new member and a question about the FG-42

[SuperSulo]

Hello, I'm a new member (will get the game sent to me tomorrow from UK, a net-friend bought it for me ), and I have a couple of questions about the FG 42. What was it, what was it used for and by who, was it any good, how many were made, and why isn't it included in CM?

I really love this game, and I'm very happy I finally found a way to actually pay for it (ordering from the US wasn't an option)! Great move, BTS and CDV!

Soon maybe I dare to enter the battlefield against a human opponent...

[Gryphon]

The FG42 was basically a stripped MG42 used with the Fallschirmjaeger (paratroopers)

I believe there weren't that many made and it was for support roles and perhaps on the assault?

I think it was too rare to be included in CMBO.

Regards,

Gryphon

[Gryphon]

Welcome by the way

[SuperSulo]

Thanks

I read somewhere that about 4400 were made. I dont know if that's alot or not, but how many FJ's were there anyway? It supposedly had a 20 bullets mag, and some pictures even shows it with a scope. And yes, it do looks like a MG 42 .

[Gryphon]

Well compared to the millions of rifles produced 4400 is a very small number. There were 9 Fallschirmjager Divisions.

[Jarmo]

Doesn't look at all like MG42 to me. :confused:

Anyway, Falschirmjaegers wanted an LMG that's more handy to drop around with, than the LMG42. Army people told them to piss off. Jaegers then went to Göring who bellowed until the gunmakers agreed to design a "handy MG".

Result was a light weapon firing big ammo, probably quite uncontrollable in full auto.

By the time the weapon was ready for mass production the Jaegers didn't drop around any more, as it was impractical without aeroplanes and too dangerous anyway.

Without need to airdrop there was no more need for the "handy MG". Maybe about 7000 were produced. Very small amount compared to, say, the hundreds of thousands of Sturmgewehr 44's.

[Stoffel]

Welcome on board:)

I suggest you to do a search,not long ago there was a similar question.

Every once and a while it pops up again.

All setails on the gun were discussed including a detailed answer from BTS

(to avoid flamey replies I have to say this answer is not meant sarcastic or angry )

Henk

[SuperSulo]

Ok. Not that 9 divisions tells me anything, I know nothing about numbers and stuff . I just know I would rather have 4400 guys armed with FG42's than with that pesky rifle

[Gryphon]

@Jarmo

Well, it looks abit like a mini MG42

http://strony.wp.pl/wp/privnoon/bron/fg42.jpg

Has the same smooth appearance

[SuperSulo]

Here's a pic of the "model 1".

http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/fg42-01.jpg

IMHO they are at least cousins

[Fieldmarshall]

They are heavy, unweildy, and considering their siclic rate 20 rounds was nothing. The weapon was considered rather impractical, but it still went into limited production. Skorzeny's team had them when they "liberated" Mussolini in 1943. They were probably never used much in large combat, only smaller unit action earlier in the war. Preference with the Sturmgewehr 1944, but it was the first real assault rifle (FG42)

[gunnergoz]

The FG42 was in no way related to the MG42 and cannot be called a stripped down version of that weapon.

[Charlie Rock]

The MG42 was a recoil operated machine gun.

The FG42 was gas operated, with the bolt mounted above the operating rod. The bolt/operating rod was copied by the US when they made the M60--although they used the MG42's feed tray.

The FG42 was developed roughly around the same time as the MP44, and was less effective by far. Mostly due to some institutional biases in the fallschirmjager. In Crete in 1940 the Germans had some bad experiences at the hands of the New Zealand and Aussies, some of whom were crack shots with their Lee Enfield bolt actions and were very effective at long range. Therefore the FJ wanted a full power .30 cal cartridge, not the 7.92 kurz used by the MP44, or anything like it. (Discussed to excess on a few threads)

The FG42 was shorter than a bolt action rifle, had a scope, a bipod, a full power .30 cartridge, and selective fire. It tried to beat the laws of physics and failed.

The muzzle blast, flash, and recoil were big, bad, and atrocious.

On selective (automatic) fire it was inaccurate and a waste of ammo.

So what you ended up with was a semi auto rifle with big flash and recoil, a decent scope and bipod.

Garands were more effective as semiautos, and the MP44 did the same thing with a better designed cartridge, and did it better.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

Ok. Not that 9 divisions tells me anything, I know nothing about numbers and stuff . I just know I would rather have 4400 guys armed with FG42's than with that pesky rifle

the bulk of squad firepower in WW II came from the squad automatic - in the case of the Germans, the MG 42. The type of rifle is largely irrelevant; the bolt action K98/Lee Enfield/Springfield/Mosin Nagant were really just a security blanket. Semi-autos like the M-1 Garand, Tokarev, G/K 43 or even assault rifles like the FG 42 and MP 44 were 'nice to have', but likely didn't increase the number of men killed by infantry small arms fire. Machine guns were for suppression, until you could maneuver on the enemy and kill him with grenades, make him run away, surrender, or fix him in place so you could drop mortar and artillery fire on his head.

Rifles did kill enemy troops, but the role the typical rifleman played on the WW II battlefield is often misunderstood. He was important, but more often than not, he simply wasn't a killer. To that end, the "pesky" K98 was just as good a weapon as any other.

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Ok. Not that 9 divisions tells me anything, I know nothing about numbers and stuff . I just know I would rather have 4400 guys armed with FG42's than with that pesky rifle

the bulk of squad firepower in WW II came from the squad automatic - in the case of the Germans, the MG 42. The type of rifle is largely irrelevant; the bolt action K98/Lee Enfield/Springfield/Mosin Nagant were really just a security blanket. Semi-autos like the M-1 Garand, Tokarev, G/K 43 or even assault rifles like the FG 42 and MP 44 were 'nice to have', but likely didn't increase the number of men killed by infantry small arms fire. Machine guns were for suppression, until you could maneuver on the enemy and kill him with grenades, make him run away, surrender, or fix him in place so you could drop mortar and artillery fire on his head.

Rifles did kill enemy troops, but the role the typical rifleman played on the WW II battlefield is often misunderstood. He was important, but more often than not, he simply wasn't a killer. To that end, the "pesky" K98 was just as good a weapon as any other.</font>

[Charlie Rock]

I would contend the FG42 was not an assault rifle. I understand the definition to be a selective fire weapon with an intermediate cartridge. In that respect the FG42 was really a smaller version of a BAR with a scope than an assault rifle. A bipod equipped, selective fire rifle with no barrel change, and a full power rifle cartridge.

[SuperSulo]

Thanks for all the answers. I still think it LOOKS a bit like the MG42, even if the mechanics were different . And even if that "pesky" rifle were just as good/needed, I would still rather have a MP44/FG42 if I were in the german army... Btw, I like Stukas too, I know "nothing" about them, but they were cool

[mensch]

Here is a scale version 1:6th scale.

FG42 Early version

spike bayonet in.

spike bayonet out.

FG42 Early version again

FG42 Late version

I took the images from a site, and will post soon my pictures as soon as my Digital camera comes in.

[Guest SnarkerII]

Hmm, FG42 is probably best described as a German BAR...on speed.

[rleete]

Mensch, where did you get those pictures? Is this a model kit, and how much? I would love to have one of those over the mantle. Wife might think different, but I'll take my chances.

[gunnergoz]

The FG42 does look cool, I'll grant you that :cool: .

I think I read somewhere that George Lucas used them as inspirations for some of his imperial troopers' weapons in the original Star Wars flick.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Rifles did kill enemy troops, but the role the typical rifleman played on the WW II battlefield is often misunderstood. He was important, but more often than not, he simply wasn't a killer. To that end, the "pesky" K98 was just as good a weapon as any other.

Jary in 18 Platoon offers the view that the typical German rifleman was not more than a carrier for machine gun ammunition, and that the fire-power of the MG42 was what kept the German squad going. One of his section leaders was of the opinion that the profligate use of ammunition by the squad MG was one of the main reasons why Germany lost the war

[Catalan]

If this is the real deal, whoever mentioned the muzzle flash thing was right, it almost looks like a mini-flamethrower

[CombinedArms]

It's great to see these high numbers on the new members. Looks like we're about to break 8,000. Seems like the European release of CDs in stores has brought in a new wave of players. Welcome aboard!

Nice pict, BTW.

[Fieldmarshall]

Originally posted by Catalan:

If this is the real deal, whoever mentioned the muzzle flash thing was right, it almost looks like a mini-flamethrower

You must remember that guy is a RC, and he isn't using live ammo. Muzzle flash that is real and bad is not as bad as that, on most weapons firing live ammo, the flame doesn't get out the barrel half the time, just smoke and heat.