MG 42 light or heavy machinegun?

[Rudy]

Hello, Im a little confused about the German MG 42 Machingun. When picking that gun, it looks like there are two versions, a light and a heavy. Was it the same gun? What was the difference? Thanks in advance.

[Pzman]

The light MG42 LMG is crewed by two men, and can move a lot faster, but it has far less ammo then the 6 man MG42 HMG team. I'm not a grog so I don't know much else about the differences. I'm sure one of them will provid any other information you want on them.

[LC-]

I believe it also involves the guns stand. The Light MG I think has a bipod while the heavy MG has a tripod.

The tripod of course is much heavier than the bipod which allows the gun to be fired with less recoil. Allowing the shooter to keep the target in the sights a little easier.

But dont quote me if I am incorrect.

[Michael Dorosh]

Both answers so far are correct.

[flamingknives]

HMG has more spare barrels, so can keep firing at a higher sustained rate. Plus optical sights to lay the gun on target at longer ranges.

And the above

[c3k]

Didn't the Bren have easily swapped barrels? It seems that the British could've had a huge wartime advantage if they'd only invented and fielded a tripod for the Bren.

Ducking and running!

Ken

[JasonC]

Same gun, everything else different. 55 lb tripod with elevating screws and locking levers. A bag of spare barrels, asbestos glove to change them while hot. About 4 times the ammo supply. An ammo crew continually linking on additional 50 round belts to be fed through the gun. A team commander with binocs watching where the bullets land and calling corrections to the gunner.

Understand that the effective firepower of any MG on the battlefield is set by its practical sustained ROF. Any of them could throw all the ammo they could be supplied with in very short time periods, if fired continually. The LMG-42 team, for instance, has about 1 minute's worth of fire with the trigger actually depressed. None of them are firing the entire time.

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by c3k:

Didn't the Bren have easily swapped barrels? It seems that the British could've had a huge wartime advantage if they'd only invented and fielded a tripod for the Bren.

Ducking and running!

Ken

The Bren w/tripod would still be a light m.g. for the simple reason that it was only magazine fed...what? 30 rounds or so? Not enough for sustained fire. It was an assault (offensive) weapon primarily and the Commonwealth forces depended upon the heavy old Vickers for defensive use. Each approach had its good and bad points and there were situations in which any of these (mg42 heavy/light vs Bren/Vickers) could shine or do very poorly...all depended upon the context, doctrine and training.

****

Oh. Just re-read your post...Ya got me! Doh!

[flamingknives]

Ah, but there were (in existance, if not issued in any great quantity) 100 round drum magazines for the Bren.

Pity they'd have gotten in the way of the sights.

[stikkypixie]

Not sure here, but i thought on of the main advantages of MG42 en MG34 is that they were an all purpose machinegun, so not really a light nor a heavy...

But i wouldn't put my head on it. This webpage should provide you with more information.

[Aragorn2002]

I have a simple rule. In the attack take light MG 42 (for the obvious reason that it moves a lot faster) and in the defence take the heavy MG 42, because you usually don't have to move it as much as in the attack and it's firepower is much better.

To my experience it is very difficult to co-ordinate the movements of the heavier support weapons and the assault squads. My squads have to wait freqently until the MG and mortar teams have catched up and taken favourable fire positions. Very frustrating, but very realistic.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by c3k:

Didn't the Bren have easily swapped barrels? It seems that the British could've had a huge wartime advantage if they'd only invented and fielded a tripod for the Bren.

Ducking and running!

Ken

The Bren w/tripod would still be a light m.g. for the simple reason that it was only magazine fed...what? 30 rounds or so? Not enough for sustained fire. It was an assault (offensive) weapon primarily and the Commonwealth forces depended upon the heavy old Vickers for defensive use. Each approach had its good and bad points and there were situations in which any of these (mg42 heavy/light vs Bren/Vickers) could shine or do very poorly...all depended upon the context, doctrine and training.

</font>

[Denwad]

in the attack bring both, the LMG will run out of ammo early and has a lot less firepower.

[Aragorn2002]

It is also 3 times as expensive and a lot harder to keep in touch with the enemy during an attack.

[JasonC]

"difficult to co-ordinate the movements of the heavier support weapons and the assault squads."

You need to use separate heavy weapon mini-platoons and plan their shifts ahead of time. I regularly use HMGs and 81mm mortars on the attack, as the Germans. A typical fire support group is 2 HMGs, 1 81mm, an HQ, and an FO or sharpshooter. The HQ can be a weapon section one, a company, or a platoon HQ that turns over all its squad (or all but 1) to a company HQ.

I will sometimes use a tank to reposition the HMGs. If I have any SPWs, moving mortars is one of their jos. But the main thing is simply picking their successive positions, typically just 2 in a small battle. Sometimes they start in their first but usually they have a small approach move to it.

They "lift" to the main firing position after the assault squads have already cleared the area they see from their first position. That position must see everything they are going to need to see to shoot the assault infantry onto the objective. They do not need to move onto that objective themselves.

What makes up for their lack of speed is their superior range. They typically engage at 300m. So far, as long as they are in cover they are basically invulnerable to mere small arms fire. Their own fire will still cut up anyone in the open (the MGs), while the mortar and FO portions don't care and still break enemies in cover.

I don't use separate LMGs on the attack. They don't have enough firepower or ammo endurance to help out in a meaningful way, particularly against targets in cover. Squads are the way to move LMGs close - they are faster and more survivable. I use a few LMGs on defense as listening posts and as "dummies" - MG sound contacts that the real HMGs hide among.

As for HMG price, they have 3x the firepower of an LMG so the cost per FP is the same - but then they also have 3x the ammo, so the cost per eventually delivered bit of FP is much lower.

[Denwad]

Never thought of using them as decoys.

[Salkin]

JasonC , I like the bit about the fire support group.

Really cool . I'll try dividing up my support teams according to your model in my next QB .

//Salkin

[LC-]

A question within a question here but I guess I was wondering how many people it took to carry the tripod. Was it just one big heavy thing that one many carried while the others carried the gun and the ammo? Or was it a base that a couple guys carried at once and had to be put together?

Sorry Rudy for posting a question within yours.

[JasonC]

The tripod for the HMG-42 weighed 55 lbs and would usually be carried by 2 men, if the gun were in action or about to go into action (tripod therefore set up, etc). For a longer move you'd take it down, fold it, and one person would carry it. The gun itself was fairly light, only about 20 lbs, and would be taken off the mount to move. Industrial quantities of ammo were another large load - 250 rounds belted and canned weighed about 20 lbs. The assistant gunner also carried a bag containing spare barrels and tools.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The tripod for the HMG-42 weighed 55 lbs and would usually be carried by 2 men, if the gun were in action or about to go into action (tripod therefore set up, etc). For a longer move you'd take it down, fold it, and one person would carry it. The gun itself was fairly light, only about 20 lbs, and would be taken off the mount to move. Industrial quantities of ammo were another large load - 250 rounds belted and canned weighed about 20 lbs. The assistant gunner also carried a bag containing spare barrels and tools.

MG 42 weighed on the order of 25 pounds, without ammunition but including the bipod. Tripod weighed 45 pounds.

[JasonC]

Thanks for the correction, Michael. I was going by memory on the weights. Looking up the numbers, the gun was more like 25 lbs as you say. There were 2 tripods, the older one weighed 52 lbs (and was apparently used with the MG34 rather than the 42) and the newer model weighed 45 lbs as you say.

[Londoner]

Flamingknives,

The optical sight was not meant for engaging targets at long range, it had no magnification whatsoever. It was a low light/bad visibility tool. With the aid of a rod, you could pre-register likely targets/approaches/areas the enemy might use.

IIRC the British Army use the exact same thing today for the GPMG.