MG 42 vs .50 cal

[Andreas]

Originally posted by cassh:

The CM HMG [sic] 6 man MG-42 squad/gun team represents MMG/sustained-fire (SF) weapon used primarily in the anti-infantry role.

I guess it is called an 'HMG' in CM because that is what the Germans called it 'sMG' stands for 'schweres Maschinengewehr'. AFAIK the Germans did not have a medium machinegun between the lMG and sMG34/42. Not one they called that anyway - I guess one could say that they actually did not have a HMG.

I believe in the original design, the MG34 also got something that IIRC was called SMK ammunition, which was basically AP. By the late 30s, armour had probably increased to such a degree that it was a bit pointless.

[flamingknives]

Would this SMK ammunition be the same or similar to the 'K' ammunition used in WWI and that proved successful against early British tanks? Both (I assume) are AP variants of 7.92mm Mauser rounds

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Would this SMK ammunition be the same or similar to the 'K' ammunition used in WWI and that proved successful against early British tanks? Both (I assume) are AP variants of 7.92mm Mauser rounds

I presume so. Here is some info in German from another forum. Basically says it was developed in WW I to deal with trench steel shields, used against tanks, and was a variant of the 8x57 round.

Tankettes, early tanks in the 20s, and other vehicles were designed to be 'SmK' proof, i.e. save against MG fire.

SmK = Spitzgeschoß mit (Stahl-)kern. Das war eine bereits im ersten Weltkrieg eingeführte Variante der Patrone 8x57, zunächst vor allem für den Beschuß von Schutzschilden im Grabenkrieg gedacht, später auch gegen die ersten Panzer verwendet. Das Stahlmantelgeschoß der 1903 eingeführten S-Patrone erhielt dazu einen gehärteten Stahlkern, der Aufbau des Geschosses war also dann

-Stahlkern

-Bleiüberzug (''Bleihemd'')

-Stahlmantel aus Flußeisen.

Die SmK-Patrone hatte zwar eine geringere Anfangsgeschwindigkeit, aber auf größere Entfernungen einen deutlich geringeren Geschwindigkeitverlust als die anderen Patronen und brachte dadurch mehr Auftreff-Energie ins Ziel.

Der Ausdruck ''SmK-sicher'' wurde häufig als Synonym dafür gebraucht, das ein gepanzertes Fahrzeug gegen MG-Feuer sicher war.

[Siege]

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).

I know that some flexible aircraft mounts for the .50 cal did have an optical sighting system. I can scan up a picture of a PBY bubble gunner using one, must have been uncomfortable too. It was found very early in the war (maybe even before our entry) that the recoil of the gun made the optical sights useless. Not sure how well it relates though, considering they were direct fire aircraft defense guns. IIRC by the end of 1942, they all the optical sights removed and went back to the open sights.

The MG-42’s beaten-zone is far superior to that of the M2 at all ranges

The rest of your post I will agree with, but I do have to argue this one point. For out to about 500 meters i'd say this is correct, but an M2 is published to have an effective range of 1800 meters for indirect fire, and 1500 meters for direct fire against point targets. A bullet of 1,000+ grains carries a lot more punch to a lot longer distance than one in the 150-200grain area.

I also think that 12" is far from accurate for penetration of steel plate. The manual for the M2 only lists a maximum penetration of 1" of homogenous plate at 200 meters with AP ammunition.

-Hans

[flamingknives]

Apologies if this is a stupid question, but what, exactly, is an optical sight?

The M2 in service with the British army mounts a SUSAT sight (same as used on the SA80) Is this an optical sight?

[cassh]

The SUSAT is indeed an optical sight with 4x Mag if memory serves, but it is simply a replacement for iron sights and cannot record elevation/defelction readings for filling in a target reference sheet unlike the C2 used on the SF Gimpy which is the real strength. So you can lay the weapon, but not re-lay on to a known SF fire-call using SUSAT, merely lay it as you would off any range-card.

I'll agree that M2 has greater range, but as you state this is against point targets - anything upto 1200m and the Mg-42 is covering a very large killing area in its beaten-zone.

[Los]

"an M2 is published to have an effective range of 1800 meters for indirect fire, and 1500 meters for direct fire against point targets."

Good luck to anyone that thinks they can have any meaningful accuracy against point targets, particularly infantry out to 1800m on their M2 w/ it's rickety pintle mount. (unless it's bench-mounted like whoever does these ballistics test.) I have a good amount of trigger time behind an M2 having spent a fair amount of time in a DMV/GMV out in the desert on numerous occassions The sighting system on a pintle mounted or tripod mounted M2 is not very effective for longer ranges. And even if the sights were of any use, the amount of play in the M2 mounting system means that you have to lean into the gun with your chest to keep it steady for accurate firing and then walk tracers onto the target. You can get good with the gun with lotsa practice but out past 1000m? Note that current coax or commander cupola mounting systems in tanks are not included in my above comments. Those are closer to bench mounted systems in their stability.

BTW do you know who in an infantry Coy HQ used to have an M2? It was the cook section and they mounted it on the company truck.

Cassh that was a nice post.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Siege:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The MG-42’s beaten-zone is far superior to that of the M2 at all ranges

The rest of your post I will agree with, but I do have to argue this one point. For out to about 500 meters i'd say this is correct, but an M2 is published to have an effective range of 1800 meters for indirect fire, and 1500 meters for direct fire against point targets. A bullet of 1,000+ grains carries a lot more punch to a lot longer distance than one in the 150-200grain area.</font>

[Siege]

Hans,

from your post I think you mis-understand what a beaten zone is, since it has little to do with the weight of the projectile fired. (projectile weight will affect BZ, but it isn't the point of a BZ)

I see where I went wrong in my post, forgot to keep with my point and got lost in thought. My point was that inside the range of the MG-42, the MG-42 definitely does have a superior indirect fire capability due to the better sighting, mounting and higher ROF. But due to the sheer weight and muzzle energy of the M2's ammunition, it does have a range that extends far past what a .30cal bullet can reach with any effective energy. I was just arguing the quantifier "at all ranges", not the general concept.

And the published 1500meter point target range is I believe when used in single-shot mode. I know that in Vietnam that it was occasinally used by sharpshooters with a telescopic sight out to that range against individuals, but after the first shot it just shakes too damned much to hit anything.

And lastly, judging by this photo, it's a real uncomfortable and phyiscally intensive thing to use any optics on an M2, this is the PBY mounting with optical sight I was talking about.

[flamingknives]

Land rover mounting an M2. The SUSAT is visible mounted high on the rear of the weapon.

M2 in a ground role. SUSAT is visible in some detail at the near end of the weapon. It appears to be mounted on an extra mount when compared to those mounted on SA80s and LSWs (possible the T&E setting mount discussed earlier)

There also seems to be a spare barrel on a bracket at the bottom left [Edit: RIGHT] of the picture.

A veritable cornucopia of .50cals. The closer M2 seems to have a shoulder brace.

[ November 27, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: flamingknives ]

[Charlie Rock]

I dont know much about how heavy a 20mm gun is and I challenge anyone to tell me it is the tactical equivalent of a .50.

As had been said, a .50 cal M2 weighs out at around 130 lbs. Less then an average human casualty. Extremely manportable.

Never seen a .50 cal in a rifle company. There are 10 in an average light battalion nowadays. I have had my guys hump one for a klick in the dark by laying the barrel and receiver on a stretcher. Two guys carry that@80 lbs. One carries the tripod, and you pass the ammo around depending on how much ammo and bodies. You can keep up with a rifle company with no problem

.50 cal ammo penetrates one inch. Dont know what SLAP can do--if I did I probably couldn't say. The flank armor of anything in the old Soviet Army up to a tank (BMPs, BRDMs, BTRs) has armor that is around 10 mm , max. Read 1/2 an inch. My point is if you used a .50 cal to light up one of those vehicles the effect will be quite good. The same sorts of effects you see on halftracks and so on in CMBB/CMBO.

Also, at longer ranges (800 m+) you have a flatter arc then 7.62. Incredible stopping power. Guessing whether some guy is 700 m or 800 m or 900 m is not that easy a proposition. It's easy to get wrong, and plunging fire (rounds arcing downward like a long range 3 pointer in basketball) place a premium on good range estimation. So a nice flat arc at long range is nice if you are not a natural at range estimation (Most of us aren't) IIRC the longest kill of the 2001 Afghanistan campaign was a Canadian sniper team of the Princess Pats that used a .50 Macmillian out to 2000+ meters.

Some intangibles:

A 7.62 weapon as an antiaircraft mount isnt too useful. .30 weapons on turret mounts didn't have the oomph in general, esp. to take out P-47s and the like. Note that the US Air Corps, PT boats, modern tanks, humvees, trucks, just about anything and everything with an engine has at one point mounted a .50. .50 cals were the standard for every aircraft that flew for the US, with the exception of P-38's. P47's-8 guns. B17's-13. PT boats -4. Etc. etc.

If you are building a fighting position the standards of most fighting positions is two sandbags. This is good for .30 type weapons. .50 cal gunners don't usually aim around things; you fire through them. It is a nightmare to build things ".50 cal proof" so most soldiers worldwide don't. There are very few things not made of armor plate that will cover you.

I would argue that a .50 cal is an equivalent of what the Sturmgewehr assault rifle was, circa 1945. It is a unique weapon system that offers unique capabilties because of a singularly useful cartridge. It really has no equivalent, save the Dshk. Maybe. There are few armies in the west that I know of that bothered to build an equivalent. You just buy an M2 and save the R&D money.

The MG42/MG3 is an excellent squad weapon. German army guys love it. It is a well engineered 7.62 squad -level light machine gun. It is qualitatively beter then the M60, equivalent, depending on your tastes, to the M240. It is the best of a breed but it is not a unique weapon in and of itself.

For those of you who don't like the anti personnel capability of .50 ball, here is a vignette of what .50 is doing in Iraq. Used as a sniper rifle we are talking ATR types of capabilties:

"The Barrett 50 cal Sniper Rifle may have been the most useful piece of equipment for the urban fight – especially for our light fighters. used to engage both vehicular and personnel targets out to 1400 meters. Soldiers not only appreciated the range and accuracy but also the target effect. Leaders and scouts viewed the effect of the 50 cal round as a combat multiplier due to the psychological impact on other combatants that viewed the destruction of the target.

“My spotter positively identified a target at 1400 meters carrying an RPG on a water tower. I engaged the target. The top half of the torso fell forward out of the tower and the lower portion remained in the tower.”

Sniper

There were other personal anecdotes of one round destroying two targets and another of the target “disintegrating.”

M2: The M2 50 cal still receives great praise. It performed exceptionally well in this harsh environment. Soldiers did mention that the vehicular mount had too much play for accurate fire and that the large ammo box made it difficult to effectively manipulate the weapon

Cheers,

CR

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Siege:

A bullet of 1,000+ grains carries a lot more punch to a lot longer distance than one in the 150-200grain area.

weight is meaningless where beaten zone is concerned... number of rounds into the area is what counts. And no one can deny that an MG42 can put more rounds down range faster than an M2

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Los:

Good luck to anyone that thinks they can have any meaningful accuracy against point targets, particularly infantry out to 1800m on their M2 w/ it's rickety pintle mount.

Not from a pintle mount, and I doubt at all during WW2, but the Marines in Vietnam were doing it with a decent scope from the tripod mount. But, again, I doubt anyone was using them for sniper rifles in WW2

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The closer M2 seems to have a shoulder brace.

Errr... that ain't an M2, that's a sniper rifle

[JonS]

Is it late where you are Berli?

1) Hans/Seige has already responded to a comment about bullet-weight and beaten zone.

2) The closer weapon in that photo is indeed a sniper rifle. However, the closer M2 seems to have some kind of shoulder brace. It shows up in the rover photo too.

Be cool

JonS

Edit: Spelling. It matters. I try.

[ November 27, 2003, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[flamingknives]

Indeed. There are four (4) weapons in the last photo. Two (2) are Barret light fifty sniper rifles (M82s, IIRC) The remaining two (2) are M2 HMGs. The closer of the two (2) HMGs is more visible, and appears to have a shoulder brace.

As pointed out above, the Land Rover mounted HMG also has one.

[Charlie Rock]

In reply to the above post.

Weight is far from an irrelevent point.

Weight of round is the crux of the whole argument.

An MG42 round of approx 180 grain is no different from any modern GPM, LMG, or contemporary type of bullet. RPMs are the difference. If you are firing into Russians across the steppe at close range perhaps it does not matter. If there is no cover then it probably doesen't matter. Against the horde in a flat field, OK, number of rounds is key. I agree with that. If you are advancing against a company of defenders in woods or hedgerow or an urban setting, different sit.

Now, lets say you are a German on the offense. As you plan your attack (or defense, take your pick) take a look at the terrain around you and the cover vice concealment. There is a great deal of "cover" that becomes "concealment" when facing .50 ammunition. The velocities are close-weight of bullet, and correspondingly weight of ammo and weight of the gun increase. The differences are--if you hide behind walls, trees, inside buildings, behind a couple of sand bags, etc. the 7.62 bullet that is stopped by lack of kinetic energy and defeated by your cover cannot compare to the .50 round that passes through and through. The bullets plow through everything in their path. This has a tremendous psycholgical effect in that you can hide, you can hit and run, but it is difficult to fight from a covered postion because there are a lot fewer positions of cover out there. Would you rather have 10-15 bullets bounce off the side of the stone house you are in or watch 4-5 bore right through it? Do you take the chance that a round will go through a loop hole or firing slit with 7.62, or acknowledge that around that hits the wall you are hiding behind will not keep the round from going through you? Not a foolproof situation, but you have to hit and run vice stand and fight to survive, you firepower has decreased proportionally.

Correspondingly, from the gunners perspective it is a different problem entirely. Aiming center of mass on "covered" positions will suffice. You dont aim at the head sticking outside of a parapet, you aim center mass on the position itself and ballistics take over and chew through "cover". Totally different situation.

Consider the .50 M2 was first used by ground forces in large numbers in 1942. It has been used for the past 61 years. 52 of those years have been wthout a de facto air threat, and minimal armored threat. It is an anti personnel weapon that is optimized at penetrating what for 90% of small arms is "cover" Esp. in an era that has seen the ballistics of most rifles, etc. degrade from 7.62 down to 5.56, 5.45, etc.

Cheers,

CR

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by JonS:

Is it late where you are Berli?

Hell, I don't even know what day it is, so you can't expect me to know what time it is

[Berlichtingen]

Responding to Charlie Rock,

Two things that blow that theory away...

1) You're going to find damned few areas where your engagement rages are going to exceed the effective range of the MG42

2) With the exception of thick stone walls, there ain't much on a battlefield that's gonna stop the 8mm Mauser round.

Beaten zone is based purely on rounds into an area. A Vickers would be better at it than an M2

[ November 28, 2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Berlichtingen ]

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Responding to Charlie Rock,

Two things that blow that theory away...

1) You're going to find damned few areas where your engagement rages are going to exceed the effective range of the MG42

2) With the exception of thick stone walls, there ain't much on a battlefield that's gonna stop the 8mm Mauser round.

Beaten zone is based purely on rounds into an area. A Vickers would be better at it than an M2

As an attacker, you will probably face dug in troops. I'd prefer having lots of bullets keeping a big area suppressed than a few bullets that can't penetrate into anything but the top 10 inch of the trenches anyway.

As a defender, a 20mm will suit me even better vs stone walls. It will not just penetrate the walls but create more flaking.

The .50cal is a singular weapon in WW2, but a combination of weapons in German stock can fill at least 99% of its roles.

If you compare it 1:1, a plt might prefer any of them. But if you face the choice between 12 .50cals or a combo of 2 20mm AA and 10 HMG42, I guess most would choose the latter. Just like a combo of .30cals and .50cals would be preferred to .30cals only or .50cals only.

The 20mm will force the enemy to run, and the MG42 will prevent that. IMHO this combo works better in most cases than a combo of .50 and .30.

Gruß

Joachim

[cassh]

Just a little note on what the military consider the primary role of the MMG/sustained-fire machine gun and an observation on ammunition scales.

Suppression

First and foremost an SFMG is a suppression weapon – this is why beaten zone is key. The job of these weapons in the assault is not to winkle-out an enemy from cover, but to stop him moving and keep his head down whilst the rifle sections/platoons fire and manoeuvre in on top of him.

You’ve seen it in CM when you have a couple of MG plugging away at some poor sap and they go prone with their face in the mud and don’t want to come out to play. In my opinion this is fair model of how things really work. A suppressed enemy cannot return ‘effective’ fire and is therefore neutralised until your assault element is right in on top of him, by which time it’s too late.

In defence the SFMG’s role is area denial. You stop an enemy advancing by having firing arcs cover the ‘open bounds’ of any approach route. If an enemy wants to cross this ground to cover your forward OPs will call in SF tasking, which against dismounted infantry will be harsh at the very least.

Ammunition Scales

An SF GPMG with three balanced heavy barrels has a cyclic rate of about 650-800 rpm depending on each barrel’s optimum gas setting, giving an actual RoF of about 150-250 rpm. I’ve fired 12,000 rounds of 1-in-5 in a morning on the range with GPMG which equals 15 X 800 round slabs. These are large, cumbersome, very heavy cases which hold four ammo boxes of link, and are almost always broken down to carry into the gun position. So that is 60 ammo boxes for a morning shoot.

Now consider that the MG-42 cyclic rate is about 1200 rpm, and has an actual RoF of about 300-450 rpm and you see why I have some reservations about its consumption rates. A six man MG-42 team would mean 1 gunner carrying MG-42, barrel bag and sight, 1 gun commander carrying the tripod and a personal weapon, and four guys in fighting order with personal weapon carrying as much gun ammo as possible ( lets over estimate and say 4-5 boxes or 800-1000 rounds each). Now you see the problem.

4000 rounds at 300 rpm equals 13 minutes of suppression. With these ammunition scales careful use of SF to shoot-in the assault must taken.

There is a strong case to put that SF elements in CM start with say high ammunition scales – say 300 ammo units, but that if they move from their setup position their ammo immediately drops to 60-70 to reflect their inability to both haul ammo and move as a tactical element. This would better reflect the ammo build-up that SF units have and their over-watch rather than assault role. Also it would give SF MGs in defence a reason to hold their ground until the last so as to fire off all the ammo they cannot carry, and then bug out to the secondary position.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by cassh:

There is a strong case to put that SF elements in CM start with say high ammunition scales – say 300 ammo units, but that if they move from their setup position their ammo immediately drops to 60-70 to reflect their inability to both haul ammo and move as a tactical element. This would better reflect the ammo build-up that SF units have and their over-watch rather than assault role. Also it would give SF MGs in defence a reason to hold their ground until the last so as to fire off all the ammo they cannot carry, and then bug out to the secondary position.

--- Andreas - spoiler below, stop reading!

Something like that is achieved for HMGs with max ammo but one crew member wounded.

The 157 ammo count for the 5 man HMG34 team drops to something like 85 once moving. Interestingly, the 6th member can carry more than 70 ammo points.

(Which is a likely bug. BFC fix it or sumfink!

Suggestion:

Ammo level depends on when a man is hit and on the speed.

a) If 6 men can carry the whole ammo, I suggest the last 2 men to be able to carry the MG, tripod and some ammo. Say 20. Running impossible or the team drops 10 of the ammo load.

Each men can carry a double-heavy load of max 25 pts and move, or 15 pts and run. If the team runs for more than 20m, they can't carry all their ammo and throw away some.

c) Keeping excess ammo: If a causalty occurs, the team loses the ammo only if it moves farther than 20m from that casualty.

If the team starts with more ammo than it can carry, it will loose the excess ammo after they moved more than 20m from their original positions.

This represents staying in the same house or trench, with one member shuttling the ammo around.

)

Gruß

Joachim

[cassh]

Joachim,I think we're on the same wave-length here.

I really hope they scale up immobile SF MG ammo scales in CM2 and scale down mobile ‘unsupport’ SF ammo scales which would make these units be used and act in their historical manner/actual role.

Same with mortars, especially 3"/8cm+. Try carrying more that 4 x 2 mortar bomb cases in addition to your fighting order kit and weapon and see how awkward you feel.

A key part of the company/battalion level battle is resupply. The RQMS/CQMS resupply vehicle or bearers become vital to maintaining the advance, where much needed ammo is the lifeblood of momentum, tempo and not getting bogged down.

I think CM2 would do well to model this ‘in-battle’ tactical resupply. Ask yourself why mortar and SF platoons have so many vehicles for what are in fact man-portable weapons? Does a single SF GPMG really need to be carried in a one-ton land rover? Is a Universal Carrier really needed to move a Vickers? No, of course not. But both these vehicles then and now are bloody handy if you need to bring up a quarter ton of ammo. Try hand balling up two hundred cases of link when the MGs go forward to secure a position against counter-attack. You’d need half a rifle company to hand ball this amount quickly verses just two or three support vehicles.

The in-game mechanism of CM2 really must emphasise the bond between heavy weapons and their support vehicles as they work hand-in-glove. If a heavy weapon moves by vehicle, then de-buses and sets up within 20m or so of the vehicle, it should retain high ammo scales. If it moves by foot and is further than 20m from either its original position or its own vehicle then ammo should be severely restricted.

At present it is possible in CM to advance HMGs/MMGs/medium mortars as part of the manoeuvre element of a company/battalion attack without too much trouble and with decent ammo scales. This is not how it works or worked in general and would be very much the exception and not the rule.

At the company level the commander must really workout and use his support weapons in a considered fashion, moving them forward in deliberate bounds to new key terrain features once secured. Upto that point their job is fire-support and overwatch. Moving up the MGs, AT guns and mortars was and is a big deal, and the speed with which this can be done separates good and bad coys.

I often move my support units up with the general advance in CM because there is no penalty for this ahistorical tactic.

Anyway just a thought. I know that many CM player think vehicles other than AFV have little tactical role or utility in the time-frame/scale of the game. But I would like to see this extra dimension added to the game, because it makes the company level tactical decisions that much more realistic, involved and complex.

[flamingknives]

Ammo carried in vehicles is something I definately want to see in CMX2, as part of a better link between crew-served weapons and tractor vehicles.

IIRC, the 3" mortar gets a really high ammo loadout and small crew, when in reality it was carted about in a carrier the whole time.

You could even do ammo resupply, which would be nice.

[Michael Emrys]

Really good post, cassh. I think you are right on.

Michael