Why did MGs get so much better?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[flamingknives]

In real life or in the game?

[SgtMuhammed]

Because once people saw that the machine gun was a viable weapon they turned their attention to making it a more versitile one.

[birdstrike]

I was under the impression water-cooled MGs aren't inferior in terms of performance, but they are heavier and more difficult to maintain in the field?

[YankeeDog]

Depends on what you mean by "perform worse"

The MG08, and similar designs of the period were incredibly good at putting out a moderate intensity of sustained fire for very long periods of time; they could keep firing as long as they could be supplied with bullets and water. They had durable, water-cooled barrels, and big, heavy bases that kept the weapon stable and allowed accurate sighting out to hundreds, even thousands of meters.

But they were also very heavy, requiring a small wagon or sledge to move any distance.

What really happened is that warfare got more mobile and heavy, stationary direct-fire weapons like the MG08 became obsolete. They are exactly what weapons like light mortars and tanks were orginally designed to take out. To stay useful, MGs had to become lighter and more mobile so they could keep up with the advance, or be repositioned quickly on defense. One solution was to put the MG in a vehicle (the original concept behind a tank). The other was to create an MG that could be carried and serviced by just a couple of infantrymen. Hence, the GPMG was born.

Even the most modern GPMG can't beat the sustained weight of fire of an old-school watercooled heavy MG, but it's far lighter. So pound-for-pound, it puts out far more fire. You can get 2 or 3 GPMGs into position for the effort it takes to get 1 Water-cooled HMG to the same place.

There have been some advances in more reliable feed mechanisms (less jams), and sighting equipment (magnification optics, etc.), but these are incremental. The real advantage the GPMG has is mobility.

Cheers,

YD

[Huntarr]

Well I'll point out that MG's have not gotten that much better when it comes to the Maw Deuce. Browning made nearly the perfect weapon system. 1921 that's 87 years of service and little to no change in it's design. That's amazing.

[ March 05, 2008, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Huntarr ]

[SgtMuhammed]

I think the Ma Duce is the Platonic ideal form of the machine gun. Everything else is just an imitation.

[gibsonm]

Well you now have the QCB version which doesn’t require headspace and timing anymore.

Makes it only a 5 point check now but you’ve got to move with the times I guess.

But even with its good range, penetration ability and heavy projectile it doesn’t have the same high rates of fire as say the MG42 or MG3.

Sometimes you need 1,100 7.62 mm projectiles instead of 450 - 500 12.7 mm ones.

[ March 05, 2008, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[Taki]

Best Machinegun Concept is the MG42 build bye the Germans in WWII.

[YankeeDog]

If you substitute "most revolutionary" for "Best", I'll agree with you.

Better GPMGs have been developed since the MG42; But I'll certainly agree that it advanced the state of the art further than any other single design.

Improvements in GPMG design since the MG42 have largely been rather minor, incremental ones, and the MG42 would be perfectly servicable on the modern battlefield. Indeed, it's a pretty minor difference between the MG42 and its modern direct descendant, the MG3.

[Taki]

I agree.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Well you now have the QCB version which doesn’t require headspace and timing anymore.

Makes it only a 5 point check now but you’ve got to move with the times I guess.

Makes me rather nostalgic. I got an odd sense of satisfaction out of setting headspace and timing and having that feeling that my killing machine was ready for action.

[FAI]

Originally posted by Taki:

Best Machinegun Concept is the MG42 build bye the Germans in WWII.

I think the credit should have gone to the MG34. The MG42 was just an incremental improvement of the MG34, and the concept itself was developed with MG34 in mind first.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

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

Well you now have the QCB version which doesn’t require headspace and timing anymore.

Makes it only a 5 point check now but you’ve got to move with the times I guess.

Makes me rather nostalgic. I got an odd sense of satisfaction out of setting headspace and timing and having that feeling that my killing machine was ready for action. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

There is another reason why there was a move away from water cooled, though the main ones have been mentioned. And that is as an adjunct to the mobility issue (which is the prime one IMHO) there was the ammunition requirement to make long sustained fire truly beneficial. In WWI trench warfare there was the opportunity to pack the trenches full of ammo. The MG could chatter away "all day long" and not run out of ammo. In more mobile warfare ammo is generally something that has to be managed and therefore firing all day long is probably not even possible.

Plus, since the infantry tactics changed the chances that a stationary MG with a huge stockpile of ammo was going to have an opportunity to fire sustained against massed enemy targets really dropped off. When such things did happen the defending infantry generally had enough massed firepower to deal with the situation because the firepower of infantry generally increased (better rifles, SMGs, and of course integrated air cooled LMGs).

So I guess the thing is that water cooled guns were pushed aside because they simply weren't needed any more, but light air cooled weapons were.

What is interesting, though, is how little firearms have changed since WW2. There have been attempts at making revolutionary leaps to new MGs and small arms, but for one or more reasons they haven't happened. It seems that for a while more we'll have a sort of "it's good enough'' mentality for small arms while longer.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Michael Dorosh]

The MG42 had to be changed after the war - the ROF was far too high, and the 1200 rpm it was capable of was scaled back for modern service (MG3), and in all its imitators (i.e. M60, FN MAG), so I'm not sure I understand why the MG42 is held up as the paragon of all machine guns. It wasn't - it used up ammo way too fast and they had to fix that in the modern versions. The MG34 it was developed from disappeared soon enough as, IIRC, it was too closely machined.

The Browning .50 is no different than a water cooled MG in terms of weight and portability and as an infantry weapon, it has other disadvantages when employed in an anti-personnel role. It's main advantages are it has a large round and can be used against other targets - small vehicles, aircraft, buildings, etc. That it is employed in a variety of roles I think is a holdover from the fact it's simply always been used that way in US service despite the fact there are probably specific weapons systems that could deal with individual threats much more effectively, the .50 is an all-purpose weapon without the need for specialization.

With regards to 'accuracy', I'm not sure that's something you want first in a machinegun - each weapon puts out a cone of fire or a beaten zone at various ranges when fired directly/indirectly. I think the .50 was criticized by someone at my own board for actually being too accurate. When we were talking about why .50s were not used as anti-personnel weapons when mounted on Sherman tanks in the Second World War, he stepped up and related how he was a crew commander on Lynx Recce vehicles (M113 C&R to the Americans - a smaller M113, basically used for reconnaissance). I'm probably remembering this wrong as it doesn't seem intuitive to me, but I thought he said something about the .50 being unsuited to anti-personnel work because of a flat trajectory (??) and perhaps an inherent accuracy which means the bullets don't "spread" the way you want a machinegun to at range. Like I said, I stand very much open to correction on that - I'll have to see if I can find his exact words as they had the ring of authenticity to them. But the point being that pinpoint accuracy isn't so much an issue.

[ March 06, 2008, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Oddball_E8]

the mg3 still fires at 1200 rpm doesnt it? (with the option of a heavier bolt wich reduces it to 900 rpm)

[SgtMuhammed]

That actually makes sense. Because of the trajectory and the straight back recoil of the .50 it would have a smaller cone at normal combat distances. This would necessitate searching and traversing which, depending on the mount, is not always easy or instinctive. A weapon with a greater spread at the same range makes this more automatic.

I still love Mamma Duce though.

[Taki]

Germans had Problem with overheating Gunbarells and cooled them with cold watered rags to cool them down.

ROF was to high yes. But its overall concept didnt change much since today. So it was a Big Leap forward and a Progressive Design.

You can name it in the Same Linie with Concepts like the Stg44 or the First AK Series the Russians built.

[MikeyD]

"With regards to 'accuracy', I'm not sure that's something you want first in a machinegun"

That reminds me of recorded efforts to make an "automatic catapult" a couple thousand years ago. Basically a giant crossbow with mechanical recocking and ammo feed. The main problem turned out to be that the bolts fired tended to all fall in precisely the same spot each time. The weapon was too accurate to be useful. Sometimes a little built-in dispersion can be a good thing.

[SlapHappy]

That's pretty much the problem with Theater of War in respect to machine guns.

The spread of the bullets is modelled and you can even make the pattern "sloppier" if you want....but since the game system still only targets individual soldiers instead of an area, you can't effectively "spray down" a skirmish line of soldiers, for example.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Oddball_E8:

the mg3 still fires at 1200 rpm doesnt it? (with the option of a heavier bolt wich reduces it to 900 rpm)

I believe Andreas actually crewed them during his service in the Bundeswehr, and if I recall his comments correctly, they were scaled back for the reasons I mentioned. Andreas' word is good with me, far better than my own memory, so take that for what it is worth to you!

That actually makes sense. Because of the trajectory and the straight back recoil of the .50 it would have a smaller cone at normal combat distances. This would necessitate searching and traversing which, depending on the mount, is not always easy or instinctive. A weapon with a greater spread at the same range makes this more automatic.

I still love Mamma Duce though.

They removed the .50 from infantry units here a few years ago, and there was a huge hue and cry - from the infantrymen who had to carry the pieces on their machine gun courses, and actually employ the weapon in the field. They loved it too, and were all too willing to schlep it, just so long as they got to shoot it.

[Battlefront.com]

The MG42 is held up as something special for a number of reasons. One of which was that it was almost all stamped parts, which was a novelty back then. The parts also had a bit of slop to them which meant that manufacturing tolerance and field wear didn't matter as much. In fact, it aided the weapon when it got dirty since precision made weapons are by their very nature more prone to failure. The tear down, maintenance, and training needed for both was quite simple compared to contemporary weapons. Weight was also significantly less IIRC. The quick change barrel was a huge innovation and advantage over contemporary weapons. The MG34 was pretty good, the MG42 much better.

ROF was, of course, a benefit or a curse depending on how you look at it. Allied reports and 1st hand accounts state that the MG42 was feared. By the time you heard the first shot at you the whole area was saturated. Of course this came at the cost of ammo problems on the German side, especially later in the war when the quality of training and supply were both in decline. Meaning, a soldier was more prone to burn though his ammo, and that stock of ammo was harder to replace.

The MG42 is, of course, still in service with a large number of nations in the guise of the MG1 (rechambered wartime production in 7.62), MG2, and for a long while MG3. The Spanish and Yugoslavs made their own knockoffs, with the Yugo M53 being so exactly similar that parts are interchangeable with wartime production units. The M60 was based on the MG42 and several other weapons were also significantly influenced by the design.

So yeah, the MG42 deserves its reputation as being ahead of its time.

Steve

[Zemke]

I love the M2, but frankly I always preferred to have the M240B up, it was more controllable and thus more accurate. The M2 was great for shooting up a car or building, but for AP, I'll take the 240B or similar GPMG.