Another MG question

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

What is the diffrence between a heavy MG42 team and a light MG42 team? It is in essence the same MG of the same weight, ROF, ect. . .

So why is one considered light and one heavy?

I would understand if we were talking about a light MG38 team. That is a diffrent MG with diffrent weight and performance.

[Abn_Ranger87]

I'm under the assumption that the "heavy" team is employing the MG42 from a tripod (more stable) while the "light" is simply using the attached bipod. There should be an increased ammunition alloment with the larger team as well.

[Michael Dorosh]

lafette tripod mount also had an optical sight

[Kingfish]

The heavy MG42 consists of the gun mounted on a tripod, and crewed by 6 men. The light version is mounted on a bipod and crewed by only 2 men.

[Stuka]

You can run with the light MG too!

But only walk with the heavy MG

[edward_n_kelly]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

What is the diffrence between a heavy MG42 team and a light MG42 team? It is in essence the same MG of the same weight, ROF, ect. . .

So why is one considered light and one heavy?

I would understand if we were talking about a light MG38 team. That is a diffrent MG with diffrent weight and performance.<hr></blockquote>

Heavy MG is now taken to mean anything above rifle calibre with (normally) non-explosive bullet (say .5 in or higher)

Medium MG is now taken to mean rifle calibre with non-explosive bullet with sustained fire (normally tripod mounted) capability.

(In WWII up until about 1944 the above two categories were amalgamated. British were first to distinguish due to .303 Vickers versus .50 Browning).

Light MG is the rifle calibre section weapon usually bipod mounted.

General Purpose MG used the same basic weapon (the MG34/42 were the first) to fulfil the same roles as the MMG and LMG using accessories (tripods, optical sights, etc).

(Can be argued that as neither “fish no fowl” that do not necessarily do as good a job as specialised weapons but more expensive in capital and training)

MMG compared to LMG – longer range (combination of sights and tripod) but required more ammunition (generally caused more crew to carry ammunition). Less flexible because of the “add-ons” to be able to move and engage targets at closer ranges.

[Silvio Manuel]

If memory serves correctly, the HMG team used ammo fed out of large bins (barrels?), resulting in a higher sustained Rate of Fire.

The LMG team used smaller containers, resulting in lower sustainable ROF.

Since (sustained) ROF is a part of firepower, the LMG only gives 50 fp at 40m, and the HMG gives 155 fp at 40m.

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]</p>

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

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

You can run with the light MG too!

But only walk with the heavy MG

<hr></blockquote>

I saw in a book with modern photos of a single gunner (dressed in historic garb for effect) firing an MG42 off of the hip with no assistance. Of course the book also stated that this was very difficult to perform, and there was almost no chance of keeping the rounds grouped together enough for this type of firing to be effective.

Thanks for answering my question guys. I guessed it had to do with the bi-pod/tri-pod thing, as well as carring extra ammo.

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ]</p>

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

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

lafette tripod mount also had an optical sight<hr></blockquote>

Was the sight used for AA duty as well? Or just for ground fire?

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ]</p>

[Abn_Ranger87]

One thing that would contribute to the higher rate of fire is if a "heavy" barrel was mounted that could sustain more use ere needing to be changed.

[ParaBellum]

You cannot use the tripod optic to fire against air targets. The MG42 got a special sight for engaging air targets.

And the main reason why the firepower of the "HMG" version is higher than the "LMG" version is that with a tripod you can fire much longer bursts an keep the rounds on target.

When we were trained on the MG3 which is a slightly modified version of the MG42 (mainly slower ROF) we were taught to fire 3-5 round burst with the "LMG" and 20-50 rounds with the tripod version.

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]</p>

[Warmaker]

Well, part of the game of CM is the numbers. More importantly, FIREPOWER. Here's a quick contrast between the LMG42 and HMG42 teams' firepower. In order of the following distances: 40m/100m/250m/500m/1000m

MG42: 50/45/30/18/0

HMG42: 155/125/77/52/27

Ammo levels on a QB game:

MG42: 25

HMG42: 95

MG42: 9pts at regular for a 2-man team

HMG42: 28pts at regular for a 6-man team

Having the extra men to lug around the tripod, lots of extra ammo, extra barrels, etc. is a huge bonus but costs a bit more.

The 2-man MG42 teams have their work cut out for them but they use the bipod. In CMBO I use the MG42 team to supplement the firepower of my rifle platoons in a defensive setting. One must bear in mind the low level of ammunition by default in a QB for these teams. Also, with only 2-men it is quite prone to being knocked out easily.

Speaking of the MG42, you can't possibly forget the other major source of MG42s in your force selection: The infantry platoons. Normal Heer and Waffen-SS rifle squads often have 1 MG42 to supplement their firepower. Contrast this to the Panzergrenadiers (esp. Waffen-SS) and the FJ who often have TWO MG42s and you get a nice firepower boost. Since the Germans of course could never fully equip their troops with MP44s I feel their squad firepower is centered around the MGs. Those bolt action rifles just don't make the cut against the semi-automatic M1 Garands.

[edward_n_kelly]

Out of a matter of interest.....

Was watching "Battle Stripes" (modern UK Pl Sgt selection course = Oz Sub2 for SGT RAInf).

While conducting a defence in a simulated village one or more (bit hard to tell how many weapons were involved in the smoke and confusion) FN MAG58 (British L7) were being carried by one man on its tripod with a single belt - nos 2, etc carried more ammunition.

Both "sides" - Pl Sgt aspirants and "enemy" (Gurkha "Demonstration" Company) had at least one of these combinations.

Use of these weapons on these mounts in an urban situation was somewhat unexpected by me until I thought about it - streets make great killing zones in both enfilade (for the MGs) and defilade for other weapons....

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

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

Speaking of the MG42, you can't possibly forget the other major source of MG42s in your force selection: The infantry platoons. Normal Heer and Waffen-SS rifle squads often have 1 MG42 to supplement their firepower. Contrast this to the Panzergrenadiers (esp. Waffen-SS) and the FJ who often have TWO MG42s and you get a nice firepower boost.<hr></blockquote>

Well that version of the MG42 is probably the rifle shaped version with the side magazine insert (can remember it's designation though) that was first used by FJ units in the attempt to rescue Italy's leader.

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

I saw in a book with modern photos of a single gunner (dressed in historic garb for effect) firing an MG42 off of the hip with no assistance. Of course the book also stated that this was very difficult to perform, and there was almost no chance of keeping the rounds grouped together enough for this type of firing to be effective.

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ]<hr></blockquote>

Another slightly more effective (but terrible for the assistant gunner) way to shoot n scoot was to set the bipod on the shoulder of the 2nd man as a temporary rest that could sorta move. I've had the pleasure of a 12-gauge shotgun being fired about a foot away from my ear and I can only imagine how horrible it would to have a gun with that ROF anywhere near my head.

[Ogadai]

Vader's Jester, I think you're referring to the FG42 which is a very different weapon to the MG42. The FG42 can lay claim to being the first modern Assault Rifle, being able to fire both in the open and closed bolt position. The FG42 was also magazine fed (from the left side) and came in two versions, one firing the full-power 7.92mm round and another firing the "Kurtz" round.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

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

Vader's Jester, I think you're referring to the FG42 <hr></blockquote>

Yeah, that's the ticket!

[JasonC]

Ammo. Mostly, that is the difference. But in detail, the HMG team has -

a tripod mount weighing about 50 lbs, a team leader with binocs to spot the fall of shot and call out corrections, an assistant gunner carrying a tool bag with several spare barrels (the rated life of a barrel was about 4 minutes of depressed trigger time), an asbestos glove, and a wrench, to change barrels quickly when they overheat, and several ammo carriers hauling 250 rounds ammo boxes of linked 50 rounds belts, hooking them up to feed through the gun continually when necessary. Everybody in the team is also probably wearing bandoliers of additional ammo. The total weight each man is carrying for the MG, excluding his personal weapon, grenades, field equipment etc, is on the order of 55 lbs, most of it ammo.

By contrast, the LMG team has one guy with the gun and an ammo belt loaded into it, and another with an ammo box and perhaps a spare barrel, who loads. They sight with the naked eye, from ground level.

The main reason for the huge contrast in the two teams, however, is related to practical ammo limits and the enourmous rate of fire of the MG42. Which is around 1200 rpm when the trigger is held down, 2 - 2.5 times as fast as US MGs (including modern ones). The weight of ammo the LMG team could practically carry would not last them half a minute of rapid fire. A 50-round belt would go through the gun in 2.5 seconds.

Practically speaking, even the enourmous ammo supplies of the HMG team had to be used in short bursts of a second or two. The LMGs would run out in tens of seconds firing that way, and instead were trained to squeeze and release the trigger to create a short burst. Anyone who has gone through a US weapons course has probably heard the phrase "6-9 round burst, release", on the M-60. If you say it real fast, the time it takes to say it is the time it takes the M-60 to do it. Well, holding down the trigger only that long would send 15-20 rounds through an MG42, allowing perhaps 3 quick bursts per ammo belt.

In CM, one ammo point from most MGs represents about 25 rounds, but with the HMG-42 it is more like 40 rounds. That is why its firepower is higher than the Allied HMGs. It still represents a shorter burst - about 2 seconds, vs. 3 seconds for an Allied HMG shooting 25 rounds. All the HMGs also get a modest 1/5-1/4 fp bonus for their stabler mounts, sights, sustain ROF from better cooling or more barrels, etc. (Compare a HMG-1917 to a MMG-1919 - they have the same cyclic rate of fire).

The fp ratings reflect the rates of fire the weapons could actually, practically use in combat, not cyclic rates of fire. The same is true for the small arms - the M-1 is not rated according to the maximum rate the trigger might be pulled, but by how fast it could throw clips in realistic practice. The same is true of the LMG-42. It is firing short bursts, not the 2 second sustained bursts reflected in the HMG-42s fp numbers. And the slower cyclic rate Allied MGs are firing longer 3 second bursts.

In the end, the practical total firepower of a weapon over time is not determined by its cyclic rate of fire, but by the ability of its crew to hump its ammo. Because all the automatic weapons, if fired continually, could easily exhaust their practical ammo supplies long before the conclusion of even short tactical firefights. They are all firing on and off, because they have to. And in each case, the men manning them can only carry so much metal to throw at the enemy. Throwing it faster can help somewhat, but throwing it faster doesn't make it any easier to carry more, or make the stuff thrown fly any straighter.