MG 42 vs .50 cal

[Pinetree]

Originally posted by NewSocialistMan:

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

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

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

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Siege:

If anything, I'd class the M2 more like the Maxim and 12.7mm DShk which all fired a heavy non-HE bullet.

Actually Maxim was 7,62mm (in Russian use at least).

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

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

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

Those figures have to be for the new .50 SLAP round (Saboted Light Armor Penetrating) which uses a tungsten .30 cal core and has higher muzzle velocity. It replaces the .50 API (Armor Piercing Incidiary), which itself replaces the old-as-time Ball round used in WW2.

The ammo used in WWII was still enough to penetrate just about any building or wooden bunker.

Gyrene </font>

[NewSocialistMan]

I don't know about 12" of armor plate, but I remember having loads of fun popping holes in a manhole cover with one at nearly a kilometer.

[coe]

I believe there was a 12.7mm machine gun mounted on Luftwaffe aircraft and that some of them were converted to infantry use.

The interesting thing is, however, in the CM series, the 20mm guns can be taken out rather quickly (i.e.

by a hit) then you have the crew milling about whereas the 50 cal. keeps firing until its crew is gone. This makes 50 cal or whatever the russian machine guns on wheels incredibly hard to eliminate.

On that note, head to head the 20mm vs. the 50 cal

I'd take the 50 cal just cause it can "take more hits" and still last fire.

Coe

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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.

The German 20mm is a FLAK piece - designed and intended for AA work. the Breda was intended as dual role, AA and AT. (Both from WW2 Fact File Series on AA guns)

the .50 cal was designed to be a machine gun with an effective range of 6000 metres at the end of WW1, in an era where that was an anti-infantry role - the calibre being chosen after seeing the effect of large calibre AT rifles and HMGs used by other combattants in WW1 so providing a secondary (but very useful and deliberate) AT role. (From a web site on the history of the .50 that was a sub-page for a .50 civilian shooters association)

I'm not sure how you figure that the 20's are closer to the .50 for their intended role than teh .50 was to teh MG 42, since the German and american machine guns weer intended as anti-infantry weapons.

And that is my point.

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?

No - I'll leave that to those to whom the .50 is a religous icon not to be sullied with facts.

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

I saw it, as HE said, he's not sure of his conclusions, and IMO he's not discussing the same point at all - he's discussing usage, not intended usage - in the military these are often vastly disparate!!

[JonS]

Mike,

while doing bit of research the other day I was looking at the composition of 6th Mountain Div and 2nd Panzer Div for the Greek campaign in Nafzigers books . One of these divisions* had an attached Heavy Machine Gun Company (part of an HMG Bn by the look of it), equipped with 12 x 20mm guns. Note that this wasn't an AA unit (they were listed seperatly and differently).

FWIW

Regards

JonS

* I forget which at the moment, and anyway it isn't important, though I can find it again easily enough

[Guest Mike]

I have no info on that Jon, but I'll take your word.

Equally the .50 was often used by AA units - especially M17's and the like - but that was not its intended role.

PIATs were used as mortars - does that make them artillery?

[flamingknives]

...the calibre being chosen after seeing the effect of large calibre AT rifles and HMGs used by other combattants in WW1...

Eh? What? Name two other weapons of comparable calibre used by ground forces.

The only one I can think of is the German Tankgewehr introduced late-war to combat British tanks.

IIRC, the .50 cal was intended as an anti-tank weapon.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mike:

I'm not sure how you figure that the 20's are closer to the .50 for their intended role than teh .50 was to teh MG 42, since the German and american machine guns weer intended as anti-infantry weapons.

The .50 was intended as an anti-infantry weapon? It seems to have been little employed that way. Most vehicle mounts had it in an anti-aircraft role. The ground mount allows for anti-infantry fire, but then again, so does the mount for the 20mm.

The .50 as mounted on most vehicles was not an effective anti-infantry weapon and/or extremely difficult to bring the weapon to bear safely in that role. Standing up in the unarmoured cab of a GMC truck, in the open back of a Jeep, or exiting the turret of a Sherman to fire on infantry was probably more than a little suicidal in most cases; the mounts were clearly intended for AA work. Ditto the M16 and the trailer version of the quad .50, which undoubtedly made fine anti-infantry weapons as well - but this was not their intended use.

See JonS' post about the 20mm - great find, Jon.

I'd be interested in knowing more about the development of the .50 and the ground mount, actually - why anyone thought this was a good idea for infantry, and how common it was (we have seen at least one poster indicate they weren't).

As for the MG42 - it was a GPMG which performed in the light role, in the coaxial and bow mount role, (EDIT - or at least its earlier version the MG34 did) the medium/heavy role in large numbers and with great effectiveness. It compares directly to the Browning M1919, which performed all the same roles - MMG, HMG, LMG (with a bipod) as well as bow and coax mount. Ma Deuce fulfilled none of these roles, save infantry HMG, and in limited numbers. The .50 was also used as Main Armament on the M1 and M2 tanks (?)

A Canadian armoured recce crewman told me that the .50 on the Lynx was considered an anti-vehicle (or anti-aircraft) weapon and not optimal for infantry due ot the ballistics of the gun (the explanation was deeper than I could absorb, maybe wadepm can correct me on this - he probably has in the past! )

[ November 25, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mike:

Equally the .50 was often used by AA units -

Because it was an anti-aircraft gun.

PIATs were used as mortars - does that make them artillery?

Is this a strawman or a red herring? I can never keep those two straight...

[flamingknives]

Early British tanks mounted .50cal and 15mm HMGs and a co-axial .303 MG

FWIW, it looks like the British didn't rate it as an anti-infantry weapon.

[dalem]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

IIRC, the .50 cal was intended as an anti-tank weapon.

As I've read it it was intended as an anti-balloon piece.

-dale

[Maj. Battaglia]

Originally posted by Mike:

I saw it, as HE said, he's not sure of his conclusions, and IMO he's not discussing the same point at all - he's discussing usage, not intended usage - in the military these are often vastly disparate!!

It's true I said I'm not 100 percent sure. But that does not mean what I wrote was pulled out of, well you get the idea. It just means I do not feel my research has been exhaustive and therefore I am not completely satisfied. I would be happy (I'm not being facetious) to have you post any sources you have because it will help me. But I feel strongly that the evidence I have found supports the conclusions I posted, and it is at your peril to ignore them

My summary was just that, and there is a lot more in the links I posted. The reason I mention this is because I have researched both intended usage and practical usage.

It seems as though people are sort of arguing around one another, in many cases both are correct but still disagree. I think this is because it comes down to "it depends" and there is no easy, definitve answer to these questions.

For example, as to which is best, you have to ask "for what?" As a MG for infantry use, you probably have to go with the MG42 for its advantages (over the M2) in portability and ROF (plus the ballistics Dorosh refers to--I think you might be talking about the M2's flat trajectory, but I can't explain well why this is important). But if the enemy infantry is behind some cover, you might decide the M2 is better. Certainly as an AA MG, the M2 is superior. So you can't just say which is better without qualification.

Another thing to keep in mind is that local commanders have flexibility to best employ what resources they have. And that makes a pretty big assumption that the commander is, in fact, flexible and has the initiative to make the changes in question. What appears obvious to a wargamer with 60 years of hindsight and weapon effectiveness charts may not have been so obvious to a citizen-soldier.

So again, the German and US rifle battalions relied on the MG34/42 and M1917/1919. The German 20mm AA gun and M2 had other intended purposes (but were not the equivalent of one another) and were mostly assigned to other units in the division, but depending on a lot of factors, might be available for use by rifle battalions or companies. It should certainly not be taken for granted.

[YankeeDog]

Some clarifications about the history and intended use of the M2 .50 cal. This is all off the top of my head, since my reference collection is housed at the the New York Public Library and the Barnes and Noble down the street and so is not readily available for citation:

The M2 was originally conceived at the end of WWI as an anti-aircraft and anti-balloon weapon. This was after the US Army saw how effective the French 11mm Hotchkiss was in this role (whoever was looking for an example of a WWI-era MG similar in caliber to the M2, there you go). However, the M2 was not accepted for service by the Army until 1921. The original .50 cal (with the designation M1) was a water-cooled weapon, and as such was probably really heavy and not intended to be man-portable at all.

I think at some point in the 20s, there was an air-cooled ground version developed, but it turned out to be mostly impractical because the barrel was too light and so it overheated very quickly. As I understand it though, the original genesis of the air-cooled, man-portable version was as an AT weapon. It certainly would have been capable of damaging most armored vehicles of the period.

In the early 30s, the weapon underwent a major design update, becoming the M2. As I recall, one of the major purposes of the the redesign was to allow the weapon to be mounted on vehicles for light AA defense. However, infantry use against ground targets must have also been a priority, as IIRC the tripod mount was also developed at this time. The M3 tripod mount is designed for engaging ground targets *only* - it lacks the elevation to engage aircraft.

So, as the US Army entered WWII, it clearly saw the M2 as a dual-role weapon, or it wouldn't have designed a ground-fire only tripod for it.

Take it for what you will. The M2 and its ammo was than heavier than the MG42, but lighter than a most 20mm designs. It had better anti-aircraft performance than the former, but probably not quite as good as the latter. As to whether this makes it 'more like' the MG42 or the 20mm autocannon, I don't really know or care. All three were clearly used in both Ground-to-Ground and Ground-to-Air roles, whatever their original 'intended purpose'.

As for the use of the pintle-mounted M2 on the M4 Sherman against infantry, as Maj. Battaglia noted this was discussed in depth a while back, and I found it to be a very interesting discussion. I have seen photos of M4 Shermans in the ETO and the Med with a no flex-mounted MG at all, some with the rear turret-mounted MG, and some with a forward mounted MG. Recently, I stumbled across this interesting picture:

The hosting website marks this as a photo from July 21st, 1945, so it was presumably taken after combat in Europe was over. What I find interesting is that the Sherman in the foreground has its M2 mounted on a pintle just behind the commander's cupola, but the Sherman right next to it clearly has its M2 mounted farther forward. It actually looks like this forward mount is positioned for the MG to be fired from the loader's hatch, but it's hard to tell for sure. It also looks like the tank in the foreground actually has a hard point for the pintle to be attached in the same position as the second tank's pintle (and vice versa), but again its hard to tell for sure because the resolution of the photo isn't that high. Perhaps by this point, the Sherman was manufactured with hard points for both mountings, and it was up to individual tank crews as to where specifically the MG should be placed? If so, it's worth noting that this is probably a modification that could be accomplished in the field.

In any event, it does appear that at some point during WWII, the US Army realized the value of making the flex-mounted M2 on the M4 Sherman capable of being fired at ground targets in front of the tank from a hatch, rather than from the rear deck. Exactly when this happened, and to what degree vehicles with this mounting saw combat in Europe and the Med, I don't know and it would probably be extremely difficult if not impossible to answer these questions definitively. I will say that I have seen far more photos of WWII-era Shermans with either (1) No flex mount MG at all, or (2) a rear turret pintle-mounted MG than I have Shermans with a forward flex-mount MG. Here is one of the few pics I have found of an M4 Sherman in a combat zone that appears to have a forward-mounted M2 that could be fired from the commander's hatch:

I suppose for complete accuracy, CM should present three slightly different versions of each and every Sherman: One with no flex MG at all, one with a rear-mount MG that could only be fired when the tank was unbuttoned and stationary, and with an exposure penalty (representing a crew member standing on the rear deck firing the MG), and finally a third type with the flex-MG forward mounted and therefore capable of being fired from a hatch.

*Shrug*. Sounds like a hell of a lot of work for very little added realism in the game to me. I suppose you could make the argument it would be more realistic to just ignore the flex-mount MG on the Sherman in its entirety for CM purposes, rather than have it modeled on all tanks and capable of being fired any time the tank is unbuttoned.

Of course, then we'd have a different set of grogs getting all hot under the collar about why it *wasn't* included. . .

Oh, one more thing: Major, most early-war US Army TOEs I have seen do show M2s as part of the rifle battalion's standard kit. As an example, check out this page:

pre-1943 US Rifle Battalions

The same website also has TOEs for post-1943 US rifle battalions. The page is obviously a secondary source, and I can't vouch for it's accuracy. It's the best I can do at the moment, though, as I do not own copies of the actual TOEs. From what I can recall, though, the website appears to match TOEs I have read pretty closely.

As the page notes, there are actually quite a few .50 cal M2s sprinkled about the rifle battalion, although your previous observation that there are none in the actual 'fighting' elements of the individual rifle companies is strictly speaking true (In the post-1943 TOE, there is an M2 in the Company Weapons Platoon HQ, although this appears to have been assigned to the trains elements of that formation). The question then becomes how many of the M2s floating around the Battalion with the AT Platoon, the Ammunition & Pioneer Platoon, etc. would actually make if forward to support the fighting infantryman.

Probably impossible to answer. My personal opinion, though, is that CMBO's one per Rifle Company is not implausible, especially later in the war when M2 on AA mountings were probably viewed a mostly unnecessary due to lack of an air threat. We'll see what they do in CMAK. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Mike:

he's discussing usage, not intended usage - in the military these are often vastly disparate!!

Uh... you do realize that actual usage far outweighs intended usage, don't you?

[Maj. Battaglia]

Thanks, YD, a good post.

I won't have time in the next couple of days to add much to this, but before I consign myself to Thanksgiving prep let me just add a thing or two.

I've seen the site you linked to. It is sites like these that cause me to wonder about my findings. But then they put in things like "BAR for AA defense" and do not cite their sources generally. So I have to wonder about the veracity of their info.

One of the sites I rely on I have linked to before: 100th Division. There is a really nice hyperlinked chart where you can see what's what in an infantry division, all the way down to platoon level.

And then there's George Forty. In his org chart he does not list an M2 in the rifle company, but then asserts in the text that there was one. "What gives?" I have to ask myself. But he makes other mistakes in "The US Army Handbook" that make me wonder if maybe there might be a mistake there, as well.

In the end it is the oral histories of infantrymen that makes me think the M2 was not standard kit for the rifle companies.

So I would argue that the kind folks at BFdotC should NOT make the M2 standard for the rifle companies, rather it should be available for separate purchase or inclusion by scenario designers. The M1917, which was the rifle battalion HMG through Korea, by the way, is in my opinion under-represented in CM:BO (can't say for AK).

But if someone provided strong evidence to the contrary, I might change my tune.

And given the M2's power against light armor (versus pretty much none for the M1917), it does tend to sway things in favor of the US when the Germans field a halftrack or a Nashhorn or a Puma.

Nice picture, by the way. In the previous discussion about 50 cal on Shermans I found a picture of the loader firing at ground targets. So perhaps as the war ended they were more commonly moved to the front. According to Irwin's "Another River, Another Town," his TC could not fire the 50 from within the turret, but when he was assigned to a Pershing later in the war, this was rectified.

[dalem]

If I remember correctly from the mass of AARs and less formal anecdotal (apocryphal?) accounts I've read, the M2 was often remarked on when present for the rifle platoons to use, i.e. an exception. Seems to me (reasoned speculation only here) like the longer a unit stayed in a fixed position, the more likely it would be to "acquire" M2s for defenses from various jeeps, trucks, transport HTs, etc. But when moving/redeploying, I would continue to speculate that the beasts went right back on the pintle mounts. I sure wouldn't want to have to carry one, especially under fire.

So it would not surprise me as an amateur historian, nor would it anger me as a gamer, to see M2s "rare" when attacking, "less rare" when defending, and "not uncommon" when defending against an Assault.

Or something. It would also not surprise me to find I'm simply wrong in whole or in part.

-dale

[JonS]

IIRC Charles MacDonald, in Company Commander, makes several references to the M2 as being one of his company weapons. Would need to have a rummage to find a specific reference though ...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

If I remember correctly from the mass of AARs and less formal anecdotal (apocryphal?) accounts I've read, the M2 was often remarked on when present for the rifle platoons to use, i.e. an exception. Seems to me (reasoned speculation only here) like the longer a unit stayed in a fixed position, the more likely it would be to "acquire" M2s for defenses from various jeeps, trucks, transport HTs, etc. But when moving/redeploying, I would continue to speculate that the beasts went right back on the pintle mounts. I sure wouldn't want to have to carry one, especially under fire.

So it would not surprise me as an amateur historian, nor would it anger me as a gamer, to see M2s "rare" when attacking, "less rare" when defending, and "not uncommon" when defending against an Assault.

Or something. It would also not surprise me to find I'm simply wrong in whole or in part.

-dale

A friend of mine served in Korea with the Royal Canadian Regiment. While they relied on their good old Vickers, they did have a .50 calibre "acquired" that helped them in at least one defensive action. However, said .50 was mounted on a halftrack (in an AA mount, natch) and IIRC was used to defend company HQ. No doubt it was viewed by the troop in the mud as a nice to have, when they could be acquired in this manner. But again, notable by their special mention and hence rarity.

[JonS]

Originally posted by JonS:

while doing bit of research the other day I was looking at the composition of 2nd Panzer Div for the Greek campaign in Nafzigers books. It had an attached Heavy Machine Gun Company (part of an HMG Bn by the look of it), equipped with 10 x 20mm guns.

Because I hate general references, because I was wondering, and because I've found Nafziger to be a bit unreliable, I chased this up.

The following info is all taken verbatim from Nafziger, Panzers and Artillery.

(page 41)

2nd Panzer Division, 5 April 1941

[snips]

38th Panzerjager Bn

. 1 (mot) Signals Platoon

. 3 (mot) Panzerjager Companies (12 37mm PAK 36 and 6 LMGs ea)

. 2nd Company/47th Self-Propelled Heavy Machine Gun Battalion (10 20mm guns)

[snips]

Attached

. 76th Flak Battalion

1/(H) 14th Panzer Observation Squadron

[snips]

The first bolded entry is what I recalled. Note the Flak Bn listed seperately.

(page 74)

9th Panzer Division, 5 April 1941

[snips]

50th Panzerjager Bn

. 1 (mot) Signals Platoon

. 3 (mot) Panzerjager Companies (12 37mm PAK 36 and 6 LMGs ea)

. 3rd Btry/47th Self-Propelled Heavy Machine Gun Battalion (10 20mm guns)

[snips]

Attached

. Light Btry/86th Flak Battalion

1/(H) 23rd Panzer Observation Squadron

[snips]

9thPzDiv was another PzDiv involved in Greece, which is why I looked it up. Notice that it has an attachment from the same "47th Self-Propelled Heavy Machine Gun Battalion", but now it is a battery rather than a company.

(page 391)

German Army Flak Artillery

[snips]

On 10 February 1941 the Wehrmacht contained the following independant Flak battalions:

31st, 47th, 55th, 601st, 602nd, 603rd, 604th, 605th, 607th, 610th, 611th and 631st Self-Propelled Flak Battalions

. 4 Companies (12 37mm AA guns ea)

[snips]

Is this the same 47th Self-Propelled Battalion? I don't know. The batterys are back to being companies, the weapons have changed from 20mm to 37mm, and there are 12 instead of 10. However, I strongly suspect that it is the same unit, and the inconsistencies are just Nafziger being, well, inconsistent.

So, Mike, I withdraw my statement about the Germans having HMG Bns equipped with 20mm guns. In fact, I now strongly suspect that all (or very nearly all - there are always exceptions, as we all know ) the 20mm guns (not including those mounted in AFVs of course) were organisationally held in Flak battalions - either Luftwaffe or Wehrmacht.

That says nothing about usage though, of course

Apologies for the earlier, incorrect, statement.

Regards

JonS

[ November 26, 2003, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Emrys]

Here's one more log on the fire. I pulled down my copy of Military Science and Tactics, a basic training manual by a Col. P. S. Bond U.S. Army. In the back of the book are several extremely specific TsO&E for the infantry division that account for literally every man, his rank and how he was armed. Mind though, this is an "official" TO&E; actual practice in the field may, as we know, be at variance, especially as the war wore on and the manpower crunch hit and improvisations had to be resorted to in order to maintain fighting strength. BTW, the copyright of this, the sixth edition, is 1944 and I assume that this is the TO&E that was in use on D-Day.

Anyway, he lists only one .50 in the rifle company and that's in the HQ of the weapons platoon.

In the battalion, in addition to the one in each of the three rifle companies, there is also one in the company headquarters of the heavy weapons company as well as two in the headquarters company of the battalion for an aggregate of six throughout the battalion.

My sense of it is that because in each case these HMGs are assigned to the HQs of their respective units, they were originally intended for AA use. But I am entirely confident that once in battle the commanders would use them as they saw fit and as was practical from a mobility point of view. I think it is appropriate for BFC to include them in the standard TsO&E as described as they were an organic part of those organizations.

It seems to me that they might well have been used in the attack as well as defence if they could be sited to provide suppressive fire. How mobile they would be in that role would depend on how many men they could find to carry the bloody thing, or alternately to arrange transport of some kind, including mules or other beasts of burden.

Michael

[Maj. Battaglia]

This is one of the interviews that I linked to before in the other threads but will post again. The interviewee, Lt. Gen. DePuy was in WWII an infantry battalion commander in the 90th infantry division. Here he talks about suppression fire:

Well, one of the things that had been impressed upon me by that time, was that we weren’t getting any direct fire suppression. We just weren’t very good at that, and by that time, you see, we were outrunning much of our artillery. We never had more than about one battalion of artillery available because we were moving too fast. So, we no longer tried to suppress only with indirect fire. My heavy weapons company, “D” Company, had six mortars and eight heavy machine guns. I didn’t think that was enough so I took .50 caliber machine guns from the trains and made a big .50 caliber platoon. Then I would attach the three heavy machine gun platoons to a single company. And, every time we would,become involved in one of these little battles, wherever it was, I’d put that company in an overwatch position. I didn’t call it overwatch then. I didn’t know that word at the time. I put it in a base of fire. The commander had eight heavy machine guns, six .50 caliber machine guns, and the light machine guns of that company, and he had the company to protect it and to help move it. So, two companies were my maneuver companies, and one company was my fire support company, my base of fire company. I’ll tell you, it really was marvelous. They just overwhelmed anything that we ran up against. My regret is that it took so long to figure that out.

The entire interview is worth reading and can be downloaded from MHI.

So the number of M2s in a rifle battalion jive with what Emrys posted, and this is something I have not overly doubted (although TO&Es vary on the issue). But as I said before, getting them into a position to help the infantry took initiative (and see the last sentence of the quote), and that cannot be taken for granted.

Note also he differentiates between the eight heavy machineguns in the heavy weapons company and the M2s in the trains. I have to infer this, but I suspect he does so because the former are the M1917.

I think Dale's comment is on the money. I feel M2s should be optional or random, not automatically issued to rfile companies.

[cassh]

Returning to the original question, of which was better MG-42 or M2 .50 cal then clearly you must ask in which role you are judging them.

In the anti infantry role:

The tripod mounted MG-42 is an area weapon with sustainable fire the .50 cal is not. End of story really… but read on if you can bear it.

The CM HMG [sic] 6 man MG-42 squad/gun team represents MMG/sustained-fire (SF) weapon used primarily in the anti-infantry role. SF GPMGs when deployed correctly are area weapons. They fulfil functions such as denying the enemy routes of advance/forming up areas in defence and suppression/fire-support in the assault. When looked at in these roles the SF MG-42 in leagues ahead of the .50 cal.

Beaten-Zone

This is the elongated ellipse into which the fall of shot lands. The MG-42’s beaten-zone is far superior to that of the M2 at all ranges, i.e. is much more effective as an infantry suppression and killing weapon than that of the M2.50 cal. The shape of a machine-gun’s beaten zone and the trajectory of the rounds play a key role in its effectiveness, especially at longer ranges when conducting indirect and enfilade type shoots. And it is no mistake that the MG-42 wins in performance at both shorter rangers and longer ones.

SF-Tripod

Its MG-42’s SF tripod is designed to generate a very effective beaten-zone. As the gun fires the tripod’s recoil rods are compressed and then the return springs decompress the piston sending the carriage forward. Now this backward-forward stutter and high RoF means that the round does not get released at exactly the same point when firing creating varying depth of beaten-zone. Also the carriage has a wee bit of lateral play when firing giving the beaten-zone width. Combined these two elements with an optical sight, sustained fire (quick-change barrels) and a large ammunition scales and you have an awesome battlefield weapon.

Optical sight

The SF MG-42 almost always saw action with an optical sight fitted. These give the MMG capabilities unknown to a simple tripod mounted MG. Obviously they give the gunner better target acquisition capabilities and they also help judge range more accurately. But where they come into their own is in pre-recorded targeting. This gives the tactical commander the ability to conduct complex DF or fire-support shoots, even at night (aiming lamps anyone?). Because the optical sight can take an elevation and deflection bearing, pre-recorded shoot/laying means that a well drilled gun team are always on target, night or day in the desired killing zone. In fact, you can leave a position with just recorder pegs to mark the each foots’ position and re-lay the gun on all you target references when you re-occupy the position at a later stage.

CMAK Model

Don’t know how the game models types of fire exactly but I know they distinguish between plunging fire and grazing fire. As a member of a SF-GPMG platoon (M240 for our America friends) I have fired both Gimpy and .50 cal from tripod and vehicle mounts. The fact that the FN-MAG GPMG has copied almost all its firing and laying characteristics from the MG-42 save for the RoF was no accident.

FN-Mag GPMG

Out to about six or seven hundred meters the trajectory of the Gimpy 7.62mm ball round is fairly flat (BTS’s grazing fire) but at longer rangers you aimed quite high to arc the rounds into the targeted area (BTS’s plunging fire). Tracer round are lighter and fall to ground more quickly (less kinetic energy I suppose) but they do still give good indication of round flight and trajectory out to 1000m-1100m.

Most SF ranges have the gun line on one side of a wide valley overlooking various targets (Ferret and Fox recce vehicle hulks and dry-stone walls etc.) on the other. And it is quite possible when shooting Ball in dry conditions to spot the fall of shot out to about 1000m through your binoculars as the rounds kick up dust from the ground, rocks and stones underlying any grass. Usually though you shoot 1-in-five (tracer to ball), which is a pain in the arse in summer as you can spend most of your day putting out grass fires.

M2 .50 cal

If you are on air defence, vehicle ambush or sanger busting then the .50 cal is your puppy. Having spent a few afternoons putting a ‘cone’ of gimpy fire up into the air from the back of a recce rover trying to shoot down a MATTs drone I can tell you GPMGs are little or no use in that role. Unless you hit the engine block the drone just kept going like a flying colander. Whereas if a .50 cal round hit the MATTs drone the wing or fuselage would come off and down it would come – nice!

Firing .50 cal at ground targets (mostly rusting vehicle hulks) is loud, slow, not too reliable, with numerous stoppages. There was no optical sight to lay the gun (wonder if US Army in WWII had one as standard – doubt it from everything I’ve ever come across though). The beaten-zone is slight. What it hits it really hits hard, but it is in no way to be considered an area weapon with sustainable fire. And for me those are the two keys to an effective MG in the anti infantry role

If my position were about to by over-run I know that given the choice between a SF MG-42 and an M2 .50 cal firing the final-protective-fire down the front line of my slit trench I’d go with the ’42 every time.

AA/AD role:

Anything over 12.7mm is in the right ballpark. In anti-vehicular/anti-aircraft fire I believe it is the weight/force of impact that historically has proven more successful than volume of fire in causing either soft or hard kills. Why is it that almost all fighter aircraft up-gunned from 7.92mm/.30 cal/.303 to .50 cal/15mm/20mm/30mm HMG/cannons during WWII? Because where you cannot be sure of attaining concentrated hits, what you do hit had better bloody count.

Hence .50 cal best US AAMG and used universally by Allied forces in this role.