Well it depends where you got hit... leg torso or head. The leg can be easily treated. Head: ok we all know there this is going. Torso: Is a bit tricky because one hit you can very well survive, BUTT since those are automatic weapons the probability is high that you got hit more than ones in several places and then the different impact blasts from the bullets can cause extreme internal damage together.
@@maxpower8171 Anywhere you get hit is gonna be awful especially back then a 8mm mauser or 30-06 would certainly mangle your leg or hit a artery causing you to bleed out rather quickly and the casualty numbers of mid to late war campaigns support this fact
@@maxpower8171 your a generic comment section “expert”. You get hit in the leg by an 8mm Mauser, it’ll more than likely pierce your femoral artery, causing you to bleed out in a matter of minutes
@@gray9173, reliability makes weapons powerful. The M2A1 and the MG3 is reliable. But here's the thing, the M2 is chambered in the .50 BMG which is vastly more powerful than the MG3 rounds.
@@metalforever12085, I understand as the M2A1 is a HMG and the MG 3 is a GPMG. Both have different uses and I only said what I did to defend the brilliant weapon that is the M2A1.
Hah. Most of their casualties probably came from artillery and mortar fire. The human wave thing is blown way out of proportion. The Germans were really good at combined arms warfare. Come under small arms fire, hit the deck. Now there's mortars hitting all around. Can't move. Artillery rounds start to come in. It could be very hard to get out of a situation like that. I think a good way to view it is that the Soviets were not as flexible as the Germans. Their chain of command was generally slower to respond to emergent situations. The Germans also empowered NCOs and junior officers to make judgment calls that wouldve been unthinkable in the Red Army. Still, this is a generalization and there were crack units in the RA. But in general, doctrinal differences and rigid command structure contributed to the obscene casualties. Operations often had too large of a scope. They would probe huge swaths of the front and attack any sector that seemed to give weak resistance. This was a *major* factor in the casualty toll. They attacked everywhere and fished for breakthroughs. They did the opposite of Schwerpunkt, and it shows. Political motivations also affected decisionmaking. Victories had to be grand, defeats had to be drawn out to the annihilation of the unit. This is generalized but it explains a lot.
@@bakers2366 What tiger? If you're talking about Tiger II then.... Yeah kinda but Tiger I is not a failure for sure. The only thing tiger fall short is the numbers
I interviewed WWII vets 20 years ago. Looking back, they laughed at this thing. Some of them even joked about how the film actually missed the most important factor (for them after experiencing combat). The lower rate of fire didn't mean more accuracy. It meant that US machine guns were less likely to malfunction or require barrel changes after extended use. German guns often fired so many rounds so quickly that their barrels would get hot from the powder and friction of bullets. If they didn't change barrels, then the barrel would warp and the gun would become useless. As such, combat vets would actually wait for Germans to swap barrels, then assault the position. The counter-argument is that the US guns were often heavier (due to either a heavy barrel or water-jacket to prevent these problems). As an aside, post-war the US took elements of the German MGs into their own designs. TL;DR - propaganda video actually misses key weakness in German machine guns while trying to show how weak German guns were.
Was that really effective? I mean, when I was in the Bundeswehr, I shot the MG3. Trained I changed the barrel in about 5 seconds and my instructor called me a lame ass for that. Four seconds was the standard to aim for, and most of my comrades achieved it - just not me, because I am ... well ... a lame ass. So to realize that the enemy is now changing the barrel certainly takes half a second to a whole second. Then you have three seconds left to jump up, charge and take out the firing position. This might have been realistic only in a few situations. Not to mention that the machine gun position was certainly not alone.
But they had a very fast technique to swap the barrell. Just a few seconds. And always had at least one extra barrell available from what I've heard. I'm not quite sure how that waiting for the nazis to swap barrell-technique would be effective, but I'm not disqualifying what you say. Have a nice day.
@@unwnme As mentioned in other replies, the barrel swap itself was pretty quick, but the troopers took the barrel-change as a time to put down suppressing fire. Machine gun positions needed to be able to see their targets (usually). This meant that their targets could see them. Thus, a third of the squad firing on the machine gun position could extend a 4-7-second barrel swap to upwards of thirty seconds. Combine that with judicious use of hand grenades (if close enough) or various forms of support weapons (if available), and that period of barrel-swapping, in a combat scenario in the late-war period (where machine guns were often operating defensively and with less support than they should have), could mean an overrun machine gun nest. To be fair, several US designs would have actually benefited from barrel swapping. The BAR and M1919 were great squad support and machine guns. However, during extended battles, their barrels could get too hot to fire and the soldiers or marines using them would swap out to M-1 Garands.
“Don’t worry it’s not that accurate.” _Young Guy: Huh? .... Okay!_ “JOE GET DOWN YOU’RE GONNA GET SHOT!” _Young Guy: DON’T WORRY IT’S NOT THAT ACCURA-_
I know it’s clearly American Propaganda but imagine yourself as a new soldier who doesn’t know much. Would you want to be told: “Our guns are not very good compared to theirs and you’re probably gonna die as soon as you hear those MG-42’s”. ? It made more sense to make the soldiers more confident so they would atleast attempt to preform better instead of sending them on to the battlefield as a nervous wreck.
Maybe instead of teaching your soldiers that your guns are better they could teach them how to counter them. For example, the MG 42 would cycle about 150 rounds before the barrel needed to be replaced. That would give the soldiers 7-ish seconds to attack the possision.
@Atticus Wadsworth That’s an excellent idea. That’s also why I still acknowledged it as American Propaganda at the beginning of my comment since they definitely could’ve told the soldiers how to properly counter it but they didn’t.
6:13 You can clearly see the man behind the MG42 is deliberately not looking down it's sights like the other guys. They tried so hard to downplay that machine gun, that "It's bark is much worse than it's bite!", when in reality that was a fucking lie and it's still used 80+ years later. One of the finest machine guns ever designed.
@@barccy Yes it is replaced by a design from FN. And yes it has a lower rate of fire but that is because it is built like that. The main focus of replacing the MG-3 with the MG-5 is the fact that the FN design is more ergonomic, can fit lasers, sights, and the "Sturmgriff". It´s a handle on the side of the handguard so that you can shoulder-fire the gun better. And yes the lower rate of fire also makes it better for shoulder-firing but if you use the MG-42/MG-3 the right way (prone, with bi-pod) you can accurately shoot targets at 200m+ range. Also the video is complete propaganda to calm down joey joe seeing his comrades getting mowed down at normandy. It was pure lies and makes people like you believe that german guns are crap and only spray down fire in all directions like you see in movies. Also the MG-42 had the semi-automatic function removed because they found it obsolete BECAUSE you could still shoot accurately even in full-auto with the high rate of fire of 1200-1400rpm.
Veteran Sergeant: Johnny, What the hell are you doing!? Get down! Johnny: It's okay Sarge, German machine guns are terribly inaccura- *gets bisected by 7.92* German gunner: Ach mein Gott... he just stood up, the madman!
Actually we could have bested the MG with a minigun as the U.S tested a 50.cal gatling gun that shot 4,000 rounds a minute now imagine that gatling gub on bomber planes they woul evicerate German fighter planes. Plus if the U.S would have made a scaled down version in 30-06 firing 2,000 a minute that would have put the MG42 out of business and would have had a bigger fear factor as miniguns have and this would the been the WW2 M134 minigun
@@utzius8003 I'm glad you pointed that out That's how propaganda is made, I'm going to give an example and i hope it's understandable: >hey the German gun shoots you 13 times but the American one shoots you 15 times. >Soldiers die harder with the American gun even though you need only 1 bullet to do the job :)
Expect the American M1928 ( Tommy gun) that had a fire rate of 800 RPM ( rounds per minute) while the MP40 only had a fire rate of 550 RPM. And the American M1919 Tommy gun had an insane fire rate of 1500 RPM even faster than the MG-42. The Americans sub machine guns where also chambered in 45 ACP, while German sub machine guns where only chambered in 9mm.
@@atrocity2606 i dont know where you have your information from. First of the M1928 Thompson was only used by the US navy during world war 2. The army went into war with the M1 and M1A1 Thompsons. You got the fire rate of 800 RP right. However the M1919 did not fire 1500 RPM for shure. I am not saying that it was not possible to build a M1919 so that it would fire 1500 RPM, after all the AN/M2 .30 cal which was a aircraft mounted variant of the M1919 had a fire rate of something around 1400 RPM but the army always used the regular M1919 which had a much lower fire rate. What you have to understand is that fire rate is not the most important part in weapon design. In fact it is the oposit. As they say in the video lower fire rate allows for longer sustained fire because of less overheating and because the ammunition does not run out as quickly. Thats one of the reasons why I think that the M1919 was the best MG of world war 2.
Wir sind Deutsch. Wir sind effizient und besitzen keinen Humor. Dadurch ergibt dein Kommentar, bei dem du aufgrund eines Witzes gelacht hast keinen Sinn Sry hatte irgendwie lust auf dieses Cliché einzugehen :P
why write in upper the lower case letter's makes you look stupid and prob 12 years of ages if you are older just makes you look more dumb i can't think of another word but idiot sum's it up perfect! and there is no such thing as a mark 4 tiger...you need to stay in school or go back and learn history
@@AR15andGOD Wdym? The MG42 operators were taught to fire for only a few seconds at most to conserve ammunition and accuracy. They weren't just squeezing the trigger and praying they'd hit someone. Plus the MG42 was used practically only in conjunction with bipods and tripods, mitigating the recoil to a manageable level. And considering that the Germans calculated that the normal engagement range for infantry was 300 meters at most and the MG42 has an effective range of 600 meters, it's quite probable that the MG42s *would* hit squat. And calling fire rate "worthless" is profoundly nonsensical. Even if the MG42 was out of it's effective firing range, you try to order your men to assault a position capable of firing 25 bullets per second and see how long it takes until they get pinned down and picked off by the MG's sentries.
@@sergeantmarcusstackerM1903 I know it's one year old, but that's not true, you'll hear the supersonic crack exactly when it's hitting you, or a few ms after it hits you
I asked one WW 2 Vet who fought through France if he ever used German weapons. He said "If you could get them, because there were superior to American weapons. It was forbidden to use them of which no one paid much attention to. Soldiers in combat became accustomed to the sound of each weapon, when it's fired and know from the sound of what weapon it is. Sometimes in advancing through France, I would hear a battle going on, from a distance and the firing from both sides were German weapons, so no one knew who was who.
I read a similar thing about AKs in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese AKs were more durable in the jungle and could punch through the underbrush better. Some American servicemen tried using them, but sound recognition becomes such a vital part of survival in combat that opening fire with one meant others would open fire in your direction. Is what I read, at least.
And when we put that into a count, then even with an extra machinegun squad and a supposedly higher accuracy of their gun the americans end up quite far behind..
@@xnsjsxwfz2894 yes even when the Russians were entering the German soil thier production was dam too good than Brits n Brits were waste if usa hadn't supported them (Brits lost to a much less German defensive post n Americans were very angry about that n it slowed down the march towards berlin) Hitler's worst decision was attacking Russians n that did cause thier defeat to Russian yes people it was the red army which took down hitler! N do not forget u Brits bombed the French navy! As usual usa was in the war which profits someone else n Brits wee terrified with the V2's hitler became cocky n got his bullet!
Mg 42 it's not accurate that's right but the MG42 has lots of ammunition and a high rate of Fire bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr oh, all soldiers are dead fuck about the accuracy😀
@@minidonut827 And yet the guy with the Thompson barely moves at all and the guy with the MP40 can't handle it. It's almost like seeing a minigun filled with blanks seeing that Thompson fire.
Best time to move forward against German machine guns is the seconds it takes to change the barrels. Don't plan on moving very far, barrel changes didn't take long. They did have to change them often they got hot fast.
There is no doubt that the MG42 was a better gun than the 1919. Twenty plus years of technology and machining practices were employed in the manufacture of the MG42 over the 1919. Just the fact that most modern guns can trace their function and manufacture back to the MG42 tells you all you need to know. The MG42 and M2 heavy machine guns have been in service longer than anything that preceded them. I love the Thompson and have fired one many times. I have also fired the MP40 several times. If I had to go into battle I would pick the MP40 every time over the harder to use Thompson. The M3 is better than the Thompson in that you can score more hits due to the slower rate of fire but the MP40 still beats the M3 as well. If you disagree go to a range and try them for yourself.
@@zuto96 Hard to say. Assuming those are just cheap cardboard targets, firing a modern gun at them would yield the similar holes. Considering how sketchy this is as training propaganda, it's not entirely out of the question.
“The German 9 millimeter machine pistol called the schmiesser, against our Thompson caliber 45. Their rate of fire is practically the same but our weapon is more accurate” There were 3 lies in those 2 lines.
@Zeros DaBast bro the Stg44 was not the first assault rifle. It's either the federov avtomat or the ribeyrolles 1918 depending on who you ask. Those guns were made during ww1. As for tanks, while German tanks were superior, they were slower to make and repair, whereas the Americans were mass producing tanks to outnumber the germans. And during the later end of the war Germany had lost air superiority which made their tanks especially vulnerable to aircraft fitted with tank busting weapons
@Zeros DaBast it literally fits all requirements for an assault rifle: its capable of select fire, it uses an intermediate cartridge, it's ammunition is supplied in a detachable box magazine, and it has an effective range of at least 300 meters (the ribeyrolles is effective out to 400) it is an assault rifle. Submachine guns rarely are effective beyond 180 meters, and generally weigh 6-8 pounds (the ribeyrolles weighs 11 pounds making it just over)
@Zeros DaBast no it's not. The ak-47 was partly designed to replace their need for SMG's. It's not about how you use a weapon. I could put a scope and extended barrel on a pistol along with a bipod but that doesnt make it a sniper rifle.
Hell, I'd never have to actually go against it in combat but even this video made me feel less scared of it lmao. It does it's job, even if it's not necessarily 100% accurate.
The film's purpose was probably to try another angle to prevent desertion or mutiny. If you are conscripted and don't even believe in the Allies' purpose, then perhaps they can convince you that you'll have an easy time fighting for it and be back home by next Christmas.
What's the point of being less scared by being lied to. It can cause a lot more harm in my opinion because it can lead to misjudgements in combat leading to more casualties because of misinformation
@@Frk_X well if that are afraid of the gun they won't be any good because they'll just stay on the ground but if they are not afraid they will have a better chance of following orders without hesitation
It's not that faster cyclic rates are inaccurate, but rather it heats up your barrel much faster. The faster your barrel heats up, the more you have to change it out. Every time time you have to swap barrels, regardless of your cyclic rate, your enemy may now maneuver against you without fear of a machine gun sighting in on them. That's one of the reasons American squads adopted the "talking guns" tactics.
"Does that mean it's a better fighting weapon than ours?" - well, yeeees? "I saw this training movie. We just have to rely on accurac..." *Pfrrrrrrrrt*
Alright next training video for the cold war: Soviet AK-47 vs the M1 Garand *The AK-47 is a modern rifle made from the Soviet Union it uses a 30 round magazine and selective fire but the M1 Garand is better*
@@MM_45 Depending on how you were meant to use it, sure. The problem is that the Americans had a different style of infantry combat than the Germans did, and used different weapons to do so. The German 98k was meant to be an accurate weapon that shoots one guy and kills him. The MG-42 keeps the guy in place and then the others shoot to kill. The Americans had more covering fire from the riflemen. It's one of those things that if you actually know infantry combat stuff you notice that they left out. What does the MG-42 do in a German squad? How is it used, how is it protected, etc.? I mean, you first mention that it eats up bullets, and that the other Germans has to lug extra ammo around. Where are they in the video? Exactly..
yep just like height and muscle are overrated. when i found my gf banging a black guy his muscle was useless. i grab his nuts and squeeze like it was the last day on earth. he fell to his knees crying i wouldnt let go. the more he punch me the tighter i squeeze
How exactly does this prove your point? Brave American soldiers had to cross a fair bit of open ground to get near the defences. It was not a case of accuracy, it was a case of filling the air with lead
Everyone in the comments forgetting how much better the browning M2, 1911, M34 grenade and M1 garand were by contrast to the walther p38, stielhandgranate, and the k98k. The M2 is still used on modern Mine Resistant Armor Protected, Infantry Fighting Vehicles and various other vehicles and boats.
American soldiers believing this propanda facing the first German snipers, MP44 and Panzerschreck handlers be like :"This is outrageous. It's unfair.."
“Hey, what’s that?” “Some SMG. It has MP-40 written on the side.” “Like the MP18? Maybe it stands for maschinenpistole 40 or something. Should we just csll it the MP40?” “Nah, let’s use some weird german sounding word. Who designed the MP18 anyway?” “Some dude called Schmeisser” “Eh, they look similar enough, probably the same guy. Let’s go with Schmeisser” -some chucklefucks in US army intelligence
BRYAN351 I was told that people assumed it had the same designer as the MP-18, hence Schmeisser. Still, if it had “Schmeisser” printed on all the mags, that makes much more sense.
"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."
@@nathangg8429 it called that the mg42 had interchangeable barrels so you can take out the current barrel and replace it with a new barrel also he was in a dug-in position so he most likely had more bullets than a normal machine gun squad had. and he also used a bolt action rifle whenever he was letting his barrels cool off. actually do research dumbass
"Cease" *takes a nap* *waxes the car* *catches up on reading the news* *gets married* *has children* *oh no, smoking is bad for me* *lung cancer* *died in my bed* "Firing"
@Prison Mike We weren't even talking about the MG42. We're talking about the submachine guns. Not even sure why you felt it was necessary to comment on something unrelated to the original statement. So go off and Circlejerk with the other Wehraboos, would you kindly?
It's a video supposed to boost morale and make troops confident. Would it be better if the guy said "this is the sound of the german mg 42. If you hear this, it might be your first time in the battlefield. And probably your last day on earth"?
The better advice would actual comparison: examples of throwing a helmet through the line of fire of a 1919A6 and an MG-42. Notice the difference in number of holes. Then have both guns fixed and fire at a line of consecutively distant targets for a long 5 second burst. Look at the spread. Look at how long the belt is now. Look at how hot the barrel is. Have two good soldiers play with either gun at shooting pop-up targets trying for short bursts as is standard battle doctrine. How long can they keep shooting before they have to change out their barrels? How much weight in ammo did it take to do it? How many of those 50-round belt-holding drums would it take to last that long?
oron61 I see your point and it is totally agreeable. However, the bottom line is, german weapons and equipament was indeed better overall, so if you were to be completely honest about it, you would have to point that out to the troops. But Indeed, making the comparisons you mentioned would probably be better as it could still stress some advantages of the american guns over the germans while not misleading. And Dominic, also true what you said. However good the intentions were, I suppose giving unaccurate accounts and making unrealistic comparisons was potentialy harmful, because no matter how big is your disadvantage in war, it is always better to know exactly what you're up against and if your odds are bad, better know it before you make a move and find out the harder way(or even die before even realising why).
I think our advantages were nowhere near the heavy and light machine guns anyways. Our self-loading rifle was hands-down the most produced and best of quality in the world at the time. The Thompson vs. MP-40 is hard to compare, since the Thompson was so heavy, which helps shooting but hinders travel and aiming. Honestly, the US should have been way behind other nations with its M1 Garand, but nobody else put serious money/research into self-loading rifles until it was too late. I think the film was presented with a huge asterisk at the end, which is a briefing from your Sergeant, telling you that all those targets are dead, dead, dead. Some are just deader than others.
Greetings from Argentina! My grandpa was laughing his ass off at this video? I wonder why, he was just an electrician during the war. He has so many cool hats with lightning bolts on them.
Actually more like: MG-34: This is cool, but it is ridiculously expensive and takes too much time to manufacture. MG-42: I didn't say I wanted it to fire THAT fast, but that's a nice feature. To be fair, the US developed the M3 submachine gun (the second US submachine gun in the film) to replace the Thompson for the exact same reason.
Machine-gun fire was and still is not about accuracy. It is about suppression. Spraying bullets over a wide area to keep the enemy's heads down while the rest of the squad armed with rifles advance towards and take the position.
spoke with a military friend from the US, he said that the thompson is probably one of the worst guns you could ever carry during war, it's incredibly inaccurate, the german MP40 is much better
I think your friend was lying to you... the Thompson has a very controlled fire rate and is easy to handle... same with the mp40 but the Thompson hits harder
@@sirloserlot5084 Dude this was the joke. Because this whole propaganda video is an utter joke that got many soldiers killed, just like the German war propaganda was a joke.
Normal Deutsche Soldier HAHAHAHHAHAHA THE TIGER HAD ENGINE PROBLEMS BUT MUH FIVE SHERMANS EQUALS ONE TIGER HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
In reality American CAS would destroy the German heavies that (did not die from engine/transmission problems, did not get sent to the East, and actually got produced) and the remaining German panzers would just get wiped by the 76.
@@eventhorizon88 they may have those better weapons. Though, D-Day shows a great deal in showing how deadly the mg42 can do, especially if the gunner is smart to do short bursts and not spray his entire ammo. The Germans need guns to be shot faster to cause fear and support fire to keep the enemy down. The same can go for the U.S with the Browning m1919A4 it's lighter and can be carried with no problem and shoot decently. If you've seen saving Private Ryan.
Gotta remember that this was WWII propaganda. U.S. Soldiers also knew it was bullshit and a healthy respect for the MG42. Just as the Germans had a healthy respect for Ma Deuce.
They actually had more respect for the B.A.R. as far as evaluations and opinions go. Quite the contrary to what the American believed. The Germans found the M1919 and M2 both very accurate and reliable but too heavy for infantry use. The M1918, though they also noted problems with its weight and sights, very much liked it for a automatic rifle. They loved the FN/Polish version, the Wz.28 more.
The WZ.28 was actually made by Colt in the US initially and then sold to Poland via FN. From what I understand FN had lied to Poland about having the technical license for the gun. Issues in changing the technical data from Inches to Metric as well as getting a real license to build and sell the M1928 version of the BAR led to major issues with the FN contract with Poland. This led to Poland getting totally fed up with FN and not trusting them for future arms deals.. It is actually a shame that the US didn't adopt this1928 version of the BAR instead of just making updates to the 1918 version. The Wz.28 is really on par with the Bren; despite the 20 round magazine.
@@dopedoge3603 I know, pretty late, but the M1919 wasn't always 50 cal, most of the infantry use M1919s were 30 cal dunno about percentages but they were more. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, no one is born knowing.
The M3 better known as the grease gun was design and intended for us by US Army Tank crews. It has a fixed blade site and fires the .45cal.; same as the Thompson. The .45 has a great punch but very low muzzle velocity. You probably could stand to the side and watch the round arc downrange. The MP40 fires the lighter weight 9mm. These are pistol caliber weapons and their range is very limited.
This film points out the difference between the environment a soldier finds himself in in training vs actual combat, then advertises the accuracy of US machine guns vs German ones on an open range against unmoving white silhouette targets... The film also has no mention of the critical role that machine guns play in suppressing the enemy and preventing them from moving or accurately shooting. The main purpose of any light/medium/heavy machine gun is not to pick off individual soldiers like a sniper, but to keep groups of enemy soldiers pinned down so that a flanking element of riflemen can maneuver on and kill them. The MG-34 and MG-42 certainly had issues with ammunition consumption and barrel overheating, but these problems could largely be overcome by utilizing a well trained, disciplined crew who knew not to burn through half a belt in a single burst and were practiced in rapidly swapping barrels when one did have to be changed. The biggest advantage of the 34 and 42 was their much better maneuverability when compared to the US M1919 series.
It really depends on what you're trying to do. I shot the MG3 and it's really quite accurate if you consider it only has iron sights. The American MGs and guns were probably fine too... who cares nowadays? The Battlefields have changed, the guns have changed and the tactics too. I'm just happy the fascists lost the war and I don't have to worry about my neighbors getting kidnapped and killed in a concentration camp or to worry about my house being blown up by the RAF. War sucks, fascism sucks!
What's funnier is modern light machine guns are literally designed to be inaccurate (to an extent). When you see the MG42 it's on a mount that keeps it perfectly still and absorbs recoil, no room to adjust quickly, the reason was you didnt have to. You literally just shot and it hit anything with a few degrees on each side, hence the extremely high rate of fire. It's practically identical to how modern machine gun tactics operate.
True, but the MP-40 is much more controllable because of the smaller 9mm caliber and lighter weight. It is better suited for CQC, which is what SMGs were developed and used for.
"Okay we've captured an MG42, but it's on a tripod that makes it look like it has no recoil, should we still keep it on that?" "Yeah why not we'll just call it inaccurate"
@@meindertdejong8617 Hold up. The Americans kicked Vietcong ass from one side of the country to the other. Just because we supposedly "lost" the war doesn't mean we didn't kick the ever living shit out of the Vietcong before we got aimless and left. Don't get any false impressions that the Vietcong proved their superiority, we killed ten of them for every one we lost.
Frequent barrel changes on the mg42 too. Definitely some drawbacks but still, if a burst does land on you or sweep across you you're going to take more rounds into you versus the slower rate of fire..
germans were only lose because they're outnumbered the allies deployed a million troops while the germans were only 300k and the allies have air superiority too.
Everyone here says American Army lied to soldiers about how good enemy weapons are. but to think the fact that Americans won the war after all, I think american commanders were pretty confidence about their firearms. I know mg42's much modern version, MG3 is still in service but M3 gun also served till gulf war and M1 garand's legacy lives in M14 rifles. And there is M2 browning which is 2 centuries legend
@@Natan-yw3xc Yes, the Allies won the war, as in France, the British Commonwealth, Italy, the USSR,etc. But America also was part of the Allies, thus they won the war.
Meanwhile in Italy:
Italian: "Can I buy a gun?"
Beretta: "Did you mean *A PIECE OF ART?* "
Black Fox They have one of the best smg’s in ww2 the berretta which do not jam.
@@generalflowerhead2047 The beretta mab 38! Its only con was its high cost!
Guys it’s a joke lmao
Sig&Sauer: *laughs in German*
@@jewwhovotedfornaziparty *crying* FUCK YOU SIG D:
Narrator : "MG-42 is not accurate."
Allied in D-Day : "Those bastards lied to us."
Damn 😔
One soldier with his kar98 and his mg42 killed 2000 american soldiers 😅
Hey mas is mister in Indonesia do U Indonesia ppl?
It wasn't those guys basically just sprayed
@@Schander-cx7gn ur kidding right?
Americans on the beaches of Normandy: *So that movie was a fucking lie*
Well they have faster rate of fire, and yes they on high ground
When most of the beach is filled with men who even needs sights?
@@wackyotter1235 I agree
IT'S OVER ALLIES I HAVE THE HIGH GROUND
To be fair, the situation screwed up only on one LZ of five in total.
Narrator: “only 13 hits...”.
Me, thinking: “wouldn’t one hit be enough to ruin my whole day?”
gonna need some bandaids after that
Well it depends where you got hit... leg torso or head.
The leg can be easily treated. Head: ok we all know there this is going.
Torso: Is a bit tricky because one hit you can very well survive, BUTT since those are automatic weapons the probability is high that you got hit more than ones in several places and then the different impact blasts from the bullets can cause extreme internal damage together.
@@maxpower8171 Anywhere you get hit is gonna be awful especially back then a 8mm mauser or 30-06 would certainly mangle your leg or hit a artery causing you to bleed out rather quickly and the casualty numbers of mid to late war campaigns support this fact
@@maxpower8171 your a generic comment section “expert”. You get hit in the leg by an 8mm Mauser, it’ll more than likely pierce your femoral artery, causing you to bleed out in a matter of minutes
@@gargeely4901 well and i am studying medicine after i was a medic...
"The american propaganda is good, but german is better"
*Laughs in soviet*
Soldiers that risk everyday their life
no, it means: The German Propaganda is good but the american is more accurate
The other way around
Laughs in banzai
The fact that the MG 42 is still in service kinda speaks about itself, that thing is a monster.
They just renamed it so americans wont be scared
@Nick Martin the reason for that is reliability. The reason for the MG42 still being kept in service how powerful it is
@@gray9173, reliability makes weapons powerful. The M2A1 and the MG3 is reliable. But here's the thing, the M2 is chambered in the .50 BMG which is vastly more powerful than the MG3 rounds.
@@Kuro_2712 both have their uses. .50's aren't being hauled in section attacks.
@@metalforever12085, I understand as the M2A1 is a HMG and the MG 3 is a GPMG. Both have different uses and I only said what I did to defend the brilliant weapon that is the M2A1.
"Nobody is afraid of that gun except for the replacement."
Gee, I wonder why there's a replacement...
Best post.
Love this😂😂
Omg i Iaughed so much 🤣🤣🤣
The replacement is also wondering why he's there.
🤣 must be military.
“They are not that accurate”
The 17 million dead Soviets: 👁👄👁
Hehehehe you know the truth
Just flank them lmao
@@Pyrrhaz But it is
Hah. Most of their casualties probably came from artillery and mortar fire. The human wave thing is blown way out of proportion. The Germans were really good at combined arms warfare. Come under small arms fire, hit the deck. Now there's mortars hitting all around. Can't move. Artillery rounds start to come in. It could be very hard to get out of a situation like that. I think a good way to view it is that the Soviets were not as flexible as the Germans. Their chain of command was generally slower to respond to emergent situations. The Germans also empowered NCOs and junior officers to make judgment calls that wouldve been unthinkable in the Red Army. Still, this is a generalization and there were crack units in the RA. But in general, doctrinal differences and rigid command structure contributed to the obscene casualties. Operations often had too large of a scope. They would probe huge swaths of the front and attack any sector that seemed to give weak resistance. This was a *major* factor in the casualty toll. They attacked everywhere and fished for breakthroughs. They did the opposite of Schwerpunkt, and it shows. Political motivations also affected decisionmaking. Victories had to be grand, defeats had to be drawn out to the annihilation of the unit. This is generalized but it explains a lot.
@@Pyrrhaz Nah, they attacked Finland, they got no respect from me for their "cause".
If i had 1€ for every time he said "accuracy" i would have repaid Greece's debt
@Kurogane -sensei I'm talking about the debt of Greece and said that if i had 1€ for every time he said accuracy i would be able to repay it
@Kurogane -sensei we borrowed lots of money
@@crazeelazee7524 Yayayayaya😂
Haha our economy is fucked.
@CIA BETA Wing me too.
:(
Next propaganda is about tanks
Narrator:Tiger accuracy is really bad
Tiger was actually a failure
SlavKommando tiger 2 kinda was
@@bakers2366 What tiger? If you're talking about Tiger II then.... Yeah kinda but Tiger I is not a failure for sure. The only thing tiger fall short is the numbers
@@get_serious4953 They were slow and easy targets for aircrafts
@@bakers2366 So does every tank from any nation
I interviewed WWII vets 20 years ago.
Looking back, they laughed at this thing. Some of them even joked about how the film actually missed the most important factor (for them after experiencing combat). The lower rate of fire didn't mean more accuracy. It meant that US machine guns were less likely to malfunction or require barrel changes after extended use. German guns often fired so many rounds so quickly that their barrels would get hot from the powder and friction of bullets. If they didn't change barrels, then the barrel would warp and the gun would become useless. As such, combat vets would actually wait for Germans to swap barrels, then assault the position. The counter-argument is that the US guns were often heavier (due to either a heavy barrel or water-jacket to prevent these problems).
As an aside, post-war the US took elements of the German MGs into their own designs.
TL;DR - propaganda video actually misses key weakness in German machine guns while trying to show how weak German guns were.
Was that really effective? I mean, when I was in the Bundeswehr, I shot the MG3. Trained I changed the barrel in about 5 seconds and my instructor called me a lame ass for that. Four seconds was the standard to aim for, and most of my comrades achieved it - just not me, because I am ... well ... a lame ass.
So to realize that the enemy is now changing the barrel certainly takes half a second to a whole second. Then you have three seconds left to jump up, charge and take out the firing position. This might have been realistic only in a few situations. Not to mention that the machine gun position was certainly not alone.
Germans also used water-cooled machine guns of WW1 vintage. They did have slower rate of fire so they did not have as distinct sound as MG42 had.
But they had a very fast technique to swap the barrell. Just a few seconds. And always had at least one extra barrell available from what I've heard. I'm not quite sure how that waiting for the nazis to swap barrell-technique would be effective, but I'm not disqualifying what you say. Have a nice day.
@@unwnme As mentioned in other replies, the barrel swap itself was pretty quick, but the troopers took the barrel-change as a time to put down suppressing fire. Machine gun positions needed to be able to see their targets (usually). This meant that their targets could see them. Thus, a third of the squad firing on the machine gun position could extend a 4-7-second barrel swap to upwards of thirty seconds. Combine that with judicious use of hand grenades (if close enough) or various forms of support weapons (if available), and that period of barrel-swapping, in a combat scenario in the late-war period (where machine guns were often operating defensively and with less support than they should have), could mean an overrun machine gun nest.
To be fair, several US designs would have actually benefited from barrel swapping. The BAR and M1919 were great squad support and machine guns. However, during extended battles, their barrels could get too hot to fire and the soldiers or marines using them would swap out to M-1 Garands.
@@unwnme Why nazis specifically? What if the Germans they were facing weren't part of the NSDAP?
“Don’t worry it’s not that accurate.”
_Young Guy: Huh? .... Okay!_
“JOE GET DOWN YOU’RE GONNA GET SHOT!”
_Young Guy: DON’T WORRY IT’S NOT THAT ACCURA-_
I bet that happened irl
R.I.P Joe
Me playing post scriptum on the allied side in a nutshell:
@@silverdoughnutz john Sedgwick got shot in the head after saying Confederate snipers cant aim
Yeah tell that to Medic Wade ...
I know it’s clearly American Propaganda but imagine yourself as a new soldier who doesn’t know much. Would you want to be told: “Our guns are not very good compared to theirs and you’re probably gonna die as soon as you hear those MG-42’s”. ? It made more sense to make the soldiers more confident so they would atleast attempt to preform better instead of sending them on to the battlefield as a nervous wreck.
But we don't accept opinions from people with minecraft as their profile picture.
I don’t care what your people in North Korea accept either.
Maybe instead of teaching your soldiers that your guns are better they could teach them how to counter them. For example, the MG 42 would cycle about 150 rounds before the barrel needed to be replaced. That would give the soldiers 7-ish seconds to attack the possision.
@Atticus Wadsworth That’s an excellent idea. That’s also why I still acknowledged it as American Propaganda at the beginning of my comment since they definitely could’ve told the soldiers how to properly counter it but they didn’t.
It still doesn't make a lot of sense, it puts the idea that they are garunteed to not get hit because the German weapons are so "inaccurate"
Less accurate, you only get hit by 13 bullets...lol
As we all know it takes 14 bullets to kill a american soldier.
lol
Call_Me_Odla lol
@@CptElder LMAO
Call_Me_Odla and 30 for a german😁
Replacement: "I'm no longer afraid of the German guns!"
*gets torn in half by 8mm Mauser at 1600 rounds per minute*
rippped up by 16 rounds,, that was one bust....
6:13 You can clearly see the man behind the MG42 is deliberately not looking down it's sights like the other guys. They tried so hard to downplay that machine gun, that "It's bark is much worse than it's bite!", when in reality that was a fucking lie and it's still used 80+ years later. One of the finest machine guns ever designed.
It's being replaced by something with a slower rate of fire.
It was probably sighted already though
@@barccy Yes it is replaced by a design from FN. And yes it has a lower rate of fire but that is because it is built like that. The main focus of replacing the MG-3 with the MG-5 is the fact that the FN design is more ergonomic, can fit lasers, sights, and the "Sturmgriff". It´s a handle on the side of the handguard so that you can shoulder-fire the gun better. And yes the lower rate of fire also makes it better for shoulder-firing but if you use the MG-42/MG-3 the right way (prone, with bi-pod) you can accurately shoot targets at 200m+ range. Also the video is complete propaganda to calm down joey joe seeing his comrades getting mowed down at normandy. It was pure lies and makes people like you believe that german guns are crap and only spray down fire in all directions like you see in movies. Also the MG-42 had the semi-automatic function removed because they found it obsolete BECAUSE you could still shoot accurately even in full-auto with the high rate of fire of 1200-1400rpm.
Much the same with the sub guns. Middle guy was an experienced machine gunner. Guy with the mp40 either wasn't or was sandbagging.
@@barccy no. mg3 ( modern mg42) has the same rate of fire
"The MG42's bark was worse than it's bite"
Until you see one in the church tower..
Load some HE from a Sherman then bye bye.
@meme man sends some RAF and USAF to control the skies and bye bye. Kraut engineering was poo poo.
@@sdude1260 oh wow, where did you learn that clever stuff?
Or in the sewers.
or in a bar
Veteran Sergeant: Johnny, What the hell are you doing!? Get down!
Johnny: It's okay Sarge, German machine guns are terribly inaccura-
*gets bisected by 7.92*
German gunner: Ach mein Gott... he just stood up, the madman!
Ahahaha this comment just made my day sir.
Lol😂😂
Uhm im preety sure german weapons are better...
I ratjer run into a light 30 than an MG42
Actually we could have bested the MG with a minigun as the U.S tested a 50.cal gatling gun that shot 4,000 rounds a minute now imagine that gatling gub on bomber planes they woul evicerate German fighter planes. Plus if the U.S would have made a scaled down version in 30-06 firing 2,000 a minute that would have put the MG42 out of business and would have had a bigger fear factor as miniguns have and this would the been the WW2 M134 minigun
It's not really about the gun. it's about how good it's owner is.
Soldier raises hand: "But aren't these men trained to handle these faster rate weapons?"
Officer: "shut up Malarkey"
Is it a reference to band of brother?
@@stalinemdr2797 yes. Malarkey usually got shit on my his Nco's in the beginning. Especially by Sobel.
"Malarkey" is also slang for bullshit, another fact that was also mentioned in Band Of Brothers
@@sniperfreak223 "malarkey? "Malarkey"'s slang for bullshit isn't it?"
Americans in training: "So they fire fast, but they're not as accurate"
Americans in Combat: "So that was a fucking lie"
It was a factually true statement, it was just that the German MGs compensated for their lack in accuracy by a high rate of fire.
@@utzius8003 I'm glad you pointed that out
That's how propaganda is made, I'm going to give an example and i hope it's understandable:
>hey the German gun shoots you 13 times but the American one shoots you 15 times.
>Soldiers die harder with the American gun even though you need only 1 bullet to do the job :)
The tactics described in this video were used all the time to deal with German squads.
The German mg's were meant to provide a base of fire to keep heads down while mortars and artillery were brought to bear.
I mean technically it was true, it just didn’t matter because the 42 was way better at suppressing than the browning
American army: How fast are your guy's weapons?
German army: *Yes*
Laeggroll the German weapons were advanced for their time for sure.
laughs in 1200rpm
Crys in K98 which was still the most widely used german weapon haveing to fight US soldiers with M1 Garands.
Expect the American M1928 ( Tommy gun) that had a fire rate of 800 RPM ( rounds per minute) while the MP40 only had a fire rate of 550 RPM. And the American M1919 Tommy gun had an insane fire rate of 1500 RPM even faster than the MG-42. The Americans sub machine guns where also chambered in 45 ACP, while German sub machine guns where only chambered in 9mm.
@@atrocity2606 i dont know where you have your information from. First of the M1928 Thompson was only used by the US navy during world war 2. The army went into war with the M1 and M1A1 Thompsons. You got the fire rate of 800 RP right. However the M1919 did not fire 1500 RPM for shure. I am not saying that it was not possible to build a M1919 so that it would fire 1500 RPM, after all the AN/M2 .30 cal which was a aircraft mounted variant of the M1919 had a fire rate of something around 1400 RPM but the army always used the regular M1919 which had a much lower fire rate.
What you have to understand is that fire rate is not the most important part in weapon design. In fact it is the oposit. As they say in the video lower fire rate allows for longer sustained fire because of less overheating and because the ammunition does not run out as quickly. Thats one of the reasons why I think that the M1919 was the best MG of world war 2.
"Their bark is worse than their bite"
*laughs in German*
@Austin T. Suddenly, D-Day
German:... F**K!!
@@wrestlingpurist9784 *FICK
@@gavin3915 Verdammt Günter!
Har har har
Wir sind Deutsch. Wir sind effizient und besitzen keinen Humor. Dadurch ergibt dein Kommentar, bei dem du aufgrund eines Witzes gelacht hast keinen Sinn
Sry hatte irgendwie lust auf dieses Cliché einzugehen :P
Training: “nExT uP wE’ sEe tHe gErMan MkV Tiger Tank, iTs tiNy cOmPaRed tO oUr sHeRmAn” 🤣🤣🤣
Mk6. Mk5 was the Panther.
why write in upper the lower case letter's makes you look stupid and prob 12 years of ages if you are older just makes you look more dumb i can't think of another word but idiot sum's it up perfect!
and there is no such thing as a mark 4 tiger...you need to stay in school or go back and learn history
@@Jay-O_Carlow See... the hole point of write like that is to point out when someone says something stupid or nonsensical.
@@thebaxter9241 i know lol i agree with you thats why i called them an idiot.... you cant teach stupid and this person is stupid
Easy 8: bonejaw
The americans in Omaha: "Don't worry guys, they are not going to hit us"
Lmfao
"It'll be a walk in the park, just like the beaches at home."
Jerry what are you doing?
Jerry: *DONT WORRY ITS EXTREMLY INACURATE*
Come on, let's go. 20 minute adventure, in and out.
Mg42 killed thanos in end game just saying....
really
@@maxmlp0562 I'm pretty sure, yeah
@@maxmlp0562
stop, get some help
Wait what?
Also Thanos got shot with the ppsh-41
American Soldier: "So the MG-42 is really inaccurate?"
American intelligence: *"Yesn't"*
This comment deserves a lot more likes...lol
Soldier: i take that as a yes
yes it is incredibly innacurate compared to the browning. the muzzle climb means you arent hitting squat, making the fire rate worthless
@@AR15andGOD ikr? people here in the comments just seem to say "german gun good because big number"
@@AR15andGOD Wdym? The MG42 operators were taught to fire for only a few seconds at most to conserve ammunition and accuracy. They weren't just squeezing the trigger and praying they'd hit someone. Plus the MG42 was used practically only in conjunction with bipods and tripods, mitigating the recoil to a manageable level. And considering that the Germans calculated that the normal engagement range for infantry was 300 meters at most and the MG42 has an effective range of 600 meters, it's quite probable that the MG42s *would* hit squat.
And calling fire rate "worthless" is profoundly nonsensical. Even if the MG42 was out of it's effective firing range, you try to order your men to assault a position capable of firing 25 bullets per second and see how long it takes until they get pinned down and picked off by the MG's sentries.
Little fun fact: a bullet usually fires faster than sound, meaning you will get hit before you hear the bullet being fired.
Assuming they hit you with their first shot(s)
@@sergeantmarcusstackerM1903 I know it's one year old, but that's not true, you'll hear the supersonic crack exactly when it's hitting you, or a few ms after it hits you
Yeah, you’re right. I’m just going to delete that old comment. Used to be too much of a R-tard and now I can’t live with that
No, the bullets actually makes alot of noise. And you can hear that in this video when the mg42 is firing from a distance.
@@ArcticChonk the bullet is supersonic. Don’t you know what supersonic means?
I asked one WW 2 Vet who fought through France if he ever used German weapons. He said "If you could get them, because there were superior to American weapons. It was forbidden to use them of which no one paid much attention to. Soldiers in combat became accustomed to the sound of each weapon, when it's fired and know from the sound of what weapon it is. Sometimes in advancing through France, I would hear a battle going on, from a distance and the firing from both sides were German weapons, so no one knew who was who.
I read a similar thing about AKs in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese AKs were more durable in the jungle and could punch through the underbrush better. Some American servicemen tried using them, but sound recognition becomes such a vital part of survival in combat that opening fire with one meant others would open fire in your direction.
Is what I read, at least.
“Eats up ammunition 3x as fast as American machine guns.” Yeah that was 3x as many chances to shoot us.
Meaning replenishing soldiers must be at 3 times fast as well.
also meaning less ammo for them and less kills for them
And when we put that into a count, then even with an extra machinegun squad and a supposedly higher accuracy of their gun the americans end up quite far behind..
I dont think ammo was so scarce then..
@@xnsjsxwfz2894 yes even when the Russians were entering the German soil thier production was dam too good than Brits n Brits were waste if usa hadn't supported them (Brits lost to a much less German defensive post n Americans were very angry about that n it slowed down the march towards berlin) Hitler's worst decision was attacking Russians n that did cause thier defeat to Russian yes people it was the red army which took down hitler! N do not forget u Brits bombed the French navy! As usual usa was in the war which profits someone else n Brits wee terrified with the V2's hitler became cocky n got his bullet!
"Their bark is worse than their bite"
*gets cut in half by 1200-1500 rpm of 7.92×57mm Mauser*
The bite still hurts! So try not to get bit! 😂
machine gun position then cut in half by 8 .50 cals from a p47
@@firefightergaming3785 that takes 40 minutes to arrive, this aint Company of heroes.
@@firefightergaming3785 Who gets obliterated by 30mm guns from a FW190.
piergiorgio caroli
Who was lucky to even get off the ground and is heavily out-numbered in the air.
1:58 Auto captions: "That thing sprays a lot of leather"
D-day guy: Those bastards lied to me
German Guns: *EXTREMELY ACCURATE*
U.S military: We'll just cut that out.
America in WW2: high rate of fire is bad.
America Now: A-10 goes brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtttttt
*thomas the thermonuclear bomb intensifies*
@Nicholas Garcia I'm sorry to disappoint you. but not my strength to make good jokes...
The A-10 just makes a dirty noise from it's huge cannon - is the USAF still using Uranium bullets in it?
Mg 42 it's not accurate that's right but the MG42 has lots of ammunition and a high rate of Fire bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr oh, all soldiers are dead fuck about the accuracy😀
And they still struggle against Taliban
You know the mg42 was a devastating weapon when the military had to lie to their own soldiers about its effectiveness
Lie?
Is called propaganda, it's for raising morale.
@@AMango45 a lie is a lie smh :( poor bastards didn't see it coming
@@AMango45 still a lie
@@AMango45 Propaganda = lies
It's not a lie, they literally prove it by firing them side by side. The German MGs are less accurate and consume munitions faster.
"The German gun shoots fast"
*Muricans throws nades*
"Correction: they used to shoot fast"
Gotta love these vintage instructional video's :'D
Its propaganda
@@stefman3553 artillery
dont forget the whole rifle platoon that backs up the machine gunners....
bootlickers do
Incredible, nearly everything he said was wrong
Meh. Trivial certainly, false? Not really.
he prob fired less with the german gun also
@@peterson7082I mean the MG42 could also be used as a sniper...so claiming it's "inaccurate" is kind of a completely bogus claim
@@vornamenachname989 on the lafette mount
@@vornamenachname989 not bipod or the less common AA mount
when they said the Thompson was more accurate lolololololol
👀
MiniDonut ever shot a Thompson?
@@harrys288 I've shot the Thompson and the MP40. The Thompson has much more recoil.
@@minidonut827 And yet the guy with the Thompson barely moves at all and the guy with the MP40 can't handle it. It's almost like seeing a minigun filled with blanks seeing that Thompson fire.
It was better than the mp40
My god the shear sound of the mg42 from a distance sounds terrifying.
Best time to move forward against German machine guns is the seconds it takes to change the barrels. Don't plan on moving very far, barrel changes didn't take long. They did have to change them often they got hot fast.
@@jackboyer1280 well. Either a barrel change, belt jam, or expension of ammunition
It is wack
@@jackboyer1280Usuall there was no such Thing as a lone MG Position, they where placed in a interlocking pattern of fire zones.
@@jackboyer1280 it was made to 200 rounds/1 change.. but well ive sawn gungs that were red of heat and stillt were shooting..
0:52 German mg: perfect
American mg: box on a stick
There is no doubt that the MG42 was a better gun than the 1919. Twenty plus years of technology and machining practices were employed in the manufacture of the MG42 over the 1919. Just the fact that most modern guns can trace their function and manufacture back to the MG42 tells you all you need to know. The MG42 and M2 heavy machine guns have been in service longer than anything that preceded them.
I love the Thompson and have fired one many times. I have also fired the MP40 several times. If I had to go into battle I would pick the MP40 every time over the harder to use Thompson. The M3 is better than the Thompson in that you can score more hits due to the slower rate of fire but the MP40 still beats the M3 as well. If you disagree go to a range and try them for yourself.
I tell you one thing germans knew two things during ww2
Weapons and fashion
Other than the killing.
Also don’t forget Jews, most important thing. (BTW I like dark humour so don’t take this too deeply).
@@nitrofiregamingtv1155 Are you secretly Portuguese? Dark humour is the thing here.
Pashico Not really although I have been to Portugal once but I live in Pakistan and was born in Canada. I also learnt Urdu and Punjabi too.
but not logistics or strategy lol
but yes i agree, they lost in style.
"these guys are all experts"
Proceeds to poke holes through the paper to fake results
XD
Was it found to be faked?
@@zuto96 Hard to say. Assuming those are just cheap cardboard targets, firing a modern gun at them would yield the similar holes. Considering how sketchy this is as training propaganda, it's not entirely out of the question.
@@zuto96 look at the holes in the machine gun bit. No way they look like that.
I bet the instructor was just trying to get these guys pumped up to counter their fears. Canon Fodder 101.
"Their bark is worse than their bite"
yeah let's ask a D-Day veteran.
Did he really just say "the German pays for his rate of fire", whilst talking about the MP40?
“The German 9 millimeter machine pistol called the schmiesser, against our Thompson caliber 45. Their rate of fire is practically the same but our weapon is more accurate”
There were 3 lies in those 2 lines.
Yes and as an American..the propaganda machine is as healthy as ever today!
But you gotta say german and american Equipment looked the coolest i mean Look at the tommy gun and at the mp 40
@@remdy3839 GLORIUS PPsh made in small engine shop down road from combat!
Which?
1) it’s not the Schmiesser, it’s the mp40
2) their rate of fire is very different as the mp40 fires much slower.
3) the mp40 was more accurate.
Show this to the men who landed on D-Day
What do you mean by this?
@Zeros DaBast bro the Stg44 was not the first assault rifle. It's either the federov avtomat or the ribeyrolles 1918 depending on who you ask. Those guns were made during ww1. As for tanks, while German tanks were superior, they were slower to make and repair, whereas the Americans were mass producing tanks to outnumber the germans. And during the later end of the war Germany had lost air superiority which made their tanks especially vulnerable to aircraft fitted with tank busting weapons
@Zeros DaBast the ribeyrolles was not an smg, it used an intermediate cartridge.
@Zeros DaBast it literally fits all requirements for an assault rifle: its capable of select fire, it uses an intermediate cartridge, it's ammunition is supplied in a detachable box magazine, and it has an effective range of at least 300 meters (the ribeyrolles is effective out to 400) it is an assault rifle. Submachine guns rarely are effective beyond 180 meters, and generally weigh 6-8 pounds (the ribeyrolles weighs 11 pounds making it just over)
@Zeros DaBast no it's not. The ak-47 was partly designed to replace their need for SMG's. It's not about how you use a weapon. I could put a scope and extended barrel on a pistol along with a bipod but that doesnt make it a sniper rifle.
Neil Armstrong landing in the Moon:
*"A C C U R A C Y !"*
I always found the The Schmeisser MP40 being underrated .. it was amazing for what it was. Most countries used it until the MP5 came round.
Yes this is propaganda, but its purpose is to make soldiers less afraid of combat, and therefore it was effective
Hell, I'd never have to actually go against it in combat but even this video made me feel less scared of it lmao. It does it's job, even if it's not necessarily 100% accurate.
The film's purpose was probably to try another angle to prevent desertion or mutiny. If you are conscripted and don't even believe in the Allies' purpose, then perhaps they can convince you that you'll have an easy time fighting for it and be back home by next Christmas.
What's the point of being less scared by being lied to. It can cause a lot more harm in my opinion because it can lead to misjudgements in combat leading to more casualties because of misinformation
@@Frk_X well if that are afraid of the gun they won't be any good because they'll just stay on the ground but if they are not afraid they will have a better chance of following orders without hesitation
@x y no they followed orders without hesitation
US squat:
5 x 400 rpm = 2000 rpm
Kraut squat:
4 x 1200 rpm = 4800 rpm
"BuT oUrS aRe MoOr AcCuRaTe"
13hits times 2.8 since the german has more rpm so thats 36.4 hits
And for the american its still 20 something
So, the higher the rate of fire, the more inaccurate the gun will be. So always balance the rate of fire. Lesson learned.
Even more, it almost used up almost an entire worth of supplies if the gun had a higher rate of fire.
Squad*
It's not that faster cyclic rates are inaccurate, but rather it heats up your barrel much faster. The faster your barrel heats up, the more you have to change it out. Every time time you have to swap barrels, regardless of your cyclic rate, your enemy may now maneuver against you without fear of a machine gun sighting in on them. That's one of the reasons American squads adopted the "talking guns" tactics.
"Does that mean it's a better fighting weapon than ours?" - well, yeeees?
"I saw this training movie. We just have to rely on accurac..." *Pfrrrrrrrrt*
Alright next training video for the cold war: Soviet AK-47 vs the M1 Garand
*The AK-47 is a modern rifle made from the Soviet Union it uses a 30 round magazine and selective fire but the M1 Garand is better*
They replaced it with the M-14 and M-16
They wouldn’t be using m1 garand. It would be an AR or m14
BTW M1 Garand was one of the best rifles at the time.
@@MM_45
Depending on how you were meant to use it, sure.
The problem is that the Americans had a different style of infantry combat than the Germans did, and used different weapons to do so. The German 98k was meant to be an accurate weapon that shoots one guy and kills him. The MG-42 keeps the guy in place and then the others shoot to kill. The Americans had more covering fire from the riflemen.
It's one of those things that if you actually know infantry combat stuff you notice that they left out. What does the MG-42 do in a German squad? How is it used, how is it protected, etc.?
I mean, you first mention that it eats up bullets, and that the other Germans has to lug extra ammo around. Where are they in the video? Exactly..
"Accuracy is over rated. In the chaos of combat, you might not know where the enemy is, but with enough firepower, you can keep their heads down."
Ahoy my guy
Exactly. 👍
yep just like height and muscle are overrated. when i found my gf banging a black guy his muscle was useless. i grab his nuts and squeeze like it was the last day on earth. he fell to his knees crying i wouldnt let go. the more he punch me the tighter i squeeze
Wohl....
@@MrMuaythai84 Yooooo. Why you do dis? Why the nuts? Oh god. Im gonna puke
American soldier: there guns aren't accurate
German soldier on D-Day: let's test that out
How exactly does this prove your point? Brave American soldiers had to cross a fair bit of open ground to get near the defences. It was not a case of accuracy, it was a case of filling the air with lead
Sebastian Tiainen it was mostly a joke lol
American Soldiers: Those bastards lied to us!
Communism Ussr 😂😂😂
"On D-Day"
Soldier: ... F**K!
Everyone in the comments forgetting how much better the browning M2, 1911, M34 grenade and M1 garand were by contrast to the walther p38, stielhandgranate, and the k98k. The M2 is still used on modern Mine Resistant Armor Protected, Infantry Fighting Vehicles and various other vehicles and boats.
the mg42 is still used today too (just chambered in NATO standard and renamed to MG3)
Those MG42’s must have caused lots of soldiers to literally shit bricks.
they still do...
@@domianfreimann9487 Are they still used?
After the war they were rebranded as MG3 and are still in use today.
@@gilgamesh310 yup, chambered differently th-cam.com/video/n9jlx9NGqyo/w-d-xo.html
"Of course, these weapons seem harrowing, but the average German is unable to see past 30 meters."
Are you a jew
@@wimpiezot2377 I'm your dad
@@wimpiezot2377 Dude he meant what amerikana would say
American soldiers believing this propanda facing the first German snipers, MP44 and Panzerschreck handlers be like :"This is outrageous. It's unfair.."
“Hey, what’s that?”
“Some SMG. It has MP-40 written on the side.”
“Like the MP18? Maybe it stands for maschinenpistole 40 or something. Should we just csll it the MP40?”
“Nah, let’s use some weird german sounding word. Who designed the MP18 anyway?”
“Some dude called Schmeisser”
“Eh, they look similar enough, probably the same guy. Let’s go with Schmeisser”
-some chucklefucks in US army intelligence
The mp40 was also designed by Schmeisser
Parabellum 9 you’re 12.
@@parabellum9367
Hugo Schmeisser had nothing to do with it,- it was designed by Erma
BRYAN351 It would be quite interesting if that were true, it would mean there was actually an element of credibility to the Allies assumption.
BRYAN351 I was told that people assumed it had the same designer as the MP-18, hence Schmeisser.
Still, if it had “Schmeisser” printed on all the mags, that makes much more sense.
That feeling when 80+ year old footage is better quality than modern day security cameras lol 😂
"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."
Advertisement: the MG42 ain’t accurate
Beast of Omaha: *are you sure about that?*
wasnt accurate 'nuff
See it not accuracy
Heyyy
@@yungesthydra god, Satan doesn't want me in hell anymore apparently I'm killing too many demons
@@nathangg8429 it called that the mg42 had interchangeable barrels so you can take out the current barrel and replace it with a new barrel also he was in a dug-in position so he most likely had more bullets than a normal machine gun squad had. and he also used a bolt action rifle whenever he was letting his barrels cool off. actually do research dumbass
"Cease"
*takes a nap*
*waxes the car*
*catches up on reading the news*
*gets married*
*has children*
*oh no, smoking is bad for me*
*lung cancer*
*died in my bed*
"Firing"
*lmao*
Glad I wasn't the only extremely annoyed with the long fucking pause...
I fucking died holy shit
It's no kidding 2020 by time he says firing.
Man. Exactly. Been laughing for one hour seeing your comment.
Even by today's standards, that 42 sounds like a beast.
My great grandfather was a ww2 soilder in British army. He wrote in his diary about the respect allied soilders had for german guns.
"Firing 20 rounds each"
Firing that many because thats all the M1A1 had
Actually 20 round mags weren't very common for the M1 and M1A1.
30 was standard.
@Prison Mike We weren't even talking about the MG42. We're talking about the submachine guns.
Not even sure why you felt it was necessary to comment on something unrelated to the original statement.
So go off and Circlejerk with the other Wehraboos, would you kindly?
@@vitoscaletta7151 stg 44
@@Helm11 The STG44 is an excellent rifle.
But again, that has nothing to do with the capacity of Thompson submachine guns.
@@vitoscaletta7151 it was made to replace machine guns
It's a video supposed to boost morale and make troops confident. Would it be better if the guy said "this is the sound of the german mg 42. If you hear this, it might be your first time in the battlefield. And probably your last day on earth"?
The better advice would actual comparison: examples of throwing a helmet through the line of fire of a 1919A6 and an MG-42. Notice the difference in number of holes.
Then have both guns fixed and fire at a line of consecutively distant targets for a long 5 second burst. Look at the spread. Look at how long the belt is now. Look at how hot the barrel is.
Have two good soldiers play with either gun at shooting pop-up targets trying for short bursts as is standard battle doctrine. How long can they keep shooting before they have to change out their barrels? How much weight in ammo did it take to do it? How many of those 50-round belt-holding drums would it take to last that long?
Well but Still a Dickmove to Lie to your Own People to make New Recruits think that their Equipment was actually comparable
oron61 I see your point and it is totally agreeable. However, the bottom line is, german weapons and equipament was indeed better overall, so if you were to be completely honest about it, you would have to point that out to the troops. But Indeed, making the comparisons you mentioned would probably be better as it could still stress some advantages of the american guns over the germans while not misleading. And Dominic, also true what you said. However good the intentions were, I suppose giving unaccurate accounts and making unrealistic comparisons was potentialy harmful, because no matter how big is your disadvantage in war, it is always better to know exactly what you're up against and if your odds are bad, better know it before you make a move and find out the harder way(or even die before even realising why).
I think our advantages were nowhere near the heavy and light machine guns anyways. Our self-loading rifle was hands-down the most produced and best of quality in the world at the time. The Thompson vs. MP-40 is hard to compare, since the Thompson was so heavy, which helps shooting but hinders travel and aiming.
Honestly, the US should have been way behind other nations with its M1 Garand, but nobody else put serious money/research into self-loading rifles until it was too late.
I think the film was presented with a huge asterisk at the end, which is a briefing from your Sergeant, telling you that all those targets are dead, dead, dead. Some are just deader than others.
Your argument is a false dilemma logical fallacy you idiot
"Remember their bark is worst than their bite"
Soldiers on Omaha beach: "Well shit"
Greetings from Argentina! My grandpa was laughing his ass off at this video? I wonder why, he was just an electrician during the war. He has so many cool hats with lightning bolts on them.
MG34: Exists
Germany: This is cool, but I want something ridiculously faster.
MG42: *HEY BOIS*
Actually more like:
MG-34: This is cool, but it is ridiculously expensive and takes too much time to manufacture.
MG-42: I didn't say I wanted it to fire THAT fast, but that's a nice feature.
To be fair, the US developed the M3 submachine gun (the second US submachine gun in the film) to replace the Thompson for the exact same reason.
He he boy (cooking tv show)
Nobody:
Not a single soul:
American Soldier in D-Day: *confusion 100*
“Just like the simula-...”
@@forsaturn4629 lmao
American: i want to go home they are all liars 🤣
Hiroshi Rupasinghe reddit moment
FUCKING STOP
“Now the MG42 on the tripod” soldier doesn’t even use the sight to fire. “See how inaccurate it is”
Machine-gun fire was and still is not about accuracy. It is about suppression. Spraying bullets over a wide area to keep the enemy's heads down while the rest of the squad armed with rifles advance towards and take the position.
Imagine being a recruit in the room seeing this film, and then imagine your facial expression at 1:11
did you heard how his voice cracks after mg42 shoot when he is introducing other mg?
In my head: im so fucked
:)
"Oh wow, I'm fucked "
I’d shit my pants, as the most a recruit in 1941-1945 would have been maybe a Thompson SMG to a semi automatic rifle.
@@danielhall6578 Thompsons where for NCOs and officers
spoke with a military friend from the US, he said that the thompson is probably one of the worst guns you could ever carry during war, it's incredibly inaccurate, the german MP40 is much better
Blade Of Frost for certain people I think it comes down to personal preference
Depends if in close quarters but recoil is shit.
I think your friend was lying to you... the Thompson has a very controlled fire rate and is easy to handle... same with the mp40 but the Thompson hits harder
Dude that doesn’t take into account weight you would understand if you had one it also had about 2/3 of the ammo capacity and less fire control
Thatd why they start making m3 grees gun
Mean while in germany: How to knock out 100 shermans with a tiger in under 20 minuts
I hope your joking
Or more realistically: how to repair your tiger's transmission after 1km of travel
@@s0r1ns3c even more how you cant repair your tiger on the battlefield
@@sirloserlot5084 Dude this was the joke. Because this whole propaganda video is an utter joke that got many soldiers killed, just like the German war propaganda was a joke.
Except that never happened.
Mg42 is literally the minigun of the 40's
Mg34: “i have a balanced rate of fire so i dont overheat so fast!”
Mg42: *”haha brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr”*
Next video:
*The Tiger are good but the Sherman are more accurate*
Lololololollollololol
HAHHHAHA
NEXT VID
THE MAUS HAD THICK ARMOR
BUT THE M5 STUART HAD BETTER
Normal Deutsche Soldier
HAHAHAHHAHAHA
THE TIGER HAD ENGINE PROBLEMS
BUT MUH FIVE SHERMANS EQUALS ONE TIGER HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
In reality American CAS would destroy the German heavies that (did not die from engine/transmission problems, did not get sent to the East, and actually got produced) and the remaining German panzers would just get wiped by the 76.
Michael Wittmann: hold my Knights Cross!
That is actually a true statement. The tiger was definitely a better tank but the Sherman was more accurate
In mp40 he miss one hit in left head
U can the small hole in head left
Yeah i can see the small hole
"The german gunner pays for his impressive rate of fire." - Bruh, the Thompson has a higher fire rate.
what do u mean no it dont
@@conley_v5848 It does you old hag, the MP40 500rpm, Thompson 600-700rpm.
its a bad thing until you use it yourself
"Coming up next: thousands of our fellow American soldiers mowed down by MG-42s on D-Day. Where did all go wrong?"
Germans on D-Day:" SIKE, u thought"
The whole operation
@@eventhorizon88 they may have those better weapons. Though, D-Day shows a great deal in showing how deadly the mg42 can do, especially if the gunner is smart to do short bursts and not spray his entire ammo. The Germans need guns to be shot faster to cause fear and support fire to keep the enemy down. The same can go for the U.S with the Browning m1919A4 it's lighter and can be carried with no problem and shoot decently. If you've seen saving Private Ryan.
@@koreancowboy42 Hollywood movies are known to be only fact-based and display everything just like it went down, I mean everybody knows that
@@eventhorizon88 Stg44, Gewehr 43.
When he's circling the bullet holes on the MG34 target you can clearly see he's missed a few! ha ha
He missed 1 on the right head. Not a few.
Noah Sanders not 100% sure about this one but there seems to be one more glancing blow at the top left of the left swastika
Noah Sanders Nevermind, I had it paused. Turns out it’s just a shadow 😂
If you look closely you can see 2 more at the bottom of the right swastika and the middle of the left swastika. So yes that is a few.
@@zombies4evadude24 don't you think those are nail heads?
You know every soldier in the theater said to themselves 'fuck' at 1:03 and then again at 1:13
" The next time you hear that, may be your first time in combat."
And the last time you hear that ...
Gotta remember that this was WWII propaganda. U.S. Soldiers also knew it was bullshit and a healthy respect for the MG42. Just as the Germans had a healthy respect for Ma Deuce.
They actually had more respect for the B.A.R. as far as evaluations and opinions go. Quite the contrary to what the American believed. The Germans found the M1919 and M2 both very accurate and reliable but too heavy for infantry use. The M1918, though they also noted problems with its weight and sights, very much liked it for a automatic rifle. They loved the FN/Polish version, the Wz.28 more.
The WZ.28 was actually made by Colt in the US initially and then sold to Poland via FN. From what I understand FN had lied to Poland about having the technical license for the gun. Issues in changing the technical data from Inches to Metric as well as getting a real license to build and sell the M1928 version of the BAR led to major issues with the FN contract with Poland. This led to Poland getting totally fed up with FN and not trusting them for future arms deals.. It is actually a shame that the US didn't adopt this1928 version of the BAR instead of just making updates to the 1918 version. The Wz.28 is really on par with the Bren; despite the 20 round magazine.
They respected the ma deuce because it tore them to pieces it being a 50 cal
Ma , you better not be on the recieving end of her
@@dopedoge3603 I know, pretty late, but the M1919 wasn't always 50 cal, most of the infantry use M1919s were 30 cal dunno about percentages but they were more. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, no one is born knowing.
“Their bark is worst than their bite“ Propaganda at it’s finest …😂
Automatic fire's suppression often comes from just the noise alone.
"See, only 15 hits."
AT LEAST IT HITS!
The M3 better known as the grease gun was design and intended for us by US Army Tank crews. It has a fixed blade site and fires the .45cal.; same as the Thompson. The .45 has a great punch but very low muzzle velocity. You probably could stand to the side and watch the round arc downrange. The MP40 fires the lighter weight 9mm. These are pistol caliber weapons and their range is very limited.
This film points out the difference between the environment a soldier finds himself in in training vs actual combat, then advertises the accuracy of US machine guns vs German ones on an open range against unmoving white silhouette targets... The film also has no mention of the critical role that machine guns play in suppressing the enemy and preventing them from moving or accurately shooting. The main purpose of any light/medium/heavy machine gun is not to pick off individual soldiers like a sniper, but to keep groups of enemy soldiers pinned down so that a flanking element of riflemen can maneuver on and kill them. The MG-34 and MG-42 certainly had issues with ammunition consumption and barrel overheating, but these problems could largely be overcome by utilizing a well trained, disciplined crew who knew not to burn through half a belt in a single burst and were practiced in rapidly swapping barrels when one did have to be changed. The biggest advantage of the 34 and 42 was their much better maneuverability when compared to the US M1919 series.
MG 42 is not accurate
MG 42: well, yes but actually, no
It really depends on what you're trying to do. I shot the MG3 and it's really quite accurate if you consider it only has iron sights. The American MGs and guns were probably fine too... who cares nowadays? The Battlefields have changed, the guns have changed and the tactics too.
I'm just happy the fascists lost the war and I don't have to worry about my neighbors getting kidnapped and killed in a concentration camp or to worry about my house being blown up by the RAF. War sucks, fascism sucks!
What's funnier is modern light machine guns are literally designed to be inaccurate (to an extent). When you see the MG42 it's on a mount that keeps it perfectly still and absorbs recoil, no room to adjust quickly, the reason was you didnt have to. You literally just shot and it hit anything with a few degrees on each side, hence the extremely high rate of fire. It's practically identical to how modern machine gun tactics operate.
@@Gilhadriel you're right, instead your neighbour will be kidnapped by an ANTIFA member or something, buthey at least we aren't speaking German!
@@BoltActionJokerMaxi when has that happened?
If you miss for one second, that’s 100 bullets gone so I guess technically it’s not so accurate
Propaganda at its best
You would know! Thanks grandpappy
actually, both sides had their strengths and weaknesses, like how the Thompson had a higher ROF than the MP-40.
Yes, the Thompson had a higher rate of fire. In a SMG that's another weakness, not a strength.
True, but the MP-40 is much more controllable because of the smaller 9mm caliber and lighter weight.
It is better suited for CQC, which is what SMGs were developed and used for.
I am pretty sure a high RoF is a strength in a lot of SMGs, like the Kriss Vector.
"Okay we've captured an MG42, but it's on a tripod that makes it look like it has no recoil, should we still keep it on that?"
"Yeah why not we'll just call it inaccurate"
Area control weapon not intended to be a sniper weapon. If you're hit you go down aimed or not.
6:14 shooting the mg42 without aiming lol. i love the 40's propaganda
Its on some adjustable mount, I don't even know what I'm looking at
Probably the fixed and zeroed it on the target. Lol
When the Mg42 is so bad, why is the americans used it to produce theire mg50??
@@offensichtlichfabian XD.
8:05 We could have had that mg42 if we wanted but we needed a slower gun so we didnt have to reload as often. Thats the choice we made!
"German gun good, but our is better" wait, that's illegal
At least he gave the germans some credit by calling it good
Like AK is good but M16 is better. Hold the Vietcong's beer.
@@schmeisser0798 Yeah maybe but as far as i know the americans lost in vietnam...
@@meindertdejong8617 Hold up. The Americans kicked Vietcong ass from one side of the country to the other. Just because we supposedly "lost" the war doesn't mean we didn't kick the ever living shit out of the Vietcong before we got aimless and left. Don't get any false impressions that the Vietcong proved their superiority, we killed ten of them for every one we lost.
Now that’s propaganda!
Next time in chapter 2:
"Why you don't have to be afraid of the Tiger Tank"
Frequent barrel changes on the mg42 too. Definitely some drawbacks but still, if a burst does land on you or sweep across you you're going to take more rounds into you versus the slower rate of fire..
I think this video is why is american recruits were so confident to go fight the Germans... until we get there...
Americans were too confident, germans were too arrogant, i gues confidence wins over arrogancy
*Grammar.
germans were only lose because they're outnumbered the allies deployed a million troops while the germans were only 300k and the allies have air superiority too.
@@eventhorizon88 im not just talking on the d-day i was talking the whole operation of overlord
@@A-G-F- and Russians were drunk
Did they ever make a film called Why you shouldn't be afraid of a King Tiger?
crack that tank! look it up hahaha
@meme man is this a joke or are you so stupid?
Yeah it will probably run out of gas or break down before it even gets in range of you
It would more likely be abandoned when you meet the Königstiger/King Tiger in the frontlines
@meme man A sitting tiger with all its armor and its gun are still more lethal than the shermans
Everyone here says American Army lied to soldiers about how good enemy weapons are. but to think the fact that Americans won the war after all, I think american commanders were pretty confidence about their firearms. I know mg42's much modern version, MG3 is still in service but M3 gun also served till gulf war and M1 garand's legacy lives in M14 rifles. And there is M2 browning which is 2 centuries legend
Bruh makes no sense
"Americans won the war" lmao, the allies and USSR won the war
@@Natan-yw3xc Yes, the Allies won the war, as in France, the British Commonwealth, Italy, the USSR,etc. But America also was part of the Allies, thus they won the war.
I wish a channel would do a repeat of these tests. Inrange?