Germans overlooked making a .50 Cal. MG

[Kanonier Reichmann]

An example Dandelion of how they stuffed up the design of the M60 in terms of complexity was the introduction of a hollow gas piston with holes in its side to allow the gas in. It apparently was designed this way to ensure a "constant energy" gas regulator in the gas system rather than most MG's of similar design requiring the operator to simply adjust the gas port to allow more gas in when say it gets dirty & needs more power to operate it.

The unfortunate consequence of this hollow piston design is that it is perfectly possible to put the piston into the cylinder block back to front so that the holes do not line up so that when one fires the weapon you get one shot and it stops. Imagine trying to strip the damn think in the pitch dark yet trying to ensure you get that bloody piston back in the right way around.

A story going around is that this particular design feature even caught out a salty Vietnam vet type who was demonstrating to some new recruits how well versed he was in stripping the M60 down to clean it and then quickly re-assemble to be ready to meet the potential onslaught of the charging enemy. After he had done his oh so impressive speedy strip down, clean & re-assemble trick he then cocked the bolt for a long burst into the firing range but only managed the one shot. Suffice to say he didn't live that effort down for quite a while!

Regards

Jim R.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The M60 is not a nice weapon to use, AFAIK. Heavy, difficult to change barrels (you need some kind of asbestos glove) and it looks sucky.

Nothin' wrong with using the Pig. It is a decent weapon. Barrel changes are not difficult (you need an asbestos glove with an MG42 as well... the reason you are changing it is that it is HOT). It is not particularly heavy for a weapon firing 7.62mm ammunition

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Although such a glove would be very useful - save the fact that you'll be posioned by asbestos - there's a sort of handle, or lever, called "rifle lever" in German, enabling you to remove the MG42 (but not MG34) barrel without gloves. Just two firm jerks and it drops off, if leaned in the right angle. That is - Ideally. Even the G1 barrel often requires a rude smack to drop off (which, if the barrel is hot (which it is) will burn your hands, possibly even badly so). The operation is much like the GPMG in fact, although nowhere near as practical and easy to use with no large and comfortable handle like the GPMG. The MG42 lever is really small, about the size of half a male thumb. You easily miss - and burn your fingers - when smacking it the two required ways.

Of course, having dropped off, you'll still need to lift it up and put it in the bag, an operation which is very difficult to perform without gloves (you can use the arm of the tunic as an improvised glove, works fine except the Qu gets really infuriated). Takes a few minutes to cool off to handling tempreature.

The Pig? That sure does not sound like an affectionate name for a weapon. Didn't the Brits call a vehicle "the Pig" also? Well I guess a nation could be economically or historically dependent on hog husbandry. Like Serbia. In which case the status of these admittedly very charming and all too intelligent beasts would be higher than in cow-reliant societies like my own.

Sounds very unfortunate, the gas mechanism. Can't see what that was supposed to improve. Even 1934 models used simple regulators, normally in the shape of a sort of screw or screwnut. The experienced gunner will tune the gun perfectly, hearing what level of gas is needed. And with a professional army, the US must have had experienced gunners. SO I don't see the point of the fancy barrel design?

Regards

Dandelion

[lcm1947]

Oh no Dandelion you guys go right ahead and keep discussing anything you want. I'm still listing and learning some interesting stuff from everybody. I might even add something if something comes up that I'm knowledgeable about - not likely I know but one never knows.

[Maj. Battaglia]

Dandelion, use the damn asbestos gloves and don't burn your paws changing a barrel.

Asbestos is perfectly safe as long as it is nicely contained behind some other fabric or material.

It is only harmful if you breathe the dust over an extended period of time. It ain't radioactive.

[Dandelion]

Major,

If Superman was offered a new set of tights made of Cryptonite, covered with thin cotton, would he wear them?

I worked cleaning construction sites in the summers as a kid to earn some extra, and the union sent us to this lab to look at different asbestos types. Most modern (well, modern then) construction type asbestos are manageable and harmful only in higher concentration and prolonged exposure (breathing) - but several older types of asbestos fibres still around can simply enter you going right through your skin, as the fibres are so small and sharp. They'll enter the circulation, scar your vessels and pierce your cells, and its for life too, your antibodies can't mark them for destruction, which doesn't matter as your cells can't really destroy them anyway, so they'll be around forever. Did we become paranoid after that show? Yes, we did. Still am. :eek:

You know its funny you brought it up as just the other day I was reading the BZ (before I see any jokes on that - I'm a FAZ man, a BZ was simply lying on the seat on the train and I was bored) and it said the navy has just completed sanitation of asbestos hazards aboard naval vessels. They are now about to do the same in the army. Hey! Thats great! Except I thought they had already done that decades ago... Come to think of it, haven't I been having all kinds of problems breathing since about ten years ago... *cough* *cough* :eek:

As for the MGs, I never got the choice myself. I never saw any asbestos gloves, even for tankers, I think they've fallen out of use? Anyways, there's asbestos all over the place. In all armoured vehicles, in many structures and other equipment, somebody got rich supplying asbestos to the army.

Hmmmm. Wasn't you was it Major?

Cheerio

Dandelion

[YankeeDog]

If any first world military is still using Asbestos for light-duty fire/heat protection like mitts to change MG barrels, they're way behind the times and exposing their soldiers to a completely unnecessary risk.

There's a modern synthetic fiber called Aramid that works very well as an asbestos substitute. The company that makes it is centered in South Carolina, and Aramid is used extensively in a variety of applications.

In addition to it's insulative properties, Aramid fiber is also very cut/fray resistant. Tight-weave Aramid is actually sometimes used as an add-on layer on bulletproof vests for police officers to provide added protection against stab & slash weapons like knives.

We use it all the time for burn/heat situations in Theater, Film & TV. Among other things, we use Aramid gloves to grab lighting instrument barrels, which can get VERY hot if they've been on for a while. Old-time stagehands who remember when Asbestos was still around say that Aramid is not quite as protective as the asbestos they used to use back when no one knew any better, but it is close enough that the difference isn't significant.

Aramid gloves and aprons are also used by welders.

It's not very expensive, either. I don't remember exactly what I paid for my Aramid gloves, but I would remember if it was something the broke the bank.

So I don't see any reason for a modern military to be using Asbestos mitts. There's a perfectly good alternative that's been commercially available for years.

Then again, if the military is still using Asbestos mitts, it wouldn't be the first time the Pentagon has missed an easy, inexpensive product that would make the average grunt's life easier/safer. Personally, if I were an M60 gunner, I'd go to Home Depot and buy my own Aramid gloves with my own money if Uncle Sam handed me a pair of asbestos ones, no matter how 'safe' the asbestos ones supposedly were. . .

Cheers,

YD

[JasonC]

The Germans fielded tens of thousands of 20mm guns for AA and anti light vehicle work. And of course used them against ground targets. The 13mm and 15mm MGs produced for ground mounts later in the war started as aircraft armament. Both sides used as AA the types of guns their fighters used to shoot down planes. The US just used 50 cals for that, while the Germans relied more on cannon.

But as for why the Germans didn't want heavy bullet MGs for ground units, you have to remember that the bulk of the German army was on foot, with its artillery, heavy weapons, and supplies hauled around by horses and wagons. The US army was by comparison the most motorized in history to that point.

It is not surprising that the US found it easier to supply lots of 50 cals - which are wasteful in weight per bullet terms if used on mere men rather than vehicles or planes. The US had more Ma Deuces because it had more Deuce and a Halfs. When the infantry had to hump the ammo, US soldiers preferred air cooled 30 cals, too, just like the Germans.

As for the question about copying schrecks, actually the US did copy the schreck. It just happened somewhat later. In Korea, the standard US 60mm bazookas, the same model used in WW II, proved ineffective against North Korean T-34/85s, even with side hits. The army developed and rushed to Korea new 3.5 inch bazookas to deal with the problem. The 3.5 inch bazooka was basically a schreck copy.

Why didn't they develop them earlier, during WW II? Look at the German AFV park. Only Tigers are proof against a zook from the sides (if completely proof - actually KTs, with Tigers marginal). There weren't many German AFVs facing the Americans period, outside of the two waves in Normandy and the Bulge. Better zooks would certainly have been welcome then.

The Germans had a lead in shaped charge design during the war. They had invented the concept (the first historical use in battle was shaped demo charges used in the raid on Eben Ebel in Belgium in 1940). The faust and schreck had superior penetration to the zook partially because they were larger in caliber, but also because they were second generation HEAT designs rather than the first generation designs everyone else had.

The US thought the main problem with infantry AT was limited range rather than limited penetration, and developed light recoilless rifles rather than disposable large caliber HEAT. If the penetration had kept up that would have been a sound idea.

In practice, even 75mm RRs had problems against T-34s in Korea. HEAT effect is reduced by spin. To get enough penetration while keeping RR range, the US went to 105mm RRs (designated "106mm") after Korea. But those were big enough they needed vehicle mounts, if only on a jeep.

The trade off problem - range vs. penetration - was not really solved until the development of ATGMs in the 1960s. But those have stayed pretty large, leaving room at the low end for a disposable "faust", of the LAW or AT-4 varity.

The Russians, meanwhile, kept on boosting the range of their RPGs (which stem from late faust designs captured at the end of WW II), while leaving their accuracy and penetration ability limited. It is a simple and reliable weapon, but somewhat suicidal against modern armor, as the Iraqis can tell you.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The M60 is not a nice weapon to use, AFAIK. Heavy, difficult to change barrels (you need some kind of asbestos glove) and it looks sucky.

Apart from the glove, the main thing that used to pi**ed me off was that the barrel assembly also included the front bipod. So not only did the gun have to be held off the ground whilst the barrel was changed but the spares weighed that much more because they included the bipod and the gas system!!

Compared to the MG3 (the other derivative of the MG42) which is a beautiful weapon - especially as for me its mounted in an excellent AFV to carry its ammo, the M60 is a cheap, sub standard copy.

[ June 14, 2003, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[Dandelion]

Jon,

Why was the 105mm designated 106mm?

Regards

Dandelion

[JonS]

Is that to me?

Anyway, IIRC, it was to prevent Q cock-ups. Several ammunition natures have had their true calibre 'tweaked' this way to ensure that the right rounds ended up at the guns - there is a British one on the tip-of-my-toungue. 17-pr. maybe?

Essentially, in your system you only want one ammuniton at each calibre. So, if another ammo turns up at the same calibre - especially one as different as RR vs gun/how - then just add a few mm's. To the guy in the field it really doesn't matter, as long as he gets the right ammo for his weapon, and everyone else has the time to figure it out. If they even care.

Regards

JonS

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The US army was by comparison the most motorized in history to that point.

Actually, I always thought the British Army beat it to that claim by being fully mechanised in 1939.

Except for the Camel Corps of course!

Then again, this website indicates that everything in Cheshire happens later - but at least someone is grinning there.

http://www.cheshireyeomanry.org.uk/syria.htm

[Dandelion]

Yes Jon, that was for you, and thanks for the input. I was sitting here wondering about - yes - the German recoilless, the 105mm airborne one. Well, it wasn't airborne really but...

Do you know if there was any relation? Between designs I mean. And how did it perform in Korea?

Swords, bandoliers, spurs and Thompsons..?

"The vets coped magnificently and it was mainly due to them that the division's losses were only 1.6 per cent of the total, or 140 horses. A further 722 were admitted to hospital on arrival."

Englishmen actually admit their horses to hospitals?

Sie spinnen, die Engländer... :eek:

Regards

Dandelion

[Sublime]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Well, Yankee Dog I agree with your thinking but would personally have thought a super heavy MG like the .50 cal. or a 13mm like they already had would have been an asset on HT's and other light vehicles. I didn't necessarily mean hauling them around by hand. Also since they were on the defense most of the time anyway it seems to me like it would have been good to have them even with the foot soldiers since in a defense role. Anyway, thanks for your as usual interesting and learned opinion. Very interesting Dandelion I too thought that we should have copied the Schreck and was not aware that they had copied the bazooka. I do kind of wonder if the game really portrays the two correctly. In the game I'd trade 3 bazooka's for one schreck, I wonder in real life if that would be the case?

I see your point about mounting it on H/T's but what do you mean by the Germans being on the defensive most of the time..? That's true in the CMBO context, but for about half of the war the Germans were mostly on the offense. What Im really interested in knowing is the lack of a MG on early variants of StuGs.. (something you West Front jockeys dont have to worry about..) Im amazed that with turreted tanks it took so long for people to see the use of a flexible MG mount on most tanks, and while I can see maybe the StuG III B or even E variant having no machine gun, by 1942 the experiences of German troops in Russia make the lack of a machine gun (even if only one!) on the StuG III F, and III F/8 are unforgiveable in my opinion....

[blue division]

As far as I know, the Wehrmacht in the field relied largely on horse drawn transport. That is, to move around the standard infantry formations, who were the bulk of the army. Sure, mechanized divisions had more transport, but they were a minority. And as the war progressed and fuel became scarcer, the German Army relied more and more on horses.

So to ask 'why don't the Germans have .50 cal's?' is the wrong question. You try moving something that heavy around on horse and carts.

How would you mount it on a farm cart? The whole thing would shake apart when you fired it!

Also, why move from the standard cartrdge (7.92 mm or so) that you have always used to something that is non-standard and far, far heavier to transport. Remember, the Germans had to produce as many weapons as possible with the least hassle. They were still using captured equipment until 1944, when at last German industry moved onto a 'total war' footing. Why waste time and resources making 50 cal mg's, when the MG42 was such a light, powerful weapon that perfectly suited the German infantry - that is, the vast bulk of the German armed forces.

The MG42 was developed with the Russian front in mind - the incredibly high rate of fire was to break up human wave attacks. For this purpose it has never been bettered.

Look at the American M60, a derivative from the MG42 that was requested by the US Army after there current squad weapon the BAR did not have the rate of fire needed to deal with Chinese human wave attacks.

Look at the Pakistani army of today, that still uses MG42 copies to deal with the massed ranks of the Indian army.

The MG42 as an infantry squad weapon has probably never been bettered.

The .50 cal on the other hand was best used on aircraft as it had the range to hit other aircraft, as well as the hitting power to break up the airframe and punch through engine blocks etc.

It is too heavy to be used by infantry in anything other than the static defensive role.

The Americans love putting all the options they can possibly have on their SUV's, and so it is with their Armoured vehicles. This includes roof mounted .50 cals. A roof mounted .50 cal is useless I would have thought for any other purpose than suppressing infantry at extreme ranges.

To expose yourself atop the tank/vehicle and fire the .50 cal would be like having a big neon 'shoot me' sign above your head to anyone within a mile.

I have read of lots of accounts of the gunner being shot down almost immediately when using the 50 cal in a firefight. I can remember one account of the M103 APC being used in Vietnam against the Vietcong. The US advisers believed that the ability of the .50 cal to shoot through the huts / dykes in and around villages would force the guerillas to run. But all the Vietcong did was hide and pick off the 50 gunners one by one. The South Vietnamese troops had to retreat.

The same thing has been seen in Somalia and Iraq - that is the unsuitability of the 50 cal to be used in real life conditions.

And nobody knew more than the German army of 1942 about what sort of squad weapon a modern infantry unit needs. It needs to be light, portable, and with a good rate of fire. None of which the .50 cal is.

[Bigduke6]

I am old enough - gasp! - to have actually used an M60 and hung around them a bit, so maybe I can contribute a little to the thread.

It's pretty light all things considered and the band you carry it by distributes the weight fairly well. Firing from the hip is quite possible, although doing that and hitting something intentionally is another matter.

Taking it apart and putting it back together again is no big deal, and all the pieces are pretty large and fit together one way, which trust me helps the dumb grunt.

They tell you the recoil spring is so strong that if you slip during reassembly it could shoot the bolt at you hard enough to stick in your chest; I assume this is just legend. But I was always careful jamming the bolt back into the bolt spring, which is maybe the point.

The sights are simple and straightforward and the bipod seems like it is in the right place, so if you get behind it like the instructors tell you it's fairly comfortable to shoot. Some recoil but nothing a grown man can't handle easily.

I have seen a skilled M-60 gunner hit a two foot circular target, consistently, with hundreds of rounds at 800 meters range. The gun is accurate if the gunner knows what he is doing.

It's also fairly rugged. You can drop it on hard surfaces and bang it about pretty freely, before something actually goes wrong, although you can crack the plastic or dent some of the light metal. The gun however doesn't like being wet and if it's damp it can give trouble, like firing a round or two and then jamming. Once it gets warmed up it seems to do fine. I hear the M60 doesn't like blowing sand either but I have no experience on that. I do have experience with mud, and mud is definately not the M60's friend. This isn't to say a little bit of mud your M60 is going to quit, but more than a little and you're asking for problems. Better to keep the gun clean.

The barrel if you fire sustained bursts for, say, five minutes or more gets cherry pink, especially on the end tip, so you don't want to touch it.

Which brings me to the bad stuff. First, although I never experienced it myself (I wasn't an MG gunner, I just was in an infantry unit) M60s are notorious for "cooking off", which means if you get the barrel really hot and don't change it, there is a chance the rounds will fire without any one pressing the trigger, as effectively the chamber is too hot. I never saw it happen but I know people who have. In the worst cases - these are Vietnam stories I heard, probably true but maybe not - the gun got so hot it fired on automatic until it ran through its belt.

The weapon can jam, and if the ammo is dirty it jams more. This isn't critical like say the early model M16s, maybe one jam say every 1000 rounds given a clean, dry gun(I just took that number out of the air).

The problem with the M60 is that if you DO get a jam about half the time the cartidge sticks so badly, you can't cock the weapon open to dig it out. Cocking the weapon happens when you yank on an arm on the right side of the gun, but even soldiers who are mega-studs on the push-ups can have lots of trouble, and sometimes simply can't, cock back a jammed M60. The real-life solution in this case is setting the weapon on its butt and stepping down hard on the cocking arm - that seems to always work, but you have to stand up to do it.

And of course as we all know standing up in a situation where you have need of really fast sustained fire from your M60 so you can stomp on it is, in most cases, not a great idea.

Then there's the barrel. It's pretty short and while it's true you can switch it out in about 5 seconds if you have a helper and you know what you're doing, if the thing is hot you really do stand a chance of burning yourself. Also, what the gun makers don't tell you is that the frame of the gun gets almost as hot in extended firing

In any case the bottom line is that the U.S. military anyway is pretty anal about teaching you to fire the M60 in 6-8 round bursts. Part is of course they don't want you burning through ammo, and supposedly the 6-8 round burst give the highest hit percentage; less and you don't get enough bullets clumped near the target, more and you have lost control of the gun and are just sending extra bullets into space.

I have fired the Soviet squad machine gun and it seemed less plastic, heavier, more solid, and of course it spit bullets faster. Since it uses Kalashnikov's technology it for practical purposes never jams.

I have seen fired but not fired myself the modern version of the German MG42, and it seemed to me to have the same advantages over the M-60; it's heavier and more stable, and has a higher rate of fire to boot.

From what I could see the M60 was an okay, servicable gun but hardly a world-beater. The other major guns out there were better than the M60 in some ways, and worse than in others.

[McEvilly]

I was a Pig gunner ( and my own Assistant Gunner, which meant I got to carry my tripod, spare barrel, TE device, gloves and tools. A simply outstanding system. Easy to use, easy to maintain. A real bitch to hump.