MG 42 vs .50 cal

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Horse manure! The Italians called the 20mm Breda a machinehun and used it as such...

A machinehun? What's that? An automatic German?

[NewSocialistMan]

Though both are great weapons and still in current use, I don't think this is the proper comparison. A more meaningful comparison could be drawn between the MG42 and the M1919A4. Both are .30 cals with similar ranges and rates of fire. Both require roughly the same crews. The MG42 has a slight advantage in rate of fire and setup time, but the M1919A4 has a decided advantage in sustained fire reliability and barrel life.

If, otoh, you want a vehicle mounted weapon that turns halftracks, trees, rocks, stone buildings, schools, churches, log walls, and statues of Saddam Hussein into "concealment" rather than "cover". Go with the Ma Deuce. And accept no substitutes.

[NewSocialistMan]

Originally posted by Pinetree:

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

They aren't the only ones. I'm pretty sure both the Egyptians and the Pakistanis still currently employ the MG34/42.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by 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.

Don't you mean 12.7mm? Soviet ATR caliber was 14.5, though.

Maybe one reason for that Germans didn't have any exact .50 cal equivalents was that they had ATR's to deal with light AFV's. British infantry didn't have large caliber MG's either, I think, but they had Boys ATR.

Yea', now go ahead and prove that I'm wrong, you brutes-for-grogs.

[NewSocialistMan]

I don't think the Nazis saw things quite the same way as the Americans did when it came to the application of kinetic energy on infantry targets. The Ma Deuce is pretty unique in that it really straddles the line between antipersonnel and antivehicle weapons. Anyone who has ever used one knows that it really changes the complexion of the battlefield, since it gives you direct fire reach that exceeds that of most everything in the small arms catagory and has wicked penetration that renders most objects little more than concealment.

I would like to see a game modification that makes them more effective on wooden bunkers.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

But where do you draw the line between a MG and a true gun? Russian 25mm? German 37mm? Bofors 40mm?

Is the Oerlikon 20mm considered a MG? How about the Hispano?

In the case of the German and Italian 20mm guns, they were employed in much the same role as the .50

[Thermopylae]

No, 12 inches is the correct stated value. however, I think it refers to armor plating used to help fortify positions rather than say, vehicle or ship armor. Note that all pentrations are for 35m (the chart is taken from a recent MOUT lessons learned ecompednium from Iraq and Afghanistan, and hence deals with short ranges) Indeed, they say that the onyl thing that really seems to stop .50s at short range are 55 gallon drums filled with sand.

[Sergei]

What was the infantry AT weapon that the US Army had before they started using Bazooka? Am I right presuming that they did have some kind of ATR?

Originally posted by Thermopylae:

No, 12 inches is the correct stated value. however, I think it refers to armor plating used to help fortify positions rather than say, vehicle or ship armor. Note that all pentrations are for 35m (the chart is taken from a recent MOUT lessons learned ecompednium from Iraq and Afghanistan, and hence deals with short ranges) Indeed, they say that the onyl thing that really seems to stop .50s at short range are 55 gallon drums filled with sand.

Oh. Are you sure they are talking about the same ammunition that we use in CM, not some depleted uranium or some such hitek stuff?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Sergei:

What was the infantry AT weapon that the US Army had before they started using Bazooka? Am I right presuming that they did have some kind of ATR?

No. Just some AT grenades as far as I know. The .50 may have been classed as an AT weapon for a little bit. I know it was originally designed to bring down dirigibiles, etc.

-dale

[Maj. Battaglia]

Oh good! We're discussing the US 50 cal again! That's something I can't resist joining in.

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.

This was my impression until I started doing some research into it. I got into it by accident. Everything I found supports the position that the .50 was NOT standard front-line equipment for rifle battalions.

Please see the following threads:

Most Common US HMG: M1917 or M2?

Use of the 50 calibre MG on the Sherman against infantry

Germans overlooked making a 50 caliber machinegun

To summarize my position based on a lot of time researching the topic (and I'll be happy to share sources if anyone wants to explore this further):

The M2 was not the intended HMG for rifle companies and rifle battalion heavy weapons companies; the M1917 was. Rifle companies had just two M1919s in their weapons platoon. However, M2s did find their way into such units, either because of the initiative of the commanding officer or because a particular GI decided he liked the gun and did not mind carrying it (and the much heavier ammo).

The intent of these weapons was to provide rear-area troops (who possessed (relatively) more vehicles than the rifle units and moved less frequently) some protection against aircraft (which was considered a major threat when war planning began and the Luftwaffe controlled the skies) and light armor.

I would suggest it would be more likely to be seen in use by rifle units on the defensive, and in the offense in fixed overwatch positions, probably several hundred meters behind the action.

On vehicles, it was intended as an AA weapon, but was used whenever practical. On the Sherman, this was rarely since one had to leave the turret and stand on the rear deck to engage ground targets (unless you had modified the mount). This was changed in the Pershing, for example.

Regarding all these assertions of mine, I am not 100 percent convinced, but this is where the evidence has led me. And one thing you find in researching these things is that there is no definitive "truth." But there is an ability to know what was more or less standard and what was an exception.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

But where do you draw the line between a MG and a true gun? Russian 25mm? German 37mm? Bofors 40mm?

Is the Oerlikon 20mm considered a MG? How about the Hispano?

In the case of the German and Italian 20mm guns, they were employed in much the same role as the .50 </font>

[Los]

If anyone has ever carried an M2 or even tried to mount it on a pintle of a Hummer or whatever, they would automatically know without a shadow of a doubt why it makes a poor MG for an infantry company compared to an MG42. For that matter make the comparison bsaed on carrying a box of linked .50 cal ball vs a box of linked 7.62mm.

Los

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Thermopylae:

No, 12 inches is the correct stated value. however, I think it refers to armor plating used to help fortify positions rather than say, vehicle or ship armor. Note that all pentrations are for 35m (the chart is taken from a recent MOUT lessons learned ecompednium from Iraq and Afghanistan, and hence deals with short ranges) Indeed, they say that the onyl thing that really seems to stop .50s at short range are 55 gallon drums filled with sand.

I'm pretty sure that's a misprint, as FM 3-06.11 (MOUT) states that .50 ball will only penetrate 1" of armour plate at a range of 35m (not exactly long range) or 16" of log wall.

300mm of any metal is a bit much for a .50 cal HMG

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Mike:

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

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

But where do you draw the line between a MG and a true gun? Russian 25mm? German 37mm? Bofors 40mm?

Is the Oerlikon 20mm considered a MG? How about the Hispano?

In the case of the German and Italian 20mm guns, they were employed in much the same role as the .50 </font>

[Snarker]

That really does look like a misprint. Maybe they meant 12" of paper plates.

In any case, the best side of a .50 to be on is the side the primer faces.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mike:

Really?

so why weren't they mounted as armament on half tracks and trucks, or as AA on tanks, or on tripods in infantry companies?

See Andreas' answer to this.

Not even sure what your point is any more. The 20mm is much closer in terms of intended role and also actual usage to a .50 calibre MG than the MG 42. As stated, all three weapons are something like apples and oranges. Perhaps you would care to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin, next?

See the excellent post by Maj Battaglia, as you can see, we have certainly gone down this road before.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Los:

If anyone has ever carried an M2 or even tried to mount it on a pintle of a Hummer or whatever, they would automatically know without a shadow of a doubt why it makes a poor MG for an infantry company compared to an MG42. For that matter make the comparison bsaed on carrying a box of linked .50 cal ball vs a box of linked 7.62mm.

Los

And that is the key point. Listen to the man.

While the fire power of the M2 is something to behold, getting it to where you need it is a big problem, unless you can drive it there. Unfortunately Europe (or most places fought over) are just not that accessible.

The big advantage of the MG34 was that it was a true GPMG, where the heavy firepower of the SMG was mated with the light-weight transportability of the squad MG. If you fire at something from a dug-in position, I take a Vickers anyday, thank you very much. If I have to lug it to the place where I want it, I am going to take the MG34/42 sMG along, because it travels well.

Therefore, in terms of intended role, the German 2cm Flak is quite comparable to the M2. Whether it could be mounted on a tripod is completely beside the point.

[Los]

An M2 with bipod minus the roudns is like 128 lbs! Just the gun w/ barrell is 84 lbs! The MG42 is 26 lbs on the bipod (still a heavy bastard)though the heavy infantry bipod adds another 40 lbs (the lighter aa one is half that.) A box of 100 rds 7.62 weighs about half as much as a box of 50 rounds .50cal. (Can't remember the exact amounts.) So really as some have already said, they're seperate comparisons, hardly worth getting an argument over.

Los

Both are great weapons systems.

[Siege]

An M2 with bipod minus the roudns is like 128 lbs! Just the gun w/ barrell is 84 lbs! The MG42 is 26 lbs on the bipod

IIRC, the M2 broke down for leg transport similar to mortars. One guy carries the gun body, another the barrels, a third the tripod and everybody else in the crew carries ammo.

It really isn't comparable to either the MG42 or the 2cm FLAK at all however. It definitely is far beyond .30 caliber rifle bullets, but doesn't yet work into the explosive rounds that a 20mm starts to deal with. AFIK anything over from 20mm on up is lumped into the Cannon range rather than MG, at least in aircraft anyways.

If anything, I'd class the M2 more like the Maxim and 12.7mm DShk which all fired a heavy non-HE bullet. I really wouldn't call the MG42 on a tripod a heavy MG anyways, it's just a different mounting system with the same gun as an MG42 LMG.

-Hans

[Maj. Battaglia]

I really wouldn't call the MG42 on a tripod a heavy MG anyways, it's just a different mounting system with the same gun as an MG42 LMG.

Just curious, what are your criteria for a HMG?

There is a lot more to a tripod mounting vs. bipod mounting than the number of legs. Mounting on a tripod allows the reliable use of a long range sight. In turn this allows the gunner to better determine a "beaten zone" for effective fire at distance.

In addition, the higher number of crewmen in the CM model allows for faster ammo reloads, barrel changes, etc. All this allows for a greater rate of fire. The LMG and HMG may have the same theoretical rate of fire, but in practice the LMG will have to fire more slowly.

[Tank Ace]

50 cal i think was better. It might not have had an ROF like that of an MG42, but get a quad 50 and the enemy will poop his pants.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I really wouldn't call the MG42 on a tripod a heavy MG anyways, it's just a different mounting system with the same gun as an MG42 LMG.

Just curious, what are your criteria for a HMG?

There is a lot more to a tripod mounting vs. bipod mounting than the number of legs. Mounting on a tripod allows the reliable use of a long range sight. In turn this allows the gunner to better determine a "beaten zone" for effective fire at distance.

In addition, the higher number of crewmen in the CM model allows for faster ammo reloads, barrel changes, etc. All this allows for a greater rate of fire. The LMG and HMG may have the same theoretical rate of fire, but in practice the LMG will have to fire more slowly. </font>

[Thermopylae]

I think the consensus then is misprint, as the specific ammunition mentioned is .50 caliber ball.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Thermopylae:

I think the consensus then is misprint...

Hard to imagine it could be anything else. Twelve inches of armor plate is right off the map. Even an 8" naval rifle would not have been able to get through that. :eek: Now 1.2" might be credible at point blank range, and it's possible they dropped a decimal point in putting the text into print and the proofreader didn't catch it.

Michael