Fallschirmjägergewehr 42

[Charlie Rock]

The FG42 was a fundamentally flawed battle rifle and was a step backward.

What the pictures dont show you is how short the weapon was. The Germans tried to overrule the laws of physics and hold onto the full power cartridge. The recoil, muzzle blast, and muzzle flash was significant, and on automatic fire it was much harder then the M14 or FAL (which were impractical in their own right unless in semiauto)

The lightest automatic weapons that could accurately be fired with full .30 /7.62 ammo successfully were the BAR and Bren, at slightly under 20 lbs. If you fire an M14 offhand on auto the 3rd round will be about 20 degres up into the sky, unless you are a bodybuilder. It is sheer physics.

Among selective fire gas weapons,

Bren (1934ish)and BAR (1918) were successful, but heavy

M1 carbine(1940) in the M2 version qualifies, but only because the cartridge was anemic. Low recoil and low stopping power

FG42 (1942) was too small to absorb the recoil successfully.

STG44 (1944) successful because it used a cartridge with about 30-40% less muzzle energy then auto rifles.

[Emar]

A couple sources I got a hold of claim that one of the major reasons for the Fg42's development was simply interservice rivalry. By 1942 the Luftwaffe was encroaching on the preserves of the army to a considerable extent and when they heard that the Heer was developing a self loading rifle they decided they must have one too.

The sense I got from reading some of this information was that after Crete the Luftwaffe wanted a do all weapon that would let each soldier fill in any roll that was needed, ie light machine gun for support, rifle for standard infantry tactics, and full auto to replace the assault firepower of the SMG. This way if a drop was scattered then there would be no shortage in any of the above roles. If the mg was lost the Fg42 would step up for support, etc.

This theory would certainly be validated by the guns unique design. Firing semi auto with a closed bolt and a low power telescopic sight (replacing the kar98's role). Full auto with open bolt ( replacing the mp40's and LMG role). Round that out with the guns compact size allowing jumps to be made with gun ready and the option of using a bayonet and it is easy to see what the Fg42's hoped for role would be.

Also the dramatic first use as the main source of firepower by the storm group rescuing Mussolini shows that the Luftwaffe indeed had high hopes that the Fg42 would be their new wonder weapon.

However, as with the Sturmtiger, the Fg42 was a weapon using up time and development resources for reasons which were no longer valid.

[ February 18, 2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Emar ]

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Emar:

The sense I got from reading some of this information was that after Crete the Luftwaffe wanted a do all weapon that would let each soldier fill in any roll that was needed, ie light machine gun for support, rifle for standard infantry tactics, and full auto to replace the assault firepower of the SMG.

Sounds like a logical explanation. Kinda like a Swiss army knife, only more useless.

[30ot6]

Originally posted by BulletRat:

Ok, a little OT, but in DoD the FG42 hits hard, has a good RoF, and has evil recoil - that said, I love using it!

In DoD, the FG42 is almost the exact equivelant of the BAR.

[Emar]

I think the actual hopes that the Luftwaffe had for this gun could have actually panned out if they had not retained the full rifle round. Not sure what the reason for that decision was, logistics? worry about loss of range? etc?.

If they had switched to a lighter and smaller round the gun could have indeed come close to filling many of its intended roles and could have been made to be manageble on full auto fire. Also the mag capacity could have been increased without having a much bigger clip and the gun would have been lighter.

If they had done this then I think the gun would have been somewhat like an early clip fed version of the M249 SAW(which I beleive also uses a side mounted clip when not belt fed).

[Wisbech_lad]

That would have made it the MP44...

[Snow Leopard]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

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

Recall that the Germans did not have a standard semiautomatic rifle in a full-size caliber - their primary weapon was the Kar98 bolt-action rifle.

G41W / G43, anyone?

And seriously, aren't there any documents available on the net to shead some light on the FG42's designated purpose? </font>

[scharfschutze]

Yes, well, around here I guess everything depends on one's opinion. Everyone has their own, I guess. "Fundamentally flawed" or not, I'd still carry it.

See ya out on the steppes,

Scharfschutze

[Charlie Rock]

Go to Amazon.com and click on the button for "search inside this book" then "browse back cover"

for

German Automatic Weapons of World War II

by Robert Bruce

There is an image there that illustrates nicely the significant flash of shooting the 7.92 cartridge out of the shortened barrel.

]http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1861262698/ref=sib_rdr_zmin/102-4815803-3211302?p=S03V&j=1#reader-page

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Emar:

If they had switched to a lighter and smaller round the gun could have indeed come close to filling many of its intended roles and could have been made to be manageble on full auto fire. Also the mag capacity could have been increased without having a much bigger clip and the gun would have been lighter.

Apparently, the Heereswaffenamt successfully chambered an FG42 for the 7.9mm Kurz Patrone, but the Luftwaffe was determined to retain the longer range of the standard round.

[Shosties]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

Go to Amazon.com and click on the button for "search inside this book" then "browse back cover"

for

German Automatic Weapons of World War II

by Robert Bruce

There is an image there that illustrates nicely the significant flash of shooting the 7.92 cartridge out of the shortened barrel.

]http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1861262698/ref=sib_rdr_zmin/102-4815803-3211302?p=S03V&j=1#reader-page

Hello everybody! I'm behind the tree!

Re: dude in the lower left picture... keep your finger away from the trigger unless you intend to shoot, tough guy! :mad:

[Emar]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

That would have made it the MP44...

In some ways yes but not entirely. The Luftwaffe definately wanted the capability of a bipod mounted support weapon. I would equate the mp44 more as the WWII equivalent of the ak47 or m16 infantry rifle. The Fg42 was also intended to cover the role now covered by the SAW.

Even though the design was flawed almost all of the resources I looked at claimed that the Luftwaffe was happy with the gun and begging Rhienmetall and the High Command for more to be produced. A sentiment which was denied due to the excessive resources that would be taken by producing it.

Still the need for such a weapon no longer existed and the time and resources could have been better used elswhere. That said the gas operated mechanism and other aspects of the gun such as it's "straight line" layout from butt to muzzle were well ahead of their time and greatly influenced postwar designs. Most of what I have seen written also suggests that the gun was a fairly reliable weapon.

[Charlie Rock]

The weapon was flawed. It had a flaw. In this case it had "A big flaw". The big flaw made this a nasty weapon to work with, and its contempraries were better. In any military that had rational resource allocation--as opposed to a politically powerful little bloc that does its own thing--this weapon would not have got off the ground.

It had lots of neat little accessories and aftermarket add ons:

Rakish pistol grip? check.

Side mounted magazine?OK. You can shoot it two inches lower to the ground--lefties have a harder time reloading it though.

Optical sight? Bona fide good idea. Also seen on the G41/43, and some variants of the STG44.

Bipod. Good idea if you are on the defense late in the war. A trained shooter doesent need one, but, OK.

Now. Physics time.

There were a multitude of submachineguns firing pistol ammunition that were made for relatively light weight. Good firepower up to 100 meters. You get what you pay for, but its a simple tactical issue.

If you wanted a full power 7.92mm battle rifle, the G41/43 had a smaller 10 round magazine and was heavily influenced by the M1 garand. Harder to reload but manageable. Had a scope. Just as good on semi.

If you wanted a selective fire weapon, pick the STG44. 2/3 the bullet mass., and generally speaking, the kinetic energy. Automatic fire and good accuracy and stopping power out to 300 meters. If you wanted selective fire with a full power cartridge start on the low end with a BAR or preferably the Bren. The FG42 is too short. The unburned powder that did not completely burn up in the short barrel burned up AFTER the bullet had left the barrel. The light weight of the weapon meant on full auto it was inaccurate.

This is not a minor argument. If the FG42 was effective then you must explain to me why the Bren and BAR were so much heavier to do the same thing. EIther one is too heavy or the other was too light. The fired the same bullet on selctive fire, off a bipod. Your choice.

So.

The blast and flash resulted in significant spotting problems. These weapons were easy to spot and see--look at JasonC tactics articles for the tactical present you give an attacker when the defender is 'spotted' vice 'sound contact'. Oh yeah, at night you will go blind when the flash goes off in your face. Also, because it was so light, it was hard to control on auto. Too much recoil. SO you shot it on semi only if you wanted to hit people as opposed to scare them. So if you really really want the automatic capability go with a STG 44 or MG42. Or copy the bren. If you can live without it and want semiauto only go with the G41/43--keep the scope and live longer as the propellent burns up completely in the longer barrel.

It was reliable? As opposed to what? The unreliable STG44? The unreliable G41/43? It would reliably get you killed beacuse it reliably gives your position away.

It has been said before--to fix this weapon you would have to adopt the STG44 kurz cartridge--then you would have a STG44 with 10 less rounds, a scope, and bipod. Why duplicate the effort? The US started to replicate this with a side mounted magazine fed auto rifle--called the Johnson. Then they decided they were duplicating the effort and got rid of it. Net value added was not worth the industrial sideshow that resulted.

Part of the problem was that the fallschirmjager had an inflexible attitude toward lower power cartridges, as a result of bad experiences getting sniped by New Zealanders at Crete. The idea of getting sniped and outranged did not appeal to them. But buying a little fullauto rifle with an overpowered cartridge is like a 2 inch saturday night special with a 44 magnum round. It sounds good on paper. has a few drawbacks.

That's the legacy of this weapon. Looked good on paper.

[Emar]

I hope I was not portraying myself in defense of this gun. In no way was I claiming that the Fg42 was an effective answer to the Luftwaffe's weapon needs. If you look at my past posts on the subject you will see that I have already agreed with most of your points and that I was the one who said that the gun needed to use a smaller round if it was to be succesful at filling any of its roles at all.

As I also said earlier there was absolutely no need for the Luftwaffe to waste time and effort on this gun. Having fired A couple of KAR98,s and a G43 I know what a handful a full battle round can be and how my shoulder felt at the end of the day. Could only imagine what a beast this short barreled and light gun must have been to handle.

As far as reliable, I meant that I came across no resources that mentioned any complaints of malfunctions or jams from troops in the field which can not be said of all weapons from this era. Although I completly agree that this gun did indeed have some big flaws as you said there is no denying that some of its aspects were ahead of their time and influenced postwar designs (albeit they used the ideas to a more practical end). I completly agree also that this gun must have originated as a proposed glorified wonder weapon on paper and that there was no chance that it could ever live up to any of those hopes. Still for whatever reason, be it political or overlooking of the guns flaws because of the hype, the Luftwaffe wanted more of them.

[BulletRat]

Originally posted by 30ot6:

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

Ok, a little OT, but in DoD the FG42 hits hard, has a good RoF, and has evil recoil - that said, I love using it!

In DoD, the FG42 is almost the exact equivelant of the BAR. </font>

[BaD JoKe]

Well, I also agree that bolt-action rifles were a relic of the WW1. Definitely there was a need for a replacement.

But as was said before, too little too late. So late, that it didn't matter anymore (to germans I mean at their situation at the time). Copying a excisting design would have served them better (if not being a bit humiliating).

Reason for the wasted resources being whatever (rivarly inside german military, hope for a wunderwaffe or pure stupidity) the result was the same..

It amazes me how the germans started the WW2 with those bolt-action servicerifles in the first place? Specially when allmost all allied armies had their own versions of semi-auto service rifles allready deployed. But that was the case with allmost every piece of weapon in germanys arsenal (light tanks with only MGs etc).

But I have to admit, sexy looking guns they made

[scharfschutze]

Good thing Charlie Rock wasn't there to straighten those poor guys out about things - maybe he can hire on as a consultant and offer some advice to one of today's armies about what they could do better.

(Charlie Rock in Iraq - strides up to an Iraqi insurgent lying, weapon ready, in an ambush position) Hands on hips, juts jaw out with a scowl - "Hey mister! Don't you know that AK-47 you're carrying is a fundamentally flawed weapon?"

(Iraqi looks up at Charlie Rock, says nothing)

Charlie Rock - "You might as well give up right now - I can't believe you're using that thing! I mean, the magazines are clumsy and take too long to reload; the bolt doesn't hold open after the last shot; the safety is too noisy to operate in an ambush; the sights are too hard to adjust when zeroing the weapon; the muzzle climb is too extreme when you fire it on auto to stay anywhere near the target, magazine juts downward too far to fire comfortably when prone - the list goes on and on!"

(Iraqi, still looking up, says nothing - )

Charlie Rock - "Seems like no one can get it into their heads how bad this piece of junk is! (spits some tobacco juice on the ground, straightens his US Cavalry hat, scowl gets even meaner) Why, those idiots have been using this thing against us for years - Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm I, Somalia, Afghanistan, even now! - must be the only thing you guys can afford to buy, huh?"

(Iraqi, still saying nothing, but a slight smile on his face now - )

Charlie Rock - "It doesn't even look like a solid weapon - nothing like the profile

of our great and flawless weapons! Hell, I - aw, why am I wasting my breath? You guys are too dumb to understand what I'm saying, anyway!" (turns on his heel, strides off like Col. Kilgore in Apocalypse Now - )

(Iraqi insurgent quietly gets up and displaces to a new ambush postion, gets ready to fire a few more fundamentally flawed bullets)

Moral of the Story - Don't get in the way of any fundamentally flawed bullets - they still hurt.

Scharfschutze

[Sirocco]

I suppose the Germans went into WW2 with a bolt action rifle simply because their main focus was on serving the MG34.

The war ended with them developing a number of expedient types of small arms, when concentration on the StG44 and MG42 would have served them much better.

[gunnergoz]

Well, let's be thankful, then, that WW2 Nazi Germany was'nt as good as designing governmental bureaucratic efficiency as it was designing weapons...

What they did well, they did exceptionally well.

[flamingknives]

The British didn't have an SA rifle, The Soviets only had one, and that was never standard issue, the Commonwealth used British kit for the most part, the French, in the short time they were resourced by their own country used bolt-action rifles, and all the axis powers used bolt-action rifles.

In fact, the only people who did use SA rifles on a general issue basis was the US, and when they first deployed to Tunisia, large number were still using the Springfield '06.

Oh, and the silly Germans deployed a selective fire assault rifle.

[Emar]

You know I was thinking about this subject today at work and came to the conclusion that in some way every Weapon is "flawed". When you create a new gun the final product is always the result of trade offs in one area or another.

The Germans were not the first and certainly not the last to attempt to make a weapon that fit all of the goals set out for it and did not achieve what was the hoped for result. It does not take inservice bickering and irrational resource allocation to achieve this result. Look at the US Army for instance. The M1 carbine had a round that was so anemic that it had less stopping power than the pistol it was supposed to replace. Yet this "flawed" gun was made in the thousands including taking the resources to make a specailized paratrooper version.

After the war the US took another major step backward and forced the rest of NATO to do the same by insisting on using the full size 308 round and developing the heavy and unweildy but reliable "flawed" M14 which was every bit as uncontrollable on full auto as the Fg42 could have ever been. This even though the British and other nations had already developed a new smaller .280 cartridge and were developing modern Bullpup designs to field it. The Allies were all forced to follow suit fielding the G3 and FN Fal

which are also uncontrollable on full auto.

The BAR was flawed because it only held 20 rounds and did not have a quick change barrel. US troops still loved it and wanted more.

The Garand was flawed because it held only 8 rounds, could not be topped off and made a loud noise when it was empty. etc.etc.

The point is that the gun was not a perfect fit for its intended role but it was well made, reliable and some of its features were ahead of their time. And it was popular with the men who used it despite its faults. And personally I would carry it over a lot other guns including the M1 carbine.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by BaD JoKe:

It amazes me how the germans started the WW2 with those bolt-action servicerifles in the first place? Specially when allmost all allied armies had their own versions of semi-auto service rifles allready deployed.

Several reasons:

1) Fear of a reckless increase in ammo consumption without any considerable improvement in firepower

2) Production & maintenance costs

3) The German infantry squad prototype was built around the MG, that was supposed to be the its focus of firepower.

[Snow Leopard]

Did you know that FG 42 turn out valueable tool as article showed: "Descendants of the FG-42

Numerous features, including the in-line design, the pistol grip, and the gas-operated bolt selection process were studied extensively by Army engineers after the war. Ultimately, this resulted in weapons such as the American M60 machine gun. Numerous other examples exist, all attesting to the engineering genius of German arms manufacturers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG-42

Did you know when US soldier first get M16, it was so unreliable and it take many tinkers, changes and after several models to become reliable. Also I US had been in wars so many time like Mexican war, Spanish war, WWI and many minor conflicts with US-made rifles that USA rifle companies learned many flaws and upgrade rifles many time as they are bigger and have huge resources to test many different rifles even scavenge on other countries' rifles design to improve them.

So FG 42 only have one change, if war keep go on or cease fire, then FG 42 may change many time until get better same as MP-44 as may go on MP-45, MP-46 as they did on SMG from MP-18 to MP-40.

[ February 20, 2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Snow Leopard ]

[Marlow]

Has anyone mentioned the Johnson LMG that the Special Service Force used? Selective fire, side loading rifle caliber ammo, bipod, light.

Overall about the same as the FG42. Didn't make it into general usage either.

Marines used it and the semi-auto rifle version as well, but preferred the Garand, and replaced them ASAP. I heard stories (true?) that Marines stole M1s from Army troops in the Pacific to get rid of their Jonhsons before M1s were issued to the Marines in enough numbers.

Also, early versions of the BAR were selective fire.

FG 42 wasn't really anything new. Sorry.

Oh, and the LMG version also came with a pistol grip.

[ February 20, 2004, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Snow Leopard]

FYI on Johnson LMG, check link to Johnson LMG:

http://www.johnsonautomatics.com/combatuse.htm

"As Lt. Colonel Robert Burhans states in his book "The First Special Service Force" which is the official unit history of the 1st SSF, 'The Johnson weighed little more than the M1 rifle, and carried more fire power than the Browning, an ideal addition to a light, fast-moving combat unit. It was a profitable trade for the force; the Johnson, pound for pound, was the most valuable weapon it possessed.' "

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0BQY/12_46/66491975/p1/article.jhtml

" The gun was the Johnson M1941 Light Machine Gun, used successfully during World War II by U.S. Marine Raiders against the Japanese and by American Army commando troops against the Germans. In many ways it compares favorably to modern infantry weaponry, but it was never officially adopted by the U.S. military. Was it only "marginally effective", as official accounts of the time reported? Or, was it a revolution in the basic concepts of rifles and machine guns?"