Nero's Cat Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Not sure if this is the right forum or not but what the hell.......... I read a reference last night to German MG45s being developed and used late in the war. Is this correct? I've only previously heard about MG34s and MG42s so what's with the MG45 - did it exist or is my book incorrect? If it did exist, can I ask: (1)when was it introduced, (2)did it see action in any front in WW2, (3)what was the difference between it and its older brethren and (4) most important question of all, is it modelled in any version of CM anywhere? Apologies if this is long winded and thanks in advance 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AC Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG42 In 1944 the acute material shortages of the Third Reich led to a newer version, the MG45 (or MG42V), which used steel of lesser quality, reduced weight to only 9kg, and yet further improved the maximum rate of fire. First tests were undertaken in June 1944, but development dragged on and eventually only ten were ever built. Dunno how reliable the source is but doesn't sound unrealistic at all. Since only 10 were ever built, I don't think it's in any CM versions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Even higher rate of fire? That sounds really smart... Did it include conveyor belts from the ammunition factories to the trenches for delivery of the rounds to the gun? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Originally posted by Andreas: Even higher rate of fire? That sounds really smart... Did it include conveyor belts from the ammunition factories to the trenches for delivery of the rounds to the gun? Those 10 ever made were deployed directly in front of an ammunition factory. After the first barrage behind their position they could not be found anymore. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Ahh - that makes sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero's Cat Posted January 7, 2004 Author Share Posted January 7, 2004 Looks like I asked a daft question! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Originally posted by Nero's Cat: Looks like I asked a daft question! Me likes the question! But given that lots of current MGs are not much different from the MG42, I doubt there was a drastic improvement in '44. ruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 The MG34 to MG42 transition saw a loss of weight and an increase in rate of fire also. This is not a formula for a stable weapons system that uses the same full powered round. In the case of the tripod mount, it probably did not make much difference. But in the bipod mode, with increasing use by younger and older shooters, it was a problem. They should have developed a burst mode where one pull of the trigger cycled about 6 rounds. Thats about a third of a second. This would allow controlled use of the ammo and bullets going where they were aimed. The MG34 did have (in many models) semi-auto capability. A better solution could have been a belt fed MP44 weapon. Heavier barrel, bipod, belt fed, lighter ammo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 How would you people characterize the Fallschirmgewehr 42? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Originally posted by Sergei: How would you people characterize the Fallschirmgewehr 42? A confusing auto rifle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siege Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 How would you people characterize the Fallschirmgewehr 42? I'd put it right in there with the M-14, G-3, L1A1, FN-FAl and CETME. It's a semi-auto, magazine fed battle rifle that fires a full powered rifle round. -Hans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzBaby Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 it also had a low mag scope, similar to what the Brits and Aussies use now with their Enfields and Styers, thou 50 years earlier... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 very non grog of me but the FG42 is the thing to have in CoD. How did they perform in RL? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 The FG42 was fully automatic, weighed about 5kg, and fired the regular 7.92mm rifle cartridge from either 10-round or 20-round mags. Therefore, the most similar contemporary designs would be the BAR and the Bren, and it definitely falls into the category of Automatic Rifle, though I suppose you can call the whole lot of them magazine-fed Light Machine Guns if it makes you feel better. I've never fired one, but from talking to and reading account of modern collectors who have, compared to similar firearms the FG42 has: 1) A very loud muzzle report 2) A very large muzzle flash signature and 3) has one hell of a recoil OTOH, it was significantly lighter than either the BAR or the Bren, so it was probably potentially better as a standard infantryman firearm. The BAR and the Bren were just too bulky for this role. The BAR and the Bren (and especially the Bren) were probably a better base-of-fire weapon. The Wehrmacht didn't need a new base-of-fire weapon, though - they already had the superior MG42. It seems to me that the MP44 kind of came along and trumped the FG42. The MP44 was lighter, cheaper, and a soldier could carry more of its smaller cartridges. With the superior MG42 as the standard base-of-fire weapon, the Wehrmacht didn't need a full rifle caliber weapon in the hands of every Schutzen. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Thanks YD, I've seen a few short descriptions of it before saying it was pretty good and innovative. I wondered why it remained fairly rare. A "Jack of all trades, master of none" thing, then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 FG42 was for paratroopers only. Kind of pointless though, because after Crete they served as foot infantry and from that point of view weren't really in need of a special firearm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 It was probably used as a semi-auto most of the time. For its weight and 20 round magazine, it would not be that bad a semi-auto. But as a LMG or assault rifle, it was too light to fire full auto unless prone and using a bipod. A BAR could be used as an assault weapon and is actually a better weapon even though it weighs more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_Field_Marshall Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 I have often wondered why the FG 42 is not modeled in the CM series. Was it that rare? Or is it in the game and I am missing it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Originally posted by Tha_Field_Marshall: Or is it in the game and I am missing it? Have you tried - surprise - Fallschirmjägers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: A BAR could be used as an assault weapon and is actually a better weapon even though it weighs more. Maybe that's just because it weighs more? Less worrying about recoil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: A BAR could be used as an assault weapon and is actually a better weapon even though it weighs more. Depends on what you're using it for. The BAR suffers the same drawback as the MG-42... it drops in a canister. The FG42 was light and small enough to be carried by the para when he jumps. The big lesson the Germans learned from Crete was that they needed firepower as soon as they hit the ground. So, when the went into Leros, they went armed. The Kar98's and MG42's still went in canisters, but the men jumped with MP40's and FG42s 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha_Field_Marshall Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Have you tried - surprise - Fallschirmjägers? Yeah smartass I have tried Fallschrimjagers, I guess I have not looked close enough, since I rarely play battles involving them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 The FG42 was produced in limited numbers - about 7,000 - with a large number of those produced for testing purposes. The FG42 was also produced in early and late war versions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: A BAR could be used as an assault weapon and is actually a better weapon even though it weighs more. Depends on what you're using it for. The BAR suffers the same drawback as the MG-42... it drops in a canister. The FG42 was light and small enough to be carried by the para when he jumps. The big lesson the Germans learned from Crete was that they needed firepower as soon as they hit the ground. So, when the went into Leros, they went armed. The Kar98's and MG42's still went in canisters, but the men jumped with MP40's and FG42s </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 I've also read somewhere (Gavin's memoir?) that US paratroops were also issued pistols in case they needed really immediate firepower, i.e., before they could get out of their parachute harnesses, which I guess went over their primary personal weapons. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.