Will the MG-34/42 be feared in CMBB?

[Andrew Kinnie]

The MG-42 was a very good mg, but it was not head and shoulders above everything else. It seems there has been a tendency to assume everything german in wwii was militarily the best. Simply not true.

1. Too high a rate of fire (which is why the post war replacement and the the US m-60 are much lower in rate of fire).... Could not fire sustained because of the waste of ammo (the squad would be rendered helpless almost immediately even if it could), the enormous kick made it stupidly inaccurate when fired for much more than a split-second, and the fact that it is air-cooled meant the barrels would need to be replaced every few seconds of such fire.

2. Air-cooled + higher rate of fire = very short bursts....contrast with Maxim guns or the US 30 HMG (IMHO the germans did not have a true HMG) which were water cooled and could fire essentially all day (and had the ammo with which to do it), remember WW I ???

3. Other weapons that aren't normally considered squad weapons are thus not included in the comparisons with the mg-42....the US .50 terrified the germans, with good reason. It could blow through things that the mg-42 would bounce off, and if it hit someone, would tear them apart much more than a weapon firing a smaller caliber round would.

If the MG-42 gets special effects, so should the .50, and any water cooled weapon. IMHO, the US .30 and Maxim guns should be much more effective than the mg-42 because of their constant fire ability. However, they should be tougher to move/set up (with the possible exception of the maxim which had wheels).

4. German squads primarily acted as protection or as ammo-carriers for the MG-42, and were otherwise far less able to throw out firepower than US squads, for example, who all carried semi-automatic rifles. This also should be reflected.

All in all, I'm far from convinced that a german platoon with all its support, should be more effective than a US platoon with its support, for example.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andrew Kinnie:

...(IMHO the germans did not have a true HMG) which were water cooled and could fire essentially all day...

Actually they did, but I think it was only used in permanent emplacements like fortresses. Overall, the Germans placed a higher emphasis on mobility, preferring to have the firepower where it was needed and on time.

Michael

[Andreas]

Andrew, I think that in the time-frame of CMBO, the Germans were defending and that would make a big difference. If you are attacking, lugging around a very heavy water-cooled HMG is just not very practical. IIRC the weight of e.g. the Vickers is about 1/3rd over that of the HMG42 (~41kg versus ~31kg on tripod), not allowing for ammo (although one could argue that to take advantage of the Vickers capability for sustained fire you would have to lug significant amounts of ammo, too). The M2 weighs 58kg on tripod.

Whether the US platoon with all the support was as good as the German is neither here nor there. Outside a CMBO QB, they would rarely meet with all their support, instead it would be the US platoon with no support attacking the Germans in a prepared position. Good luck.

Another advantage of the German HMG team maybe (and I dread to say this) superior observation capabilities. I have seen a number of pictures of HMG crews utilising stereoscopic range-finders. ISTR they were standard issue, and could well have made a difference in long-range firing. I do not know whether any of the Allied HMGs did come with this sort of equipment.

Finally, while the US company would have all this support organically, as did the German company, a UK company would not have Vickers organically below battalion level (I think).

If you have not read it, Jary is excellent on this discussion.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Actually they did, but I think it was only used in permanent emplacements like fortresses. Overall, the Germans placed a higher emphasis on mobility, preferring to have the firepower where it was needed and on time.

Michael

There is a picture on my site (link in the sig) of a German used (don't know what type it is - if someone knows, email me please) water-cooled HMG in the AA configuration. See under 'unknown soldier' page.

[Michael Emrys]

Andreas,

The weapon we are both thinking of was the MG08. This is the same Maxim-type weapon used in WW I. According to Chamberlain & Gander it was used througout WW II as well, but, "by 1942 it had been relegated to second-line duties such as training, airfield defense and coastal defense."

There was also the MG08/15, which was the same weapon given a buttstock, bipod, and pistol grip in an attempt to produce an LMG. At 18 kilos, it wasn't especially light though. It too was used through the end of the war, but again mostly in the static role.

Michael

[Wild_Bill]

I'm not sure what you mean by "minor". The MG34 had an ROF of 1,000rpm. Compare that to the 500-600rpm of most other infantry MGs during the war.

The MG34 has an ROF of around 800RPM, the MG42 had an ROF of 1200RPM.

Wild Bill

[StellarRat]

I don't know if either the MG-34 or 42 is the deadliest MG in WW II. I think the .50 cal probably is. Even brick walls won't protect you from a .50 cal.

[Andrew Kinnie]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Andrew, I think that in the time-frame of CMBO, the Germans were defending and that would make a big difference. If you are attacking, lugging around a very heavy water-cooled HMG is just not very practical. IIRC the weight of e.g. the Vickers is about 1/3rd over that of the HMG42 (~41kg versus ~31kg on tripod), not allowing for ammo (although one could argue that to take advantage of the Vickers capability for sustained fire you would have to lug significant amounts of ammo, too). The M2 weighs 58kg on tripod.

Whether the US platoon with all the support was as good as the German is neither here nor there. Outside a CMBO QB, they would rarely meet with all their support, instead it would be the US platoon with no support attacking the Germans in a prepared position. Good luck.

Another advantage of the German HMG team maybe (and I dread to say this) superior observation capabilities. I have seen a number of pictures of HMG crews utilising stereoscopic range-finders. ISTR they were standard issue, and could well have made a difference in long-range firing. I do not know whether any of the Allied HMGs did come with this sort of equipment.

If you have not read it, Jary is excellent on this discussion.

I completely agree about the weight. The HMGs are not for a mobile attack, and therefore are not squad weapons. As I mentioned, the MG-42 was the best squad weapon. But again, not hugely so, and the armies with water-cooled weapons should see them with advantages in CM when used. They are better than MG-42s as HMGs (because the MG42 wasn't one, and couldn't serve in that role.)

As for the "german's were defending emplaced positions" argument, here is where I totally disagree on two bases... 1. The Germans were not always defending, as they (like the americans) had a very offensive minded defensive doctrine. Counterattacks are the way to win, not sitting around in emplaced positions. That being said, the germans of 1944 were not that good at their own defensive doctrine. They were nowhere near as mobile as the americans (whether or not you consider the effect of airpower). When they didn't counterattack, they lost. Over and over again. When they did counterattack, they lost. Over and over again. Read about the the Ardennes offensive, and the complete failure of the germans to reduce american defensive positions, despite ridiculous advantages in numbers. The americans were more flexible and better at defending (IMHO).

2. As for americans attacking, they generally won convincingly. Yes, there are a lot of examples of small numbers of germans holding up large numbers of allies (though none that I can remember like the americans in the ardennes), in general, americans could and did beat the germans, without overwhelming numbers. Read "When the Odds Were Even" by Keith Bonn, or any of another half a dozen or so books I could name that came out in the past decade or so (and presumably others I'm not aware of).

I haven't clue about the optics. It's possible, but it seems to me, any automatic weapon is not a sniper rifle. Pinpoint accuracy is not needed, just a reliable way to cover a beaten zone. A water-coolled weapon could do this extremely effectively. An MG-42 could only do it in short bursts, or would be wildly inaccurate, and burn the barrel. The higher rate of fire could make up for some, but not all of this.

[Andrew Kinnie]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Andreas,

The weapon we are both thinking of was the MG08. This is the same Maxim-type weapon used in WW I. According to Chamberlain & Gander it was used througout WW II as well, but, "by 1942 it had been relegated to second-line duties such as training, airfield defense and coastal defense."

There was also the MG08/15, which was the same weapon given a buttstock, bipod, and pistol grip in an attempt to produce an LMG. At 18 kilos, it wasn't especially light though. It too was used through the end of the war, but again mostly in the static role.

Michael

OK, I should have said "in common use as an infantry weapon." The original post was about mg-42, and they were not HMGs in any real sense.

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

I don't know if either the MG-34 or 42 is the deadliest MG in WW II. I think the .50 cal probably is. Even brick walls won't protect you from a .50 cal.

Most battles were not fought from behind brick walls. The shear number of rounds that the MG-42 could fire was substantialy more then any other MachineGun of the War. Remember, the MachineGuns main prupose is to shoot at enemy soldiers, not the far less numerous half tracks.

The MG-42 by all acounts from all sides was said and documented to be the deadliest MachineGun in World War2.

This is an unbiased statement mind you. It has not escaped my attention that some refer to these posts as Pro Axis units, wich i'm sure you've all seen your fair share of.

If anyone here can post some reading material that tells of the .50 cal or any other MG being superior to the MG-42 please enlighten me.

[ July 08, 2002, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Andreas]

Andrew, I am really not one of the 'as long as it wears pea camo it is better' faction. With that said:

1. Yes, the Germans were offensive minded. In that case, I'd rather have a 31kg 'HMG' to lug around than a water-cooled 54kg or 58kg one with the same or a lower number of guys servicing it.

2. The operational and the tactical should not be confused. I am perfectly aware that the Germans lost the war, and all operations on the western front, apart from Market Garden (probably a draw). But that does not mean that on the tactical level, the German machine guns did not present a problem. You overcome it by using decent combined arms doctrine, and having superiority in e.g. artillery or armour. It is not insurmountable, but a problem it is, though.

[Gaylord Focker]

I could'nt agree more Andreas, except for one thing about the Germans losing all operations on the western front. They did quite well in their 1940 operations on the western front.

Hehe, kidding aside the person your replying to sounds like a "it's a more effective unit if it's wearing cooler cammo" type person. No offense intended, but his bias, though from another angle remains the same, bias.

I've learned it can be very diffucult to get points across and learn a few things if one or both parties are carrying a bias in some part of the debate.

Let's hope this can remain a civil discusion, it's a shame to see good topics locked down because of the debate spiraling off topic and out of control.

[ July 08, 2002, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Most battles were not fought from behind brick walls. The shear number of rounds that the MG-42 could fire was substantialy more then any other MachineGun of the War. Remember, the MachineGuns main prupose is to shoot at enemy soldiers, not the far less numerous half tracks.

I don't know if any statistics are available to prove either point. However, given the range advantage (I didn't mention this before) and the fact that .50 cal has a much better chance of penetrating any hard cover I think it is more deadly.

[Andrew Kinnie]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Andrew, I am really not one of the 'as long as it wears pea camo it is better' faction. With that said:

1. Yes, the Germans were offensive minded. In that case, I'd rather have a 31kg 'HMG' to lug around than a water-cooled 54kg or 58kg one with the same or a lower number of guys servicing it.

2. The operational and the tactical should not be confused. I am perfectly aware that the Germans lost the war, and all operations on the western front, apart from Market Garden (probably a draw). But that does not mean that on the tactical level, the German machine guns did not present a problem. You overcome it by using decent combined arms doctrine, and having superiority in e.g. artillery or armour. It is not insurmountable, but a problem it is, though.

Sure, they shouldn't be confused. My point again is that the role of an HMG is different from an LMG. The water-cooled weapons were better HMGs, and MG-42 was a better LMG. Both have advantages, the MG-42 is largely its mobility. I don't buy the higher rate of fire argument due to the aforementioned reasons.

I'm not confusing tactical with operational (I know much more about tactics anyway). The MG-42 did present tactical problems. However, so did the BAR attached to a squad full of guys with semi-auto rifles. To me, it's not clear which is better or more effective. An american squad was more effective across the board, the german squad had a more effective automatic weapon.

Incidentally, the BAR IIRC was a more mobile weapon than an MG-42, but also didn't really serve quite the same role (and was clip fed, not belt fed). I think people get to hung up on the MG-42's rate of fire and ignore the disadvantages. Clearly the american posed a problem for the germans or they would not hbave clocked the germans in the ardennes, and in the other counterattacks. You should remember that the americans beat the germans tactically, and solved the problems posed, where the reverse really isn't true.

Incidentally, I'm concentrating on the americans here because I'm not as well versed on the British. Though I realize they, the canadians, and the French did quite well as well.

[Andrew Kinnie]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

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

I don't know if either the MG-34 or 42 is the deadliest MG in WW II. I think the .50 cal probably is. Even brick walls won't protect you from a .50 cal.

Most battles were not fought from behind brick walls. The shear number of rounds that the MG-42 could fire was substantialy more then any other MachineGun of the War. Remember, the MachineGuns main prupose is to shoot at enemy soldiers, not the far less numerous half tracks.

The MG-42 by all acounts from all sides was said and documented to be the deadliest MachineGun in World War2.

This is an unbiased statement mind you. It has not escaped my attention that some refer to these posts as Pro Axis units, wich i'm sure you've all seen your fair share of.

If anyone here can post some reading material that tells of the .50 cal or any other MG being superior to the MG-42 please enlighten me.</font>

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Colonel,

I notice you have a combination of disintergrating link and the canvas belt in the picture.

Did you change ammo natures for the young lady or did you just have a mixed bag?...

I tried to help her with that but she kept screaming at me, telling me I was doing it all wrong.

[ July 08, 2002, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Andrew Kinnie]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

I could'nt agree more Andreas, except for one thing about the Germans losing all operations on the western front. They did quite well in their 1940 operations on the western front.

Hehe, kidding aside the person your replying to sounds like a "it's a more effective unit if it's wearing cooler cammo" type person. No offense intended, but his bias, though from another angle remains the same, bias.

I've learned it can be very diffucult to get points across and learn a few things if one or both parties are carrying a bias in some part of the debate.

Let's hope this can remain a civil discusion, it's a shame to see good topics locked down because of the debate spiraling off topic and out of control.

I didn't think it was getting uncivil, off topic or spiralling out of control. I don't have a clue what you're talking about with the cooler camo statement, but lets not talk bias. clearly there is a bias on both sides.

WAIT! I know, maybe you meant a cooler BARREL.... In which case, yep you're right. A cooler barrel makes a better HMG...hence, water cooled.

[JasonC]

The upmodeling of the MGs (overall) for CMBB sounds very promising, at close range for "final protective fire" at least. I do kind of wonder about a human wave at 50 meters - what was the point again? If you are that close, shoot it out. But that is another and minor matter.

On the discussion of the relative merits of different MGs, neither rate of fire nor penetration are nearly as important as the parties discussing it seem to believe. The advantage of the MG-34 and MG-42 at the squad level was simply that they were true belt-fed MGs, unlike the clip fed automatic rifles used by the US (BAR), UK (Bren), and many of the Russians (their common pan fed MGs - although they did have some belt fed varieties too). There is no question true belt-fed MGs are far more effective than clip fed automatic rifle style LMGs.

The reason neither rate of fire nor penetration is really decisive is that the real limit on MG firepower over any sustained period is available ammo, limited by ability to man pack the stuff in the forward combat zone. More weight wasted on heavier tubes does not seriously help, and neither does throwing the existing ammo supply faster. The total ammo supply is the key thing, and is mostly set by carry weights, and thus round caliber.

Guns with much heavier bullets - 50 cal or 14.5mm, or German 20mm - just don't have as much to throw, because it is much harder to move the rounds in industrial quantities. For vehicle mounted MGs, they are useful. And for anti vehicle work, light armor or aircraft, the extra penetration matters.

But the practical trade off for infantry in the field was a 50 cal with limited ammo or 2 lighter 30 cals with gobs of it, and the same pain hauling. The Americans often left their 50 cals behind (on vehicles etc) and just took 30s, and not all that many of those, to free up more carrying capacity for ammo. The US 30 cals were intermediate weight - heavier than a bipod MG-42 but much lighter than a tripod one. But much closer to the bipod weight - they are only about half the weight of an HMG-42 with tripod. Their rate of fire was only 1/2 to 1/3 as high, but they still easily threw all the ammo the men could carry.

High ROF helps in some rush situations, and it can help with "snapshots", raising the chance of getting 1-2 exposed guys because the spread between bullets in an arc was less. But faster action does not make more bullets materialize out of the air, and a low ROF 30 cal with the trigger depressed still goes through any practical ammo load in just a few minutes. All MGs in practice fire shorter bursts for only a fraction of the time to conserve ammo. If the cyclic ROF is lower, slightly longer bursts easily make up for it.

This effect is somewhat masked in CMBO, for three reasons. One, the default ammo loads are quite generous to the HMG-42 and the squad MG-42 LMGs (especially for 2 LMG infantry types). Two, the overall modeling of MG effectiveness is low enough that the 30 cals come off looking ineffective, no matter how many times they fire. And three, the ammo loads for all but the water cooled 30s (Vickers and HMG-1917) are very low, reflecting far less weight per man than the totals given to the higher ROF German types.

When MGs are more effective overall, I suspect you will see the importance of ammo come to the fore. If 2 HMGs dominate an area of open ground, you will care whether they have 125 shots apiece, and can therefore dominate that area for 20 solid minutes no matter what else is happening. Right now the long suit of the water cooled 30s is not terribly important, because a higher FP rating (like the HMG-42 has) is needed to truly hold open ground areas with ranged MG fire.

It would also be nice to see default MG ammo loads more nearly equalized as to weights per man, instead of the HMG 42 teams being awarded twice the ability to hump rounds of M-1919s. That is something scenario designers can tweak themselves by modifying ammo levels, if they are so inclined.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

I don't know if either the MG-34 or 42 is the deadliest MG in WW II. I think the .50 cal probably is. Even brick walls won't protect you from a .50 cal.

Actually, a brick wall won't stop anything heavier than a pistol bullet

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The upmodeling of the MGs (overall) for CMBB sounds very promising, at close range for "final protective fire" at least. I do kind of wonder about a human wave at 50 meters - what was the point again? If you are that close, shoot it out. But that is another and minor matter.

Because if you are conscript or green Russians facing regular and veteran Germans, you will lose that firefight. face it, the human wave was a desperate tactic used by poor quality troops.

[lcm1947]

Well, there seems to be a good arguement for both sides on this topic so it's hard to really know the correct answer on if indeed the MG-42 should be modelled as powerful as it is in the game. Using powerful to mean how deadly/ hard to kill etc. Anyway, since it seems a matter of opinion on wheather the MG-42 should be that powerful in the game I would like to ask if all agree that it is too inexpensive at least for what you get? Certainly it's a very powerful weapon in the game and I don't have a problem with that after reading all the various comments but that being the fact then it's at least too cheap and should be priced higher. Like double I'm thinking. I would close in saying that this has been a very interesting and informative topic at least to me and is one more reason I love this game.

[Andrew Kinnie]

I agree. The MG-42 was good because it was a mobile true LMG. However, the advantages of rate of fire are offset by the disadvantages in general.

The point I was making with the watercooled weapons and american .50s was that they had advantages that made them better in other situations. I think an emplaced well supplied water cooled .30 or a .50 is a more effective defensive MG than an MG-42.

in any event, good points all around.

[WWB]

There was one huge disadvantage to the US (and any other) 12.7mm---ammo weighs a ton. IIRC, you can carry 3 7.62mm rounds for every 12.7mm in terms of weight. Even though the ma deuce was a weapon to be feared, feeding it enough ammo in the field was a difficult proposition.

And, when you are holding 20m of front with 2 men, the LMG34/42 comes into its own. The firepower advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Also, there was one key feature which offset the lack of water cooling--quick change barrels. This allowed fire alot more than other air cooled guns.

WWB

PS: While normally belt fed, on the advance the LMG42 was often fed with 50 round drums. Not that you would want to hip fire one anyhow.

[ July 09, 2002, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]

[c3k]

Gents,

A quick question: since we're debating the merits of various MG's, does anyone have the actual cyclic rates of the following MG's?

MG34

MG42

US .30

US .30 water cooled (M1917?)

US .50 M2 (is that the WWII model?)

Bren

Vickers

Soviet Maxim (1910)

Soviet DP

Soviet DPM

Soviet DT (in infantry role)

Soviet SG-43

Soviet DShK

If a MG grog has the cyclic values, I think I can make a convincing point on why the MG-42 was so effective. Maybe.

Ken "shooting in the dark"

[Andreas]

Infantry Weapons of WW2 site

In particular:

LMG

HMG

Has most of this info it seems.