MG34/MG42 issued per platoon?
VEXE MAN
German platoon? Some sources actually list 2 per squad, although I find this a
little hard ot believe (a lot hard to believe). Other sources note that the MGs
were in short supply, especially in non-front line units...possibly averaging 1
or 2 per platoon.
Phillip McGregor
According to US War Department "Handbook on German Military Forces" the following figures
apply ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rifle Company, Infantry Battalion (1944 Inf Div) = 13 LMG, 2 MG
Each of the three Rifle Platoons = 4 LMG
HMG Section = 2 HMG
Train = 1 LMG
Each Platoon had 1 LMG per Squad (3 Squads) and 1 LMG for the HQ Section.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grenadier Company, Volksgrenadier Infantry Regiment = 9 LMG
Three Platoons (2 x SMG, 1 x Rifle armed) = 3 LMG each
SMG Platoon = 2 LMG @ Coy HQ, 1 with Rifle Squad, 2 SMG Squads nil.
Rifle Platoon = 1 LMG per Rifle Squad.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a lot more, depending on exactly *what* sort of parent Division is involved. But
you get the idea.
There is no indication that as to what the LMGs were, but they were all bipod mounted
MG-34's or -42's *normally* (with some weirdos like MG-15's etc.). HMGs were LMG's with
special sustained fire tripod mounts.
Phil McGregor
Moderator for Soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Appeals to: ww2...@acpub.duke.edu
FAQ at: www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/world-war-2-faq/faq.html
F.P. Groeneveld
: Anybody got a good handle on how many MG34s and/or MG42s were issued to a
: German platoon?
I understood that, according to the book, normal infantry had 1 LMG/squad,
and panzergrenadiers 2LMG/squad.
Cheers,
Derk
Andy O'Neill
<vex...@aol.com> writes
>Anybody got a good handle on how many MG34s and/or MG42s were issued to a
>little hard ot believe (a lot hard to believe).
Well, it's sort of right.
>Other sources note that the MGs
>were in short supply, especially in non-front line units...possibly averaging 1>or 2 per platoon.
Early war 1 per section.
Mid war paras upped to 2 per section.
Late war Pz Grenadiers, also 2 per section.
Loss of manpower and equipment in action is another matter, and all
sorts of odd things are possible.
So 2 per squad is quite possible, as is some squads with none.
Volks-x kind of units could be rather short on kit, and no lmg is one
thing could happen.
OTOH, all stg 43 is also possible....
Slightly complicated to company level by the sustained fire mounted
lmgs.
Just to complicate things more, these were sometimes parcelled out to
sections/platoons hence upping their specific quota.
Non-front line units could have all sorts of odds n ends, largely
irrelevent to wargaming and hence for my own purposes.
The Mg34 was never fully replaced by the mg42.
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Liverpool Wargames Association
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/LWA.htm
Kennedy How
> Anybody got a good handle on how many MG34s and/or MG42s were issued to a
> German platoon? Some sources actually list 2 per squad, although I find this a> little hard ot believe (a lot hard to believe). Other sources note that the MGs
> were in short supply, especially in non-front line units...possibly averaging
1
> or 2 per platoon.
Heinz Altmann said a little while back that the Panzergrenadier squads
he was with had 2 LMGs per squad. This was in the Sep '44 timeframe.
Of course, if you were one of the lucky ones riding in a 251 halftrack,
you also have the LMG that was mounted on them as well.
Initially, they only had one LMG, but later on, it was 2.
Kennedy
i...@svpal.org
vex...@aol.com (VEXE MAN) wrote:
> Anybody got a good handle on how many MG34s and/or MG42s were issued to a
> German platoon? Some sources actually list 2 per squad, although I find this a
> little hard ot believe (a lot hard to believe). Other sources note that the
MGs
> were in short supply, especially in non-front line units...possibly averaging
1
> or 2 per platoon.
The Wehrmacht infantry section was built around an MG34/MG42,
a single GPMG in any case and their tactics reflected it.
To call these weapons LMGs is not accurate as they were fully capable
of sustained fire in a way that an LMG was not.
Remove the GPMG from one of these infantry sections and firepower
drops to about 0.
You could almost say that the rest of the section existed to provide
local defence and carry ammo for the MG although that would over-
simplify the situation to some extent.
I suspect you'll find that the units with 2 guns per section were
motorised in some way ( at least in the original scheme of things ).
By the end of the war, particularly in the East things may have
been dramatically different.
Postwar the HMG & LMG has almost disappeared to be replaced by the
GPMG in the line infantry TO&E of the major powers. Mind you it
took a while and I believe the Royal Marines may still have the Bren
Gun in service ( or did until relatively recently ).
--
#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#
In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers chose to limit the powers
afforded to government. Government now wishes we would forget this.
Fat chance!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
HCALTMANN
>: Anybody got a good handle on how many MG34s and/or MG42s were issued to a
>: German platoon?
From: "F.P. Groeneveld" <de...@cistron.nl>
>I understood that, according to the book, normal infantry had 1 LMG/squad,
>and panzergrenadiers 2LMG/squad.
I was a Panzergrenadier in September 1944 in France. Our armament was two (2)
MG42 in each squad. I was there. -- Heinz
HCAl...@aol.com (Heinz Altmann)
"I have no desire to win, only to get things right." A.J.P. Taylor
inter...@aol.com
vex...@aol.com (VEXE MAN) wrote:
> Anybody got a good handle on how many MG34s and/or MG42s were issued to a
> little hard ot believe (a lot hard to believe). Other sources note that the
MGs
> were in short supply, especially in non-front line units...possibly averaging
1
> or 2 per platoon.
>
>
Regular infantry 1 per 10-15 men, the rest k98's, squad.
Grenadiers, paratroopers, ss, 2 per 10-12 men, 1 or 2 mp's, the rest k98's,
squad.
The MG had one gunner, one caddy. The other k98's filled in as needed.
The Germans moved their MG frequently and consequently kept the crew very
small because it tended to draw a lot of return fire when detected.
Shortness of MG42's? I've heard of shortness of ammo. The k98 and mg shared
the same round. Of course the mg had priority. and it chewed up ammo very
nicely.
Martin Rapier
<3756f807...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>...
> Anybody got a good handle on how many MG34s and/or MG42s were issued to a
> German platoon? Some sources actually list 2 per squad, although I find
this a
> little hard ot believe (a lot hard to believe). Other sources note that
the MGs
> were in short supply, especially in non-front line units...possibly
averaging 1
> or 2 per platoon.
Late War German infantry (44+) generally had 4 LMGs per platoon, one for
each squad and for the HQ squad.
VG Infantry only had three LMGs per platoon but a higher proportion of
SMGs.
44 PanzerGrenadiers usually had 6 LMGs per platoon (2 per squad).
>From 1942 onwards, the MG34 became increasingly rare, being replaced by the
MG42.
Cheers
Martin.
inter...@aol.com
> Anybody got a good handle on how many MG34s and/or MG42s were issued to
> a German platoon? Some sources actually list 2 per squad, although I
> find this a little hard ot believe (a lot hard to believe). Other
> sources note that the MGs were in short supply, especially in non-front
> line units...possibly averaging 1 or 2 per platoon.
The Wehrmacht started off with 1 mg per squad. It was reallized that more
automatic fire was required to be effective. In thinking typical of it,
the OKW decided to increase the number of MG's to two for assault type
units and also mp's. This proved what they were afraid of, increased ammo
usage, but did not produce substantially what the field officers asked
for, auto-semiauto selective fire weapon for every soldier. The latter
choice, combined with the excellent fire control they were noted for,
would have resulted in fewer rounds expended, higher rate of EFFECTIVE
fire. One of many OKW idiocies committed. My guess is the aristocratic
g.s. didn't think the common Landser was capable of much, except
canonfudder.
Roland von Gilardi
> Gun in service ( or did until relatively recently ).
>
Today a modified version of the MG42 is still in use in the German armed
forces. I have heard that it has not been greatly modified, probably only
the rate of fire has been changed. Reduced?
The MG is pretty heavy with its 10,5 kg and a friend of mine told me that it
is today the heaviest MG in NATO forces.
Carl Alex Nielsen
<7gqnd5$504$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> I was a Panzergrenadier in September 1944 in France. Our armament was
> two (2) MG42 in each squad. I was there. -- Heinz
Does this include the MG's on the SPW in the armored battalions ?
--
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
Love me - Take me as I think I am
Osmo Ronkanen
Roland von Gilardi <roli...@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE> wrote:
> I have heard that it has not been greatly modified, probably only
>the rate of fire has been changed. Reduced?
Most importantly the caliber has been changed from 7.92x57 to 7.62x51.
The rate of fire has also been reduced from about 1200 rpm to about 600
rpm.
Osmo
John D Salt
[Snips]
>The Wehrmacht started off with 1 mg per squad. It was reallized that more
>automatic fire was required to be effective. In thinking typical of it,
>the OKW decided to increase the number of MG's to two for assault type
>units and also mp's. This proved what they were afraid of, increased ammo
>usage, but did not produce substantially what the field officers asked
>for, auto-semiauto selective fire weapon for every soldier. The latter
>choice, combined with the excellent fire control they were noted for,
>would have resulted in fewer rounds expended, higher rate of EFFECTIVE
>fire. One of many OKW idiocies committed. My guess is the aristocratic
>g.s. didn't think the common Landser was capable of much, except
>canonfudder.
I don't think it qualifies as "idiocy" to issue two or three MGs per
section (British English for squad).
For one thing, plenty of infantry platoon organisations during
WW2 and more recently show the same pattern:
Soviet infantry since 1944 have carried 2 LMGs per section.
US Marines using the late-war "fireteam" organisation carried
3 BARs in a 13-man section.
British Paras in Normandy often supplemented the section Bren
with a captured German GPMG.
The US/Canadian 1st Special Service Force had 2 LMGs per section.
The BATT (SAS) in the Oman campaign had 2 GPMGs per section,
and British Paras and Marines in the Falklands war generally
carried more than the official one GPMG per section.
Admittedly the examples of non-German units carrying 2 MGs per
section in WW2 are for LMGs rather than GPMGs, but that's just
because only the Germans had GPMGs in WW2. Practically every
army in the world adopted the idea of a GPMG as soon after
WW2 as they could (though there's since been a return of the
LMG/SAW to favour). If one accepts the old saws (pun intended)
about MGs being "the nerveless rifle" and "the essence of
infantry", 2 MGs per section was then, and is now, a better
idea than making do with one.
I don't know what evidence you have for saying that field
officers asked for a self-loading (British English for semi-
automatic) weapon. In the event, the German solution of an
assault rifle was another innovation ultimately copied by
practically everyone after WW2; during WW2 the trend towards
an increasing issue of SMGs was clear in most armies, even
some US infantrymen acquiring them in place of their excellent
official issue M-1 rifle.
Given that the armies of WW2 were generally mass, "semi-skilled"
armies, the trend towards more automatic firepower makes
sense. I wonder if part of the successful performance of
German infantry was also due to their using simpler (and
hence easier to do well) section tactics than the Western Allies.
According to PRO document WO 291/502, "German infantry in
action", German infantry sections were trained to use only
file and line formations, whereas a British section would
also use single file and arrowhead. If this is true, it
has do be said that the battlefield performance of German
infantry doesn't seem to have suffered much from their
unfamiliarity with arrowhead. I'd be interested in Heinz
Altmann's views on this -- presumably as he was part of
a section containing only three Germans out of eight,
simplicity of training was an important factor!
Other snippets that may be of interest concerning the
operational effectiveness of WW2 infantry weapons can be
found under the followign headings in the WW2eff.rtf
file downloadable from my web site at
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/~csstjds/WW2stuff.html
WO 291/471 Weight of small-arms fire needed for various targets.
WO 291/472 Performance and handling of HE grenades.
WO 291/473 Performance of bullet weapons.
WO 291/474 Rate of fire of the LMG.
WO 291/476 Comparison of rifle, Bren and Sten.
WO 291/479 Optimum rate of aimed rifle fire.
WO 291/486 The indication of targets within the infantry section.
All the best,
John.
--
John D Salt Dept of IS & Computing,| Barr's Law of Recursive Futility
Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middx UB8 3PH | [BLORF]: If you are smart enough
Disclaimers: I speak only for me. | to use one of these... you can
Launcher may train without warning.| probably manage without one.
David Thornley
>HCALTMANN <hcal...@aol.com> wrote in article
><7gqnd5$504$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
>
>> I was a Panzergrenadier in September 1944 in France. Our armament was
>> two (2) MG42 in each squad. I was there. -- Heinz
>
>Does this include the MG's on the SPW in the armored battalions ?
My information (which comes from wargamers) is that the Panzergrenadiers
in the SPWs had a total of three machine guns per squad: one permanently
mounted on the front of the SPW, one not mounted, and one that could be
mounted on the rear of the SPW or removed for dismounted use. It may
well be that Heinz, like most Panzergrenadiers, rode in trucks (a
slightly different T/O&E).
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
HCALTMANN
>> I was a Panzergrenadier in September 1944 in France. Our armament was
>> two (2) MG42 in each squad. I was there. -- Heinz
>Does this include the MG's on the SPW in the armored battalions
I don't know. We had trucks, rather than Schuetzenpanzerwagen, and the
trucks were not armed. -- Heinz
HCALTMANN
> I'd be interested in Heinz
>Altmann's views on this [combat tactics training on the squad level] --
presumably as he was part of
>a section containing only three Germans out of eight,
>simplicity of training was an important factor!
Our basic training was quite short, and very inefficient. Much too much time
was spent on spit-and-polish stuff, not enough on combat skills. I do not
recall any tactical training or maneuvers on even the platoon level. We
learned how to use our weapons, how to crawl over the ground, how to dig in,
all individual skills, but there was very little else.
I was trained as a simple infantry man, but then was assigned as a
Panzergrenadier to a motorized unit, and simple infantry skills were of little
use there. They came into their own only after we had lost our trucks.
Because I had volunteered for combat, I was assigned to a newly forming unit as
an individual and therefore I left behind whatever buddies I had in basic
training.
The training unit I was with were all Germans. The combat unit, at least our
squad, was mainly Polish.
inter...@aol.com
John...@brunel.ac.uk (John D Salt) wrote:
> I don't think it qualifies as "idiocy" to issue two or three MGs per
> section (British English for squad).
>
It qualifies as idiocy to fullfill your fears. Meaning, the argument against
widespread distribution of the MP42 or the FG was increased ammo consumption
that supply could not meet. The incorrect thinking here was that the g.s.
thought the MP42 would be used like the LMG, GPG, SMG (the Germans had the
same gun, so why do you distinguish?) aka MG. That was incorrect. The MP42
was developed for semi or burst auto. It was semi-auto, burst auto that the
field asked for. What proof do I have? You're kidding, no? The development
of the FG and MP42 was proof enough. Dig out the justification reports for
the research and development effort if you must. I prefer to play golf.
After WWII the Russians implemented what the Wehrmacht field officers were
asking for, the AK47 and much less reliance on the MG which with modern
technology is a dead duck. Today no one puts all their eggs in one basket.
> Soviet infantry since 1944 have carried 2 LMGs per section.
> US Marines using the late-war "fireteam" organisation carried
> 3 BARs in a 13-man section.
Their get it done assault teams carried MP's for close up and personal. For
anything else they used artillery or tanks. By 1944 they reallized blowing
the enemy up rather than snipering got quicker results. They took out German
MG nests with PAK's from 1k away. They brought field artillery to point
blank range and took out squads at a time. The US just recently caught on to
Russian doctrine. You'll see more RPG's and auto RPG's in use on the US side
for battle field use.
> British Paras in Normandy often supplemented the section Bren
> with a captured German GPMG.
> The US/Canadian 1st Special Service Force had 2 LMGs per section.
> The BATT (SAS) in the Oman campaign had 2 GPMGs per section,
> and British Paras and Marines in the Falklands war generally
> carried more than the official one GPMG per section.
That's because they didn't have an MP42 or FG. What kind of argument is
that? They're not using them anymore are they? Today it's the HK system.
Which is a refined modularized MP42 system.
>
> Admittedly the examples of non-German units carrying 2 MGs per
> section in WW2 are for LMGs rather than GPMGs, but that's just
> because only the Germans had GPMGs in WW2. Practically every
> army in the world adopted the idea of a GPMG as soon after
> WW2 as they could (though there's since been a return of the
> LMG/SAW to favour).
Yes, because they hadn't caught on to what the Russians realized the German
field officer ordered up in 1941. With the intro of the M16 replacing the
plathora of BAR's, M14's, MP's, then concept was validated by two military
super powers who could afford the best. For the US that was when, 1967?
> about MGs being "the nerveless rifle" and "the essence of
> infantry", 2 MGs per section was then, and is now, a better
> idea than making do with one.
If you like to fight like the Wehrmacht from 1941 to 1945. I suggest there
was a better way, and the major powers implemented it after WW2. What more
proof do you need? A bolt action was useless except for snipers. Period.
The MG42 required twice the ammo averybody else did for the same air time.
And I suggest air time is what's important for an MG. It's useless if it
isn't fired because ammo needs to be conserved.
>
> I don't know what evidence you have for saying that field
> officers asked for a self-loading (British English for semi-
> automatic) weapon. In the event, the German solution of an
Plenty of paper evidence. Just read a history on the MP42. You want title's
and authors, go get it. It's there.
> assault rifle was another innovation ultimately copied by
> practically everyone after WW2; during WW2 the trend towards
> an increasing issue of SMGs was clear in most armies, even
> some US infantrymen acquiring them in place of their excellent
> official issue M-1 rifle.
The assault rifle is exactly what German field officers requested in Russia
1941. They requested an effective round for the ranges they dealt with. The
semi-auto mode is what they considered effective, with emergency full auto for
the human wave attacks that Russians practiced in 1941, 1942.
>
> Given that the armies of WW2 were generally mass, "semi-skilled"
> armies, the trend towards more automatic firepower makes
This applies to GI's, but by 1945 they were very skilled themselves. The
Wehrmacht soldier was at it for many years in Russia. They were very skilled
in combat shooting. May suggest far more skilled than you and I? Practice
makes perfect?
> sense. I wonder if part of the successful performance of
> German infantry was also due to their using simpler (and
> hence easier to do well) section tactics than the Western Allies.
You need not wonder. Read German sources and you will understand. Their
success was due to the use of intelligence, and the Russians taught them that
practically was important too.
John D Salt
<inter...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <373684c8...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
> John...@brunel.ac.uk (John D Salt) wrote:
>> I don't think it qualifies as "idiocy" to issue two or three MGs per
>> section (British English for squad).
>
>It qualifies as idiocy to fullfill your fears. Meaning, the argument against
>widespread distribution of the MP42 or the FG was increased ammo consumption
>that supply could not meet.
Sorry, I can't follow your argument at all clearly here. Are you saying
that it's idiotic to issue 2 GPMGs per section because assault rifles
also have high ammo expenditure?
>The incorrect thinking here was that the g.s.
>thought the MP42 would be used like the LMG, GPG, SMG (the Germans had the
>same gun, so why do you distinguish?) aka MG.
I distinguish between LMGs and GPMGs because it's customary to do so,
and because I'm familiar from personal experience with their slightly
different tactical characteristics.
> That was incorrect. The MP42
>was developed for semi or burst auto. It was semi-auto, burst auto that the
>field asked for. What proof do I have? You're kidding, no?
I'm not kidding at all. I would very much like to know what evidence
you have to suggest that field officers demanded a self-loading weapon.
However, it seems that you have now changed your story to say that
what was demanded was an automatic weapon, which at least is closer
to my understanding of the situation.
>The development
>of the FG and MP42 was proof enough. Dig out the justification reports for
>the research and development effort if you must. I prefer to play golf.
Fine, but please discuss that in rec.sports.golf. If you cannot
respond civilly to a polite request for sources on a WW2 topic,
please don't be offended if nobody takes your opinion seriously.
>After WWII the Russians implemented what the Wehrmacht field officers were
>asking for, the AK47 and much less reliance on the MG which with modern
>technology is a dead duck. Today no one puts all their eggs in one basket.
"The MG is a dead duck"? I'd love to know how you can justify such a
sweeping statement. It seems to me to be flourishing pretty well in
a number of armies, even if the GPMG has declined in popularity as
a section weapon. For WW2 and several decades afterwards, it was
very clearly the most important weapon in the infantry section in
those armies that carried it.
>> Soviet infantry since 1944 have carried 2 LMGs per section.
>> US Marines using the late-war "fireteam" organisation carried
>> 3 BARs in a 13-man section.
>
>Their get it done assault teams carried MP's for close up and personal. For
>anything else they used artillery or tanks. By 1944 they reallized blowing
>the enemy up rather than snipering got quicker results. They took out German
>MG nests with PAK's from 1k away. They brought field artillery to point
>blank range and took out squads at a time.
And, which was the point I was making, they made a habit of issuing
2 LMGs per section, something you have dismissed as "stupid".
> The US just recently caught on to
>Russian doctrine. You'll see more RPG's and auto RPG's in use on the US side
>for battle field use.
An RPG (in a post-WW2 context) is an anti-tank rocket launcher. I am
not aware of any such thing as an "auto RPG", nor any suggestion that
the USA is copying FSoviet doctrine on these things. I suggest that you
are quite badly mistaken about some elementary infantry weapons
terms here.
>> British Paras in Normandy often supplemented the section Bren
>> with a captured German GPMG.
>> The US/Canadian 1st Special Service Force had 2 LMGs per section.
>> The BATT (SAS) in the Oman campaign had 2 GPMGs per section,
>> and British Paras and Marines in the Falklands war generally
>> carried more than the official one GPMG per section.
>
>That's because they didn't have an MP42 or FG. What kind of argument is
>that? They're not using them anymore are they?
What kind of argument is it? It's the kind of argument that refutes
your statement that issuing 2 MGs per section is stupid by citing a
large number of occasions on which successful military organisations
have issued 2 MGs per section. I fail to see why the absence of
an FG-like weapon is relevant (although, as a matter of detail,
the BATT teams referred to above carried the AR-15 as their other
weapon).
>> about MGs being "the nerveless rifle" and "the essence of
>> infantry", 2 MGs per section was then, and is now, a better
>> idea than making do with one.
>
>If you like to fight like the Wehrmacht from 1941 to 1945. I suggest there
>was a better way, and the major powers implemented it after WW2.
I'm baffled by this. Look at the platoon GPMG and LMG holdings of some
infantry organisations circa 1970 (from memory, but pretty confident):
British infantry: 3 GPMGs
BATT in Oman: 6 GPMGs
Bundeswehr PzGren: 6 GPMGs
Sov BMP M-R: 6 GPMGs
Sov BTR M-R: 6 SAWs
USA Mech Inf: 5 GPMGs
USMC: 9 GPMGs
Dutch Marines: 9 GPMGs
That looks like a pretty strong vote for the "stupid" 2 or more
GPMGs per section. It's not clear to me what your "better way"
is. As far as I know, most people's minor tactics in the infantry
platoon are still based around the MG or SAW as the main anti-
personnel weapon.
>What more proof do you need?
More proof than your unsupported say-so. If you are seriously suggesting
that most armies *didn't* adopt GPMGs after WW2, I'd need something
that clearly demonstrates that Ian Hogg, John Weeks, and the compilers
of "Jane's Infantry Weapons" are all idiots for saying so.
>A bolt action was useless except for snipers. Period.
Well, not quite, but faster-firing weapons are clearly better for
the average WW2 infantryman.
>The MG42 required twice the ammo averybody else did for the same air time.
>And I suggest air time is what's important for an MG. It's useless if it
>isn't fired because ammo needs to be conserved.
It's true that the MG-42 would have been a better weapon if it had
a lower rate of fire. However, I've never heard it suggested that
"air time" is a sensible measure of effectiveness for an MG. If
you'd care to follow up the references I posted in my last message
on this subject, you'll see that the study on MG rates of fire
finds that a belt-fed weapon (a GPMG, roughly) offers advantages
over a mag-fed one.
For an opinion of the MG-42s effectiveness from the receiving end,
you could do a lot worse that read Sydney Jary's "18 Platoon".
For an opinion of the FN-MAGs effectiveness from the dishing-it-out
end, Tony Jeapes' book of his experience in the Dhofar campaign
is a good one -- ISTR the title is "SAS: Operation Oman".
>> I don't know what evidence you have for saying that field
>> officers asked for a self-loading (British English for semi-
>> automatic) weapon. In the event, the German solution of an
>
>Plenty of paper evidence. Just read a history on the MP42. You want title's
>and authors, go get it. It's there.
That is not really a very helpful answer, is it? Do you have any
particular title and author in mind? Specifically, one that supports
your contention that 2 GPMGs per section is "stupid"?
>The assault rifle is exactly what German field officers requested in Russia
>1941. They requested an effective round for the ranges they dealt with. The
>semi-auto mode is what they considered effective, with emergency full auto for
>the human wave attacks that Russians practiced in 1941, 1942.
Well, that seems reasonable, as far as it goes. However, it doesn't
really support your argument against the issue of 2 MGs per secton,
does it? If you have a copy of "Jane's Infantry Weapons" for 1977,
the graphs showing the expected engagement ranges for rifles and
MGs are instructive.
>> sense. I wonder if part of the successful performance of
>> German infantry was also due to their using simpler (and
>> hence easier to do well) section tactics than the Western Allies.
>
>You need not wonder. Read German sources and you will understand. Their
>success was due to the use of intelligence, and the Russians taught them that
>practically was important too.
What German sources, please?
Nele Abels-Ludwig
[...]
> Today a modified version of the MG42
Yes, the MG3.
> is still in use in the German armed
> forces. I have heard that it has not been greatly modified,
The MG3's which I have seen in service were nearly identical to the
weapons which I have seen in museums. The nose (what's
"Mündungsfeuerbremse" in English?) is a bit different.
> probably only
> the rate of fire has been changed. Reduced?
I don't know. The MG3 has a ROF of 1200 rounds per minute.
> The MG is pretty heavy with its 10,5 kg and a friend of mine told me that it
> is today the heaviest MG in NATO forces.
It is *damn* uncomfortable to carry around :) And you still have to lug
around the equipment (2nd barrel, replacement parts for the loading
mechanism, not to forget the ammo.)
Nele
--
Et, au resvail, quant le ventre luy bruit,
Monte sur moy, que ne gaste son fruit.
Soubz elle geins, plus qu'un aiz me fait plat;
De paillarder tout elle me destruit,
En ce bordeau out tenans nostre estat.
(Ballade de Villon de la Grosse Margot)
Carl Alex Nielsen
<7h75rg$ldk$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> On 7 May 1999, Roland von Gilardi wrote:
> > The MG is pretty heavy with its 10,5 kg and a friend of mine told me that it
> > is today the heaviest MG in NATO forces.
The M2HB is much heavier.
> It is *damn* uncomfortable to carry around :) And you still have to lug
> around the equipment (2nd barrel, replacement parts for the loading
> mechanism, not to forget the ammo.)
>
Aren't you supposed to have at least one assitant to carry the spare barrel
and
most of the ammo plus perhaps a tripod ?
The entire squad should help carrying the ammo.
David Thornley
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that intersurfa is using
terms in an incorrect way, and therefore causing confusion. My first
assumption is that he is using MG to mean what others would call a
"submachine gun" or "machine pistol". (These are individual weapons,
issued instead of a rifle, typically firing pistol ammunition at
a high cyclic rate of fire.)
John, and the rest of the world, understands MG to mean "machine gun",
a crew-served weapon that fires rifle ammunition at a high cyclic rate
of fire.
>> I don't think it qualifies as "idiocy" to issue two or three MGs per
>> section (British English for squad).
>>
>
>It qualifies as idiocy to fullfill your fears. Meaning, the argument against
>widespread distribution of the MP42 or the FG was increased ammo consumption
>that supply could not meet. The incorrect thinking here was that the g.s.
>thought the MP42 would be used like the LMG, GPG, SMG (the Germans had the
>same gun, so why do you distinguish?) aka MG.
Here he seems to have confused the MG42 (a machine gun) with the MP42
(a machine pistol). The thread was discussing the MG42, which is a
crew-served weapon capable of automatic fire of rifle ammunition.
It is called a general-purpose machine gun, since it was intended for
use in all machine-gun roles depending on mounting. (The British
Bren was a light machine gun, being light enough to be handled
conveniently by two men and not capable of sustained high rates of fire.
The Vickers was a heavier gun that the British used - very effectively -
for tasks requiring heavy, sustained, long-range fire. The Sten was
a submachine gun or machine pistol.)
The German MP42 was a machine pistol/submachine gun. The MG42 was a
general-purpose machine gun, issued with a bipod for LMG use and a
tripod for MMG use. The FG42 was an automatic rifle (a weapon intended
for use by one man that is capable of automatic fire of rifle ammo),
and the MP44 was something like a machine pistol, but firing more
effective ammunition (a lighter version of a rifle round, not a pistol
round), and its category is "assault rifle". (The American M2 carbine
also was capable of automatic fire of intermediate ammunition.)
When figuring out what should comprise a squad/section, one must
consider crew-served weapons (German MG42, British Bren, no American
counterpart), and personal weapons (rifles, submachine guns, assault
rifles). Heavier machine guns (German MG42 on heavier mount, British
Vickers, American Browning) are irrelevant. The automatic rifle can
be considered a heavier personal weapon (American BAR). While it
is possible to consider that crew-served weapons may be less necessary
if the personal weapons are better (American Garand, most assault
rifles), that's the extent of the tradeoff. Semi-automatic and
automatic rifles cannot deliver the firepower of a LMG, and assault
rifles don't have the same range.
>Their get it done assault teams carried MP's for close up and personal. For
>anything else they used artillery or tanks. By 1944 they reallized blowing
>the enemy up rather than snipering got quicker results. They took out German
>MG nests with PAK's from 1k away. They brought field artillery to point
>blank range and took out squads at a time. The US just recently caught on to
>Russian doctrine. You'll see more RPG's and auto RPG's in use on the US side
>for battle field use.
>
Are you saying that the Soviets tried to avoid using SMGs by 1944?
That isn't my understanding. I simply can't understand the rest of the
paragraph. You are using nonstandard terminology in a context I
simply cannot figure out.
>> about MGs being "the nerveless rifle" and "the essence of
>> infantry", 2 MGs per section was then, and is now, a better
>> idea than making do with one.
>
>If you like to fight like the Wehrmacht from 1941 to 1945. I suggest there
>was a better way, and the major powers implemented it after WW2. What more
>proof do you need? A bolt action was useless except for snipers. Period.
>The MG42 required twice the ammo averybody else did for the same air time.
>And I suggest air time is what's important for an MG. It's useless if it
>isn't fired because ammo needs to be conserved.
>
It's more a matter of training than technology. Modern training is much
more suited for getting soldiers to fire personal weapons at the enemy
than WWII training. (See Grossman, "On Killing".) In WWII, soldiers
typically did not use their personal weapons effectively, and so it
didn't matter as much what these weapons were. Soldiers used crew-
served weapons much more effectively, and so the German system where
the soldiers were there to support the MG42 worked well.
Nor do I completely understand what is meant by "air time". If it
refers to time that the machine gun is actually firing, it isn't all
that important. A machine gun can be used for short bursts of fire
as well as long streams, and a high rate of fire isn't much of a
problem when firing short bursts. If the MG42 was used in a medium
role, and was firing long bursts, then it wasn't a squad weapon.
>> assault rifle was another innovation ultimately copied by
>> practically everyone after WW2; during WW2 the trend towards
>> an increasing issue of SMGs was clear in most armies, even
>> some US infantrymen acquiring them in place of their excellent
>> official issue M-1 rifle.
>
>The assault rifle is exactly what German field officers requested in Russia
>1941. They requested an effective round for the ranges they dealt with. The
>semi-auto mode is what they considered effective, with emergency full auto for
>the human wave attacks that Russians practiced in 1941, 1942.
>
Could we have references of some sort on that?
>> sense. I wonder if part of the successful performance of
>> German infantry was also due to their using simpler (and
>> hence easier to do well) section tactics than the Western Allies.
>
>You need not wonder. Read German sources and you will understand. Their
>success was due to the use of intelligence, and the Russians taught them that
>practically was important too.
>
OK, I've read only a few rather general books on squad/section level
tactics, but what I have read agrees far more with John than with
intersurfa. If the latter could cite some sort of specific source
(more specific than, say, "German") before leaving for the golf course,
he might accomplish something.
inter...@aol.com
thor...@visi.com (David Thornley) wrote:
> In article <373bd7c4...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
> <inter...@aol.com> wrote:
> >In article <373684c8...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
> > John...@brunel.ac.uk (John D Salt) wrote:
>I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that intersurfa is using
>terms in an incorrect way, and therefore causing confusion. My first
>assumption is that he is using MG to mean what others would call a
>"submachine gun" or "machine pistol". (These are individual weapons,
>issued instead of a rifle, typically firing pistol ammunition at a high
>cyclic rate of fire.)
Well, I have shown that I know the difference between an MG42 and an MP42.
The MP42 is NOT a submachine gun. It's an assault rifle. You are
confused as is John. You understand MG;s but you're stuck in neat
categorizations of LMG, GMG...etc. Who cares! A gun is used to kill
enemy soldiers, or suppress their ability to kill you. The MP42, aka
assault gun, was far more capable then the MG42 in hit ratios per rounds
expended. The MG42 wasted 600% ammo to get one hit. This is what I'm
trying to get across to you and John. The MP42 was a misnomer, it was not
an MP at all, in caliber, in use, or anything at all. It was basically a
semi-auto with auto burst capability. Given a bipod like the FG41 it was
far more effective in terms of hits/rounds fired then that MG42 everybody
on this forum loves. The one role the MG42 was better at is suppressive
fire, but it was selfdefeating in that role as well because it fired too
many rounds per minute of air time. Thus it was kept 'quiet' more often,
ie.useless.
>John, and the rest of the world, understands MG to mean "machine gun", a
>crew-served weapon that fires rifle ammunition at a high cyclic rate of
>fire.
I do too, and have described it several times.
> Here he seems to have confused the MG42 (a machine gun) with the MP42
> (a machine pistol). The thread was discussing the MG42, which is a
No, here 'he' is discussing a squad infantry weapon in terms of
effectiveness at hit ratios to rounds expended, not neat categories to
please students. The MP42 is NOT a machine pistol, it's an assault
gun, basically an MP44/STG44. The MP40 is the machine pistol.
> The German MP42 was a machine pistol/submachine gun.
Nope. The MP40/38 is a submachine gun in pistol, 9mm caliber. The MP42
is an assault gun, a rifle, one that fires semi-auto or burst full auto
by selection.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
David Thornley
>In article <7i9qln$3...@dgs.dgsys.com>,
>>I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that intersurfa is using
>>terms in an incorrect way, and therefore causing confusion. My first
>>assumption is that he is using MG to mean what others would call a
>>"submachine gun" or "machine pistol". (These are individual weapons,
>>issued instead of a rifle, typically firing pistol ammunition at a high
>>cyclic rate of fire.)
>
>Well, I have shown that I know the difference between an MG42 and an MP42.
>The MP42 is NOT a submachine gun. It's an assault rifle. You are
>confused as is John.
I rechecked my sources and can't find any reference to a MP42. You were
apparently thinking MK42 or MP 43 or some such, while I was thinking
MP40. I'm going to call it the MP44 for the rest of the post, to avoid
confusion.
You understand MG;s but you're stuck in neat
>categorizations of LMG, GMG...etc. Who cares! A gun is used to kill
>enemy soldiers, or suppress their ability to kill you.
I will suggest that there are significant differences between the
British Brown Bess musket and the American M1 155mm gun, but you
seem to be suggesting otherwise.
The MP42, aka
>assault gun, was far more capable then the MG42 in hit ratios per rounds
>expended. The MG42 wasted 600% ammo to get one hit.
It was? It could not be used in the same manner. The MG42, firing in
short bursts, was accurate and deadly to a much longer range. The MP44
fired the 7.92mm kurz round, which was not suitable for long range
fire. FWIW, more modern armies have had a tendency to put both
MP44-like and MG42-like weapons in their infantry squads/sections.
There seems to be a perception that they are complementary.
This is what I'm
>trying to get across to you and John. The MP42 was a misnomer, it was not
>an MP at all, in caliber, in use, or anything at all.
I believe we would have known it under one of its actual designations.
We also tend to think it a different sort of weapon than the MG42.
Given a bipod like the FG41 it was
>far more effective in terms of hits/rounds fired then that MG42 everybody
>on this forum loves.
This I do need a source for, partly so I know what the statement actually
means. It does seem reasonable that a hand-held weapon incapable of
long-range fire might hit with more rounds than a less mobile weapon
firing at longer ranges, and I would also find the reverse reasonable.
If you are referring to tests at firing ranges, I would suggest that
such figures can be very misleading as to combat effects.
The one role the MG42 was better at is suppressive
>fire, but it was selfdefeating in that role as well because it fired too
>many rounds per minute of air time. Thus it was kept 'quiet' more often,
>ie.useless.
>
I was unaware that the MG42, in its light configuration, would fire
for more than short bursts. If it fires in three-round bursts, does
it really matter how many milliseconds separate those bursts? It was
used for more sustained fire, but not in the context of a squad. No
squad can carry enough ammo to keep any machine gun going continuously
in combat.
The MG42 also fired the full-powered 7.92, not the kurz model. That
gave it considerably greater effectiveness at longer ranges. This isn't
all that important for a hand-held weapon, but a weapon on a bipod can
be expected to be more accurate at long range.
>> Here he seems to have confused the MG42 (a machine gun) with the MP42
>> (a machine pistol). The thread was discussing the MG42, which is a
>
>No, here 'he' is discussing a squad infantry weapon in terms of
>effectiveness at hit ratios to rounds expended, not neat categories to
>please students. The MP42 is NOT a machine pistol, it's an assault
>gun, basically an MP44/STG44. The MP40 is the machine pistol.
>
Whereas John and I are making a distinction between one-man hand-held
weapons and two-man weapons with bipods. A squad with MP44s and
a MG42 would look well-armed by modern standards. A squad with MP44s
and no heavier weapon would not.
Osmo Ronkanen
>
>Well, I have shown that I know the difference between an MG42 and an MP42.
>The MP42 is NOT a submachine gun. It's an assault rifle.
Actually it was MP-43. The prototype was MKb-42(h) (h for Haenel)
> Given a bipod like the FG41 it was
>far more effective in terms of hits/rounds fired then that MG42 everybody
>on this forum loves.
You mean FG-42? You seem to be one year off.
> The one role the MG42 was better at is suppressive
>fire, but it was selfdefeating in that role as well because it fired too
>many rounds per minute of air time. Thus it was kept 'quiet' more often,
>ie.useless.
>
Pardon? Machine guns can do very much more than suppressive fire. They
are among the most effective killers in battle field, especially when
used in defense. The German machine guns were not useless, they were
the core of the fire power of the German rifle squads. Germans had
little SMGs and semiautomatic rifles. In fact on assault rifles the
automatic fire is mostly for suppressive fire.
If MG-42 was so poor, then why do you think Germans manufactured so
many of them, in total over 300,000.
Osmo
John D Salt
in reply to a perfectly civil and well-informed message by David Thornley:
[Snips everywhere]
>You are confused as is John.
Yeah, I'm confused all right. I'm confused as to why you make all
these bizarre assertions, in the face of copious evidence that you ain't
right, without as yet posting any scintilla of evidence to back
up your claims.
>You understand MG;s but you're stuck in neat categorizations of LMG,
>GMG...etc. Who cares! A gun is used to kill enemy soldiers...
Say after me: "This is my rifle, this is my gun; this is for shooting,
and this is for fun". :-)
The question of what things are called is actually quite important
to achieving a basic understanding of them. I've never heard of
a class of weapon called a GMG, which I assumed was a typo, but you
have now used repeatedly. Please don't presume to call me "confused"
when you evidently haven't got as far as the naming of parts yourself.
I might also remind you that you have, on this thread, shown your
failure to understand the designation "RPG". I might also point
out, having refreshed my memory on the development of German
assault rifles from John Weeks' "Infantry Weapons", that you
were wholly wrong in your initial condemnation of the German
General Staff for not supporting the development of this class
of weapon. Weeks states that it was the same General Staff you
castigated as "stupid" that commenced the development of assault
rifles between the wars. In other words, you couldn't be
more wrong.
>The MP42, aka assault gun, was far more capable then the MG42 in hit
>ratios per rounds expended. The MG42 wasted 600% ammo to get one hit.
That's an impressive density of misunderstandings in only two lines.
There is quite a difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault
gun"; you really are risking a severely sprained back if you try
firing an assault gun from the shoulder. :-)
You have just introduced the novel effectiveness measure of "hit
ratios per round expended". What makes you think this is important?
Again, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to cite your sources,
something you seem remarkably reluctant to do. While you're
at it, you can explain to the Bundeswehr how "confused" they
were to keep the MG-3 in service for so many decades.
>The MP42 was a misnomer...
You're right there. Please take your pick from any of the
following weapon designations:
FG-42, MKb42(H), Mkb42(W), SG43, MP43, MP44...
...and say which one(s) you are referring to.
If you have evidence of the existence of a weapon called MP42,
please post it.
>Given a bipod like the FG41 it was far more effective...
Again, if you have any evidence that any of the German WW2
7.92mm Kurz assault rifles were ever equipped with a bipod,
please post it. It'll be news to me.
>The one role the MG42 was better at is suppressive fire, but it was
>selfdefeating in that role as well because it fired too
>many rounds per minute of air time. Thus it was kept 'quiet' more often,
>ie.useless.
That doesn't match what I've heard. I refer you once again to
Sydney Jary's "18 Platoon". I refer you once again to PRO
document WO 291/474, an OR study entitled "Rate of fire of the LMG",
summarized in my ww2eff.rtf file. This study found that a
weapon with firing characteristics like those of the MG-42 was
superior to slower-firing and mag-fed weapons not only in
fire for neutralisation, but also in burst or traversing fire
in defence, and spectacularly more effective in enfilade fire.
Please feel free to cite the sources you have that show that
the OR analysts who prepared this study were "confused".
>No, here 'he' is discussing a squad infantry weapon in terms of
>effectiveness at hit ratios to rounds expended, not neat categories to
>please students.
What do you have against students? I'd also like to point out
that I'm a lecturer. :-)
Please don't delude yourself that you are a "practical man"
arguing bluff common sense against other people's book-learning.
Yes, I have studied a fair amount of the literature on this
subject. However, a good deal of what I learned about the
firing, care and tactical handling of section weapons was
taught to me at the School of Infantry, Warminster, and other
places during four year's reserve service as an infantryman and
signaller. I have also heard first-hand accounts of the
effectiveness of various models of GPMG and LMG from British,
French and Rhodesian infantrymen who used them in combat.
Now, for the last time, will you please present the group with
some reason why your bizarre opinions on infantry weapons should
be respected above those of Sydney Jary, Tony Jeapes, Ian Hogg,
John Weeks, the members of a WW2 OR section, the authors of
"Jane's Infantry Weapons", the instructors at the School of
Infantry, and indeed practically the whole history of infantry
combat from 1918 to 1988. Feel free to make appeal to published
sources, archive material, your own personal experience,
conversations with veterans, or plain common sense. So far
I have seen you use none of these.
inter...@aol.com
thor...@visi.com (David Thornley) wrote:
> I rechecked my sources and can't find any reference to a MP42. You were
> apparently thinking MK42 or MP 43 or some such, while I was thinking
> MP40. I'm going to call it the MP44 for the rest of the post, to avoid
> confusion.
Actually I was taking poetic license to showoff the comic naming
tribulations this gun went thru. The MP43 has had a tortured history
in respect to its name and purpose. It was designed in 42 and
prototyped in 42. In 42 it was competing with the Walther designed
gun. Both were design engineered to be manufactured from stamped
parts, buildable anywhere, in extremely high numbers (to replace the
k98). It was picked in 42 over the Walther. Then they sat on it
because it was an assault rifle named an MP so that its development
could be funded under Hitler. The field trials were held by the
Wehrmacht in the field (as was customary) against Russian infantry and
got extremely good reviews, so much so that its existence was rumored
among the troops. Officers eager for a weapon that actually worked in
the hands of a soldier, instead of just watching the MG crew, asked
when they could finally have something to get the job done. This made
it to Hitler who was actually asked by a field general directly.
Hitler didn't know anything about it, and the subsequent inquiry
revealed the MP43. By the time the g.s. got off its duff, it was 1944
and the MP44 now was renamed STG44 and some were issued, but it was not
the high speed replacement for the k98 that it was desinged to be in
1942 based on Wehrmacht requests dating to 1941.
> I will suggest that there are significant differences between the
> British Brown Bess musket and the American M1 155mm gun, but you
> seem to be suggesting otherwise.
We agree on something. Even though somebody will say, well they both
use powder and a projectile.
> It was? It could not be used in the same manner. The MG42, firing in
> short bursts, was accurate and deadly to a much longer range. The MP44
> fired the 7.92mm kurz round, which was not suitable for long range
> fire. FWIW, more modern armies have had a tendency to put both
Agreed. The MG42 had a longer range. In the heavy configuration with
better sights it far surpassed any k98 rifleman, certainly an MP44 aka
MP43 aka MK42. But long range was no longer desirable. Why? See the
following...
> MP44-like and MG42-like weapons in their infantry squads/sections.
> There seems to be a perception that they are complementary.
The only situation where I can see them complementary was in Russia
where the Germans actually held dug-in lines, just like WWI. And the
Russians actually attacked those lines with infantry in 1942-43. The
MG42 shone there because of its long range. Even by 1944 they didn't
open fire long range because the Russians had set up AT guns to hunt
the MG42 down from long range. In Normandy the MG42 didn't fire long
range either. By the end of 1943 infantry tactics had advanced to the
point where squad weapons were not fired unless at short ranges of less
than 300 meters and I would dare speculate that in Normandy it was at
less then 100m, so as not to give away their position to the artillery
and to capture the moment of surprise.
>
> I believe we would have known it under one of its actual designations.
> We also tend to think it a different sort of weapon than the MG42.
> This I do need a source for, partly so I know what the statement actually
> means. It does seem reasonable that a hand-held weapon incapable of
> long-range fire might hit with more rounds than a less mobile weapon
> firing at longer ranges, and I would also find the reverse reasonable.
> If you are referring to tests at firing ranges, I would suggest that
> such figures can be very misleading as to combat effects.
The assumption I made was that 10 shooters firing from 10 different
angles in auto burst mode are far more deadly than 1 shooter with an
MG42 squeezing off 6 rounds at each target.
> >
> I was unaware that the MG42, in its light configuration, would fire
> for more than short bursts. If it fires in three-round bursts, does
> it really matter how many milliseconds separate those bursts? It was
It fired as many roudns in a burst that a shooter was capable of. It
did not contain a mechanism that limited the burst to three rounds.
The typical burst would probably be closer to 6-10 rounds in about a
1/4 of a second. Even the M60 was fired in short bursts for
suppressive fire, just many bursts.
> used for more sustained fire, but not in the context of a squad. No
> squad can carry enough ammo to keep any machine gun going continuously
> in combat.
The M60 squad fired quite a few. Of course the MG42 would have needed
twice the number of shleppers.
> The MG42 also fired the full-powered 7.92, not the kurz model. That
> gave it considerably greater effectiveness at longer ranges. This isn't
> all that important for a hand-held weapon, but a weapon on a bipod can
> be expected to be more accurate at long range.
No squad wanted to identify themselves to the enemy artillery at long
range. Especially since the occasional hit wasn't worth it. Firing at
long range with an infantry weapon just alerts the enemy to your
position and allows them to flank, or call in artillery or napalm air
strikes. They stopped doing long range in WWII because of that.
> Whereas John and I are making a distinction between one-man hand-held
> weapons and two-man weapons with bipods. A squad with MP44s and
> a MG42 would look well-armed by modern standards. A squad with MP44s
> and no heavier weapon would not.
No qibbles about the value of a hand held weapon vs a full-time
automatic with a bipod. The squad with all MP44's would not be
targeted by Russian AT guns or T34 tanks. That squad would have good
effectiveness against enemy infantry at close range which is the ONLY
role the Wehrmacht infantry played in WWII. An MP44 could not make up
for the lack of artillery and tanks, neither could the MG42. We
started this thread arguing whether issuing a second MG42 to a squad
was as good as issuing MP44's to the squad and leaving the original one
MG42 per squad. My point was that a second MG42 was not nearly as
effective as arming the squad with all MP44's and one MG42, and
consequently a poor decision by the g.s.
HCALTMANN
>My point was that a second MG42 was not nearly as
>effective as arming the squad with all MP44's and one MG42
I was an assistant machine gunner in a squad that had two MG42. Of the twelve
men in the squad, the sergeant and the corporal had MP44s, everybody else,
except for the machine gunners, had Kar98s. This was a Panzergrenadier squad
in combat in France in Sep 1944.
I agree with intersurfa. Ten MP44s would have been better fire power than two
MG42s at the range where it mattered, i.e. to 100 yards.
-- Heinz
Osmo Ronkanen
>In article <nrg43.777$T9.1...@ptah.visi.com>,
> thor...@visi.com (David Thornley) wrote:
>
>Actually I was taking poetic license to showoff the comic naming
>tribulations this gun went thru. The MP43 has had a tortured history
>in respect to its name and purpose. It was designed in 42 and
>prototyped in 42.
Actually one does not design a completely new type of weapon in a year.
Haenel began designing the weapon in 1938. At that point even the
cartridge was not ready. Very first prototypes were made in 1940. On
that year Walther became interested about the concept and made their own
version on basis of a rifle designed for full cartridge.
> In 42 it was competing with the Walther designed
>gun. Both were design engineered to be manufactured from stamped
>parts, buildable anywhere, in extremely high numbers (to replace the
>k98). It was picked in 42 over the Walther.
True, but some features from the Walther gun were also taken to MP-43.
The original Haenel design fired from open bolt when Walther fired from
the closed bolt. The closed bolt design was taken to MP-43. Use of
closed bolt tells that the focus was on accuracy on single shots and
not so much automatic fire.
> Then they sat on it
>because it was an assault rifle named an MP so that its development
>could be funded under Hitler.
Hitler explicitly forbade the development of MKb-42 so one needed a way
to hide it.
...
>Hitler didn't know anything about it, and the subsequent inquiry
>revealed the MP43.
Hitler new about the project, as I understand he even found about the
way to hide it. He did not know about the field tests though. When he
heard about the positive feedback he changed his mind.
> By the time the g.s. got off its duff, it was 1944
>and the MP44 now was renamed STG44 and some were issued, but it was not
>the high speed replacement for the k98 that it was desinged to be in
>1942 based on Wehrmacht requests dating to 1941.
The production of MP-43 really began in August 1943. In October the
production leveled on about 4 to 6 thousand monthly. IIRC it was on
early 1944 when it was finally approved and the production then rose
reaching 20,000 in July and topping at 55,000 in November. For the
comparison the top production of Garand at Springfield was 122,000 in
January 1944 and the average monthly production of Kar98 in 1944 was
over 160,000. Still total of 426,000 weapons were produced so it was
not an insignificant amount.
...
>It fired as many roudns in a burst that a shooter was capable of. It
>did not contain a mechanism that limited the burst to three rounds.
>The typical burst would probably be closer to 6-10 rounds in about a
>1/4 of a second.
Well in a quarter of a second it fired 5 rounds. Also there is no rule
that a burst has to be so long.
>> The MG42 also fired the full-powered 7.92, not the kurz model. That
>> gave it considerably greater effectiveness at longer ranges. This isn't
>> all that important for a hand-held weapon, but a weapon on a bipod can
>> be expected to be more accurate at long range.
>
A full power round has reasonable killing power for well over 2km.
That is way too much unless one uses indirect fire which was an
obsolete concept even by WWII standards. An intermediate round has
killing power up to about one kilometer and reasonable accuracy on bipod
up to 500 meters.
>No squad wanted to identify themselves to the enemy artillery at long
>range. Especially since the occasional hit wasn't worth it. Firing at
>long range with an infantry weapon just alerts the enemy to your
>position and allows them to flank, or call in artillery or napalm air
>strikes. They stopped doing long range in WWII because of that.
300 meters is at least here currently considered the safety distance for
artillery so infantry weapons are needed only at ranges closer to that.
Here the Sako M-95 assault rifle has sights only for 150 and 300 meters
for that. For the comparison even Suomi SMG had sights graduated up to
500 meters and the rifles used during WWII had sights up to 2000 meters.
If one needs machine gun fire at long range one does not use the squad
machine gun. Instead one uses one uses a company machine gun that is on
a tripod.
Osmo
inter...@aol.com
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
> Actually one does not design a completely new type of weapon in a
>year.
Hmmmm...few, if any, industrial designs are brand new, never heard of,
done right the first time. The half cartridge design has been around
since 1938, however, the mass production stamped steel design was
developed for the MK42. The Walther design also included stamped
parts, since the intent, like the MG42, was mass production replacement
of what was already in service.
> True, but some features from the Walther gun were also taken to MP-43.
Yes, anything to delay the weapon getting to people who needed it.
> The original Haenel design fired from open bolt when Walther fired
from
> the closed bolt. The closed bolt design was taken to MP-43. Use of
> closed bolt tells that the focus was on accuracy on single shots and
> not so much automatic fire.
Not really. The severe mud conditions on the eastern front required a
weapon that didn't foul easily. This dictated the closed bolt design.
The accuracy part is nonsense really, except for competition shooting.
A combat silhouette doesn't require millimeter accuracy. It's an
invention from this forum, that manages to be both right and wrong.
> Hitler new about the project, as I understand he even found about the
> way to hide it. He did not know about the field tests though. When he
> heard about the positive feedback he changed his mind.
I heard the story from a field tester. He was a sniper, given the MK42
(should have been the MP42 really) and was able to take out a squad in
seconds. He was used to bolt actions and was totally impressed that he
could do a dozen in one fell swoop.
> The production of MP-43 really began in August 1943. In October the
> production leveled on about 4 to 6 thousand monthly. IIRC it was on
> early 1944 when it was finally approved and the production then rose
> reaching 20,000 in July and topping at 55,000 in November. For the
Yeah, thanks for backing me up.
> comparison the top production of Garand at Springfield was 122,000 in
> January 1944 and the average monthly production of Kar98 in 1944 was
> over 160,000. Still total of 426,000 weapons were produced so it was
> not an insignificant amount.
But it was too late by two years.
> Well in a quarter of a second it fired 5 rounds. Also there is no rule
> that a burst has to be so long.
No there isn't a rule, but you can only fire less then 6 on your best
day, and most can't even do that, especially if you had a well worn
gun. The 1200 rpm is only a factory new figure, the rate of well worn
guns was way above that, I heard closer to 1500-2000rpm.
>
> >> The MG42 also fired the full-powered 7.92, not the kurz model. That
> >> gave it considerably greater effectiveness at longer ranges. This
isn't
> >> all that important for a hand-held weapon, but a weapon on a bipod
can
> >> be expected to be more accurate at long range.
Only the SMG model was accurate at long range with high rate of fire.
The LMG bipod model danced around quite a bit and the gunner had to be
the hefty type. At long range shooting the gun only needs to move a
hair to be off several meters.
> A full power round has reasonable killing power for well over 2km.
> That is way too much unless one uses indirect fire which was an
> obsolete concept even by WWII standards. An intermediate round has
> killing power up to about one kilometer and reasonable accuracy on
bipod
> up to 500 meters.
The MG42 was very effective on the Russian front in 1942. At the time
the Russians practiced human wave assaults on the wide open steppe
where visibility was in excess of two miles. The MG42 in SMG mode with
better sights was a buzz saw at cutting down infantry long range. It
would have been wonderful in WWI also. Too bad for the Germans that
the Russians stopped doing the human wave thing.
>
> 300 meters is at least here currently considered the safety distance
for
> artillery so infantry weapons are needed only at ranges closer to
>that.
Well that's the 1970's wisdom. In today's theatre the MG is dead when
confronting a Russian RPG or even an M16 grenade launcher. But
actually with GPS and the multiple rocket launchers firing cluster
grenades you can forget about safety for the MG or any other infantry
squad.
> Here the Sako M-95 assault rifle has sights only for 150 and 300
>meters
> for that. For the comparison even Suomi SMG had sights graduated up to
> 500 meters and the rifles used during WWII had sights up to 2000
>meters.
Yes, wisdom travels very slowly in military circles. I'd love to meet
the officer who thinks his troops can do something at 500 meters. It's
ludicrous, your best hope is that the best sniper with a scope and
special ammo can do anything effective at 500 yards without blowing his
cover.
>
> If one needs machine gun fire at long range one does not use the squad
> machine gun. Instead one uses one uses a company machine gun that is
on
> a tripod.
Or a sniper with a G3 and a scope would be much neater.
Osmo Ronkanen
>Hmmmm...few, if any, industrial designs are brand new, never heard of,
>done right the first time. The half cartridge design has been around
>since 1938,
Actually it was in 1938 when Polte got the contract to design the
cartridge. That took some two years. So the weapon design began to a
non-existing cartridge.
...
>
>Not really. The severe mud conditions on the eastern front required a
>weapon that didn't foul easily. This dictated the closed bolt design.
Pardon. How is a closed bolt weapon more reliable? Also there were many
open bolt guns used in WWII.
>The accuracy part is nonsense really, except for competition shooting.
When one shots at rages 300-400 meters one needs accuracy from the gun.
>> Still total of 426,000 weapons were produced so it was
>> not an insignificant amount.
>
>But it was too late by two years.
>
True. It has been said that Hitler messing with things delayed the mass
production by a year.
>No there isn't a rule, but you can only fire less then 6 on your best
>day, and most can't even do that, especially if you had a well worn
>gun.
Suomi had a rate of 900 rpm and many soldier did not bother to use
single shot feature when they could shoot single shots with the selector
on automatic. I really cannot think how one could not press something
less than a quarter of a second.
> The 1200 rpm is only a factory new figure, the rate of well worn
>guns was way above that, I heard closer to 1500-2000rpm.
We all have heard many strange things.
...
Osmo
HCALTMANN
>Only the SMG model was accurate at long range with high rate of fire.
>The LMG bipod model danced around quite a bit and the gunner had to be
>the hefty type. At long range shooting the gun only needs to move a
>hair to be off several meters.
I second that. At some 135 lbs, I was far too light to be machine gunner with
the LMg-42. -- Heinz
Boris Broadside
Ronkanen) wrote:
>
> A full power round has reasonable killing power for well over 2km.
> That is way too much unless one uses indirect fire which was an
> obsolete concept even by WWII standards.
Really? I thought the whole point of a tripod machinegun with traversing
and elevating equipment was indirect fire. It seems like a lot of trouble
to go through, making a rifle-caliber weapon nearly into an artillery
piece, if it's going to be used only like an ordinary direct-fire weapon.
See below.
>
> 300 meters is at least here currently considered the safety distance for
> artillery so infantry weapons are needed only at ranges closer to that.
> Here the Sako M-95 assault rifle has sights only for 150 and 300 meters
> for that. For the comparison even Suomi SMG had sights graduated up to
> 500 meters and the rifles used during WWII had sights up to 2000 meters.
>
> If one needs machine gun fire at long range one does not use the squad
> machine gun. Instead one uses one uses a company machine gun that is on
> a tripod.
>
> Osmo
My question about these extreme ranges is not so much about the steadiness
and eyesight of the shooter. It's more about ground cover. I can see
how, on the steppes of Russia and the Ukraine, you could see that far, but
that seems like the exception rather than the rule. For ranges like
1000-2000 meters, in the rest of Europe, I thought indirect fire would
have to be used for reasons of visibility alone. I guess I am visualizing
Western Europe as more "cluttered", with trees, buildings, hills, stacks
of hay, etc., than it actually is. (I live in a very arboreal city, so it
is hard to picture someone using a Lee-Enfield at 3500 yards, or a
Browning Hi-Power at 500 yards, no matter how good a shot he is;
visibility out my window is about 15 meters.)
--
Sincerely,
The Reverend Boris Broadside
(not a real reverend, but I sure like to give sermons)
P.S. Please reply to the newsgroup
Richard Becker
and tripods. They looked like they were anti-personnel
rather than anti-aircraft...
Rgds,
Carl Alex Nielsen
<7k0r49$ikk$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> Really? I thought the whole point of a tripod machinegun with
> traversing and elevating equipment was indirect fire. It seems like a
> lot of trouble to go through, making a rifle-caliber weapon nearly into
> an artillery piece, if it's going to be used only like an ordinary
> direct-fire weapon.
The point is that the higher stabilty of the MG increases the effective
direct fire range of the MG, and allows you to fire loooooong bursts and
still be able to control the weapon. You can lock the traversing or the
elevating equipment and spred the fire of the gun at a fixed range or a
fixed direction. You can also use it at night (or other causes of low
visibility) in a prepared position, by sighting it before the arrival of
the enemy and just leave it until you want to fire.
Carl Alex Nielsen
Osmo Ronkanen
Boris Broadside <bbroadsi...@imagina.com> wrote:
>In article <7jbirn$4...@dgs.dgsys.com>, ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo
>Ronkanen) wrote:
>>
>> A full power round has reasonable killing power for well over 2km.
>> That is way too much unless one uses indirect fire which was an
>> obsolete concept even by WWII standards.
>
>Really?
Yes, really. Indirect machine gun fire is pretty is obsolete and was
during WWII. This is why the boat tail bullets were starting to get out
of fashion.
>I thought the whole point of a tripod machinegun with traversing
>and elevating equipment was indirect fire.
The tripod is useful even in direct fire. If gives the weapon better
support than just firing from bipod. This allows one to keep the machine
gun further back as it can shoot between the advancing rifle squads.
>
>My question about these extreme ranges is not so much about the steadiness
>and eyesight of the shooter. It's more about ground cover. I can see
>how, on the steppes of Russia and the Ukraine, you could see that far, but
>that seems like the exception rather than the rule. For ranges like
>1000-2000 meters, in the rest of Europe, I thought indirect fire would
>have to be used for reasons of visibility alone.
Sure one uses indirect fire but with proper indirect fire weapons, not
with machine guns. Artillery is far more effective as indirect fire
weapon as a machine gun.
>I guess I am visualizing
>Western Europe as more "cluttered", with trees, buildings, hills, stacks
>of hay, etc., than it actually is. (I live in a very arboreal city, so it
>is hard to picture someone using a Lee-Enfield at 3500 yards, or a
>Browning Hi-Power at 500 yards, no matter how good a shot he is;
>visibility out my window is about 15 meters.)
>
Out of my window it is 300 meters. Sure there are places with limited
visibility. In forests it often can be just a few meters, especially
in summer. I do not see your point. One does not use a rifle up to 3500
meters, even though the bullet is lethal at that distance. This just
shows that the bullet is too powerful.
Indirect machine gun fore is not that good idea on urban area. All you
hit is roofs and walls of buildings. In the areas where there is poor
visibility it is better to get close than to attempt to fire at
distance.
Osmo
Boris Broadside
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
> >
> >I guess I am visualizing
> >Western Europe as more "cluttered", with trees, buildings, hills, stacks
> >of hay, etc., than it actually is. (I live in a very arboreal city, so it
> >is hard to picture someone using a Lee-Enfield at 3500 yards, or a
> >Browning Hi-Power at 500 yards, no matter how good a shot he is;
> >visibility out my window is about 15 meters.)
> >
> Out of my window it is 300 meters. Sure there are places with limited
> visibility. In forests it often can be just a few meters, especially
> in summer. I do not see your point. One does not use a rifle up to 3500
> meters, even though the bullet is lethal at that distance. This just
> shows that the bullet is too powerful.
I was not really arguing a "point" as such. I was stating possible
reasons for my bias. If I can't visualize something, it is more difficult
to understand. Reading all the time about weapons (which is one of my
favorite things to do) hasn't given me a very vivid idea of standard
engagement ranges. This is why I hang out on usenet and ask annoying
questions all the time.
_Military Small Arms of the 20th Century_, by Ian Hogg and John Weeks,
claims that the Lee-Metford .303in Rifle, Magazine, Mark I, had an Extreme
Range Sight graduated from 1,800 yards to 3,500 yards. So someone at some
point appears to have thought that a rifle could be used at those ranges.
I was wondering what they were thinking.
--
Sincerely,
The Reverend Boris Broadside
(not a real reverend)
Nele Abels-Ludwig
Sure. There is a tripod plus telescopic sights for the modern
Bundeswehr MG3. It is definitely not intended for anti-aircraft use,
those look different - e.g. the "Zwisola", the "Zwillingssockellafette"
which is designed to hold to MGs at once.
Were they already used in the second world war?
Nele
Carl Alex Nielsen
<37776e11...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>...
> in summer. I do not see your point. One does not use a rifle up to 3500
> meters, even though the bullet is lethal at that distance. This just
> shows that the bullet is too powerful.
You seem to forget penetration.
Being able to shoot the enemy through most trees and building walls might
be considered desireable.
Carl Alex Nielsen
<378fcbc5...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>...
> It is still taught in all the SFMG units of Infantry Battalions in many
> of the NATO aligned countries and the equipment to achieve it is still
> issued (for use with 7.62 x 51 mm).
Which countries would that be ?
When I qualified on the MG3 (including using it on a tripod) there was no
mentioning of firering it indirectly, the firering instructors hadn't even
considered it
and its not mentioned in any of the manuals on using it I have seen.
> Why are they so wrong ?
Since I haven't actually tried it I will have to guess.
1. Range - given the flat trajectory of the MG it will likely have a long
minimum range (when firering indirectly).
2. "level of indirectness" - indirect MG fire can only pass over relatively
"flat" obstacles, that are neiter too close to the target nor the firerer.
2. Supply - it will require hideous amounts of ammunition and spare
barrels.
3. Accuracy - the flatter trajectory will also require greater precision
when
firering and very precise information on EXACTLY where the MG is
positioned.
The only reliable way I can think of is to keep firering the gun, and walk
the fire onto
the target.
4. Mortars will do the job much better and much easier.
Daniel
> >Really?
>
> Yes, really. Indirect machine gun fire is pretty is obsolete and was
> during WWII. This is why the boat tail bullets were starting to get out
> of fashion.
>
>snip
Funny. The British used it with great effect in W.W.I (and the Germans
feared it). They did it again in W.W.II particularly in the Western
Desert (using Mk VIIIZ .303).
It is still taught in all the SFMG units of Infantry Battalions in many
of the NATO aligned countries and the equipment to achieve it is still
issued (for use with 7.62 x 51 mm).
Why are they so wrong ?
Cheers
Daniel
Martin Rapier
> _Military Small Arms of the 20th Century_, by Ian Hogg and John Weeks,
> claims that the Lee-Metford .303in Rifle, Magazine, Mark I, had an
Extreme
> Range Sight graduated from 1,800 yards to 3,500 yards. So someone at
some
> point appears to have thought that a rifle could be used at those ranges.
> I was wondering what they were thinking.
As the Lee Metford was a pre-WWI rifle, perhaps in a colonial warfare
environment the ability to engage massed enemy formations at long ranges
(e.g. Zuku Impis off the top of a handy Kopje) was viewed as important? On
the first day of the Somme some British units were engaged by direct small
arms fire whilst moving up behind _their_ own_ trenches ie at ranges in
excess of 2000m, and similarly in mountain fighting, such as Tunisia in
WW2, long range small arms fire was found to be very effective. I guess the
key in all these cases is long available lines of sight, and not much cover
for the targets. Not common in the ETO, but not that unusual elsewhere,
although I've read accounts of firefights in Holland which took place in
3-3,500m range bracket! Most of this long range stuff would be MGs rather
than rifles of course.
wrt Vickers MMGs firing indirect, the British Army was still doing this in
Korea in the 1950s (see e.g. 'Fortune Favours the Brave') as they were
quite a useful long range area interdiction weapon. I'm sure we've all
heard the story of 10 Vickers in WW1 expending a million rounds of ammo in
a few hours on indirect fire missions....
Cheers
Martin.
inter...@aol.com
"Carl Alex Nielsen" <c...@gis.dk> wrote:
> You seem to forget penetration.
> Being able to shoot the enemy through most trees and building walls might
> be considered desireable.
Neither the k98 round, nor the 303, nor the 30-06 shoots thru most
trees. Neither will shoot thru a young tree. Building walls? Forget
it if its brick, cinder block yeah and makes a nice fragmentation
pattern too. Only when your target is an elephant or something like it
does the superior penetration of a rifle cartridge matter. Lousy
weapons the full cartridge ones. Their penetration is not worth their
kick. Try firing 100 rounds of those and you're ready for the masseuse.
I qualified on a 303 enfield once, not a pleasure.
Angus M McLellan
<re indirect machine-gun fire>
>Since I haven't actually tried it I will have to guess.
>
>1. Range - given the flat trajectory of the MG it will likely have a long
>minimum range (when firering indirectly).
>2. "level of indirectness" - indirect MG fire can only pass over relatively
>"flat" obstacles, that are neiter too close to the target nor the firerer.
>2. Supply - it will require hideous amounts of ammunition and spare
>barrels.
>3. Accuracy - the flatter trajectory will also require greater precision
>when
>firering and very precise information on EXACTLY where the MG is
>positioned.
>The only reliable way I can think of is to keep firering the gun, and walk
>the fire onto
>the target.
>4. Mortars will do the job much better and much easier.
All true. But AFAIK, indirect MG fire in WW1 (and presumably in WW2 as
well) was primarily used as part of an offensive or defensive standing
barrage. Guns swept predefined arcs at preset ranges to discourage
(but undoubtedly not stop) enemy forces moving through the field of
fire. Given that this fire, just likely standing artillery barrages,
was preplanned and prepared, the difficulties were more those of (a)
concentrating enough guns to produce a worthwhile effect and (b)
persuading planners to allocate machine-guns to this task when many
others were also calling for them. Even as late as 1945 (Operation
Veritable), offensive barrages included machine-gun fire, unless my
recollection of Bidwell & Graham's _Firepower_ is wrong.
Angus
Daniel
>
> Daniel <Dan...@not.au1.ibm.com> wrote in article
> <378fcbc5...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>...
>
> > of the NATO aligned countries and the equipment to achieve it is still
> > issued (for use with 7.62 x 51 mm).
>
UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand that I am aware of (I am qualified
in Aust and have discussed it with personnel from these countries).
> Since I haven't actually tried it I will have to guess.
>
> 1. Range - given the flat trajectory of the MG it will likely have a long
> minimum range (when firering indirectly).
Too true. We are talking of indirect fire at ranges of in excess of
2000m - the .303 Mk VIIIZ was used at ranges up to 5000 yds for indirect
fire (interdiction).
> 2. "level of indirectness" - indirect MG fire can only pass over relatively
> "flat" obstacles, that are neiter too close to the target nor the firerer.
Depends on the tripod does it not ? Or if the rear legs are dug into
the ground. Remember even artillery has had to "dig in the trail" to
achieve higher than normal angles when in mountain warfare (and I am
talking of howitzers !).
> 2. Supply - it will require hideous amounts of ammunition and spare
> barrels.
Exactly - which is why it may not be used often but the weapon is still
capable of it. One of the selection trials requirements for the "new"
SFMG for the Australian Army was a 200,000 round continuos fire (pausing
only to clear stoppages, replace barrels and replenish ammunition where
needed). Stoppages were counted where they were the weapon's "fault" but
not where a round filed to fire once "hard struck" (this was regarded as
an ammunition "fault")
In the 1960 trials for a Bren replacement the FN MAG58 came second
because a non-essential rivet failed at around 18,000 rounds. The M60
started to fall apart after 2,000 rounds and failed to finish the test
(we bought the M60 !).
In the 1985 (or so) trials the M60A2 (?) started falling apart around
the 20,000 round mark and did not complete the test. FN MAG58 did not
fail and completed the test. We bought the MAG58.
In both cases 3 weapons of each type fired and were selected by the
"sellers".
> 3. Accuracy - the flatter trajectory will also require greater precision
> when firering and very precise information on EXACTLY where the MG is
> positioned.
Ah ! This is recognised. Prepare barrages require the same planning
skills as are used by mortar and artillery (and the SFMG Platoon is in
the same Support Company as the Mortar Platoon and use the same fire
control instruments (at least in Australia)).
> The only reliable way I can think of is to keep firering the gun, and walk
> the fire onto the target.
See above.
> 4. Mortars will do the job much better and much easier.
Hmm... I wonder how mortars get their ammunition .....
Ain't it also horses for courses ?
Mortars are high angle indirect fire weapons for the destruction or
suppression of troops in light cover for short periods of time.
Ammunition is expensive in re-supply. Weapon is not overly accurate
(large beaten zone which is not to say that all parts of that zone
receive a bomb). Can fire from behind features (better cover) and reach
behind features (deny the enemy cover). Has no direct fire suppression
or destruction role.
SFMG can suppress troops in open or light cover at reasonable ranges (up
to 4000 m) for extended periods of time for the same expenditure of
ammunition (resupply resources). Greater guarantee that all the beaten
zone will receive some fire (more bullets !). Limited abilities to fire
from behind features or reach behind them. Has direct fire suppression
and destruction role.
Both are subject to counter battery fire from artillery, mortars and
indeed SFMG.
Cheers
Daniel
Osmo Ronkanen
Boris Broadside <bbroadsi...@imagina.com> wrote:
>_Military Small Arms of the 20th Century_, by Ian Hogg and John Weeks,
>claims that the Lee-Metford .303in Rifle, Magazine, Mark I, had an Extreme
>Range Sight graduated from 1,800 yards to 3,500 yards. So someone at some
>point appears to have thought that a rifle could be used at those ranges.
>I was wondering what they were thinking.
They were not. One cannot normally even see that far. At 3km we are
talking of a drop rate of about 50%. That means if you set sights at
3000 meters and aim perfectly perfectly you will miss if the actual
distance is over 3002m or under 2998m. Excessive sight settings were
typical in WWII era rifles. Here the common was 2000 meters. But
consider that the Mauser C-93 pistol had sights graduated up to 1000
meters. I think it has been only since WWII that more reasonable
settings have been introduced. Currently a popular way is to have just
two settings (like 150/300, 200/400 or 300/500) that makes the sights
easy to operate and limits the chance of wrong settings. If one needs
longer range then snipers and machine guns are the way to go. At still
longer range mortars and artillery.
Osmo
Kennedy How
> _Military Small Arms of the 20th Century_, by Ian Hogg and John Weeks,
> claims that the Lee-Metford .303in Rifle, Magazine, Mark I, had an Extreme
> Range Sight graduated from 1,800 yards to 3,500 yards. So someone at some
> point appears to have thought that a rifle could be used at those ranges.
> I was wondering what they were thinking.
You might want to think about how wars were fought just before the Lee-Metford
was developed, and what the predecessor rifles were at that time.
I look at it as a evolutionary step (in a general sense), when you have a
repeating rifle with good range to keep the enemy from closing. Prior to, you
had regiments fighting in relatively close quarters once the time to reload was
gone. The farther away you could EFFECTIVELY stop the enemy, the better off it
was for you.
In the colonial wars this was important, as the Brits were outnumbered. And,
once the .303 was adopted, there was no real need to power it down to cover the
shorter engagement ranges you'd see in Europe. However, it'd work well in the
more open areas of the Empire, like Egypt, Palestine, and the like. Agreed that
3500M is extreme, and I doubt that very many troops opened fire at that range.
Kennedy
Stephen Holmes
> _Military Small Arms of the 20th Century_, by Ian Hogg and John Weeks,
> claims that the Lee-Metford .303in Rifle, Magazine, Mark I, had an Extreme
> Range Sight graduated from 1,800 yards to 3,500 yards. So someone at some
> point appears to have thought that a rifle could be used at those ranges.
> I was wondering what they were thinking.
Remember that most of these arms were designed, or based on designs of the last
decade of the 19th Century.
Doctrine still thought about troops manoeuvring in relatively close order, Still
plenty of horses on the establishment.
I believe the longer range backsight was intended for a platoon or company to
pepper troop concentrations from long range (Interdiction fire if you will), to prevent
their manoeuvring at longer ranges.
Machineguuns were very scarce in those days.
It was probably sufficient to drop the bullet into a 20 yard circle at a mile and
a half distance, provided you had your whole platoon firing, and weren't worried
about ammunition shortage.
Especially if the enemy horses were in harness (eg pulling heavy guns and kit),
so unable to disperse easily.
I think It was kipling who wrote of "The mausers 'alf mile shot" about sniping
during the boer war.
In this case picking off artillery crews before they got into action.
Steve
Per Andersson
>Neither the k98 round, nor the 303, nor the 30-06 shoots thru most
>trees. Neither will shoot thru a young tree.
A full power round like the above (or the 7.62 NATO, which I am more
familliar with) will happily penetrate a foot of wood, and still be
able to do some serious hurtin' on the other side. The army tought us
that 70 cm (about two feet) of wood were supposed to be reasonably
proof against MG and rifle fire.
> Building walls? Forget it if its brick,
A full power round will punch straight trough. It'll probably start
tumbling right afterwards, but if you are shooting at a target in
taking cover behind the wall, this does not really matter.
Brick is fairly brittle. A stone wall, one the other hand, will be
more difficult to penetrate.
> cinder block yeah and makes a nice fragmentation
>pattern too. Only when your target is an elephant or something like it
>does the superior penetration of a rifle cartridge matter. Lousy
>weapons the full cartridge ones. Their penetration is not worth their
>kick. Try firing 100 rounds of those and you're ready for the masseuse.
I'm always ready for the masseuse...
(ahem)
You get used to handling the recoil. It only take more practice to
learn to deal with full-power rounds, leading to higher training costs
for the armed forces. This is one of the reasons that they are going
out of favor.
As for penetration being useless... A 7.62mm GPMG or rifle firing AP
will penetrate the flanks of an APC, or any facing of an attack
helicopter.
>I qualified on a 303 enfield once, not a pleasure.
Semi-automatic wepons are better in that aspect, as the mechanism
absorbs some of the recoil.
Per Andersson
"Some kind of central planning seems to be the object of
most environmental activists. But why is a Politburo expected
to work better for plants and animals than it did for Russians?"
Carl Alex Nielsen
> Too true. We are talking of indirect fire at ranges of in excess of
> 2000m - the .303 Mk VIIIZ was used at ranges up to 5000 yds for indirect
> fire (interdiction).
5000 yds, that would be about 4500 meters right ?
The safety distance downrange from our local firering range is 3600 m
for 7.62x51 - I guess the real max. range is somewhat less than that.
> > 4. Mortars will do the job much better and much easier.
>
> Hmm... I wonder how mortars get their ammunition .....
How many rounds do you need for the same effect ?
f.eks. if memory serves me right 3000 rounds weigh about 10 kg. and
firering it as fast as possible would require 20 barrels (1 pr. 150
rounds and cool off period too short) unless you want to take a chance
with a big container full of water and hope you wont bend the barrels
out of shape. I dont remember the weight of a barrel, but 1kg a piece
won't probably be too far off. that would require a total of about
30kg. in addition to the weapon in order to fire 3000 rounds in a
"sustained" manner.
How many rounds of medium mortar ammo would that give ?
And what would the relative firepower be ?
> SFMG can suppress troops in open or light cover at reasonable ranges (up
> to 4000 m) for extended periods of time for the same expenditure of
again thats beyond the safety distance for 7.62x51
Carl Alex Nielsen
> In article <01beb890$9c7a1340$9302a8c0@CAN>,
> Neither the k98 round, nor the 303, nor the 30-06 shoots thru most
> trees. Neither will shoot thru a young tree. Building walls? Forget
What is the muzzle energy of theese rounds compared to 7.62x51 ?
7.62x51 should very well be able to penetrate trees, that you can reach
around, and 2-brick thick brick walls - LMG's firering 7.62x51 can even be
used to create breaches for soldiers to get through walls.
> does the superior penetration of a rifle cartridge matter. Lousy
> weapons the full cartridge ones. Their penetration is not worth their
> kick. Try firing 100 rounds of those and you're ready for the masseuse.
I don't find the recoil of 7.62x51 fired from a G3 bothersome.
Ok - you can get hurt a little if you receive the recoil on your chinbone
or
your eye (getting too close to a scope). But that should soon be taken care
of with a little training.
> I qualified on a 303 enfield once, not a pleasure.
I've used the G3 for 13 years, not a problem.
Does the 303 Enfield have more recoil while firering a less powerfull round
?
Osmo Ronkanen
>The safety distance downrange from our local firering range is 3600 m
>for 7.62x51 - I guess the real max. range is somewhat less than that.
Well 4500 meters may be excessive. However, it depends on the type of
the bullet. The 7.62x51 uses a simple spitzer bullet. Those were
invented by Germans in 1903 or so replacing the old heavy round nose
bullets. The spitzer bullets are optimized for supersonic speeds and are
light (9-10g). In WWI it was realized that they ware inaccurate in
distances past 2 km when the bullet goes subsonic. The trend went to
heavier boat tail bullets that kept the energy better and also had
better subsonic properties. However in around 1940, and especially when
semi-automatic rifles became common the trend again switched to the
lighter spitzer bullets.
>
>f.eks. if memory serves me right 3000 rounds weigh about 10 kg.
Try 100kg. A Rifle cartridge weighs some 24-28 grams, then there are the
packages.
Osmo
Nils K Hammer
G-3 enthusiast who appreciate it as a machine, and I have fired
it myself. I used to go on patrol with the BGS. There would be
an NCO with a machine pistol, and a kid with a giant rifle, who
would slip and fall again, and again, and have snow stuffed up
the muzzle. He tried not to whinge about it.
When I was a kid making dioramas, it looked wrong to me for the
assistant machinegunner to carry a rifle. I am sure it got in
the way. I always depicted them with a slung MP and a box of
ammo in each hand. I suppose I was being inauthentic. Can anyone
tell me what reasons there were to not issue more MP? Did they
cost a lot more?
nils
Osmo Ronkanen
Martin Rapier <m.ra...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm sure someone knows the real reason, but I guess a) MPs were mainly for
>NCOs, there just weren't that many b) does an MP weigh much less than a
>rifle?
Depends on the weapons. Lets consider here: M/39 Rifle 4.5 kg. 90
rounds of ammo: 2.5 kg => 7 kg. M/31 SMG 4.9 kg, 350 rounds of ammo: 4.4 kg.
3-5 drum magazines: 3-5 kg. Total 12.3-14.3 kg.
Or Mm/98k weighted 3.9kg and MP-40 4.3 kg.
Osmo
Holger Schaefer
>
> When I was a kid making dioramas, it looked wrong to me for the
> assistant machinegunner to carry a rifle. I am sure it got in
> the way. I always depicted them with a slung MP and a box of
> ammo in each hand. I suppose I was being inauthentic. Can anyone
> tell me what reasons there were to not issue more MP? Did they
> cost a lot more?
When I had my military duty each man carried a G3. One guy per squad
additionally carried a MG while another one carried the ammo boxes. In
addition, one man carried a Panzerfaust (along with his rifle and two
replacement shots). Of course the ones with the MG or Panzerfaust were
the losers. I think the reason why the MG, ammo and Panzerfaust men
didn't have a machine pistol instead of the rugged G3 is that the MP
used 9mm ammo instead of standard 7.62mm. The supply constraints this
entailed and the additional training required to teach every member of
the squad to fire the MP were perhaps too costly.
--
Fachhochschule Harz Economics Dept.
Holger Schaefer, Dipl. oec. Research Associate
mailto:hsch...@fh-harz.de Phone: +3943-659-210
http://www2.fh-harz.de/~hschaefer
Spam your system admin: postmaster@localhost root@localhost
HCALTMANN
>When I was a kid making dioramas, it looked wrong to me for the
>assistant machinegunner to carry a rifle. I am sure it got in
>the way. I always depicted them with a slung MP and a box of
>ammo in each hand.
I was an assistant machine gunner on an LMg-42 in a Panzergrenadier squad in
September 1944. I carried a rifle, plus two boxes of ammo on a sling around
the back of my neck, plus more ammo in belts around my neck, plus spare
barrels, plus heavy insulated mittens, plus ammo for my rifle, plus a couple of
hand grenades, plus... I was a beast of burden. I weighed only about 135 lbs
then. It wasn't too bad until we lost our trucks. From then on it was murder.
>Can anyone tell me what reasons there were to not issue more MP?
I have no idea. A handgun would have been a lot more practical. The machine
gunner had one as his personal weapon.
I was there -- Heinz.
Leslie Bates
<m.ra...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>In fact, you might as well give the Assistant a pistol, like the MG gunner
>- it weighs less, and you hardly need to carry any ammo for it.
When I was a assistant gunner in an Army Reserve unit in '82 I was
issued a M1911A1.
Les
=================================================================
Leslie Bates (Yes, *That* one.)
P.O. Box 581211, Minneapolis, MN 55458-1211
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is time that those of us who can still honestly call ourselves
free men face up to one very basic fact: Those who advocate,
enact and enforce the form of predation known as "gun control"
are nothing more than murderers, and must eventually be dealt
with as such. (R. Hemmerding in a letter to The Resister)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The RESISTER
The Political Warfare Journal of the Special Forces Underground
Post Office Box 35046, Fayetteville, NC 28303
Current Issue $10.00 -- Four Issues (One year) $35.00 -- TERMS:
Cash, money order, or check. (Please leave "PAY TO THE ORDER OF"
_blank_.) Please allow 5 weeks for your distribution to begin.
=================================================================
Osmo Ronkanen
>> In article <01beb890$9c7a1340$9302a8c0@CAN>,
>
>> Neither the k98 round, nor the 303, nor the 30-06 shoots thru most
>> trees. Neither will shoot thru a young tree. Building walls? Forget
>
>What is the muzzle energy of theese rounds compared to 7.62x51 ?
.30-'06 and 7.62x51 are identical on bullet weigh and muzzle velocity.
I means standard military loads, on hunting loads one can get more out
of .30-'06 especially with heavy bullets. .303 is about same. In general
all full power rifle cartridges have 3000-4000J. It depends whether
one goes light and fast like US or Soviets or Heavy and slow like here
or in Germany at the beginning of the war. (Slow and heavy is better for
indirect fire)
>
>7.62x51 should very well be able to penetrate trees, that you can reach
>around, and 2-brick thick brick walls - LMG's firering 7.62x51 can even be
>used to create breaches for soldiers to get through walls.
A rule of thumb on trees is that if you can put your hands around it
it does not give protection. SMGs penetrate less, about a quarter of
what the rifle bullets penetrate.
>
>Does the 303 Enfield have more recoil while firering a less powerfull round
>?
If one uses heavy bullet (I do not know of .303) then one gets more
recoil. Also on self-loading weapons the action absorbs some recoil.
Osmo
DBSDESIGN
> You seem to forget penetration. Being able to shoot the
> enemy through most trees and building walls might be
> considered desireable.
I agree. In many cases full-powered cartridges aren't
necessary, but there are exceptions. Like jungle warfare
for example. Pistol ammo fired through SMGs is not
powerful enough to penetrate dense tropical foliage
accurately beyond about 50 metres. US troops in the
Pacific Islands did appreciate the extra boost of full
powered ammo from Garands and BARs when firing
at targets in thick jungle, including soft bunkers and
Japanese dugouts.
I have read similar complaints about the M16 rifle in
SE Asia, the small bullet not penetrating jungle growth
deep enough without being knocked down or deflected.
Medium-powered assault rifle cartridges might be
more versatile and practical, but still a compromise.
Holger Schaefer
>
> 7.62x51 should very well be able to penetrate trees, that you can reach
> around, and 2-brick thick brick walls - LMG's firering 7.62x51 can even be
> used to create breaches for soldiers to get through walls.
With our G3s (and certainly with the MG1s) we could pepper any foxhole,
no matter how well it was built. Kinda cool, but less appealing to carry
it around.
Martin Rapier
Nils K Hammer <nh...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in article
<7kuv3t$g...@dgs.dgsys.com>...
> When I was a kid making dioramas, it looked wrong to me for the
> assistant machinegunner to carry a rifle. I am sure it got in
> the way. I always depicted them with a slung MP and a box of
> ammo in each hand. I suppose I was being inauthentic. Can anyone
> tell me what reasons there were to not issue more MP? Did they
> cost a lot more?
But if they didn't have a rifle, then they wouldn't have a carrying pole to
hook a few boxes of ammo over (like those nice FAA 20mm assistant MG34 crew
figures;).
I'm sure someone knows the real reason, but I guess a) MPs were mainly for
NCOs, there just weren't that many b) does an MP weigh much less than a
rifle? Including all the ammo clips? c) the LMG already provides the team
with plenty of automatic weapons firepower.
In fact, you might as well give the Assistant a pistol, like the MG gunner
- it weighs less, and you hardly need to carry any ammo for it.
Cheers
Martin.
Gene Seabolt
----------
>I'm sure someone knows the real reason, but I guess a) MPs were mainly for
>NCOs, there just weren't that many b) does an MP weigh much less than a
>rifle? Including all the ammo clips? c) the LMG already provides the team
>with plenty of automatic weapons firepower.
>
>In fact, you might as well give the Assistant a pistol, like the MG gunner
>- it weighs less, and you hardly need to carry any ammo for it.
Certainly in WWII an SMG (or MP as you prefer) with full ammo load compared
in weight to a rifle with full load. For the Germans, an MP40 with six
32-round boxes weighed 8 kg or 18 pounds. A 98k with 18 5-round stripper
clips weighed 6 kg or 14 pounds. Period rifles almost invariably weighed
less than period SMGs. Even the M1 Garand weighed less than the Thompson.
On top of that, the SMG was much more costly to make.
On top of that, the SMG would not as well serve the purpose for which MG
assistants carried real weapons. Beyond lugging and loading, MG assistants
support the gunner's flanks, as I understand it, in a spotting role. One
would assume many targets so spotted won't merit relaying the MG itself.
Therefore, the spotter should be able to address said "secondary" targets
with his own weapon. It follows logically that, if said target is being
spotted as potential MG material, then it should be spotted at effective
rifle range. An MG crew spotting a target at effective SMG range has already
squandered most of their advantage.
Even more simply, if the MG crew forgoes its rifles, what keeps the
opposition at bay during those pesky barrel changes? Hard glares?
-- 30 --
Osmo Ronkanen
Victor <bala...@dca.net> wrote:
>\
>I beg to differ on that. A typical 9mm hardball would not go beyond 4 or 5" of treated
>lumber. I would say the difference is more in the 5 to 10 range.
Whether it is one fourth or one fifth is not that relevant. I was giving
an approximate answer.
> At 200m a typical 9mm SMG round is almost
>completely exhausted.
Suomi SMG penetrates 17 cm (6.7") of pine at 50 meters and 9
cm (3.5") at 300 meters. Here one inch penetration on pine is considered
potentially lethal. That is up to 500 meters. For the penetration of a
rifle I have heard figures from 45 to 60 cm.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
Holger Schaefer <hsch...@fh-harz.de> wrote:
>
>When I had my military duty each man carried a G3. One guy per squad
>additionally carried a MG while another one carried the ammo boxes.
You mean the machine gunner also carries an assault rifle? That makes
no sense whatsoever. Here the LMG gunner both now and during WWII had
only the LMG. Actual machine gunners during WWII carried also pistols.
Osmo
Victor
>In article <377a056d...@news.curie.dialix.com.au>,
>Carl Alex Nielsen <c...@gis.dk> wrote:
>
>A rule of thumb on trees is that if you can put your hands around it
>it does not give protection.
There are different trees, of curse, and oak is not the same as pine.
I have done some penetration tests on typical WWII ammo. The results are very
interesting. For example, the 7.62X54R, a very representative round of the WWII,
fired from a short barreled rifle, was able to go through full 18 inches of treated (!)
lumber, then 1/4" of hard alluminum alloy plate (6061 T6) and then hit the concrete wall
with enough energy to disintegrate completely and to leave a large crater.
>SMGs penetrate less, about a quarter of
>what the rifle bullets penetrate.
\
I beg to differ on that. A typical 9mm hardball would not go beyond 4 or 5" of treated
lumber. I would say the difference is more in the 5 to 10 range.
These were done using typical weapons and typical loads, at pretty close ranges.
The conclusion - at ranges of 100 meters or so a typical tree offers little protection
against the typical high-power WWII rifle round. However, even a modest tree will stop
a typical SMG round at 3m, leave alone 100m. At 200m a typical 9mm SMG round is almost
completely exhausted.
>>Does the 303 Enfield have more recoil while firering a less powerfull round?
The Enfield is a pretty heavy weapon but it is still a bolt-action piece and those kick
the strongest. Its round is less powerful than the .308.
>If one uses heavy bullet (I do not know of .303) then one gets more
>recoil. Also on self-loading weapons the action absorbs some recoil.
It does, indeed, and the G3 may be one of the particularly softer kicking ones, due ot
its delayed roller block.
Victor.
Holger Schaefer
>
> You mean the machine gunner also carries an assault rifle? That makes
> no sense whatsoever. Here the LMG gunner both now and during WWII had
> only the LMG. Actual machine gunners during WWII carried also pistols.
Yep. Your rifle is some personal sort of thing. Every man has its own.
The MG is something that belongs to the squad. One (unlucky) man must
carry it. You're perfectly right that this doesn't make much sense, but
in fact I think most things in the military do not make sense. No
surprise whatsoever.
John D Salt
Holger Schaefer <hsch...@fh-harz.de> wrote:
[Snips]
>Yep. Your rifle is some personal sort of thing. Every man has its own.
>The MG is something that belongs to the squad. One (unlucky) man must
>carry it.
True in most armies, but again the Brits do things differently. :-)
In British Army practice, the LMG is issued as a "personal weapon",
and the machine gunner carries no secondary weapon (his job is to
keep the gun firing, not mess about with a pistol). However, as
it is the most important weapon in the section, sentries will
normally use it when "on stag". It's especially important to
convince people that it belongs to the whole section when you
need someone to help clean it. ;-)
>You're perfectly right that this doesn't make much sense, but
>in fact I think most things in the military do not make sense. No
>surprise whatsoever.
Oh, I think most things have their own bizarre kind of logic.
I remember an occasion from my TA days in the late 70s when
our corporal had made the mistake of falling in a squad in a
square formation (a real no-no in the British drill book),
resulting in the following perfectly logical exchange:
RSM: "Corporal Sniffkins, you've got a SQUARE SQUAD!"
Cpl: "Best defence against cavalry, sir!"
All the best,
John.
--
John D Salt Dept of IS & Computing,| Barr's Law of Recursive Futility
Brunel U, Uxbridge, Middx UB8 3PH | [BLORF]: If you are smart enough
Disclaimers: I speak only for me. | to use one of these... you can
Launcher may train without warning.| probably manage without one.
inter...@aol.com
pan...@mbox303.swipnet.se wrote:
> inter...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Neither the k98 round, nor the 303, nor the 30-06 shoots thru most
> >trees. Neither will shoot thru a young tree.
>
> familliar with) will happily penetrate a foot of wood, and still be
> able to do some serious hurtin' on the other side. The army tought us
> that 70 cm (about two feet) of wood were supposed to be reasonably
> proof against MG and rifle fire.
That's one foot of pine, not oak. The two foot rule included a large
margin of safety, meaning that only a small part of the radius had two
feet, all the rest of it less, the edges maybe only six inches. A 30-
06 or 303 or k98whatever will not penetrate 2 feet of hardwood.
>
> > Building walls? Forget it if its brick,
>
> A full power round will punch straight trough. It'll probably start
> tumbling right afterwards, but if you are shooting at a target in
> taking cover behind the wall, this does not really matter.
A brick it will shatter. A brick garden wall it will not penetrate. A
brick house wall it will leave a noticable hole.
>
> Brick is fairly brittle. A stone wall, one the other hand, will be
> more difficult to penetrate.
>
Agreed. And a stone wall made of granite rocks is very good/
> You get used to handling the recoil. It only take more practice to
> learn to deal with full-power rounds, leading to higher training costs
> for the armed forces. This is one of the reasons that they are going
> out of favor.
I can handle recoil. However, automatic fire without a bipod my
shoulders can handle, unfortunately the muzzle can't. The reason they
went out of favor is because combat situations require three/four
rounds to acquire a moving target, or full auto well aimed. This is
impossible with a full round, even for godzilla or Rambo. Sorry to be
so direct, but training has nothing to do with it. With a lot of
training an unnatural can hit a bulls eye on a target range, but combat
shooting requires repetitive rounds. With a full power auto this won't
happen 'free hand'.
>
> As for penetration being useless... A 7.62mm GPMG or rifle firing AP
> will penetrate the flanks of an APC, or any facing of an attack
> helicopter.
Yes, a GPMG or LMG or HMG has a pneumatic hammer effect, and I guess AO
meaning armor piercing can penetrate the alluminum of a 'slab side'.
>
> >I qualified on a 303 enfield once, not a pleasure.
>
> Semi-automatic wepons are better in that aspect, as the mechanism
> absorbs some of the recoil.
>
Agreed, but not to the point. Try firing an MG43 off hand or even a
FAL 308 or M14 on full auto. Guaranteed you can't stay on target unless
it's right in front off you. The M14 is probably the best of breed in
the full power round, but the reason they replaced it with the M16 is
because no one could hit anything in full auto unless it was resting on
its bipod.
Jerome A. Schroeder
were non front line weapons intended to replace a pistol. In practice they
proved so handy that by the end of the war a significant percentage of US
Army troops carried them. In effect they were used as assault rifles 3
years before the MP44. Under 200 meters they are reasonably accurate and
quite deadly. Since most combat seems to be at that range, this is more
than adequate.
They weigh about 5.2 lbs and with ammo are still substantially lighter than
a standard infantry weapon. A friend who was in Special Forces and saw
significant combat in Viet Nam thought them an ideal jungle weapon and
preferred them to the M16. He felt that they were much more reliable and
accurate.
The only complaint I've ever heard about them is the weakness of the round,
essentially a pistol cartridge. In practice it has roughly the same muzzle
energy as a .44 Magnum round, significantly more powerful than the Russian
7.62 submachine gun round, and the 9mm parabellum, and not much inferior to
the 7.92 Kurz.
I read somewhere that the WWII Wehrmacht was so impressed by the weapon that
they used and issued captured examples renaming it the "Selbstladekarbiner
455a."
Jerry
Osmo Ronkanen
John D Salt <John...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <7l9gmi$f...@dgs.dgsys.com>,
>Holger Schaefer <hsch...@fh-harz.de> wrote:
>
>True in most armies, but again the Brits do things differently. :-)
Most armies? It is true that here the LMG is and was considered a squad
weapon but the gunner did not carry a rifle. That would make little
sense as with the weigh of the rifle he could carry more ammo, spare
barrels, food or other useful stuff. Other men, or at least another
man in the squad also carried ammo for the squad weapon. During the
Winter War when there was LMG only in half of the squads, the men in
the LMG squad were called ammo carriers, not rifle men.
I could understand in peace time training if each soldier is issued a
rifle and then in an exercise one also tales an LMG the one could end
up with such a situation. I do not know how things are handled here as
I was in the artillery. (Here every soldier is first given basic
infantry training and only after that the specific training to his field)
Osmo
Jerome A. Schroeder
> addition, one man carried a Panzerfaust (along with his rifle and two
> replacement shots). Of course the ones with the MG or Panzerfaust were
> the losers. I think the reason why the MG, ammo and Panzerfaust men
> didn't have a machine pistol instead of the rugged G3 is that the MP
> used 9mm ammo instead of standard 7.62mm. The supply constraints this
> entailed and the additional training required to teach every member of
> the squad to fire the MP were perhaps too costly.
>
Garands, and as many clips of ammo as possible. An 8 round clip weighs
roughly about 240 grams or 8.5 oz. It was assumed that we could hit a man
sized target at 2-300 meters with one round. Shortly after the USArmy
adopted the M16 and the "Pray 'n Spray" theory of musketry. I guess it was
cheaper than wasting time at the range and teaching the trooper how to
shoot. Thank you Mr. McNamara. This seems to be the philosophy of all
major armys.
Its a grave disservice to the individual soldier. He/She assumes from the
movies and television that because his/her heart is pure, they are
automatically crack shots. How many times have you seen the hero pick up a
strange snub nosed .38 and drill the villain between the eyes at 50 meters.
That same villain armed with a scope mounted sniper rifle has just missed.
Actual combat proves differently.
A friend brought up on Viet Nam era newsreals and John Wayne War flicks had
never fired a weapon in his life. He recently took up shooting and was
amazed and horrified to discover how difficult and time consuming it was to
learn how to shoot accurately.
In a fit of nostalgia, I recently bought a Garand, and found much to my
delight that I can still get a 2 inch group at 100 meters.
Jerry
JimLillie
(Boris Broadside) writes:
>_Military Small Arms of the 20th Century_, by Ian Hogg and John Weeks,
>claims that the Lee-Metford .303in Rifle, Magazine, Mark I, had an Extreme
>Range Sight graduated from 1,800 yards to 3,500 yards. So someone at some
>point appears to have thought that a rifle could be used at those ranges.
>I was wondering what they were thinking.
>
Not 1 rifleman firing at 1 enemy. Think of a platoon firing at a company
marching forward at that range before dispersing for combat.
Jim Lillie
JB Lillie IBM Engineer (ret)
S s s s s
\/_n_|[][ /===___
>{_____|=|______|=
oo000--000 oo oo
Holger Schaefer
>
> In British Army practice, the LMG is issued as a "personal weapon",
> and the machine gunner carries no secondary weapon (his job is to
> keep the gun firing, not mess about with a pistol). However, as
> it is the most important weapon in the section, sentries will
> normally use it when "on stag".
Hmm. But what is if there's an alarm while someone is on sentry with
your MG? You won't have anything to fire with. Or does the machine gun
guy change weapons with the sentry? Another thought. Sometimes it might
be useful to employ single shots (e.g. when ammo supply is low). In this
case the MG gunner is unemployed. BTW, how does the British army treat
RPG AT-weapons (if they have any)? Do the men carrying them have a
rifle?
> Oh, I think most things have their own bizarre kind of logic.
[..]
Nice story. I remember more of this kind:
NCO: Private Schaefer, clean up this place!
Me: I just did it ten minutes ago.
NCO: This is an order!
Me: [sigh] Jawohl, Herr Oberfeldwebel.
--
Holger Schaefer hsch...@dialup.nacamar.de
hsch...@fh-harz.de http://www2.fh-harz.de/~hschaefer
Spam your system admin: root@localhost postmaster@localhost
Osmo Ronkanen
Jerome A. Schroeder <jer...@keinspam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> It was assumed that we could hit a man
>sized target at 2-300 meters with one round.
One may assume many things. The facts are different. One typically needs
two shots at a man at 150 meters. That is at combat, not at range.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
>years before the MP44.
An assault rifle is a selective fire main infantry weapon that fires
intermediate cartridge. M1 Carbine has only one attribute of those: it
uses intermediate cartridge. There was no intention of replacing Garands
with Carbines like there was in Germany to replace Kar98's with
MP-44's.
> In practice it has roughly the same muzzle
>energy as a .44 Magnum round, significantly more powerful than the Russian
>7.62 submachine gun round, and the 9mm parabellum, and not much inferior to
>the 7.92 Kurz.
The round has little over half the muzzle energy of the 7.92 Kurtz.
is more importantly it is a round nose bullet so it only drills a hole
that has the diameter of the caliber. Spitzer bullets on the other
hand turn in the body causing more damage.
>I read somewhere that the WWII Wehrmacht was so impressed by the weapon that
>they used and issued captured examples renaming it the "Selbstladekarbiner
>455a."
Wehrmacht issued every kind of captured weapons. That really says
nothing about the quality.
Osmo
Daniel
>
> John D Salt wrote:
> >
> > In British Army practice, the LMG is issued as a "personal weapon",
> > and the machine gunner carries no secondary weapon (his job is to
> > keep the gun firing, not mess about with a pistol). However, as
> > it is the most important weapon in the section, sentries will
> > normally use it when "on stag".
>
> Hmm. But what is if there's an alarm while someone is on sentry with
> your MG? You won't have anything to fire with. Or does the machine gun
> guy change weapons with the sentry?
Australian practice in a section for MG gunner to have first (dusk)
shift/last (dawn) shift when harboured (defensive position). This means
he mans it during stand-to. When relieved he accepts the personal
weapon of his relief who in turn swaps it with his relief until he
returns to his weapon at dawn stand-to. Following stand down the
weapons are swapped back to their original owners and by rotation are
cleaned - one MG first then the other (if a 2 MG fire team
organisation), half the rifles, other half of the rifles - so that no
more than 50% of firepower is "down" at any one time.
If "bumped" during the night the MG gunner goes to his normal pit and
assumes his weapon when convenient but in the meantime uses the rifle he
has "acquired" as his weapon. This does have the drawback that there is
a weapon pit down one person initially but this is evened out at first
opportunity.
> Another thought. Sometimes it might
> be useful to employ single shots (e.g. when ammo supply is low). In this
> case the MG gunner is unemployed.
Remember, unless directly threatened, in most actions your fire
discipline should be good enough to withhold fire and to use it as
directed including single shot if need be (though fire control orders do
not have a "single shot by MG" option - even slow rate of fire is bursts
of 3 to 5 rounds at a rate of 50 rounds per minute).
> BTW, how does the British army treat
> RPG AT-weapons (if they have any)? Do the men carrying them have a
> rifle?
>
> > Oh, I think most things have their own bizarre kind of logic.
> [..]
>
> Nice story. I remember more of this kind:
> NCO: Private Schaefer, clean up this place!
> Me: I just did it ten minutes ago.
> NCO: This is an order!
> Me: [sigh] Jawohl, Herr Oberfeldwebel.
>
Old favorite saying in Oz Army - "Greatcoats on! Greatcoats off!
Sergeant ! Why is that soldier not wearing his greatcoat !
Jerome A. Schroeder
Osmo Ronkanen <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:379047b1...@news.curie.dialix.com.au...
> In article <7ldbpv$s...@dgs.dgsys.com>,
> Jerome A. Schroeder <jer...@keinspam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> An assault rifle is a selective fire main infantry weapon that fires
> intermediate cartridge. M1 Carbine has only one attribute of those: it
> uses intermediate cartridge. There was no intention of replacing Garands
> with Carbines like there was in Germany to replace Kar98's with
> MP-44's.
True, there wasn't any official intention to replace the Garand. But
unofficially many US troops used it in the same way the Germans later used
the MP44. This was especially true when the M2 (selector switch) variant
was issued. The Garand itself was far superior to the k98 as a combat
weapon and went a long way toward the assault rifle concept.
> The round has little over half the muzzle energy of the 7.92 Kurtz.
> is more importantly it is a round nose bullet so it only drills a hole
> that has the diameter of the caliber. Spitzer bullets on the other
> hand turn in the body causing more damage.
It was German, and American doctrine that wounding the enemy was a useful as
killing him. It took a trooper out of action, and it required someone to
take him back to an aid station and later to take care of him at hospital.
Resources diverted from fighting.
> Wehrmacht issued every kind of captured weapons. That really says
> nothing about the quality.
>
'Struth. But, just like the American's loved to collect Lugers, the Krauts
loved to collect US Weapons, especially the 1911A1. The Garand was
especially well regarded and there was an attempt by the Germans and the
Japanese to make their own copies.
I've own any number of semi-automatic weapons, and fired thousands of rounds
thru them. Only 3 have NEVER misfired or given me any trouble. The M1
Garand, The M1 Carbine, and a Ruger P95 9mm pistol.
Jerry
Osmo Ronkanen
Holger Schaefer <hsch...@dialup.nacamar.de> wrote:
> Sometimes it might
>be useful to employ single shots (e.g. when ammo supply is low). In this
>case the MG gunner is unemployed.
Sure, one can run out of ammo, if one carries extra weigh like an
unnecessary rifle. With that weigh one can carry hundreds of extra
rounds.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
Jerome A. Schroeder <jer...@keinspam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> The Garand itself was far superior to the k98 as a combat
>weapon and went a long way toward the assault rifle concept.
>
Automatic fire is absolutely essential for any military weapon to
called anything resembling assault rifle. This is because in an assault
one needs automatic fire. Of the US weapons the closest to the assault
rifle concept was the BAR, though the tactical use of it was more like
LMG.
>It was German, and American doctrine that wounding the enemy was a useful as
>killing him.
Most battle happens at close ranges. If you start wounding people
instead of killing them then those people you wound will kill you.
I think this wounding is just myth.
Also a wounded soldier can be back in action in a month or two. When a
war lasts years that is very significant point.
Osmo
DBSDESIGN
>This was especially true when the M2 (selector switch) variant
>was issued.
Actually the US Army was using full automatic M1A1 Carbines
in Normandy. The Ordnance Company of 507th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd
Airborne field-modified a number of their Carbines
to fire on full automatic. There may have been other units that
did the same. A fairly simple modification.
Jerome A. Schroeder
60s, we would file down the sear in an old Garand and convert it into an
automatic weapon. This was a hit and miss operation, and more often than
not would not work properly. It was a serious naughty and a court martial
offense. I
ronically the rate of fire with an 8 round clip was occasionally superior to
the BAR with its 20 round magazine. Beretta later made an advanced version
of the Garand which looked not unlike the M14 (a POS in my humble opine) and
an early version of the Garand.
The carbine modification you mention later became official with the M2.
With a 30 round magazine, reasonably powerful round (about like a .44 mag)
and effective up to 150 yards, it was essentially an assault rifle.
I'm a great fan of the Garand, but have come to realize that the M1 Carbine
has its own virtues.
Jerry
DBSDESIGN <dbsd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990702185622...@ng34.aol.com...
Jerome A. Schroeder
> In article <7liof0$3b4$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Automatic fire is absolutely essential for any military weapon to
> called anything resembling assault rifle. This is because in an assault
> one needs automatic fire. Of the US weapons the closest to the assault
> rifle concept was the BAR, though the tactical use of it was more like
> LMG.
>
familiar with its shortcomeings. It did not have a semi-auto switch, and
only had a 20 rnd magazine. At best it was a borderline SAW. Browning
originally designed it to attack trenches.
> Most battle happens at close ranges. If you start wounding people
> instead of killing them then those people you wound will kill you.
> I think this wounding is just myth.
>
Typically a wounded soldier takes out several other men. The guy who carries
him out of combat, the medic, the hospital orderly etc.
> Also a wounded soldier can be back in action in a month or two. When a
> war lasts years that is very significant point.
Can be, but often isn't. Its part of the friction of war.
Nils K Hammer
My german teacher Lutz Trautman was a gunner with GD. He says his
supply sargeant refused to cut him a belt because "no one could be
that thin". When I joined the army, I was a scrawny intellectual.
They wanted to make me infantry. If I hadn't weaseled out of it,
do you suppose I would have been saddled with the MG?
More seriously, was there any system for selecting MG crew? Some
guy once told me it was for the physically strongest. I would have
expected it to go to the most experienced. I hear that the Myers-Briggs
personality test was a US WWII thing, but don't know if you could have
used to for selecting combat jobs.
nils k. hammer
entp
Osmo Ronkanen
>> rifle concept was the BAR, though the tactical use of it was more like
>> LMG.
>>
>Not really. As someone who carried a BAR for six months, I'm intimately
>familiar with its shortcomeings. It did not have a semi-auto switch, and
>only had a 20 rnd magazine.
I said that BAR was closest to the assault rifle concept of the US
weapons. The original BAR did have selective fire. Also it lacked bipod
and weighed only 16lbs (7.3kg). It was to be used during an assault to
give suppressive fire from the hip. This is how assault rifles are used
here. Later it was made an LMG by adding bipod, making it heavier and
making the selector to switch between two different rates.
> At best it was a borderline SAW.
True, I never said it was good in it. However, that is how it was
used: by giving it to one man in squad.
...
>> Most battle happens at close ranges. If you start wounding people
>> instead of killing them then those people you wound will kill you.
>> I think this wounding is just myth.
>>
>Typically a wounded soldier takes out several other men. The guy who carries
>him out of combat, the medic, the hospital orderly etc.
He can also take out several enemy soldiers before he is killed or
carried out. Any attempt to only wound will make you dead!
Also a wounded soldier can be back in front within a month or two.
Then there is the question that killing demoralizes better than
wounding. If you face only wounding then you are more willing to risk
your neck.
I have never heard of soldiers attempting to make their bullets less
lethal. However, various dumdum bullets are well known.
>Can be, but often isn't. Its part of the friction of war.
Very often he is.
Osmo
John D Salt
Nils K Hammer <nh...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
[Snips]
>More seriously, was there any system for selecting MG crew?
Well, when I was in the UOTC, they always gave me the gun
because I was big. They seemed to think that meant I
could carry the GPMG and 800 rounds of belted blank.
I didn't mind because I got to spend most of the section
attacks lying down, instead of running around. My no.2
was normally a skinny little chap, though... ;-)
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>He can also take out several enemy soldiers before he is killed or
>carried out. Any attempt to only wound will make you dead!
Roger Young killed more Japanese AFTER being wounded than did his
comrade who weren't wounded at all!
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Justin Volpe has a gun.
Check out:
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Automatic fire is absolutely essential for any military weapon to
>called anything resembling assault rifle. This is because in an assault
>one needs automatic fire. Of the US weapons the closest to the assault
>rifle concept was the BAR, though the tactical use of it was more like
>LMG.
No, the M2 Carbine came the closest:
1. Light
2. Fired an "intermediate" (actually on the weak side) cartridge
3. Capable of full auto fire.
>Most battle happens at close ranges. If you start wounding people
>instead of killing them then those people you wound will kill you.
>I think this wounding is just myth.
Agreed. It has more of the ring of an after the fact justification by
those not having had the benefit of actual combat experience.
For an example of this see the story of Roger Young.
casita
>comrade who weren't wounded at all!
As I recall, it was spelled Rodger. He was an Ohioian in the US Army.
There was a ballad about him, and a TV documentary in the 1960's.
Osmo Ronkanen
Christopher Morton <cm...@mciworld.com> wrote:
>
>No, the M2 Carbine came the closest:
>
>1. Light
>2. Fired an "intermediate" (actually on the weak side) cartridge
>3. Capable of full auto fire.
Well M2 was not used in the war. As I understand it entered production
just before the war ended. As I understand M2 was still a weapon for
support personnel and not infantry weapon.
Osmo
Christopher Morton
<jer...@keinspam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>ronically the rate of fire with an 8 round clip was occasionally superior to
>the BAR with its 20 round magazine. Beretta later made an advanced version
>of the Garand which looked not unlike the M14 (a POS in my humble opine) and
>an early version of the Garand.
The Italians made both real Garands and proto-M14s (BM-19). Some of
the early models of the latter actually resembled the intermediate
test rifles between the M-1 and the M-14.
inter...@aol.com
I could be wrong of course but I thought the WWII carbine didn't have
selective fire. I thought it was the M1 carbine anyway. After WWII
the carbine became selective full auto, just like the M1 Garand became
the M14 with selective full auto.