MG 42 vs .50 cal

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

Michael

Seconded.

[Maj. Battaglia]

Cassh and others, some very good posts. Thanks.

Cassh, I fully agree with you regarding the movement of MGs during battle, especially to within, say, 100m of the enemy. Other than in dense urban settings, I can't imagine this was too common, if only because of your point about ammo.

As for resupply, one thread Dorosh started partly covered this topic. Ammo resupply has been a contentious issue here, and if we are to discuss it again, I suggest a new thread be started. Link.

[Los]

Certainly in the current engine there isn't the fidelity to model what's often really going on in a rifle company re MG and Mortar ammo loads. That is, you have the other guys in the coy carry extra ammo for the MG and mortar teams. In particular w/ mortar rounds you Coys will often have rifleman carry 1-2 rounds each of mortar rounds and drop it off with the mortar team prior to moving up to the release point. Same with MG ammo. Someone mentioned each guy maybe carrying a 1000 rounds (7.62). Even that is quite a strech from actual performance since web gear/kit alone minus packs or personal weapons can get up to 30 lbs for a guy going into contact.

Los

[Los]

Certainly in the current engine there isn't the fidelity to model what's often really going on in a rifle company re MG and Mortar ammo loads. That is, you have the other guys in the coy carry extra ammo for the MG and mortar teams. In particular w/ mortar rounds you Coys will often have rifleman carry 1-2 rounds each of mortar rounds and drop it off with the mortar team prior to moving up to the release point. Same with MG ammo. Someone mentioned each guy maybe carrying a 1000 rounds (7.62). Even that is quite a strech from actual performance since web gear/kit alone minus packs or personal weapons can get up to 30 lbs for a guy going into contact.

Los

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

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

Oh, Charlie. An average human casualty. Extremely manportable? For shame man. Where did you do your soldiering? Amongst the little wee leprechaun folk?

The things we carried. Games and chat, games and chat. All this stuff weighs like a bunch of anvils. Anyone who thinks that it is easy to carry is welcome to it. And then there's the ammo. It makes me want to sob just thinking about moving the fricken ammo. No wonder my knees are shot and my piles are playing up something rotten.

But seriously, why can't my MGs run in CMBO? I really want to know...

[Charlie Rock]

It was mentioned earlier that MG42 was superior in the sustained fire role. Like all US MGs back then, the M2 did not have a quick change barrel. In fact it had head space and timing adjustments that made putting the barrel on a minor chore. You had to use a gauge that looked like a combination swiss army knife/set of car keys to do it.

It has been said previously that .50 ammunition had more force of impact. The 100 lb+ weapon would launch a 700 grain round out at approx 2500 feet per second. An MG42 ran a 180 grain round out at 2900 fps. SO for a 10% drop in velocity you have approx a 400% increase in mass. Or over three times the kinetic energy. My figures indicate a 7.9 mm round was about 2300 foot lbs at the muzzle. Multiply that by 3 for a ballpark .50 cal estimate. By comparison, a modern day M16 or AK47 is a little over 1000foot lbs of energy; a .45 automatic pistol is around 400-500 foot lbs. 7000foot lbs is a LOT of kinetic energy.

It can go through an inch of armor plate (23mm) 7.62 goes through 3/8 of an inch. About 10mm. Take a look at the gamut of armored cars and halfrtracks running around in CMBB/CMBO. .50 squeaks through vehicles that 7.62 bounces off.

It was said that 7.9 mm can go through about anything. Not true. It can penetrate 1 to 1 ½ layers of sandbags. That is it. .50 goes through over two feet. Unlike nowadays, the .30 round in the 170-190 grain, 3000 fps flavor was the universal choice of about every army in WWI, and WWII as well if you don’t count the sturmgewehr and SMGs. There was no ballistic advantage for the MG42 over a M1919 or M1 or bren or anything else. Two sandbag thicknesses will do the trick. If your fighting position was good against the infantry weapons your army used it was good against the other guy’s. .50 call ball rounds go through over two feet of earth.

IMHO the increased penetration made the M2 a superb weapon in long overwatch if supporting an attack into a village, woodline, or a line of entrenchments. I’ve argued why in a previous post. I would argue that ballistically it had a flatter trajectory and a better beaten zone but if you are firing at targets inside of 1 kilometer you wouldn’t notice the difference and the recoil was worse at any rate. Besides, beaten zones imply you had a linear target in the open and you don’t need that type of a weapon to shoot at troops in the open. Whether one weapon was better then the other is a moot point. If a PzGdr company had 15-20 MG42’s, 5-10 M2’s in a US battalion probably didn’t matter that much. Bottom line, troops in the open a .50 is overkill.

As I think about it, .50 M2’s were the weapon of choice for most US fighters in WWII, with the exception of P-38’s, P-39’s, some night fighters, and all the bombers. It probably accounted for 90-95% of the air-to-air kills for the USAAF, Navy, and Marines, and may be the single greatest killer of military aircraft in history, if you consider Luftwaffe losses in the west in addition to Japanese losses. That’s no mean accomplishment when you consider some air forces had some pretty marginal weapons systems well into the war, such as the Japanese and early German 7.62 /20mm systems. It was also effective on F-86 jets in Korea.

As for carrying it and using it, a technique I have observed is to have four soldiers strap the receiver and barrel into a stretcher. The whole load weighs 90 lbs and is carried by four men. Two other soldiers alternate carrying the tripod. Usually you dismount the gun and move as part of a support by fire platoon. The platoon gives up a squad to the maneuver element as a company reserve, and picks up a GPMG or two in trade. So you end up with a company SBF of two rifle squads for security and ammo carrying, two .50 cals, 2-3 7.62s, and the two company 60mm mortars. Depending on the geography of the objective you occupy 1 or 2 positions. If you leave your rucks behind it is manageable. If the terrain up to the OBJ doesn’t offer much in the way of concealment you set the .50s and 60s up far away (500-600m) and hope for the best as you move the 7.62s up, say 200-300m out. If they are hit you still have a strong long overwatch position.

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

Michael

Seconded. </font>

[Charlie Rock]

On another subject…

About three pages back there was a reference to an interview with Gen William Depuy that is out on the net. If you have not had a chance to look at it, I’d recommend it. The front half (approx 100pages) was of Gen Depuy’s time in an infantry battalion in the 90th ID in the ETO, 44-45. Some pretty good observations, if you haven’t had a chance before to look at it in full.

Cheers,

CR

[SirReal]

Slightly off-topic, but on the subject of hauling ammo, didn't anyone at BFC ever check the german 15cm infantry gun ammo load at any time? Those poor men are hauling 50 rounds for that gun. There are six of them. Now, assuming one person to haul around the gun (they're ubermensch, right), that STILL leaves 10 15cm rounds to carry for the rest.

Um. Reality check, please.

/SirReal

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by SirReal:

Slightly off-topic, but on the subject of hauling ammo, didn't anyone at BFC ever check the german 15cm infantry gun ammo load at any time? Those poor men are hauling 50 rounds for that gun. There are six of them. Now, assuming one person to haul around the gun (they're ubermensch, right), that STILL leaves 10 15cm rounds to carry for the rest.

Um. Reality check, please.

In real life, I bet they didn't move it very far by hand. The bloody thing weighed 1750kg. No one man was going to budge that monster unless it was already headed downhill. No, I think it would take all six men to hook it up to the team of drayhorses that pulled it. The ammo was carried in a caisson. I don't think I ever noted how CM treats it, but it should probably be immobile once placed on the map, only able to change facing, and that somewhat slowly.

Michael

[Siege]

The ammo loads are a bit high, sure. But then again the usability of a lot of the equipment is a bit lacking anyways.

For instance, all the talk about indirect fire capability of the MG-42 and M2 is a mute point in CM anyways, because you can only do direct fire. Even in prepared positions with TRP's, if the gunner can't see the target...he ain't shooting.

On-map mortars are given a bit of a boost with being able to use HQ units as spotters, giving them some ability to do true indirect fire. But even that is somewhat limited as since they have to be within yelling distance of the HQ and it doesn't matter if the HQ unit is from the same platoon or even a different battalion completely.

When the new engine comes out, hopefully their will be a major improvement to the indirect fire model (which deserves a whole thread of it's own, and my wish list is long and detailed)... but until then I'm happy with the really lightweight ammo that my troops can carry in their back pockets.

-Hans

[K_Tiger]

Isnt this one of the oldest threads ever on this forum?

I can find only one point in favor for the .50 cal. compared to other Mgs, and this is the pennetration power.

Modern infantrie (beginning in wwII) should be flexible under any conditions, thats the goal. Try to haul a .50er in mud or snow around, good luck.. Not to mention when you have to retreat from your position. Additional, you are mostly well exposed if you dont have made preparations like for guns. Also, you cant really aim for your target like a light mg, you have to "lead" your bullets to the target. Mens who hear a firing gun will drop to the ground...and if you cant hit with the first rounds, you will lost the advantage especialy in an ambush.

IMO, a .50 cal. isnt really a economical way against soft targets.

[Los]

"Oh, Charlie. An average human casualty. Extremely manportable? For shame man. Where did you do your soldiering? Amongst the little wee leprechaun folk?"

Maybe he's a gurkha?

Los