Tactic or Just Movie stuff?

[weapon2010]

  Im sure most of you are familair with the MG42'S in the back of the trucks in BOTB.I would think this would be a real tactic by putting your MG deployed facing out that back of your truck, say at the crest of a hill and then you could quickly escape danger without having to "pack up".Or use it in a shoot n scoot?

[Glubokii Boy]

Surely a HMG crew would be able to withdraw a MG42 (even when mounted on a tripod) by hand without having to un-pack it if they find themself in a acutely dangerous situation...

They would also be able to do a shoot n scoot move on a hill if desired without using any additional equipment i belive...carry it forward...carry it back. It is not that terribly heavy...is it ?

A truck would hardly increase concealment etc...

But maybe under some specific conditions it might be a good idea...

 

[Firehead]

I can't imagine it would be effective.

Unarmored vehicles are bullet magnets, and they make a lot of noise. I would imagine that by the time the vehicle has stopped jostling around, the gunner to acquire a target, let a burst go, and signal to the driver that he can move again that they are already taking significant return fire. After displacing, any further movement would likely draw fire if they attempted it again.

Even if they are stationary at the start of the engagement, they vehicle needs to be running so they can make an escape when it gets too hairy.

A decently concealed machinegun team would probably do a lot better. I'm not an expert.

[Michael Emrys]

It's just another example of Hollywood sensationalism. Feel free to ignore.

Michael

[Dynaman216]

Trucks are needed to keep bringing supplies up to that (and a hundred other) MG position, not sitting there waiting for the hours on end for it to be needing to be moved away.  

[DerKommissar]

This may be conjecture:

I've heard that AA MGs were rarely mounted on Panzers, even if we see a lot of them on models and in museums. They generally were of better use, elsewhere. MG-34s were also, as a general rule, preferred for vehicle use. I can't imagine the supply situation was too good in BotB, and not only for MG-42s -- but also for trucks! Germans put a premium on trucks.

They had a deficit of trucks at the start of the war and their trucks often got bogged down or broken in Winter months. Yet, they were invaluable in the chain of supply and were often pushed to their limit -- increasing wear and tear. I think a sled mounted MG, pulled by a horse, would be a better mobile suppression unit.

[Rinaldi]

By Summer '44 the Germans were using wood-burning trucks so this isn't entirely surprising. 

[MikeyD]

There's are allied vehicle-mounted MGs in the game, including a Brit SAS-style Jeep in the Arnhem module, so there's plenty of opportunity to experiment. Beyond area firing on distant buildings outside of rifle range they appear to be pretty much useless.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

5 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

I've heard that AA MGs were rarely mounted on Panzers, even if we see a lot of them on models and in museums.

This is a misconception.....The AA MG and the radio operator's MG were often the same weapon, it would be removed from the Kugelblende and fitted to the AA mount as required.

[DerKommissar]

20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This is a misconception.....The AA MG and the radio operator's MG were often the same weapon, it would be removed from the Kugelblende and fitted to the AA mount as required.

Thanks for clearing that up. I remember there was a caveat to that narrative. Still, there would rarely be a hull MG and an AA MG, correct?

The Americans liked to stuff every vehicle with MGs. 4 MGs MINIMUM!

[Sgt.Squarehead]

6 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

Still, there would rarely be a hull MG and an AA MG, correct?

That is my understanding, yes.....Not suggesting you won't see both, but it's not the norm.

[Michael Emrys]

21 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

Ah, the blesséd Meatchopper. Back when I was in high school, I knew a guy who had served in one of those during the war. When I knew him he worked for a major meat packing company. I always thought that was kind of poetic.

Michael

[MikeyD]

PzIV commander would use the bow mg for air defense and security overwatch when on the march.

I once worked with an old ex-Pacific jungle-fighter who said troops HATED the armor shield on M16. The armor was too thin to stop anything but it would cause the bullet to tumble before hitting you, causing ghastly wounds. If they're going to get shot they'd prefer a clean penetration that had a chance of being treated medically.

 

[jtsjc1]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

PzIV commander would use the bow mg for air defense and security overwatch when on the march.

I once worked with an old ex-Pacific jungle-fighter who said troops HATED the armor shield on M16. The armor was too thin to stop anything but it would cause the bullet to tumble before hitting you, causing ghastly wounds. If they're going to get shot they'd prefer a clean penetration that had a chance of being treated medically.

 

The M16 looks pretty useless. Isn't the idea of armor protection supposed to be it can stop a round fired by your own weapon? No way that stops a .50 BMG even ball ammo.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

PzIV commander would use the bow mg for air defense and security overwatch when on the march.

You are quite right.....But that picture's a Pz.III with spaced armour on the mantlet. 

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

The armor was too thin to stop anything but it would cause the bullet to tumble before hitting you, causing ghastly wounds.

That's horrible design! 

[Mugendo]

On 26/03/2018 at 10:37 PM, DerKommissar said:

Thanks for clearing that up. I remember there was a caveat to that narrative. Still, there would rarely be a hull MG and an AA MG, correct?

The Americans liked to stuff every vehicle with MGs. 4 MGs MINIMUM!

There is one of these parked up in a yard in the village next to mine here in France, no guns on it but the rest of it is there, rusty..... but looking in good overall condition. 

[John Kettler]

DerKommissar,

One of the reason the MG34 was preferred for vehicles was that the rectangular, wider and taller MG 42 wouldn't fit the weapon aperture for the ball mounts which had smaller openings which were circular and specifically designed for the MG34. If you've got some already on the AFV, Coax, too, I believe, then it makes sense to use to as the AAMG, if fitted, and have all the MGs using the same types of parts.

Regards,

John. Kettler

[DerKommissar]

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

One of the reason the MG34 was preferred for vehicles was that the rectangular, wider and taller MG 42 wouldn't fit the weapon aperture for the ball mounts which had smaller openings which were circular and specifically designed for the MG34. If you've got some already on the AFV, Coax, too, I believe, then it makes sense to use to as the AAMG, if fitted, and have all the MGs using the same types of parts.

That is a really good point. Then, they had to manufacture the MG34 along-side the MG42, during the raids on German industry. Judging from the quality of 1945 manufactured small arms, I suspect they did not have enough MGs to mount on anything and everything -- like the Americans did.

[Saint_Fuller]

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

DerKommissar,

One of the reason the MG34 was preferred for vehicles was that the rectangular, wider and taller MG 42 wouldn't fit the weapon aperture for the ball mounts which had smaller openings which were circular and specifically designed for the MG34. If you've got some already on the AFV, Coax, too, I believe, then it makes sense to use to as the AAMG, if fitted, and have all the MGs using the same types of parts.

Regards,

John. Kettler

The more relevant issue is that the barrel change system on MG34 is much better for use in a ball mount than the system MG42 used.
With a 34 you just rotate the receiver out of the way and pull the barrel out straight backwards, like so:

In an MG42, you pull barrels out like this:

There isn't really room to do this were the gun to be mounted into a Kugelblende.