Heavy vs light MG42

[Scipio]

I wonder why the firepower of the HMG42 is so muc higher then the LMG42. It is the same weapon, except the tripod of the HMG. Is it just because the HMG tripod is more stable and allows better targeting? If so, what about MG42 on tanks/HTs? Do they have a the higher or the lower firepower?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Scipio:

I wonder why the firepower of the HMG42 is so muc higher then the LMG42. It is the same weapon, except the tripod of the HMG. Is it just because the HMG tripod is more stable and allows better targeting?

It is "firepower on target" and it is much better with the team. This has been discussed a gazillion of times.

This is some of the problem with CMBO MGs, BTW, because the bullets that do not go to the target with the bipod would still impress infantry other than the target in real life.

If so, what about MG42 on tanks/HTs? Do they have a the higher or the lower firepower?

They are in between.

[flamingknives]

Plus the HMG has a dedicated crew to supply ammuntion and several spare barrels that they swap over regularly, so they can maintain a higher rate of fire without the barrel melting (or warping, which is more likely)

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Scipio:

I wonder why the firepower of the HMG42 is so muc higher then the LMG42. It is the same weapon, except the tripod of the HMG. Is it just because the HMG tripod is more stable and allows better targeting? If so, what about MG42 on tanks/HTs? Do they have a the higher or the lower firepower?

Since the cyclic rate of the MG42 is so high, you could imagine the recoil of 20 full size rounds being fired within 1 second. You would have very little control of the gun with just a bipod. However, the tripod actually stablizes the gun. In other words, it isn't just a mount for the gun - it actually "locks" or stiffens the gun so that the effects of recoil are reduced. That's how I understand it anyway.

As for amrored vehicles, I think the MG38 was used in tanks because the barrel fit better. I'm not sure about halftracks.

[Chad Harrison]

The best explanation that I have ever had on the difference on the MG42 (NOT the MG34 which was also used in various roles) was from Squad Leader. SL had a LMG, MMG, and an HMG version of all the same gun. The difference? The tripod and amount of ammo carried. More ammo means more firepower, better mounted means more accurate fire with more ammo means MUCH more firepower!

Chad Harrison

[Zarquon]

</font>

• Wasn't a scope used regularly on the heavy version? </font>
• Only 2 of the 6-man crew man the MG, but the others will be armed, too, and factored in the FP rating</font>
• The team leader will probably scan the area for targets (with binoculars) while the gunner is occupied with firing </font>

[JasonC]

It is mostly practical rate of fire, due to ammo. The bipod LMG version can't fire the long bursts of the tripod one, because it would run out of ammo in 30 seconds if it tried. The tripod mount also gets a modest boost for better stability and aim, but the main story (~2x) is holding the trigger down longer with the HMG.

In CMBO, one ammo from the HMG-42 represents about 40 bullets fired, a 2 second burst. The LMG is firing ~15 rounds. If you ever took US Weapons, the same length of time as the "6-9 round burst, release" on the M-60, which takes as long to say fast, as to do. That length of time puts out more like 12-15 rounds from an MG42, because the cyclic ROF is higher than the M-60.

No MG fp rating is based on keeping the trigger depressed continually, because even the slowest ROF MGs with the largest ammo loads (which would be the Vickers and US M1917 HMG) would throw their entire feasible loads in 5 minutes that way. All MGs are fired in bursts. The size of the bursts depends on the ammo load and the cyclic rate of fire. The ammo load does not go up just because the cyclic rate of fire does, so fp rating and cyclic rate of fire have only an indirect link, and even that only *if* there is abundant ammo to throw.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Pak40:

Since the cyclic rate of the MG42 is so high, you could imagine the recoil of 20 full size rounds being fired within 1 second. You would have very little control of the gun with just a bipod.

[snips]

...but people who have actually fired MG-42-like weapons consistently state that the weapon is quite controllable in burst fire from the bipod.

All the best,

John.

[ParaBellum]

I've fired the MG3 (The slightly modified post-war version of the MG42) both as LMG and HMG on tripod. With the bipod we were trained to fire short bursts, about 3-5 rounds. With the MG3 on tripod we were instructed to fire much longer bursts, about 20-50 rounds.

It's IMO simply NOT possible to fire long bursts (more than 10 rounds) and still keep on target with the LMG. Long bursts with the bipod means just a waste of ammo.

Of course it's much different with the tripod. The weapon is stabilized and long bursts can be delivered very accurately (with use of the optics) over longer distances.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

[QB[snips][/qb]

...but people who have actually fired MG-42-like weapons consistently state that the weapon is quite controllable in burst fire from the bipod.

[/QB]

[Eric Young]

My take on it.

I have a lot of experiance with the MG42.

The MG42 is very accurate in light config. It is a waist of ammo to fire more than a five round burst with one due to the thing wiggling around. There is very little recoil on the light config no matter how many rounds you fire. The problem is barrel rise. I have fired it from the hip with live rounds and the bullets were launching skyward after about three rounds. Low recoil, lots of barrel rise. It is also very possible for a one man team to fire, reload and change the barrel of the MG42 with little problems. Doing all three is impossible, and it always helps to have an aid gunner to attach the belts of ammo together so no real reload time is needed. This is done by having the first and last link of the ammo belt empty and linking the two belts together with spare bullets from the aid gunners Mauser pouch. I have played both positions, gunner and aid gunner. The gunner has the easy job. All he does is shoot and change a barrel once in a while. The aid gunner has twice the load with four ammo boxes, a mauser and his personal ammo. The gunner just carries the loaded weapon and most likely an ammo belt or two around his neck. Another thing that is cool about this weapon is the design of the ammo boxes. They are made so that you can pick up two of them with one hand really easily. Well they are kind of heavy, but you can grip them easily.

Now the tripod mount is a completely different animal. You can hit anything with it you can point it at. And it is easy to aim. It is also easy to change the covered arch if you have one aid gunner. It is also possible to run with a tripod mount over 30-40 meter distances carrying the gun, spare barrels, and six cans of ammo if the crew is used to doing it and you have four people. I have done this many many times in a single day, not just over my total experience. The optics are not all that great really, but better than nothing. The cool feature about the tripod is the auto travers that can be adjusted for suppressive fire. It will swing the gun across the set fire arch back and forth with no control input from the gunner. It also has a nice trigger push button extension that allows the gunner to remain under cover while shooting the gun.

In conclusion, the light config is great for aimed short bursts, but not sustained fire. The tripod is great for any need, but only if you have enough men to crew the thing.

E

[Andreas]

Another thing (although maybe not modelled in CM) is that many HMG teams (and I have seen pictures of heavy mortar teams equipped like that as well) had stereoscopic rangefinders (the small version, like the one used on the 20mm AA gun), which would of course help to deliver fire very accurately, even though the integrated optics on the tripod may not be that great.

Having had some minimal training on the MG3 lMG config, I can confirm what Parabellum said. Your training NCO got really arsy if you could not keep it down to 3-round bursts. Not that I ever did hit anything on the range anyway.

[fridericus]

i have some experience with the mg3 version of mg42, too.

one big diffenrence is the distances of fire.

you can use the mg on bipod at ranges up to 1200m and on tripod up to 2000m.

changing barrels is not the really problem, you should cange them after around 150 bullets, but i used it for more then 500 in looooong bursts.

(AA-Mg on leo2)

[Archibald]

A major difference between tripod and bipod mounted weapons is the tripod's recoil buffers. These keep the recoil in one plane and controllable. At longer ranges this gives a beaten zone several hundred metres long and a few metres wide. Effectively, a tripod mounted weapon can engage area targets, while a bipod mounted weapon is only fully effective against point targets.

Another huge advantage of the tripod's stable platform is the ability to pre record targets. This allows the gun to accurately engage obscured targets. Fingers crossed that both this and the beaten zone will be in CMBB, as it will have a major effect on infantry tactics.

[Michael Emrys]

Has anybody any hands on experience with both the MG42 and MG3? I am wondering if the latter would be more controlable in the LMG configuration due to its lower rate of fire.

Michael

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Eric Young:

The MG42 is very accurate in light config. It is a waist of ammo to fire more than a five round burst with one due to the thing wiggling around. There is very little recoil on the light config no matter how many rounds you fire. The problem is barrel rise. I have fired it from the hip with live rounds and the bullets were launching skyward after about three rounds. Low recoil, lots of barrel rise.

Eric, Thanks for the insight on the MG42. It sheds some light on the topic. However, I'm still a little confused about the recoil. Isn't the barrel rise caused by successive recoil of the rounds?

Also, from what you describe, it sounds like you were using live ammo. What is the difference in recoil & barrel rise, if any, between blank and live ammo?

[fridericus]

the mg get his enormous rate of fire through its strengthen recoil. the weapon begins to "dance" around on its bipod. thatswhy big and strong soldiers are better in using this mg.

(i saw us-soldiers with broken collarbone/(schlüsselbein) after shooting with our mg3, after they proudly presented their wars in which they fought with their nice toy-weapon *LOL*)

*g*

[Stoffel]

Hi Michael,

You can do a search on the net for a magazine named Armex.

Its Dutch and i can remember they had an article once about firing and comparing the M1919,The MG 42 and the Brengun with the FN mag

thought it have been somewhere in 1991,maybe they can give you the name of the writer,the guy fired all weapons himself

[Michael Emrys]

Hi Henk,

Would that be available in English (my Dutch is worse than clumsy )?

Michael

[Eric Young]

Pak40,

There is no recoil with blanks at all. You can dump 100 rounds a burst without barrel rise from the hip with blanks.

I guess I am one of those big strong guys fridericus is talking about(5'11 220 pounds and can still do 50 pushups a rep at 45 years old). I always found firing the MG42 a dream to fire with live ammo, but then again I don't think an AK kicks much either.

E

[ August 29, 2002, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: Eric Young ]

[Tero]

How common was the practise of using a human makeshift stabilizer/mount ?

I have seen a lot of pictures of MG-42 LMG being fired with one man holding the bipod. From the looks of it the practise was not very good for the hearing of the man holding the bipod.

On the LMG sort bursts: we were told to fire short bursts not so much to conserve ammo but not to give away the position of the SAW needlessly and prematurely.

[Eric Young]

I doubt that anyone used the standing over the shoulder dumby thing you see in pictures more than once. I can't imagine that they would be that dumb twice in their lives anyway.

Instant ear drum explosion and most likely broken collar bone to boot.

E

[Big X]

Hey, thanks to all for the informed discussion about this topic. It answers questions I've had for a long time!

[Stoffel]

Sorry Michael its in Dutch

But maybe the author(if you can find him)is willing to do a English translation for you.

I will have a look to see what I cn find.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Eric Young:

I doubt that anyone used the standing over the shoulder dumby thing you see in pictures more than once.

That is what I am asking.

I can't imagine that they would be that dumb twice in their lives anyway.

Then again what good is a deaf soldier but to act as a mount for the LMG...

Instant ear drum explosion and most likely broken collar bone to boot.

Concur on the ear drums. Not so sure about the collar bone, given the testimony about the lightness of the recoil.

I'm just wondering if this was a sort of unoffical way to turn LMG's into HMG's...