MG 42 vs .50 cal

[legend42]

Which was the better machine gun?Did the Axis fear the .50 cal as the Allies feared the MG 42?

[Kingfish]

The MG42 had no equal in the allied inventory, and the same could be said of the .50 cal for the axis side.

The MG42 works well as an anti-infantry weapon, although it can take down light vehicles if they stray too close.

The .50 cal doesn't have the ROF of the MG42, but it will mince most German HTs and A/Cs out to 500 meters. I suspect it would also chew its way through most of the buildings featured in CM.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

*minor spoiler ahead*

I'm a bit surprised at the firepower of the .50 in the demo. Was this to give it the demoralizing effects on squads that I suspect it's RL version had? Or does the engine need a high firepower number for it to give it suffcient power against vehicles?

I also was a bit surprised at the amount of ammo carried around by the infantry version, compared to the vehiculair one.

{sigh, I'll never learn}

[ November 23, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

[Thermopylae]

According to this handy dandy penetration table, a .50 cal round will go through the following:

12 inches of armor plate

24 inches of log wall

1 inch of double sandbag wall.

With multiple rounds,

10 inches reniforced conrete. (50 rounds)

18 inches triple brick wall (15 rounds)

12 inches concrete block (25 rounds)(smaller hole than the reinforced concrete)

Comapred to a 7.62 round:

8 inches reinforced conrete (100 rounds)

14 inches triple brick wall (170 rounds)

12 inches concrete block 30-200 rounds, penetration size dependent.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by legend42:

Which was the better machine gun?Did the Axis fear the .50 cal as the Allies feared the MG 42?

The .50 and the MG42 are two different types of weapon entirely.

The 42 was a General Purpose machinegun, and performed quite well in all the anticipated roles, shining as an infantry weapon, both in the light and medium roles. It couldn't hold a candle to the .50 as far as AA work, but the Germans had plenty of 20mm guns kicking about for that purpose in any event.

The .50 was a heavy machine gun, primarily intended for AA work. It was sub-optimal in an anti-infantry role; low rate of fire, weight of gun, and I believe the ballistics of the projectile itself kind of conspired against it. In a dual or quad vehicle mount, of course, the quad .50 was superb as an anti-personnel weapon. But there were few of these around. The .30 cal either water cooled or air cooled was much more abundant, was lighter, and more easily employed against ground targets.

The .50 was used on tanks, but the mount was designed for anti-aircraft use; against personnel the .50 was awkward to use; most Commonwealth tankers deleted the hatch .50 altogether as not being worth the time. US tank commanders learned through experience - I think Moon or rune just posted a link to some US Army "lessons learned" documents from 1945 - that fighting enemy infantry with the hatch .50 was done at great risk to one's own life; snipers loved to bag tank commanders (CM models this well, ask my US opponent in Last Defence... )

Both were excellent weapons; comparisons between the two serve very little purpose as they were designed to do vastly different things, and were in the end employed in vastly different roles.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

The MG42 had no equal in the allied inventory, and the same could be said of the .50 cal for the axis side.

Not true. The 2cm Breda for the Italians and the 2cm FlaK for the Germans are easily the equal of the .50

[Guest Mike]

Sure - so was teh 88.......

20mm guns were NOT machine guns - they were not as easily portable as the .50 (which wasn't all that portable in the first place!!), and were not used for the same roles except in aircraft.

Saying they are comparable is like comparing the 88 FLAK 36 with the little Italian 65mm mountain howitzer - differnt jobs, different characteristics.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mike:

Sure - so was teh 88.......

20mm guns were NOT machine guns - they were not as easily portable as the .50 (which wasn't all that portable in the first place!!), and were not used for the same roles except in aircraft.

The 20mm was often used in an anti-infantry role; on the wheeled mount it was about as mobile as the .50 on the ground mount tripod. They were used in the same role in this manner, not just as an aircraft mount.

The account of the attack on Walcheren Causeway, for just one example, talks about the use of the 20mm as a weapon against personnel. So does Saving Private Ryan, if you want an example you can better visualize...

[ November 23, 2003, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[wadepm]

Therm' - don't you mean 12 inches of reinforced concrete instead of 12 inches of armor plate (!) for the .50 cal penetration values.

[ November 23, 2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: wadepm ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Again we are comparing apples and oranges. 20mm cannon vs .50 cal machine gun.

Yes your crew of 4 to 6 could wheel your 20mm around but I would love to see them try to bring it up stairs or through heavy woods.

Two guys can move a .50 with tri-pod and even a couple boxes of ammo. Been there and done that. You can even fire the .50 from an improvised brace, the same cannot be said for the 20mm.

[Auggy]

Originally posted by wadepm:

Therm' - don;t you mean 12 inches of reinforced concrete instead of 12 inches of armor plate (!) for the .50 cal penetration values.

Maybe 1.2 inches?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by wadepm:

Therm' - don;t you mean 12 inches of reinforced concrete instead of 12 inches of armor plate (!) for the .50 cal penetration values.

Right. If the .50 could penetrate 12" of armor plate, PT boats would have had no trouble taking out many battleships!

Michael

[SgtMuhammed]

Must have been the SLAPTCRAUR (Sabot Loaded Armor Piercing Turbo Charged Rocket Assisted Uber Round), it shoots through schools.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Again we are comparing apples and oranges. 20mm cannon vs .50 cal machine gun.

Yes your crew of 4 to 6 could wheel your 20mm around but I would love to see them try to bring it up stairs or through heavy woods.

Two guys can move a .50 with tri-pod and even a couple boxes of ammo. Been there and done that. You can even fire the .50 from an improvised brace, the same cannot be said for the 20mm.

Wouldn't a submachine gun be optimal for city fighting anyway? As far as apples and oranges - the .50 calibre is more closely related to the 20mm than the MG42 - but as you point out still very different.

Hmm, I seem to recall wade having much more to say in our last .50 discussion, nice to see him back.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Again we are comparing apples and oranges. 20mm cannon vs .50 cal machine gun.

No it isn't. The 20mm filled the same role in the Axis armies that the .50 and the 12.7mm filled in the Allied armies. Why do you think they never bothered developing a true 'heavy' machinegun?

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The 20mm was often used in an anti-infantry role; on the wheeled mount it was about as mobile as the .50 on the ground mount tripod.

Hey the 88 was often used against infantry too, and towed behind a tractow was actually MORE mobile than teh .50!!

They were used in the same role in this manner, not just as an aircraft mount.

No they weren't - the .50 was used as infantry company heavy fire support, and as a vehicle mounted light AA and anti-personnel weapon for mounting on any convenient space.

The 20mm was used a little at infantry company level - even at infantry platoon - but only in Pz Grenadier units and only in the SPAA role.

That it occasionally shot at infantry doesn't make it a weapon with the smae role as teh .50 any more than the .50 occasinoally shooting at aircraft gives it the same role as the 20mm had.

The account of the attack on Walcheren Causeway, for just one example, talks about the use of the 20mm as a weapon against personnel. So does Saving Private Ryan, if you want an example you can better visualize...

Piats and Bazookas were used against infantry too - does that mean the .50 was an infantry anti-tank weapon because it shot at armour??

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mike:

...does that mean the .50 was an infantry anti-tank weapon because it shot at armour??

Heh. The .50 was originally developed during WW I as an infantry anti-tank weapon.

Michael

[Pinetree]

The MG38-42 series was held in high regard by the Kiwis,They used it most of the time,esp. the Maori Btn.

[ladoga]

I think that MG 151/15 or /20 was the closest match to 50cal in german arsenal. It was mostly used on aircraft though. Seems like ground forces didn't really have a need for heavy machine gun.

20mm mg151/20 as mounted in post war french helicopter.

MG 151/15 (1935)

caliber: 15 mm

lenght: 1960 mm

weight: 42,7 kg

cartridge: 190 g

bullet: 72 g API, HE/T, Hartkern

ROF: 700 rounds/min

MV: 1040 m/s

MG 151/20 (1937)

caliber: 20 mm

lenght: 1710 mm

weight: 42,5 kg

cartridge: 220 g

bullet: 115 g (API, HE/T), 92g (Minengeschoss)

ROF: 750 rounds/min

MV: 710-805 m/s (depending on ammunition)

I didn't find any penetration figures for MG 151/15. Seems like good light armor killer considering it's high muzzle velocity, projectile weight and availability of tungsten ammo (this was used by LW in ground attack missions).

Number of these guns produced must have been really high since nearly every LW fighter had 1-4 pieces of these as its standard armament.

IIRC they installed some "Drilling" 3x MG 151/15 and /20 mounts to SPW 251 halftracks.

[Ant]

Originally posted by Thermopylae:

According to this handy dandy penetration table, a .50 cal round will go through the following:

12 inches of armor plate

24 inches of log wall

1 inch of double sandbag wall.

With multiple rounds,

10 inches reniforced conrete. (50 rounds)

18 inches triple brick wall (15 rounds)

12 inches concrete block (25 rounds)(smaller hole than the reinforced concrete)

Comapred to a 7.62 round:

8 inches reinforced conrete (100 rounds)

14 inches triple brick wall (170 rounds)

12 inches concrete block 30-200 rounds, penetration size dependent.

:confused: Am I the only person who thinks that those figures are completely irrelevant and misleading without specifying range, or is there some kind of standard range assumed for all penetration tests? And if so what is it?

[Speedy]

The mg that should really start kicking ass in CMAK is the watercooled Vickers.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mike:

[]No they weren't - the .50 was used as infantry company heavy fire support, and as a vehicle mounted light AA and anti-personnel weapon for mounting on any convenient space.

The 20mm was used a little at infantry company level - even at infantry platoon - but only in Pz Grenadier units and only in the SPAA role.

That it occasionally shot at infantry doesn't make it a weapon with the smae role as teh .50 any more than the .50 occasinoally shooting at aircraft gives it the same role as the 20mm had.

You're wrong, early-mid war German defencive doctrine centred on all round, mutually defencive points called Stuetzpunkt. Stuetzpunkt of course included 2cm FlaK as integral to the all round defence fireplan to kill infantry and tanks, not just aircraft. Again 2cm guns were placed to kill ground threats. (Operation Battleaxe in North africa is a good example).

During Normandy 2cm guns located in forward coy positions did not fire on Aircraft because there main role was to kill ground threats. Shooting at planes just tended to excite everyone when near the front lines, including arty and other planes.

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Must have been the SLAPTCRAUR (Sabot Loaded Armor Piercing Turbo Charged Rocket Assisted Uber Round), it shoots through schools.

..shoots thru schools? Wow!! How does it do against hospitals and churches?

[MikeyD]

The closest match to the U.S. .50 cal would be the Russian heavy mg on late war tanks (14.5mm, if I recall) in CMBB. Both weapons fired rounds originally designed for anti-tank rifles, and both were just large enough to carry HE charges.

My one .50 cal anecdote came from an old Pacific war jungle fighter. He said nothing scared the Japanese quite like the .50 cal Browning. It didn't just knock a man down but would rip him up, tear him to pieces. Horrific.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Mike:

No they weren't - the .50 was used as infantry company heavy fire support, and as a vehicle mounted light AA and anti-personnel weapon for mounting on any convenient space.

The 20mm was used a little at infantry company level - even at infantry platoon - but only in Pz Grenadier units and only in the SPAA role.

Horse manure! The Italians called the 20mm Breda a machinehun and used it as such. Not sure about early war, but by 44, the Germans were using them primarily against ground targets... oh, and what do you think the Germans armed the bulk of their armored cars with? Were they ainti-aircraft vehicles?