MG42 versus M2 .50 Cal.

[lcm1947]

It seems it's darn near impossible to take out this German MG42 and I'm trying to justify why the game makes this out to be so tough. I see that the rate of fire is 1,335 r.p.m. but that means nothing unless I have something to compare it to so I'm trying to find a site to get this kind of information on the M2 .50 Cal. MG. Any body know a good site? I would also like to compare it to the M919 & M1917 MG's.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

It seems it's darn near impossible to take out this German MG42 and I'm trying to justify why the game makes this out to be so tough. I see that the rate of fire is 1,335 r.p.m...

That seems just a tad high to me. The figures I've read for it usually come in somewhere between 1,000-1,200rpm.

...so I'm trying to find a site to get this kind of information on the M2 .50 Cal. MG.

I think 600rpm is the figure I've seen quoted, but going by the sound of it, I wonder if the true figure is more like 500rpm.

I would also like to compare it to the M919 & M1917 MG's.

The figure I've seen for them is also 600rpm.

We need to keep in mind that all these figures are "textbook". What they were actually doing in the field may have varied noticeably depending on the age of the weapon, what kind of use it had been put to, the level of maintenance it's received, and if it has been subjected to any "field modification" by its user. So if you search long enough, you'll probably come across figures that differ from the ones I've provided. But if you want to proceed on the assumption that the German gun fired about twice as fast as the American guns, you'll be in the right ballpark.

Michael

[Crank_GS]

Hmm... I seem to remember that 600 figure for the Ma Deuce to be after it was slowed down a bit for use in aircraft, but I may be totally off base. I know one thing, though: I would not want to be shot by that mean ol nasty MG42. Come to think of it, I would even less want to be shot by a 50cal.

[Patgod]

cant we just agree that no one(sans suicidals) want to be shot by any gun ever?

[Pak40]

I'll try and make some sense to what you're asking.

First of all, the r.p.m. has nothing to do with how hard it is to "take out a gun". A veteran or crack status with good leadership may be the reason why the MG42 is hard to take out.

If you're asking "Why is this MG42 killing lots of my men?", then that's a different question altogether.

An MG42 has good killing power mainly because of it's rate of fire, more than 1200 rounds per minute as you've already stated. But this is only a cyclic rate. In other words, if you were to hold down the trigger constantly for 1 minute the MG42 would shoot 1200+ rounds per minute. But this is not practical on the battlefield for a couple of reasons: 1) the accuracy would be poor due to constant firing 2) the barrels would melt due to extreme heat from the rounds fired.

A more practical rate for an MG42 (HMG on a tripod) is something like 700 r.p.m. This is considered excellent when compared to allied machine guns. The cyclic rate for the U.S. .50 cal is about 550 r.p.m. but the practical rate is about half that amount. The U.S. .30 cal mgs have a cyclic rate of about 400-600 r.p.m. and the practical rate varies depending on whether its the water or air cooled versions.

The MG42's main advantage is that it can lay down a larger volume of fire in less time than the allied MGs. This is partly due to the high cyclic rate but mainly because of the quick change barrel. This allows a crew to pop out a hot barrel and put a cool barrel in within a few seconds. A crew typically has 3 barrels to swap out during intense combat. This allows them to keep up a relatively heavy volume of fire when compared to allied machine gunners who must let their barrels cool down before squeezing the trigger again.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Crank_GS:

Hmm... I seem to remember that 600 figure for the Ma Deuce to be after it was slowed down a bit for use in aircraft...

Other way around, I think. The aircraft guns fired at 1,000rpm. The ground guns were slowed down because it was felt that the higher ROF was unnecessary on the ground and wasted ammo.

Michael

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

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

Hmm... I seem to remember that 600 figure for the Ma Deuce to be after it was slowed down a bit for use in aircraft...

Other way around, I think. The aircraft guns fired at 1,000rpm. The ground guns were slowed down because it was felt that the higher ROF was unnecessary on the ground and wasted ammo.

Michael</font>

[lcm1947]

Thanks for the info everybody. Yes, I stated the question rather bad but the high rate of fire explains why it is a better MG. I knew the cartridge itself couldn't account for it being such a bad ass MG so figured it was the rate of fire but didn't have a clue what the others were. I see now that it is at least double so it's performance in the game makes a lot more sense.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Thanks for the info everybody. Yes, I stated the question rather bad but the high rate of fire explains why it is a better MG. I knew the cartridge itself couldn't account for it being such a bad ass MG so figured it was the rate of fire but didn't have a clue what the others were. I see now that it is at least double so it's performance in the game makes a lot more sense.

It's the quick change barrel that really makes the MG42 effective. If it didn't have the quick change then the MG42 would be limited to the rate of fire of the other guns, more or less.

On the other hand, the .50 has a good deal more punching power. If you're shooting at infantry inside a building, the .50 has the power to penetrate the walls so long as it's not stone. Light armor is also more threatened by the .50.

You really have to see the size of a .50 cartridge to fully appreaciate its hitting power. The bullet itself is 2.29 inches long compared to 1.125 inches of a .30 bullet. The .50 bullet weighs 711.5 grams when compared to 152 grams of a .30 bullet.

If a .30 bullets hits a person in the neck it will leave a hole or maybe blow out a portion flesh. If a .50 bullet hits a person in the neck it can and probably will decapitate the head.

[flamingknives]

Apologies for this, but it's one of the things that bugs me.

You can't decapitate someones head.

You can decapitate someone, sure, but decapitate means 'remove head'.

You can't remove a head from a head.

BTW, in keeping with the tread title, how does the MG 34 compare with the MG 42 for rate of fire etc.

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Apologies for this, but it's one of the things that bugs me.

You can't decapitate someones head.

You can decapitate someone, sure, but decapitate means 'remove head'.

You can't remove a head from a head.

BTW, in keeping with the tread title, how does the MG 34 compare with the MG 42 for rate of fire etc.

The MG34 was slower than the MG42. I am thinking I have seen its cyclic rate quoted as around 800-900, but my memory could be off. I do know it had a lower cyclic rate than the MG42. I have also seen quips by German veterans who preferred the MG34 because they felt the MG42 wasted too much ammo. So perhaps it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Also, as a further aside, I have always understood that the MG34 was appreciated for how precisely it was made. Apparently, it's parts were machined to very exacting tolerances. Understandably, this slowed and complicated production. The stamped manufacturing of the MG42 allowed for far easier mass production.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

[QB]Apologies for this, but it's one of the things that bugs me.

You can't decapitate someones head.

You can decapitate someone, sure, but decapitate means 'remove head'.

You can't remove a head from a head.

QB]

I orignally had not typed "the head", but I added it in because I wanted to bug you.

[Tanaka]

Wasn’t the MG42 the source of “inspiration” of the M60?

I heard, that for whatever reason they were not capable of copying it completely, so they come up with the M60

[Captain Wacky]

The M60 is combination of 2 German weapons, the MG42 and the FG42. While I believe most of the 60's inner workings are closer to teh Mg42, its external appearance is incredibly similar to teh Fg42. The US slowed down the ROF when designing it to the more traditional rates.

[DarthVader]

Why would you want to slow down the ROF on a machine gun? Was it no the enormous rate of fire that added to the dreaded and fearsome MG-42's folk lore?

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

It seems it's darn near impossible to take out this German MG42

Getting back to this part of the question, if it was in fact intended--the six man crew is part of what makes the MG42 so hard to take out. It can keep firing even when down to one man--and at that point it's immoblized, so it can't run away, making it that much harder to get rid of. It can take quite a while to get one of these things out of your life, esp. if it's in command of a good HQ. Same goes for the six man crews on the Vickers MG and .50 cal.

One thing I'm not sure about--does getting down to a one man crew actually slow the rate of fire? It should....

In general frontal assaults on any of these MGs, if unsupressed, is not a terrific idea--even if their anti-infantry rush fire is somewhat undermodelled. Better to hammer them a while from long range fire, preferably from tanks, mortars, or arty. And expect them to live under that for quite a while. Somehow that sixth man in the crew seems to make a lot of difference.

[ April 20, 2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[lassner.1]

CombinedArms wrote:

"In general frontal assaults on any of these MGs, if unsupressed, is not a terrific idea--even if their anti-infantry rush fire is somewhat undermodelled."

Undermodelled they may be, but they are still quite deadly. I recently lost an entire platoon to a .50 cal while moving in the open (he surprised me!). And, while playing the Germans I have knocked out AT cannons with MG42s.

[lcm1947]

After checking I see that the MG42 does have a 6 man team so that explains that. Thanks for pointing that out CombinedArms and yes it was asked by me. As far as the rate of fire jgdppr the MG 32 according to the only book I have states 600 rpm. It also goes on to say that while the MG42 was certainly faster it was not as accurate or built as well as the MG32. But the MG42 Seems to do pretty well though, doesn't it. I wonder if the Allied troops ever used one after getting their hands on one of the MG32 or 42? I guess ammo would be a factor but sure would be nice while the ammo lasted.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Apologies for this, but it's one of the things that bugs me.

You can't decapitate someones head.

You can decapitate someone, sure, but decapitate means 'remove head'.

You can't remove a head from a head.

A .50 cal can both decapitate someone's head and defenstrate the head out the window.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by lassner:

Undermodelled they may be, but they are still quite deadly. I recently lost an entire platoon to a .50 cal while moving in the open (he surprised me!).

Do you mean that you took heavy losses and were routed? Surely you didn't lose the Platoon to the last man?!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

As far as the rate of fire jgdppr the MG 32 according to the only book I have states 600 rpm.

MG 32? Whazzat?

If you meant MG 34, most books give a figure around 1,000rpm. In other words, it was a lead slinger too.

Michael

[JasonC]

The reason to slow down ROF is ammo consumption. The real limit on MG firepower over any appreciable length of time is the amount of ammo carried along with the gun. Firing chances just aren't that scarce in combat, and even at the lowest ROF MGs can throw all of the ammo their crew can move in a handful of minutes. High ROF helps in rush situations, or with targets only briefly exposed. But the trade off is the gun has to fire shorter bursts and less frequently, or the gun will run dry in a few minutes.

Incidentally, this is also why the 50 cal is appropriate only on vehicle mounts (to haul the ammo for you - the special thing about the US army in WW II wasn't having large caliber HMGs, but having a more motorized army to haul them all ammo) and against vehicle targets (including planes), where the bigger round helps. Because otherwise having bigger rounds just means you have only a third as many to throw before you run dry, for the same work getting the rounds to the gun. Sure, the 50 cal helps somewhat against light cover too, but a 30 cal bullet does the job if it hits somebody.

[ April 22, 2002, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[lcm1947]

Yeah I meant MG34 and the book "Second World War Combat Weapons German" actually states 800 - 900 for the MG34 and MG34/41 not 600 rpm like I thought and stated. So yes it wasn't all that slow.

[Olaf]

I have seen the MG42 fired and have fired both the MG3(modern version of MG42) and the M2 .50 cal and would like to provide some general info.

1. The MG42 weighs around 26lbs with bipod and can be employed in this fashion. This gives the dismounted crew greater speed to move, setup, engage targets and reload than the M2 crew. The leader would employ this weapon to support his infantry as they move ahead against the enemy. They have a good defensive ability as the other members of the crew would have small arms also.

2. If in position for any length of time, especially foxholes, the crew would set up the gun on the tripod which would give it greater accuracy out to longer ranges. The leader would also integrate this gun into his overall defensive fires. The rest of the crew once again provides the gunner and assistant gunner with protection from the enemy.

3. The gunner carries the gun while the rest of the crew humps the tripod (around 40lbs), ammo, extra barrel(s), etc.

4. The MG42s higher rate of fire provides greater supression ability and hit probability against both ground and aerial targets than the M2. This would also entail the gunner to control the consumption of ammo so as not to run out at a bad time.

5. An excellent sourse of info on the M2 is the US Army Field Manual FM 23-65 and can be found on the web.

6. The M2, in the dismounted role, weighs around 128lbs which breaks down to: barrel- 24 lbs, receiver-60 lbs and the tripod-44lbs. Add a spare barrel (if carried) and ammo, extra weapons, the company commanders sleeping bag and this crew has its manual labor cut out for it. Because of this, along with having to be fired on the tripod, moving setup etc. in comparison to the MG42 takes alot more time. More so than the MG42, once the crew sustains dead/wounded the M2 would become immobile. The leader is more apt to find a good firing position and leave the gun in place until the immediate battle is over.

7. The M2s rate of fire, with its much heavier ammuntion, is about half of the MG42. The benefit is that ammo is more effective on more targets, out to longer ranges, to include aircraft than the MG42.

8. The quick change barrel on the MG42 gives it an ability to fire more rounds over a specific period of time than the M2. The M2, unlike the MG42, also has the disadvantage of having to set the head space and timing of the new barrel to the receiver. Not a good thing if still in contact with the enemy.

9. When these weapons are mounted on vehicles alot of the movement, setup, and ammo disadvantages mentioned above do not come into play. The MG42 could be aimed and controlled better mounted on a vehicle as aiming would be similiar to firing from the bipod. The M2 gunner would aim in the general direction and guide the rounds to the target more so than the MG42. Also, many of the vehicles carried tripods so as to enable soldiers to employ these machineguns from foxeholes and buildings.

10. Both machineguns and their modern versions are still being used by armies and insurgant groups around the globe.

11. The M2 armor piercing round can go through around 1 inch/25mm of armor at 200 meters and alittle over 1/2 inch/12mm of armor at 600 meters. Death to light armored vehicles.

I hope this info helps even though some/most might have already been covered.

[lcm1947]

Excellent reply Olaf thanks. I now have a much better understanding of the two and that makes the game more fun for me. I appreciate you taking the time.