun? If it is right at the joint of the receiver and barrel then I would suspect that the amount of heat drawn off by the tank was very small. Let's get Big time Software to do a test. They can barrow a tank from the museum at Fort Knox.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 7, 1999 Share Posted September 7, 1999 Given that the heat transferance in this case would have been proportional to the cross-sectional area (and indeed volume (since I'm assuming connections to the main tank body occured by some form of cylindrical steel rods ) and the temperature gradient across the linking material I think you'd have found very soon that the limited cross-sectional area and the decreasing temperature gradient would have made for pretty damn poor heat removal. Certainly not enough to make up for firing a whole swathe of bullets. I could be wrong though but it seems to make sense to me at least . I think the best method of heat control was to simply be sensible about burst fire. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisPick Posted September 7, 1999 Share Posted September 7, 1999 Fionn, I agree, it won't let you keep your finger on the trigger much longer, but I think it would increase the rate of cooling in between... And in your battle, with all that snow on the tanks... =) CP ------------------ Chris Pick chris@chris-and-donna.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 7, 1999 Share Posted September 7, 1999 LOL.. The MG in my Panther got a workout in Turn 18 (which I;ve just sent in to Pat).. 14 prisoners captured by one tank.. Gotta love MG34s eh? ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst2 Posted September 8, 1999 Share Posted September 8, 1999 MG42's were indeed not used in tanks largely because the barrel shape (octagonal I think) did not lend well to the round mantlet used in the MG ports. I might get around to checking the Handbook on German Military Forces on this one, but I think that was the prime reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Jung Posted September 8, 1999 Share Posted September 8, 1999 R Cunningham wrote: > In "real" LMG mode the MG34 used a drum magazine. The ROF is limited by the need to swap magazines, not barrels.< Ammo capacity is one thing, but the practical difference between LMG and HMG is the ability to provide sustained fire (with accuracy). Naturally, greater sustained fire required sturdy, fixed mount to keep the gun on target as well as robust gun design which allowed such operation. LMG, on the other hand, is expected to be man-portable, and MG34 (12.1Kg) and MG42 (11.5Kg) were considered to be suitable for the purpose. In the LMG role, both could handle continuous link belt and 50-round drum magazine (a.k.a. 'assault drum'). In wartime reels, it is not hard to see MG34/42 letting loose burst after burst on bipod mount and fed from linked belts. Of course, one could argue that MG34/42 are not 'real' LMG but dual-purpose or general-purpose machine guns. From what I've read, it was recommended that MG34/42 barrel be changed after sustained fire of some 200-250 rounds. Carrying capacity of regular German ammo box was 50X5, so it was probably convenient to remember to swap the barrel after spending one box at least. And life expectancy of a barrel was 5000-6000 rounds which probably varied greatly under different firing conditions (with MG42 barrel wearing out faster). Germans relied heavily on their MGs in offense and defense, and each MG section was supplied with 2-4 spare barrels. I've heard it was not unusual for a German MG crew to fire thousands of rounds per day during heavy engagements. Certainly, the sustained firepower from belt-fed, bipod-mounted MG34/42 was hard to match. Young Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted September 8, 1999 Share Posted September 8, 1999 Herr Jung wrotee: "I very much doubt reliability was any factor in fitting tanks to be sent to Finland with Russian MGs" I find it strange too, but reliability was given as a reason for the change. Yesterday I found text of a note that the Finnish major who was responsible for the field tests wrote to his commander (of course I forgot to take the text with me when I left home today, but it was short and I'll try to reproduce it from memory): "All gun records are missing. The 7.92 KK/34 is of wrong calibere and it is inferior to 7.62 DT. The Germans have also had reliability problems with it. I suggest that the machine guns will be replaced with 7.62 DTs." The "gun record" part refers to Finnish practice of issuing two different service records to each gun, including tank guns. "7.92KK/34" was Finnish designation for MG34 (KK comes from "konekivääri"), and 7.62 DT was the Russian MG. My source (Käkelä: "Rynnäkkötykkipataljoona") doesn't elaborate the reasons more, and it is the most comprehensive history of StuGs in Finnish use that has been released, so I don't know what were the exact factors that lead to the decision. The major in question (I forgot his name, also) was an experienced front-line commander, but he had served in the infantry for most of the war. When the Assault Gun Batallion was formed someone noticed that he had served in the first Finnish tank unit in 1934-5 and so he was transferred. It may or may not be of relevance, but the earliest tanks in Finnish use (Renault FT-17s) had a lot of problems with unreliable Hotchkiss machine guns. -Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ssnake Posted September 27, 1999 Share Posted September 27, 1999 OK, I'm no WW2 history buff, and a little late in this thread... But at least I've been on the Leopard 2 MBT for quite some years, and it's MG3 is a pretty close derivative of the MG42. Main difference: Reduced firing speed to 1200 rpm, while the older one sometimes went up to 1800. The tank manual says you're supposed to change barrels after a number of 150 rounds of sustained fire. This obviously is a peace time measure to reduce wear and tear, and during some exercises we went up to 300 rounds with ease - but boy were those barrels hot by then! I recall some crew having totally forgotten about that, so they fired until a round got literally stuck, and the gun jammed to remember them about their duties. They got reprimanded, of course, and the barrel was wasted. Later their found out that the "practical limit" for sustained fire with a single barrel must be around 500 to 600 rounds. The German army used to operate the MG3 for all and every purposes (related to shooting MG, that is) - it's now sloooowly being replaced by an entirely new design. Changing barrels do not seem to be such big of a deal inside a tank (at least nowadays, but with experienced crews I don't believe it was a much more time consuming procedure back then), and it seems that you either have the time to change the barrel (cause the enemy's a couple hundred meters away), or you're dead meat anyway (cause the infantry is so close that you oughta have retreated MUCH earlier). Therefore, to my judgement, the number of rounds with sustained fire is not of big tactical importance. You either have the time, or should have decided to run minutes ago. ------------------ PGP key ID: 0xBCD59BA1 I strongly recommend the use of encryption software for e-Mail contacts. Ensuring privacy makes people feel better ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted September 29, 1999 Share Posted September 29, 1999 what is the new weapon replacing the MG3? I was wondering how long it would stay in service since armies tend to replace things, regardless of quality or performance, after they become obsolete, where obsolete is simply defined as old. The biggest exception to this seems to be the M2 Browning HMG that has been in use by the US army since 1918. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts