MG34 vs MG42

[Bobhorn]

Something I've been wondering about.It seems like a no-brainer to pick the 34 over the 42. It cost's less, and has a good bit more ammo. Is there something in the modeling that I don't know about, that makes the 42 more effective? Or does it make more sense to use the 34 over the 42, even if it was'nt as common later?

[Sergei]

Someone doesn't know about why MG42 was considered so good?.. :eek:

MG42 had a far greater rate of fire and was much more reliable than MG34. In game terms, it has more firepower.

[war_is_fun_to_play]

hi,i dont know in gameplay but historically mg42 is faster but less acuratte than mg34

[Sergei]

Less accurate, by what definition? I would think that with a lower ROF the aim point drifts more during a single burst. MG42 was lighter weight, which might have made it less stabile in the LMG outfit.

[Omi]

Originally posted by Bobhorn:

Something I've been wondering about.It seems like a no-brainer to pick the 34 over the 42. It cost's less, and has a good bit more ammo.

The cost is relative. If you play with rarity, the MG34 will be more expensive in the late years.

[Mattias]

The MG 42 was developed because it was recognised that the MG 34 was less than ideally suited for mass production. The demand for a high ROF MG for the East front was another factor that influenced the development of the MG 42.

The MG 42 turned out to be easier and faster to produce. The simplified design, reliance on less labour intensive production and low cost materials was reflected in the price of 250 RM compared to that of the MG 34, which cost 310 RM to produce.

Once in the line the weapon turned out to be at least as good as the MG 34 tactically. It's ease of use (not least the rapid barrel change), reliability and high ROF ensured that it was in high demand from day one.

Incidentally, DAK is supposed to have been the first recipients of this new weapon in 1942.

M.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Omi:

The cost is relative. If you play with rarity, the MG34 will be more expensive in the late years.

Yeah, not to mention that the MG42 has a better firepower value.

[CRSutton]

As said earlier-ease of production was the prime reason for the introduction of the MG44. The MG 42 was a fine weapon but like the thompson SMG had too many machined parts and was expensive to produce. It was much more sensitive to dirt and tended to jam when any sort of grit got into the working parts. You will note in the game that the MG42 will jam much more frequently than the MG44.

The replacement MG44 had many stamped parts (like all later war German weapons), making it cheaper and easier to produce. It was still an excellent weapon. As noted before. German MGs had high rates of fire. This tended to wear barrels out quickly and the MG44 was designed for rapid barrel changes. It was more popular than the MG42 for this reason and due to its greater reliability- both of prime importance in combat.

[CRSutton]

Whoops got my designations wrong. I meant MG34 and MG42. Ich bin ein asshat!

[Abteilung]

Make a small scenario to test one MG out vs another.

Place the MG.34 in a trench and have an infantry unit assault it. Note results in casualties, ammo expenditure per turn, and frequency/number of "Jams"**.

Then re-run the scenario with the MG.42, noting the same criteria as above.

Then you will see the benefits as well as the downside of the MG.42

**IIRC, jams in CM represent barrel changes, firing pin changes, clearing stoppages, and all other combat maintenance necessary.

Hope this helps!

[Bobhorn]

Thanks all, especially Abteilung, and Omi, for pointing out what should have been obvious to me. I don't study the tables near as much as I should. I am aware of the "real life advantages" of the 42 over the 34, I was wondering more about in the game. I was just wondering if the "game life advantages" of the 42 were worth giving up the 20 extra rounds you get with the 34. Seems like I'm always running out of ammo, thats one reason I like the 34, and it's pretty darn effective itself. Guess I need to try that test out, and see what I think then. Thanks again.