Why did MGs get so much better?

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The M60 was based on the MG42 and several other weapons were also significantly influenced by the design.

Steve

But a very bad copy (IMHO).

It was like talking a Ferrari and producing an Edsel.

Esp the early versions where the bipod was part of the barrel which basically doubled the weight of the spare barrel, etc.

[Mishga]

And trying to change a hot barrel with the bipod disapearing did not help much either I guess.

[Cantabron]

As an officer cadet I have used the Spanish MG3 on some field excersices (this is the only MG I've ever used so I don't really have much experience with this 'machines').

It performs really well, i mean, it's good in delivering bullets to the target. But it lacks ergonomics. Especially since we use it in the old school Squad LMG role(and my guess is that we will continue using it in that role until the mg4s arrive...).

In my opinion it's a bit too heavy (11.5 kg!) to be used in the squad lmg role.

The barrel can be quickly changed, but you must hold it with an asbestos mat or your gloves will melt. This slows down the process quite a lot, and then again, the spare barrel case is not particullary confortable to carry.

The ammo is different from every other weapon we use in the squad (G36E). The ammo boxes we have are too crude and there is no thought-out way to carry them (just a handle).

There are no optics platform or rails to attach optics, which I believe it greatly reduces it's efectiveness.

I haven't used the MG4 or the minimi, but I willing to bet they are much more suited for this task.

As an MMG with a tripod, you must wait until next year to get my opinion on it I won't see that until then.

[flamingknives]

I've not shot the MG4, but I have handled it. albeit briefly. It's not too heavy, really, but it does have one outstandingly annoying feature. It has the same sort of carry handle/sight that the G36 has, with the integrated optics, as well as a folding carry handle at the front of the reciever.

When you try to pick it up by the fixed carry handle, all the weight is in front of it, so it tips over and mashes your hand into the objective lens of the optic. The balance is fine with the folding handle, but that's not the obvious one.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cantabron:

As an officer cadet I have used the Spanish MG3 on some field excersices (this is the only MG I've ever used so I don't really have much experience with this 'machines').

It performs really well, i mean, it's good in delivering bullets to the target. But it lacks ergonomics. Especially since we use it in the old school Squad LMG role(and my guess is that we will continue using it in that role until the mg4s arrive...).

In my opinion it's a bit too heavy (11.5 kg!) to be used in the squad lmg role.

The barrel can be quickly changed, but you must hold it with an asbestos mat or your gloves will melt. This slows down the process quite a lot, and then again, the spare barrel case is not particullary confortable to carry.

The ammo is different from every other weapon we use in the squad (G36E). The ammo boxes we have are too crude and there is no thought-out way to carry them (just a handle).

There are no optics platform or rails to attach optics, which I believe it greatly reduces it's efectiveness.

I haven't used the MG4 or the minimi, but I willing to bet they are much more suited for this task.

As an MMG with a tripod, you must wait until next year to get my opinion on it I won't see that until then.

This is the reason the FN MAG was never used as a squad automatic in Canada (it was used in that role in Britain, however) and is why we adopted the Minimi to replace the FN C2 (automatic version of the FN assault rifle which was our previous LMG).

The MG42 is lauded as being a great "general purpose" machine gun, but with the advent of better LMGs that reflect actual likely battle ranges - i.e. using smaller rounds that don't need to travel as far - perhaps the concept of "General Purpose" is a bit of a myth and the notion that the MG42 was a be-all, end-all dies just a little bit more - particularly since no one seems to be using MG42-inspired weapons at the section level anymore.

[Barleyman]

You guys have already pointed out the obvious. MG42 had many good things going for it.. but the super-fast ROF was not one of them. Heck, all the follow-up copycat models cut down on the ROF as far as I know.

Enough is enough and all that.

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

The MG42 is lauded as being a great "general purpose" machine gun, but with the advent of better LMGs that reflect actual likely battle ranges - i.e. using smaller rounds that don't need to travel as far - perhaps the concept of "General Purpose" is a bit of a myth and the notion that the MG42 was a be-all, end-all dies just a little bit more - particularly since no one seems to be using MG42-inspired weapons at the section level anymore.

Well, absolutely NO design lasts for very long before someone figures out how to improve or replace it. However, when something comes out that is better that doesn't take away the good/bad of what came before it within the context of the period used. It's just silly to think that.

Put another way, the MG42 is the 2nd, and better, of the first "general purpose light machineguns" (the MG34 being the first). It's design was quite innovative for the time and allowed for practical field use that contemporary weapons were incapable of duplicating. After the war the MG42 became the benchmark. The Commonwealth countries stubbornly clung to their Bren more out of emotion than logic IMHO. The other nations moved away from it. Many of those other nations used MG42 derived weapons and, not surprisingly, nobody used Bren, M1919, or other clearly outdated weapon designs.

Over the years the MG42 influence has become more of a philosophical one than an actual physical one. Meaning, the concept of arming a Rifle Squad with 1-2 full automatic weapons which are belt fed, single man portable, stamped steel construction, with an emphasis on quick barrel changing. The FN Minimi/M249 is an improvement of this design by lightening the ammo load and making it compatible with the rest of the squad's weapons. This is now the new standard for the LMG integrated within the squad. But again, that doesn't remove the laurels of the MG42 from the past, just prevents it from racking up any new ones.

Steve

[ March 08, 2008, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Secondbrooks]

Well PKM is alive and kicking (and liked). Russians seems to have adopted RPK as another section weapon, but to my understandment PKM is there still for regular squads atleast. I like the consept that there is machinegun which has big and effective ammo like PKM and then there is SAW inside squad...

[Webwing]

This is a very interesting thread.

Now, I was curious about how often do you actually have to change the barrel of say a MINIMI?

Do soldiers actually carry a spare barrel with them? From what I read I reckon soldiers have to do it in the middle of an engagement. Quick barrel changing seems to be a requirement of a good LMG.

I was looking for more info on the topic discussed here and found something quite funny:

-

This is from this topic:

LINK

-

[ March 09, 2008, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Sweet, and by that I mean totally cool.

We never carried spare barrels for the Minimi or SAW. (I think the Marines do though.) Only for the 240 and 60. With a good crew you can change barrels in about 10 to 20 seconds, depending on if you are using the tripod or not.

[Michael Dorosh]

Every Minimi comes with two barrels in the Canadian Army, and yes, you are expected to change them regularly.

[SgtMuhammed]

Is it considered crew served in Canada?

[Guinnessman]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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. L

This sounds like the same issue (or should I see one of several issues) that the British army had with the L86 Light Support Weapon. It was intended to fulfill the LMG role, but it was and still is too damned accurate. The MoD bought Minimi's and made them the squad LMG, while retaining the LSW as the nearest thing we have to a DMR.

Quite frankly, as an LMG it was naff.... an LMG that only has the capacity for 30-round mags is missing the whole point of being an LMG in my opinion.

[JasonC]

Mag only SAW LMGs

http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/madsen/madsen.jpg

http://members.aol.com/panzersgt/smallarm/lewis.html

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/browning.htm

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/dp.htm

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/dpm.htm

http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg10-e.htm

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/japlight.htm

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Mag only SAW LMGs

http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/images/madsen/madsen.jpg

http://members.aol.com/panzersgt/smallarm/lewis.html

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/browning.htm

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/dp.htm

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/dpm.htm

http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg10-e.htm

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/japlight.htm

How many are still in service? We used the FN C2 as an LMG also - 30 round mag - but no one misses it now that it is gone because the belt-fed Minimi is obviously superior.

Agree completely with Guinness about LMGs.

Goody - Minimis here are not crew served, but the gunner does get an extra barrel to carry with him.

[FAI]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

... After the war the MG42 became the benchmark. The Commonwealth countries stubbornly clung to their Bren more out of emotion than logic IMHO. The other nations moved away from it. Many of those other nations used MG42 derived weapons and, not surprisingly, nobody used Bren, M1919, or other clearly outdated weapon designs.

...

Steve

Even the BAR, with its weight and low ammo capacity, still saw widespread service in Korean War, even found its way to Vietnam War.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, I forgot to mention the BAR Stubbornly clung onto from 1918 until it was replaced by the M60. What is really sad is the US tried to replace the BAR a couple of times and the resulting weapons were inadequate.

But the reason why I mentioned the Bren is that I know guys that were armed with them in the 1970s and (I think) 1980s! That thing should have been retired during WWII, not on the suspected eve of WWIII

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

They probably didn't know what to do with all those tripods.

[Carbon-14]

Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

Is it considered crew served in Canada?

No, its not.

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, I forgot to mention the BAR Stubbornly clung onto from 1918 until it was replaced by the M60. What is really sad is the US tried to replace the BAR a couple of times and the resulting weapons were inadequate.

But the reason why I mentioned the Bren is that I know guys that were armed with them in the 1970s and (I think) 1980s! That thing should have been retired during WWII, not on the suspected eve of WWIII

Steve

Well that is a reliever, i though we were only poor sods in western world which had to use Stens, Mosin-Nagants, Maxims, Suomi SMGs etc at 70s and 80s.

[Guinnessman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

But the reason why I mentioned the Bren is that I know guys that were armed with them in the 1970s and (I think) 1980s! That thing should have been retired during WWII, not on the suspected eve of WWIII

Steve

Yeah, the army converted them from .303 to fire 7.62mm NATO, think the designation was L5A4 or something. They definately saw service in the Falklands. I know some support TA units still had them in the early 90's!

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Webwing]

Originally posted by Adam1:

What's the problem with mag-fed? I don't get it.

Basicaly it cannot deliver sustained fire like a belt fed weapon(Minimi) can.

The LSW(Light Support Weapon) is said to be used now as a marksman weapon and its initial role(fire support) is now fullfiled by the Minimi. The British army uses the Para version.

The LSW is the modified SA80 A2 with a longer barrel and a bipod. It also has a rear pistol grip.

It's also called L86 by the British.

It's in a limbo apparently.

It's hard to find a picture of a British soldier using one. Loads of Minimis (Para version) and L85 (SA80) and even the siniper rifle, the L115A1 though.

--

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[YankeeDog]

AIUI, modern LMGs are usually loosing off 2-10 shots per burst. So a 30-round mag is lasting you maybe 5-6 bursts on average. Even with pauses inbetween bursts to keep the weapon from overheating, that's a lot of mag changing.

Look on Youtube for combat footage in Iraq of M240s in action, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Even with short bursts and pauses, they put a lot of ammo downrange very quickly. Adding mag changes every 20-30 rounds is definitely going to slow things down.

And regardless of what the practical sustained fire rate is, one of the assets of the belt-fed LMG is the ability to "go cyclic" for a short time if the fit really hits the shan. The LMG can't keep this up for very long, but the ability to put over 100 rounds downrange in less than ten seconds can be very useful when things get really hot and heavy, such as when attempting to break contact. No way you can accomplish this with a mag-fed weapon.

And in any event, Murphy's Law also states that you're going to need to change the mag at exactly the worst momement.

Finally, Mags have other less critical but nevertheless significant disadavantages. One big one is weight. There's much more "extra" material when you have to carry rounds in magazine, as compared to belts.

Cheers,

YD

Edit: Forgot to mention sight picture. Even with an assistant changing Mags, it's more challenging to maintain sight picture and alignment; mag changing often requires some movement of the gun. Taking your eyes off the target for even a second can cause you to miss an important detail -- a muzzle flash from a certain window, and enemy movement, etc. Belt-fed means less interruptions and makes it easier for the gunner keep his eyes looking through the sights, at the target.

[ March 10, 2008, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]