View Full Version : Best machine guns - America or the Nazis - VIDEO
I thought you guys would appreciate this old Army movie.
I'm still trying to put my feelings about it into words, but it is apparent it was intended to bolster confidence in American machine guns in light of the overwhelming superiority of the German machine guns.
Here is the movie, see what you think.
Interesting piece of history. Apparently they didn't poll the G.I.s that had to carry those M1919 .30 MGs on which MG they'd rather have. Also, the M1919 wasn't the basis for every other belt fed MG that came ofter WWII and that should be quite telling in the "which is better" polling.
Interesting. One of my high school coaches spent plenty of time in combat in WW11 in Europe. I asked him which MG he would rather have for combat. Without hesitation he said the 1919. He told me the MG 42 was too accurate- made too small a group and that he would rather have had more dispersion. (Obviously contrary to that training film.)
My father-in-law was at D-day and all the way across Europe. He said the US arms were just fine.
Interesting, thanks for sharing that.
deadlyfire
05-25-12, 21:04
Here I thought the German military were the ones using the MG42...
Needless to say my family members had nothing but high praise for the MG42.
Divisions of service.
101st AB
1st Div
Nordland
Wiking
Between the M1919 and the MG42, a version of the MG42, as the MG3 in 7.62x51 is still in service with many of the world's forces.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s6eHJEpK_Cc/Tifnor7KMiI/AAAAAAAABnk/ji_Yc8CeLmU/s1600/Rheinmetall+MG+3+by+pakistani+defence+%252819%2529.jpg
I wasn't aware that we tried to copy the MG42 during WWII but failed when it wouldn't work in .30-06 in a project called the T-24. You learn something new everyday.
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/t24%20report.pdf
I did my active duty in the Marine Corps and there were always pictures around of Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone with a water-cooled M1919. There will always be a special place in my heart for the M1919 and its variants, even if history and machinegun design have long passed it by.
I wasn't aware that we tried to copy the MG42 during WWII but failed when it wouldn't work in .30-06 in a project called the T-24. You learn something new everyday.
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/t24%20report.pdf
That's pretty interesting stuff. IIRC there was some reverse engineering error in the metric conversions, or that's the story that was told in the past, and the receiver wasn't long enough for the 30-06. I read somewhere that the stamping dies for that weapon were destroyed after the project didn't pan out. But, if they had been kept you just wonder how that MG would have worked with the 7.62X51 when it was adopted.
Also, keep in mind that the 1919 was in service for over 40 years here and served many more years elsewhere. Not too shabby.
It was replaced by the m-60 which had features from several prior MG's, including the WW1 Lewis gun.
It makes you wonder if the war would have lasted longer what other designs the nazi's would have come out with.
That's pretty interesting stuff. IIRC there was some reverse engineering error in the metric conversions, or that's the story that was told in the past, and the receiver wasn't long enough for the 30-06. I read somewhere that the stamping dies for that weapon were destroyed after the project didn't pan out. But, if they had been kept you just wonder how that MG would have worked with the 7.62X51 when it was adopted.
Also, keep in mind that the 1919 was in service for over 40 years here and served many more years elsewhere. Not too shabby.
It was replaced by the m-60 which had features from several prior MG's, including the WW1 Lewis gun.
It did work in 7.62x51, we just weren't there yet.
Sure it did, but not by our hands.
And, I would wonder how the MG 42 would do in the jungles. Maybe just fine, but I don't know.
There was a very good book written, back in the 60's IIRC, entitled "The Jungle is Neutral".
Maybe they were using MG 42's but I don't recall. Haven't seen that book in decades.
......with a water-cooled M1919.
That was the 1917 or 1917A1. It came first. Then they made the 'light' 1919 by modifying the 1917.
That was really cool. Thank you.
Sure it did, but not by our hands.
And, I would wonder how the MG 42 would do in the jungles. Maybe just fine, but I don't know.
There was a very good book written, back in the 60's IIRC, entitled "The Jungle is Neutral".
Maybe they were using MG 42's but I don't recall. Haven't seen that book in decades.
My feelings are it would have done or does just fine. As there are photos of NVA and VC humping MG42 during the Vietnam war.
The US messed up adding a piston to the 60. Just one more part to go wrong. The 42 is about as simple as it can get.
My girls
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n73/david_4x4/074.jpg
Just imagine if we had M240's back then....:D
DeltaSierra
05-26-12, 12:33
interesting propaganda piece...
fair testing, my foot... :D
Army Chief
05-26-12, 14:04
Not to be unpatriotic, but I would have preferred the MP-38/40 and MG-42 to any of their Allied equivalents fielded at the time -- and lest we forget, once the StG-44 showed up, we had no equivalents to offer.
AC
Seen it before and I completely agree with AC. But you are trying to make the guys feel good about their chances of survival and the equipment they use.
The M1 Thompson weighed as much as a Garand and the M1919 was nothing to write home about. The Germans had many advantages in the field of small arms (which makes their primary use of the K98 damned ironic).
I think my favorite would be the MP41 as far as SMGs go.
Not to be unpatriotic, but I would have preferred the MP-38/40 and MG-42 to any of their Allied equivalents fielded at the time -- and lest we forget, once the StG-44 showed up, we had no equivalents to offer.
AC
The STG44 was an amazing weapon.
Since we're really talking different generations of weapons, in a comparable generation what do you all think about a comparison of the PPSH 41 vs , say, the MP 38/40?
Since we're really talking different generations of weapons, in a comparable generation what do you all think about a comparison of the PPSH 41 vs , say, the MP 38/40?
I'd say the Suomi 31 was probably better than all of them.
I believe the germans were well ahead of their time in weapons, but thankfully too little too late. Mine certainly gets the most looks and raised eyebrows at the range ;) Even the RSOs love it. Though its not FA it was on my bucket list. Took me on and off about 5 years to build.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/snekrz/MG42/DSCF0125.jpg
The MG-34/42 were great designs for their day, but the Germans erred when they considered it a "jack of all trades" - it wasn't a heavy MG by any stretch of the imagination and I'd rather have a Ma Deuce for ror that role then a MG-34/42.
Best MG? The fact that the United States hung a Ma Deuce on anything with wheels or treads probably helped out in many a battle.
-Tom
Not to be unpatriotic, but I would have preferred the MP-38/40 and MG-42 to any of their Allied equivalents fielded at the time -- and lest we forget, once the StG-44 showed up, we had no equivalents to offer.
AC
The US fielded the Garand while the Germans were still hauling Mausers.
-Tom
I believe the germans were well ahead of their time in weapons, but thankfully too little too late. Mine certainly gets the most looks and raised eyebrows at the range ;) Even the RSOs love it. Though its not FA it was on my bucket list. Took me on and off about 5 years to build.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/snekrz/MG42/DSCF0125.jpg
Thumbs up, thanks for sharing this.
The MG-34/42 were great designs for their day, but the Germans erred when they considered it a "jack of all trades" - it wasn't a heavy MG by any stretch of the imagination and I'd rather have a Ma Deuce for ror that role then a MG-34/42.
Best MG? The fact that the United States hung a Ma Deuce on anything with wheels or treads probably helped out in many a battle.
-Tom
The MG42 was, by far, the best machine gun fielded during WWII for a wide variety of roles. The BMG was great for more limited roles, but no way could troops haul that heavy monster around like the Germans could use their MG42. Oh, yes, and the whole 1,200 round per minute cyclic rate, there's that minor detail too.
The MG42 was a superb anti-personnel MG, remains so to this day.
I'd say the Suomi 31 was probably better than all of them.
I think, if we're adding others of that period or close to it, that I'd vote for the Madsen 50. Light and very controllable and relatively slow rate of fire.
... Oh, yes, and the whole 1,200 round per minute cyclic rate, there's that minor detail too.
The MG42 was a superb anti-personnel MG, remains so to this day.
Yep, a little detail there.
I believe the germans were well ahead of their time in weapons, but thankfully too little too late. Mine certainly gets the most looks and raised eyebrows at the range ;) Even the RSOs love it. Though its not FA it was on my bucket list. Took me on and off about 5 years to build.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/snekrz/MG42/DSCF0125.jpg
That looks great! Bet you really enjoy it, too.
Heavy Metal
05-26-12, 23:35
It did work in 7.62x51, we just weren't there yet.
The reason it didn't work well with the 30-06 was the 06 is longer than the 8MM Mauser and the engineers forgot to lenghten the reciever accordingly.
The 7.62 NATO round is shorter than the 8MM Mauser is making it work was far simpler.
I think, if we're adding others of that period or close to it, that I'd vote for the Madsen 50. Light and very controllable and relatively slow rate of fire.
Madsen really isn't of that period, it is a post war SMG introduced in 1950. And if we are going to go immediate post war then give me the Uzi which was produced around the same time. And of course there is the Swedish K which was more or less a post war SMG that I'd take over a Madsen every day.
The Madsen still came in at 7 lbs. and I was never crazy about that clam shell receiver design.
QuietShootr
05-26-12, 23:58
The MG42 was, by far, the best machine gun fielded during WWII for a wide variety of roles. The BMG was great for more limited roles, but no way could troops haul that heavy monster around like the Germans could use their MG42. Oh, yes, and the whole 1,200 round per minute cyclic rate, there's that minor detail too.
The MG42 was a superb anti-personnel MG, remains so to this day.
IMO, and I have a LOT of trigger time on 60s, 240s and the MG34 and '42, the '42 is the best in its class, even now. A new 7.62x51 built from the ground up (like an MG3, I guess) with modern conveniences like rail space and so on would be a world beater.
I know one ****in' thing for certain. I would NOT want to face a couple of 42s run by crews who REALLY know what they're doing (and I mean really know, like WWI level gunnery training) without air support, artillery, or naval gunfire on call. I have probably fired 20,000 rounds through 42s and 34s, and all I can say is, I do love the 240, but I think there will be functioning 42s when all the M60s and 240s are long wrecked beyond repair.
I think my favorite would be the MP41 as far as SMGs go.
MP41?
http://world.guns.ru/smg/de/mp41-schmeisser-e.html
I've handled one, but never shot one. It's basically just an MP40 with the older-pattern solid wood stock. It still has the less-than-ideal MP40 magazines (which, while better than STEN mags, still weren't the most reliable things in the world).
Of the WWII SMGs I've fired, I liked the Thompson the best, but it is a heavy beast. The Owen was also nifty to shoot, and ran like a top even after 50 years. To me, the epitome of an open-bolt SMG is the Sterling, but it's not quite WWII-vintage :)
Interesting thing about the German MGs: I read a few commentaries from WWII-era Germans and some post-war users in Scandinavia who preferred the MG34 to the MG42, primarily because the MG34's lower cyclic rate meant they didn't have to haul around as much ammo.
Oddly enough, the security guard at my building is a former 11B, and said he got to shoot the MG3 while stationed in Germany and doing maneuvers with the Bundeswehr. He said the MG3's cyclic rate made the recoil unbearable. He literally said he cried while shooting it. I've never shot an MG42/MG3 before, but I've seen several folks do so, and never heard anyone complain about painful recoil before, so I had to pass that over my mental BS filter.
Madsen really isn't of that period, it is a post war SMG introduced in 1950. And if we are going to go immediate post war then give me the Uzi which was produced around the same time. And of course there is the Swedish K which was more or less a post war SMG that I'd take over a Madsen every day.
The Madsen still came in at 7 lbs. and I was never crazy about that clam shell receiver design.
Haven't shot one in decades. Guess I was a lot younger and stronger then. It didn't seem to weigh much.
I've shot at one time or another most mentioned MG's and respect all of them. I don't have a criticism of any of the opinions expressed, just wanted to put a couple out there from men who used or faced in real combat the weapons in the video.
Add: One eastern European man whom I knew used the PPSH 41 and, although he remembered with pain what he did with it, believed it was one of the best, if not the best, gun of its type.
Theres a youtube video of a guy that put a video camera down range and shot the '42 at a slight berm in front of it to give you an idea what its like being shot at by one. Pretty dam scary.
In ever category of small arms the US was behind the other world armies except the Garand and M2. Even by the time Korea rolled around we still had not figured out that fact.
The Thompson was out dated when it was first introduced since it was behind even the MP18 that had been in service a few years before the Thompson was made.
Our magazine fed LMG (BAR) was not as good as the Jap 96/99 & ZB26/30/Bren series.
The beltfed LMG 1919A6 was a joke compared to the MG34/42.
As a MMG the 1917 and 1919A4 did fine but the MG34/42 were adequate for this role w/o having to have a separate weapons system thus making the 1917/1919 a redundant system that has pretty much been done away with how.
Of course we never figured out the assualt rifle until the M16 came along.
At the beginning of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Beretta 38A
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: none existed
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG34
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
At the end of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Swedish m/45
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: STG 44/45
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG42
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
Army Chief
05-27-12, 10:24
The US fielded the Garand while the Germans were still hauling Mausers.
-Tom
The Garand doesn't really fit into a discussion about SMGs and LMGs, but if we turn our attention to battle rifles, I do think that we have to consider a bit of context before drawing too many conclusions. Keep in mind that the Germans entered the war expecting a swift and decisive outcome, and they fielded their systems accordingly. Hard battles in the east (in particular) forced them to develop and field better weapons and equipment, but the k.98 was more than enough rifle for the early campaigns in France, Africa and Russia.
We have to remember that the Wehrmacht had already been at war for nearly four years by the time the Amis showed up in Italy with their Garands in late 1943. By then, the Germans had the G.43 ready to go (though not yet universally-fielded), and they were already diverting production resources toward an entirely new class of individual weapon for which we had no answer at all: the game-changing Sturmgewehr.
None of this takes anything away from the mighty Garand, and Patton had good reason to call it "the greatest battle implement ever devised;" even so, I think we as Americans tend to gloss-over the G.43 and presume that we alone fielded an effective semi-automatic battle rifle in WWII. With apologies to George and Ira Gershwin, that just "ain't necessarily so."
AC
Just a couple more comments:
I'd agree with the comment about the Jap 96/99's. The 99 is my favorite of it's class.
Also, I asked the father of a classmate who fought on the Eastern Front about the MG34 and MG 42. He said "we had the 34's. It was a good gun. We heard about the 42's but never had them".
That conversation occurred many years ago. Wish I'd asked more.
Add: Might as well add one other bit. A gentleman from Canada whom I met was a Bren gunner assistant (I don't remember the exact term).
He was captured shortly after D-Day and for several days was encouraged by the Germans to join them in their fight in the East. He wouldn't have to fight his fellow countrymen. Turned them down, of course, and spent the rest of the war working in a mine in Czechoslovakia.
MP41?
http://world.guns.ru/smg/de/mp41-schmeisser-e.html
I've handled one, but never shot one. It's basically just an MP40 with the older-pattern solid wood stock. It still has the less-than-ideal MP40 magazines (which, while better than STEN mags, still weren't the most reliable things in the world).
Got to shoot one as a kid. And yes, basically a MP40 with old style stock But that stock is more comfortable to shoot with than the folder.
At the beginning of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Beretta 38A
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: none existed
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG34
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
At the end of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Swedish m/45
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: STG 44/45
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG42
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
Seems like a solid list. Just curious why you rank the 1917 or Vickers over the 1919. Those water cooled jackets add a lot of weight.
At the beginning of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Beretta 38A
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: none existed
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG34
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
At the end of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Swedish m/45
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: STG 44/45
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG42
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
Handgun: 1911 (or maybe BHP?)
-Tom
DeltaSierra
05-27-12, 14:02
Theres a youtube video of a guy that put a video camera down range and shot the '42 at a slight berm in front of it to give you an idea what its like being shot at by one. Pretty dam scary.
umm....
being on the receiving end of any incoming fire is unpleasant, so i guess i dont see what the point is....
Seems like a solid list. Just curious why you rank the 1917 or Vickers over the 1919. Those water cooled jackets add a lot of weight.
The 1919 is considered to be an LMG. The 1917/Vickers was considered to be a Medium or heavy machine gun.
The 1919 is considered to be an LMG. The 1917/Vickers was considered to be a Medium or heavy machine gun.
What he said. That was my thinking as well for the MMG class.
I personally would rather have a Vickers over the 1917 for looks alone but that's as a collector not some one using them in combat. I think its a hard pick between the two as a good MMG since both are reliable yet the Vickers has more parts to worry about but its also easier to change the feed block, barrel and bolt out. The Maxim is only slightly different than the Vickers being its fore runner and is a good MMG but not as well product improved as the Vickers.
As for handguns, I considered addressing it but I could not justify my picks so I did not do it. The high power a great gun as is the 1911 and so was the P39. Each has its merits but if you looked at how they were carried by the military the P38 might be the winner since it was typically carrier with a round in the chamber unlike the other two. The Polish Radom was also excellent.
The other area I left alone was the carbine. The US fielded one but there was not a comparable one until the Volkssturmgewehr VG 1.
QuietShootr
05-27-12, 21:32
MP41?
http://world.guns.ru/smg/de/mp41-schmeisser-e.html
I've handled one, but never shot one. It's basically just an MP40 with the older-pattern solid wood stock. It still has the less-than-ideal MP40 magazines (which, while better than STEN mags, still weren't the most reliable things in the world).
Of the WWII SMGs I've fired, I liked the Thompson the best, but it is a heavy beast. The Owen was also nifty to shoot, and ran like a top even after 50 years. To me, the epitome of an open-bolt SMG is the Sterling, but it's not quite WWII-vintage :)
Interesting thing about the German MGs: I read a few commentaries from WWII-era Germans and some post-war users in Scandinavia who preferred the MG34 to the MG42, primarily because the MG34's lower cyclic rate meant they didn't have to haul around as much ammo.
Oddly enough, the security guard at my building is a former 11B, and said he got to shoot the MG3 while stationed in Germany and doing maneuvers with the Bundeswehr. He said the MG3's cyclic rate made the recoil unbearable. He literally said he cried while shooting it. I've never shot an MG42/MG3 before, but I've seen several folks do so, and never heard anyone complain about painful recoil before, so I had to pass that over my mental BS filter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=eB8sG4smWbo Fast forward to 2:00
Army Chief
05-27-12, 21:44
Doubly ridiculous, considering that the MG3 fires the standard NATO 7.62x51 which is nowhere near as potent as the 7.92x57 fired in the MG34 and MG42.
AC
QuietShootr
05-27-12, 21:51
Seems like a solid list. Just curious why you rank the 1917 or Vickers over the 1919. Those water cooled jackets add a lot of weight.
Different purposes. In a defensive or static position, it's hard to beat a gun that will damn near keep shooting forever as long as you keep feeding it water and ammunition. Water cooling is a significant advantage if you plan on shooting a lot and not moving much, which doesn't happen that much any more.
Per Chinn:
The Army Ordnance Department showed little interest in machine guns until war was declared in April 1917. At that time, the U.S. arsenal included only 1,100 machine guns, and most of those were outmoded. The government asked several designers to submit weapons. Browning arranged a test at the Springfield Armory in May, 1917. In the first test, the weapon fired 20,000 rounds without incident. The reliability was exceptional, so Browning fired another 20,000 rounds through the weapon without any parts failing. The Ordnance Board was impressed but was unconvinced that the same level of performance could be achieved in a production model. Consequently, Browning used a second gun that not only duplicated the original trial, but it also fired continuously for 48 minutes and 12 seconds (over 21,000 rounds).
We don't HAVE a gun that could do that now. I suppose whether we need one or not is arguable, but I am not aware of any man-portable weapon currently in the US inventory that would be capable of firing 21,000 continuous rounds. In fact, I would say that even the attempt to do so, with enough barrels to stay ahead of the heat, would trash a 240 by 8-10,000, and the 60 would have been lucky to make it to 4000.
QuietShootr
05-27-12, 21:53
Doubly ridiculous, considering that the MG3 fires the standard NATO 7.62x51 which is nowhere near as potent as the 7.92x57 fired in the MG34 and MG42.
AC
Yup. I shoot it in 8mm all the time and while it's quite dramatic, it isn't painful.
http://s1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff494/QS308shooter/?action=view¤t=MG42.mp4
I don't know why the ****ing audio got out of sync.
Doubly ridiculous, considering that the MG3 fires the standard NATO 7.62x51 which is nowhere near as potent as the 7.92x57 fired in the MG34 and MG42.
AC
Hence my remark about it tripping my BS filter :)
I've shot an MG34, and it was rather pleasant. I can't imagine a 42 being worse by any stretch of the imagination.
That was the 1917 or 1917A1. It came first. Then they made the 'light' 1919 by modifying the 1917.
Thanks. I caught that after I screwed it up. WWI and WWII weapons designations confuse the hell out of me, so many different pieces with the same or very similar nomenclature.
Interesting. One of my high school coaches spent plenty of time in combat in WW11 in Europe. I asked him which MG he would rather have for combat. Without hesitation he said the 1919. He told me the MG 42 was too accurate- made too small a group and that he would rather have had more dispersion. (Obviously contrary to that training film.)
My father-in-law was at D-day and all the way across Europe. He said the US arms were just fine.
I remember reading somewhere that the Bren gunners had the same complaint regarding their dispersion of fire. The Bren MkII was "too accurate" for a MG.
Heavy Metal
06-02-12, 11:18
Hence my remark about it tripping my BS filter :)
I've shot an MG34, and it was rather pleasant. I can't imagine a 42 being worse by any stretch of the imagination.
I bet he was shooting an HK-21.
In ever category of small arms the US was behind the other world armies except the Garand and M2. Even by the time Korea rolled around we still had not figured out that fact.
The Thompson was out dated when it was first introduced since it was behind even the MP18 that had been in service a few years before the Thompson was made.
Our magazine fed LMG (BAR) was not as good as the Jap 96/99 & ZB26/30/Bren series.
The beltfed LMG 1919A6 was a joke compared to the MG34/42.
As a MMG the 1917 and 1919A4 did fine but the MG34/42 were adequate for this role w/o having to have a separate weapons system thus making the 1917/1919 a redundant system that has pretty much been done away with how.
Of course we never figured out the assualt rifle until the M16 came along.
At the beginning of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Beretta 38A
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: none existed
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG34
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
At the end of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Swedish m/45
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: STG 44/45
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG42
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
You left our pistol. 1911 or hi-power?
Me? Personally, well I'm a 1911 guy. But that's because I'm straight.
The Thompson was out dated when it was first introduced since it was behind even the MP18 that had been in service a few years before the Thompson was made.
How so? I'd say the Thompson's box magazines were far superior to the 'snail drums' used on the MP18. Both were old-school milled steel and wood construction. At the time the Thompson was introduced, the only other subguns were the Villar-Perosa (which really doesn't count) and the MP18. I'd say the Thompson stacks up well against those.
Our magazine fed LMG (BAR) was not as good as the Jap 96/99 & ZB26/30/Bren series.
As a true LMG (which the BAR was not designed to be), I'd agree with you in comparison to the ZB/Bren, and the Jap 99, simply due to the higher mag capacity and quick-change barrel. But the 96? The Japs were still trying to figure out primary extraction. Oiled cartridges = suck. Yeah, it was better than the Type 11, but I'd still say the BAR had the edge.
The beltfed LMG 1919A6 was a joke compared to the MG34/42.
Every LMG/GPMG was a joke compared to those guns (at the time).
As a MMG the 1917 and 1919A4 did fine but the MG34/42 were adequate for this role w/o having to have a separate weapons system thus making the 1917/1919 a redundant system that has pretty much been done away with how.
Agreed, but at the time the whole concept of a GPMG was cutting-edge. The Germans were pretty much the only nation that was fielding a 'universal machine gun' concept during WWII.
Of course we never figured out the assault rifle until the M16 came along.
Also true. Then again, the Germans almost didn't figure that out either, considering the political difficulties they had in fielding the short-cartridge weapons.
At the beginning of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Beretta 38A
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: none existed
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG34
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
At the end of WW2 the best small arms in my opinion are:
SMG: Swedish m/45
Main Battle Rifle: Garand
Assault Rifle: STG 44/45
Mag Fed LMG: Bren
Belt Fed LMG: MG42
MMG: 1917 or Vickers
HMG: M2HB
How so? I'd say the Thompson's box magazines were far superior to the 'snail drums' used on the MP18. Both were old-school milled steel and wood construction. At the time the Thompson was introduced, the only other subguns were the Villar-Perosa (which really doesn't count) and the MP18. I'd say the Thompson stacks up well against those.
The Thompson had a lot of machining requirements, heavy, long and much more complex than required for the round. The MP18 mag was replaced in the -2 version with a better magazine though not a great one even though it was used by several other SMGs later on. So other than the magazine the MP18 was a better design the Thompson which the US stuck with way too long.
As a true LMG (which the BAR was not designed to be), I'd agree with you in comparison to the ZB/Bren, and the Jap 99, simply due to the higher mag capacity and quick-change barrel. But the 96? The Japs were still trying to figure out primary extraction. Oiled cartridges = suck. Yeah, it was better than the Type 11, but I'd still say the BAR had the edge.
The Type 96 does not need oiled rounds. The 96 and 99 are essentially the same gun in different calibers (you can shoot either gun with the others internals, I own a type 99 with 96 internal and it works well). The oil round came from the Type 3/Type 92 HMG which has a built in oiler. When the 96 was adopted the government assumed all LMGs needed oiled rounds and required one. To get the contract the designer included it in the magazine loader and never intended it to be used. The 96/99 series has very good primary extraction. The Type 96 also had a quick change barrel, again the BAR did not. The BAR was designed as a auto rifle not a LMG which the US thrust it into. I own a BAR (Swedish m/37) and love it but I know they are not as good as a true proper magazine fed LMG fielded by many other countries.
Also true. Then again, the Germans almost didn't figure that out either, considering the political difficulties they had in fielding the short-cartridge weapons.
Yes but they figured it out in 1942, it took the US until the early 60s, twenty years later and two more wars. Even the M60 took until 57 and the still had BARs in service in Vietnam. It was criminal that the US Ordnance board did not stay up with weapons evolution for 20 years. In other areas in which the Germans were advanced, the US grabbed the scientist, engineers and designers and mined them for technology.
I really am learning a lot from the comments in this thread, thanks guys.
The Type 96 does not need oiled rounds. The 96 and 99 are essentially the same gun in different calibers (you can shoot either gun with the others internals, I own a type 99 with 96 internal and it works well). The oil round came from the Type 3/Type 92 HMG which has a built in oiler. When the 96 was adopted the government assumed all LMGs needed oiled rounds and required one. To get the contract the designer included it in the magazine loader and never intended it to be used. The 96/99 series has very good primary extraction. The Type 96 also had a quick change barrel, again the BAR did not. The BAR was designed as a auto rifle not a LMG which the US thrust it into. I own a BAR (Swedish m/37) and love it but I know they are not as good as a true proper magazine fed LMG fielded by many other countries.
Well, I learned something new today. I assumed because it had a cartridge oiler that it was necessary, as it was with the older Jap MGs. Thanks for the education! :)
Yes but they figured it out in 1942, it took the US until the early 60s, twenty years later and two more wars. Even the M60 took until 57 and the still had BARs in service in Vietnam. It was criminal that the US Ordnance board did not stay up with weapons evolution for 20 years. In other areas in which the Germans were advanced, the US grabbed the scientist, engineers and designers and mined them for technology.
SOME Germans figured it out in '42, but they had a considerable difficulty getting permission to field it in large numbers until at least late '43 or early '44. Although to be fair, it was more a top-level issue rather than an organizational issue. But yeah, the US was bound and determined to have a long-range infantry rifle well beyond when we should have realized that doctrine no longer made sense for a general-issue weapon. One wonders what would have happened if the ill-fated .30-'06 conversion of the MG42 had been done after the development of the 7.62x51mm cartridge instead.
I really am learning a lot from the comments in this thread, thanks guys.
I really enjoy the engineering side behind machine guns and the accurate evaluation of the designs. Many falsie have been generated due to propaganda during the war years and just plain incorrect data. The US believe Japanese machine guns had different lighter charged rounds than the rifles yet this is only the case for the simple blow back training machine guns the Japanese used. The US got a box and assumed it all LMG ammo was this way. This is not to say the Japanese didn't have some real screwed up supply issues with 3 different 7.7mm rounds (rimmed aka .303 Brit copy for Type 92 Lewis gun, semi rimmed for type 92 HMG, and rimless type 99 LMG).
The US seriously outclassed the Japanese in weapons n WW2 except for the magazine fed LMG area.
I really enjoy the engineering side behind machine guns and the accurate evaluation of the designs. Many falsie have been generated due to propaganda during the war years and just plain incorrect data. The US believe Japanese machine guns had different lighter charged rounds than the rifles yet this is only the case for the simple blow back training machine guns the Japanese used. The US got a box and assumed it all LMG ammo was this way. This is not to say the Japanese didn't have some real screwed up supply issues with 3 different 7.7mm rounds (rimmed aka .303 Brit copy for Type 92 Lewis gun, semi rimmed for type 92 HMG, and rimless type 99 LMG).
The US seriously outclassed the Japanese in weapons n WW2 except for the magazine fed LMG area.
I had read in several sources that this was in fact the case with the earlier Type 11 LMG. From what I read, it had to have lower-powered AND oiled cartridges in order to function properly. Then again, they were all secondary sources, and I've never fired one of the Type 11s.
The US seriously outclassed the Japanese in weapons n WW2 except for the magazine fed LMG area.
Totally concur here. I have yet to see a Japanese small arm design that was superior to other arms of the period. The 7.7mm Arisaka was basically a Mauser clone with some alterations. The pistols and subguns were crap. The MGs (other than the Type 96/99) were basically Hotchkiss clones with all the same failings.
You know talking of the Ordnance board mistakes I keep wondering if they are repeating the BAR mistake with the new H&K IAR. Closed bolt, no quick change barrel yet its suppose to "supplement" the SAW rule. How many guys are going to want to lug around a M249 at double the weight when they can chose a IAR instead? Unfortunately they might find out too late they needed a belt fed sustained fired gun with them. I'm not privy to military weapons selection before a mission so it might not be a factor.
I still can not figure out why FN made the Minimi/M249 so damn heavy. Its twice the weight of the Stoner 63a. Granted the Stoner 63 series probably was too much for a standard issue military roll but a PIP version would have made a nice light belt fed SAW that would have met the requirements of the IAR long before they were required.
After reading through the thread I'm a little surprised hearing some of you say that the MG2 is superior to today’s 240G variants? Is that true?
Where does the FG42 fall into all this? I would have guessed it was superior to the Bren or 99
QuietShootr
06-11-12, 15:53
After reading through the thread I'm a little surprised hearing some of you say that the MG2 is superior to today’s 240G variants? Is that true?
Where does the FG42 fall into all this? I would have guessed it was superior to the Bren or 99
Did you mean the MG42(/2) in your first sentence? If so, the answer is unequivocally yes. The 240 is a good machine gun, but it ain't no MG42. Welll...actually, yes, it is - half of one, anyway. They cribbed the feed mechanism from the 42, which is a good thing, but gas operation is a step backward for an MG, IMO. It works, but I would much rather have a '42 with the rate reducer installed (900rpm vs 1200) if I were going to take an MG into combat on June 11, 2012.
And the FG42 is more of an automatic rifle, IMO.
After reading through the thread I'm a little surprised hearing some of you say that the MG2 is superior to today’s 240G variants? Is that true?
Where does the FG42 fall into all this? I would have guessed it was superior to the Bren or 99
I'm hardly an expert on the tactical use of the light machine gun, but I would wager the limited magazine capacity (20rds vs. 30rds for the Bren/ZB/96/99), light barrel profile and lack of quick-change capability would all contribute to the FG42 being sub-optimal in that role. It was a compromise weapon from the start, intended to replace the MP40, Kar98k and MG34 while sticking to a dramatically low weight threshold. Most of the German manuals of the period indicate it should only be used in full-auto in emergencies and at very close range. Think of it more as a battle rifle than a true LMG.
That's pretty amazing that 60 years later the mg42 is better than anything other 30 cal beltfed. What's the benefit of not having a gas system? To much heat? Complex barrel changes? I like my roller locking cz52 and Cetme but its not anywhere near as common as some kind of gas system.
As far as the fg42 goes I can see how you could call it a battle rifle. After reading the wikapedia page its like an m14 if you discount the whole open bolt quasi bullpup horizontal mag thing.
QuietShootr
06-11-12, 20:36
That's pretty amazing that 60 years later the mg42 is better than anything other 30 cal beltfed. What's the benefit of not having a gas system? To much heat? Complex barrel changes? I like my roller locking cz52 and Cetme but its not anywhere near as common as some kind of gas system.
We don't expect our machine guns to fire tens of thousands of rounds in a single battle any more. If we did, the shortcomings of gas operation would be quickly apparent.
Also - look at the difference in complexity of a spare barrel assembly between an MG42 and an M240G:
2 parts: Barrel and extension.
http://picturearchive.gunauction.com/4641145611/6875251/5742fd95a4b2de7eea5c6526a65df223.jpg
https://www.ssgtactical.com/elements/product/m240bblb.jpg
http://www.longmountain.com/ecom/diagramImages/M240-Fig-02.gif
ummmm...
Now watch this barrel change:
forward to 2:08 to get past the bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL09sLcKW4M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWD_N6v2tkU
And bear in mind both these guys are just ****ing around, not trying to get it done fast. A 42 barrel can be changed in about 4 seconds or less if you have a good AG, and does not require that the gun be cleared. You can change a 42 barrel in the middle of a belt.
This is a pretty decent writeup of the 42:
http://www.vincelewis.net/mg42.html
I'm not knocking the 240. It's probably the best of the gas GPMGs. But I've had to soak frozen 240 gas regulators in Shooter's Choice for a week to get them unstuck, whereas cleaning a 42 barrel just requires a boresnake.
We should have adopted the MG42 post war and still be making it today. Does everything a LMG needs to do and nothing it doesnt.
QuietShootr
06-11-12, 20:39
We should have adopted the MG42 post war and still be making it today. Does everything a LMG needs to do and nothing it doesnt.
Agreed. And what few things are hinky with it could have been long addressed by now.
Im guessing the Germans still use it.
I can see why it was a political non-starter to copy it. Even the Russians who love to copy designs were sour grapes about copying a gun that killed so many of them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.