As an M-60 Gunner, I was trained in three modes of fire. Rapid Fire: 100-150 rounds RPMs with barrel changes at 10 minutes; Sustained Fire: 150-200 RPMs with barrel changes every 5 minutes; and Cyclic Fire: 450-500 RPMs with barrel changes every minute. Much depended on our mission. In an an assault, using the weapon with a bipod mount or "on the hip" we used the Rapid ROF. If on a hasty defense (Not dug in with prepared defenses) we used we used a sustained rate. In a prepared defense (well dug in with tripod mount and deliberate sectors of fire) we used the sustained or cyclic rate. As we had plenty of boxes of ammunition, and sometimes extra barrels, we could and would often use the maximum ROF, especially if conducting a Final Protective Fire. Then we would provide a continuous fire along our FPF sector even if we exceeded our barrel change times. This was if we were about to be overrun. If one reads many accounts of infantry combat, one can find examples of this type of firing. In "Footsloggers" by Peter Hart, I think the Durham's referred to the MG 34s and MG 42s as "Spandau's." They certainly respected the high ROFs of these weapons as they caused many casualties. They also refer to times when ROFs would be exceeded in contingencies. Interesting viewpoint, but one must always remember that there was how things are done "by the book" and how they are done in an actual firefight.
"sustained or cyclic rate" those are very different things. Anyway, yes, if you are firing on your final protective line you are firing as much as humanly possible.
@@johnnuss5955 Yes indeed, but the ROF was more akin to the MG-34. Interestingly, the current US light machine gun the SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) has a similar ROF to the MG-42, only in 5.56mm ammunition. Fire discipline is still the key, with rapid and sustained fire using 5 to 9 round bursts being encouraged. Ammo bearers are a must if one wants to remain supplied in the fight.
I fired the MG3 in the Schutzenschnur qualification in 1987. They gave you 15 round belts, one to acquaint you with the gun and it’s rate of fire, the second for the actual score. The targets were various circles scattered across a panorama. Each circle was maybe six inches in diameter, with smaller, maybe two inch circles inside each. To qualify, one had to engage three different circles, place six or seven bullets within the three larger circles, and three bullets in the three smaller circles. The key was to have the smallest bursts possible. One was likely to hit what one aimed as the gun was extremely accurate, so if one could maintain two or three round bursts, he likely would’ve inflicted enemy casualties with each burst. Even at 1200 rounds per minute, the MG3 was insanely fast. Merely touching the trigger with the slightest pressure would loose three or four rounds. Personally, I loved it. I adapted quickly to the trigger (qualifying silver), and the barrel change was as simple as sliding the barrel handle to the side, remove the hot barrel, exchange it, then slide the handle back-much easier than our M60.
21:20 and 45:25 finally someone hits the nail on the head! I hear a lot of complaints about “the rate of fire was useless” from people that are sour grapes about the MG42. There has always been a misunderstanding that the primary purpose of high RoF was never about simply dumping ammo downrange for suppression. The point was always to maximize the damage done in a specific burst when enemy infantry was exposed rushing cover to cover or otherwise.
The Germans were looking for a Universal Machinegun and figured that a high rate of fire was probably the better option. The general idea was that a high rate of fire would be more useful to catch somebody running from cover to cover (or aircraft if used in that role) than a steady slug chugger going half the rate like the Maxim. Everything else is just ad hoc attempts to either speak ill of or praise the Germans. It was their choice, they had a good enough weapon and used it to good enough effect in general.
Paul your work ethic is impressive. You have already built a notable archive of deep dives on WW2. I just hope you don't get burnt out with such a strenuous recording schedule.
Great show! When I used to give M-60 classes (diassemble/reassemble/functions check) during "Sergeant's Time," I always made sure to reference the MG42. Enjoyed this one a lot especially the German mindset behind the high cyclic rate of fire. Never knew that. BRAVO WW2 TV!
With presentations like this from Nick, the standing of WW2TV can only grow!! A factual assessment of a 'mythical' weapon and the doctrine behind the development of a high cyclic rate LMG. Educational, informative, and a good reality check.
Woody/Nick, A really interesting presentation. Cant believe that a one hour plus presentation on the history of one gun can be so informative! Thanks, Bob
Bingewatching your complete collection. Loved the Market Garden week. Very interesting and detailed. Shot an MG42 yesterday at a range in Budapest. Single shot and limited number of rounds to spare the barrel but still…. Magical moment. Amazing feeling and it was an ww2 original for sure. Churchill shooting range in Budapest, people interested can check out the website. Thx again, really my kinda channel 👍
Great deep dive on this topic. I think part of the effectiveness of the MG-42 lay in German organization and training--the built their infantry squad around the light MG, and adjusted their tactics accordingly, where other armies thought of their MGs as platoon or company-level support weapons.
Thank you Paul and Nick very much for again a very interesting presentation ! As a scale modeller (of mostly WW2 subjects) i am always curious to learn about facts and fiction and find this channel very informative and therefore helpfull. I really enjoy the way you and your guest bring us all that knowledge O and... i would love to see a part two about the MG-42 in the role of HMG !! Cheers 😀👍
Let's talk ammo supply. On the high level, if you're the G4 (supply) officer for a WW2 infantry division, you have a lot of supply tonnage to manage. But small arms ammo of all types, combined, are a tiny fraction of that tonnage. Most ammo tonnage is artillery ammo. Supplying more small arms ammo is not a significant issue. On the low level, say, the rifle platoon, you can figure about 6 pounds for every 100 rounds of belted MG ammo of that era. It's normal for some or all of the men in a rifle platoon to carry some MG ammo, and indeed it is difficult for me to think of something more important they'd carry. In a defensive position, of course, you can pile up a lot of ammo without worrying about having to move it.
At 39 min.....it is completely normal practice in any infantry unit for the unit leader to take very close personal control of the most important weapon at the moment.
The barrel life is surprisingly low! And surprisingly small amounts of dirt or dust can render firearms non-operational. If you carry a pistol daily you can see accumulations of dirt or dust even on a pistol stored in a drawer overnight. And there is a reason so many instructors include "tap, rack and clear" drills in classes. Clearing a malfunction quickly may save your life. Great presentation!
Great show! One of the best I’ve watched so far. I really think Nick SHOULD write a book, he clearly knows the subject very well! Very rare to see any consideration of things like who carries the ammunition, how much ammunition you have, what the firing doctrine is, etc.
Thanks to Nick for this profound presentation. I loved it that he span the arc from WWI through WWII to the Bundeswehr. Especially the part towards the end about training was interesting, as I experienced the same in 1990 with the MG3: We were trained to shoot only short bursts and we got a very small number of ammunition. Everyone supposed it was because there was no money for ammunition (the Bundeswehr had just lost the enemy due to the reunification), but maybe it was also due to doctrine? Thank you again, it was most informative and entertaining. Best greetings, Peter
Really interesting show. I would have never guessed that this topic would take up an hour of discussion, but it left me wanting more when it wrapped up! Another great episode Woody!
An excellent presentation by Nick,I had never thought that although the MG 42 had a fast rate of fire, the amount of ammunition supplied didn’t last long. A point I had never thought of, always under the movie impression etc limitless ammunition. Thank you Nick and Paul
IMO that part of the presentation is misleading. No infantry unit has limitless ammo; no unit can fire continuously for more than a few minutes. It's like WW2 fighter aircraft with maybe 20 seconds of firing time or something (obviously I don't know much about WW2 airplanes). Most of the time, you aren't actually firing. When you are, it's in bursts. You might blaze away for 3,4,5 bursts and then stop. The other thing is that the entire platoon can be (and were) used to carry ammo. At 6 pounds or so for every 100 rounds, it's not a huge burden to have every man carry a box of ammo. Finally, if you are defending, you can pile a lot of ammo into your position without worrying about having to move with it. Anyway, the ammo issue is universal, and the high cyclic rate of the MG42 makes the problem a bit worse, but not fundamentally different from any other weapon. In exchange for that slightly-worse ammo problem you get a magnificent amount of firepower.
You have to remember that the MG-42 is belt fed, unlike most other WW2 LMGs that fire from 30-50 round magazines, so it can provide sustained rapid fire. The belts were 50 rounds which could be couple together to have a couple hundred rounds of sustained fire. Standard practice was to move with one 50 round belt loaded, sometimes in an attached drum otherwise simply wrapped around the gun, and then the assistant would attach a longer belt when setting it up in a position. I think the lack of sustained fire is very overblown with the MG-42 and is just a silly point people make to try to tear down the MG-42 as the greatest LMG of WW2 with no comparison. It was clearly the most modern machine gun in WW2 and is fundamentally what all machine guns were based on in terms of features.
Love this tech talk. This is the real nitty-gritty of warfare. Please more shows like this about small arms, anti-tank weapons (I loved your series about "What is a tank-destroyer?") artillery, less glamorous aircraft types, and the F-4U Corsair. I can never get enough of the "Beast."
ive been watching your stuff since i found it recently,very enjoyable and very informative especially tackling myths, quite timely as we are coming over to normandy in september for a week or so, allways wanted to see the d day locations
23:54 exactly the same with the Bren in commonwealth service . Military History Visualised or possibly Military History Un Visualused (same channel really) has an excellent break down of German WW2 section tactics which tells you this .
A point at 19:30. In late World War One the German machine gunners generally fought until killed. The rest of the army was of very, um, 'mixed' quality. The 'respect' for the MG08 was not its virtue as a weapon: the Lewis was far more useful, especially in the attack. The MG08 gave the Germans a way to stiffen their defence with only a few hand picked motivated men. A 'force multiplier', as we'd say today. Seems to me a very high rate of fire, and a gunner trained to fire short bursts, gives the best of all worlds. Great discussion as always.
The Lewis was of course far more portable and there's no question it's the better choice for an assault element. But once in place, give me an MG08 any day. The 'cost' of much higher weight is worth the 'benefit' of a lot more firepower.
IMO certainly the best MG of WW2 and one of the best of the era since then. But of course you defeat such an MG position with accurate mortar fire or, if you're the WW2 US Army, with a storm of 105mm or 155mm fire.
Really interesting. Thanks a lot for this episode and all the other ones. I wonder where are all the people who watch Timeghostarmy or Tankmuseum and so on. By the the way Nick, it is "Richtschütze" not Richtshutze. I know german is not easy and for that my respect for reading all the old manuals. I can tell you, firing the MG3 in my basic training at the Bundeswehr was impessive, but also cured me from ever wanting to fire a weapon in anger. We had a contest with a US company, so we had a lot of ammo and shot a belt of 50 rounds. Devastating for the target. And when it was my turn in the target pit, it was horrifying when the rounds buzzed overhead. I hope your work Paul will open the minds of many people that war is horrible and futile.
It was not German Squad tactics for the MG to cover the riflemen in the final assault, the MG went in as well ideally at the centre. Fired from the hip. The squad may have had supporting fire from other squads Mgs but the MG was always focus of the squad including in the close assault. The MG covering the riflemen as a seperate element eg the British BREN team was not German practice. The Germans had seperate MG and Riflle teams in Poland in 39. It is shown in the KSTN and early manuals but they decided that method was unwieldy and switched to an integrated Gruppe. The post 39 manuals state that the Gruppe is no longer to be regarded as two elements and would only be split in extreme circumstances. One of the main duties of the Deputy gruppe leader was to ensure the squad stayed together.
That's interesting - and definitely not US practice. Machineguns provide a base of fire for an assault team but do not typical join the assault. US squads in WW2 were expected to maneuver in two elements. German rifle companies had more MGs than their allied counterparts so maybe that's why they could make this tradeoff. I mean, if you take an MG *away* from the base of fire you are obviously weakening that element. Clearly they thought the tradeoff was worth it.
@@executivedirector7467 Their Panzergrenadier gruppes which had 2 MG and around 12 men, would split into two elements, but each with an MG, so still not an fire base and maneuver element basically two smaller gruppes. Yes alot of other nations had a fire base element and an maneuver element in the Squad the Germans went the other way, the squads in Poland were 13 men and that was considered to large to be effectively controlled. The US also reported that 12 was unwieldy and reduced the Squad post war. The British went from an 8 man section to a 10 man section during the war but it wasnt until after 1940 that the BREN group as a fire base element came into use. Before that the BREN was simply part of the section. Effectively the Germans and British went in opposite directions.
@@andysykes4328 Interesting. The one squad - two fire teams approach is what the US Army adopted postwar. To get a full picture we'd need to know what assets were available from higher level too. In the US Army, every rifle company had a heavy weapons platoon with the Mgs and 60mm mortars; the Mgs were parcelled out to rifle platoons as needed. Then at Battalion level, there was a heavy weapons company with more MGs and 81mm mortars. Again the Mgs would be attached to whatever part of the Bn needed them.
Many of late have come to argue that the distinction between Brit and German doctrine is a myth, Gun Jesus and Bloke on the Range among them. I think you have put your finger on it here. Recognising that the Bren constitutes the main source of firepower in the section, and having all others carrying ammo for it, does not necessarily mean that the section is doctrinally formed around the gun, as it was for the Germans. The Bren (gun group) was there to support the rifle group.
If memory serves the Company HQ section, would have a heavy MG, aka a tripod mounted 34 or 42, serving as base. Including a 5cm mortar(early war) later a 8cm mortar too🤔
Much like fighter planes, ammunition cycles through quickly. Bursts are always the method. Thompson submachine gunners took pride in keeping bursts DOWN to three short bursts.
@@SKILLED_two That's very true, but, I assure you if you start firing a machinegun everyone will know where you are. They are much, much louder than rifles and tracers work in both directions ;)
@@executivedirector7467 Machine gun doctrine called for mobility and generally more than one gun would be in place. A degree of sniping was often called for. As steady stream of fire was impractical and suicidal.
James Holland in his book ' Normany 44' gives credence to my belief that Firing discipline went out the window on D Day despite efforts to maintain the training given, panic/fear set in with the amount of ground forces landing.
Well yes, but that's one of the things I think James (as much as he's a good mate) is perhaps exaggerating? I think there is more evidence that the Germans maintained good discipline - mostly
I would say that at those critical moments during D-day as depicted in the movie scene we are all thinking about, the only acceptable ‘fire discipline’ would have been as seen in the movie. When 19-year-old Fritz - enjoying a summer holiday in his concrete beach hut -suddenly sees a few floating steel boxes in front of him with evil Yanks pouring out of them, he will hold that trigger down until the belt is done, or so much smoke comes off the gun that he can’t see, or there is nothing left moving in those steel boxes. He is in a fixed position with (presumably) plenty of boxes of ammo next to him. He does not have to drag it with him across the steppes of Russia. Every second that Fritz lets go of the trigger allows some number of evil Yanks to disperse and become a much greater threat after lunch.
@@WW2TV The main conclusion from that would be that the British Army (and the US Army with its BARs and M1919A4s) should have had a much better light machinegun. I would put the Bren alongside the BAR and DP28 as a 'class' of weapons, of which the Bren is easily the best. But no weapon in that class can complete with an MG42.
I only partially disagree. The weapons may not be mechanically comparable but the application of the weapons are comparable. They are both the designated automatic weapons at the small unit level. It is fair to compare and contrast the two weapons as they functioned doctrinally within the small units.
@@Chiller11 Yes, I don't disagree with that at all, but mechanically there is a vast difference. I have a 1929 Chevrolet truck and a 2013 Toyota. Both are motor vehicles. But one is significantly more useful than the other. .....which then leads us to the conclusion that British and US rifle platoons were really outclassed with their MGs. Thank god British and US artillery was vastly better than the Germans'.
21:20 and this is the key to the MG 42 , lots of bullets short time . This is an interesting little bit of context on why the MG 42 . Pity people dont realise the same applies to the Bren in allied service , the Bren takes the place of the Lewis in the combination of Lewis , hand grenade , vickers MGs in a sustained indirect role and mortars that wrecked the Germans in the 100 day offensive .
After WW2, Zastava started making a version of the MG42 called the M53 (still chambering 7.92 x 57 ammo) for Yugoslav armed forces. They saw extensive action in the breakup of Yugoslavia and my friend who was in a Croatian HOS unit near Vinkovci in 1991 swears blind the weapon saved his section on a number of occasions. There are still number of them sat with old farmers in Slavonian farms just in case things ever kick off again with the Serbs.The only major difference was a slower rate of fire.
Howdy folks. Great presentation by master gunner Nick on the iconic MG42. No bullshit just the facts ma’am from the manuals and German combat doctrine. Impressive show.
When firing the British army's GPMG I found that 3-5 round bursts took the same time it did to say 'Tom Thumb' in my head but there were of course times when I said 'TOOOOOOOOOMMMMM THUUUUUUUUMBBBBB'.
Dick winters talks about finding rounds with wooden bullets with captured MG. I have seen them for the K98 and was told used for practice. Also, a few diaries talk about problems with steel not brass cased ammo. Also I think if your groupa lost it's MG The troops left got moved to other groupa. Your thoughts? I always learn from your shows. Keep it up, please!!!!
Fascinating insight! I noticed from watching forgotten weapons fire the mg-42 on longer bursts that the user is pushed back quite a bit and Ian on that channel mentions this. Maybe that's also why longer bursts are not approved as the sight picture is lost.
You lose some accuracy but mostly you burn the barrel out a lot faster and waste ammo if you fire really long bursts. Once the weapon overheats and stops firing, that's a significant event that is difficult to recover from. ;)
@@nickjohnson710 Of course. My point was that if you fire enough over a short enough period of time, no matter how many times you change barrels, you can eventually overheat the weapon and it will stop firing. At that point, changing barrels doesn't work any more.
Intermediate cartridges were developed because it was essentially impossible to develop a rifle that could fire full auto, with a full-power cartridge, in any useful package. Things like the BAR were way too heavy for use as a universal rifle. Things like the M14 or FN FAL could be made to fire full auto, but not usefully. They are uncontrollable at full auto, so fire is ineffective. It wasn't directly a 'weight of ammo' issue, although the lighter ammo of, say, the AK or M16 is a really nice bonus.
@@executivedirector7467 I agree but logistics play a role here. The combat loadout of the ~.30 cal full power round was under 100 for bolt guns and just over 100 for semis. For the kurtz or 5.56 it doubled. Now the U.S. appears to be returning to a traditional round with the 6.8 and seems comfortable with select fire in the rifle and that round BUT the composite case is keeping the weight closer to the 5.56 round. Not sure if that means the US is being farsighted or has their head up their arse but it is an interesting point. After all the US went initially to the 7.62x51 and shoved it down everyone's throat; not exactly an intermediate round...
@@executivedirector7467 it is also worth noting that even the Garand was not designed for a full power cartridge but for a .270 round and that this was overruled for logistical reasons; existing stockpiles of .30-06 and need to supply 2 rifle calibers.
@@silvermikeGA You're right about the M1 and it's quite a story, The US Army came so close to inventing the assault rifle in the 1920s and 30s. The 'Pig Board' recommended an intermediate cartridge and was overruled for exactly the reason you gave. The M1 was still a great rifle, but, wow, what could have been.....
Wouldn't it be better to just have second firing mode in 4-8 round burst with single trigger push, whole system and doctrine cannot emphasize enough how crucial is trigger discipline and training here. Also, speaking about myths, wikipedia says its supposed to fire uninterrupted and that the allies could only move between barrel changes. That needs to be desperately corrected.
Although the US Army wanted an MG-42-type weapon, there is almost nothing in common between the MG-42 and the M60. The feed mechanism is nearly an identical copy. But the similarity ends there. Frankly the MG-42 or MG3 is a much better weapon. The M60 was significantly less reliable than the FN MAG58 (which has now replaced it in US service, 50 years late) and whoever designed the barrel change on the M60 should be jailed. The M60 is pretty much an FG-42 with the MG42's feed system.
The M-60's used in Vietnam generally had a good reputation, but by the 1980's were worn out. I totally agree w/ the barrel change being criminal (wonder which whiz kid came up with that- probably the same one who decided cleaning kits weren't necessary for M-16's).
The live rounds was needed elsewhere. And mainly training, still today, is about the noise, making correct movements/choices in an "simulated" noise inferno
It would be interesting to hear from somebody who actually understands German an account of Rommel's machine company attack during WWI -- up mountains and down mountains for several days. How did they do that?
@@USAACbrat Sure. But a platoon has several squads. If I were a WW2 rifle company commander and had to devote a squad in every platoon to take care of the MG42s.....I would happily do that. It's worth the massive firepower advantage it provides.
@@USAACbrat For fire and maneuever the Bren gun, but if holding down a trench position against waves of Soviet infantry or in a bunker against landing allied soldiers on a beach head? the MG42 wins.
Please have a show on the Ma Deuce. The Browning .50 caliber machine gun has a mythical reputation in the US. This maybe popular legend but I have been told many times in the past that the M-2 Browning was outlawed as an anti-personnel weapon by the Geneva Convention and is only supposed to be used as an anti-aircraft weapon nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
From what I read about German machine guns in WWII in the '80' and '90's the MG34 was a superior weapon but was more expensive and took longer to build than the MG42. The big advancement of the MG42 was its superior rate of fire, except that later in the war the Germans incorporated (please forgive me because I'm not an expert) various methods to slow down it's rate of fire because it was extremely wasteful of ammunition and at full auto not very accurate. Also, in my readings about the Wehrmacht in WWII their machine guns were always considered state of the art and highly effective, not so much with the Allies and their machine guns.
The MG34 was a terrific weapon also, but you're right that it was expensive to make and less reliable than the '42. The MG42 was developed as a cheaper, easier-to-manufacture, more reliable alternative. Both were kept in production because ....they needed a lot of MGs! And the MG34 was better suited to use inside AFVs. The tank mounts the Germans had were designed around the MG34 and not adaptable to the MG42.
@@nickjohnson710 Correct, at least, not with the vehicle mounts the German had. Ironic I guess, because the barrel change is one of the nicer features on the MG-42 if you're a dismounted infantryman.
One must remember 100 rounds of 7.62×51 NATO weighs 7 pounds 8mm Mauser 303 British 30-06 7.62×54 Russian Was 7-8 pounds Ammo restricts mobility Being a machine gunner is hard work 0331 rule
@@WW2TV Hmm, he seemed to be saying that squads carried about the same amount of "firing time" of ammo, and then seemed to conclude that the two weapons could engage for the same amount of time.
Yes, that was his conclusion based on the intended use of the two weapons. You disagree? He has spent a lot of time looking at the German paperwork on this
@@WW2TV I'm not sure I disagree so much as I think it's kind of a misunderstanding of firepower. it's not quite about how many minutes of fire your platoon can carry, although I'm not disregarding that point. It's more about how well your squad/platoon/company can dominate a piece of terrain, creating a beaten zone that nothing can cross (or will even try to cross) . There's simply no question that almost any functioning belt-fed weapon will do that in a vastly superior manner than any magazine-fed weapon. So in that specific example (Bren v MG42) the Bren gun not only has a much lower cyclic rate, it has a much lower effective rate as well. It is required to swap magazines every 30 rounds. The MG42 can fire at a much higher cyclic rate (a little too high, but I digress...) for 150 rounds before you need to swap belts. Modern NATO infantry MGs can clip belts together endlessly (in theory - there's a practical limit of course) so you could fire 500, 800 etc rounds without ever swapping belts. The difference in responsiveness between belt-fed and magazine-fed is gigantic.
@@alganhar1 I've never heard the term 'practical rate of fire'. Machineguns are typically described as having cyclic, effective and sustained rates of fire. Can you define 'practical rate of fire' for me please? Is that a British army term? I don't see how the tripod makes any difference at all to the effective rate of fire. It can enable firing under cover or in the dark (accurately) or enable greater accuracy at longer range. But I am not seeing how it would influence ROF.
Ah good old Heinz at the end . He may of talked up how much of a hero he was that day , but no doubt he pushed his MG 42 to the limit ........ But that was not a normal situation and not one youd want to be in anyway .
The French and Americans used the machine gun in trench raids since the beginning of the war. This is the German prospective as if you had blinders on.
Because it was specifically about the MG42 and where it came from! It would be like you complaining we didn't talk about the P51 in a show about the Spitfire
I'm pretty certain the Americans in particular didn't use MGs in trench raids at the beginning of the war. If nothing else, because they weren't there 😉
Damn it Paul, I got click baited.👍🏻😂 This weapon drove fear into troops so bad for new and seasoned troops. They knew don’t pop your head up or its lights out for you if you got grazed how many lost limbs because of that? The men knew and feared it’s tree sawing action especially, when this was on the Lafayette 42 tripod. Made this a perfect weapon for a crew well dug in, made it a ferocious item to attack? Would you want to believe this nut head saying this to you 1000’s of KM away from home this word salad of lies? th-cam.com/users/shortsvNrpmv6IR3s?si=YCJLWtAMyfR1umnx When it’s still in use 80 years now having a NATO bullet chambered in 5.56x51 mm NATO from the 7.92×57 mm Mauser is only difference with better optics today. Still facing this on the Lafayette platform guys was goodnight as accuracy was deadly . The more lead you fire at the enemy the more likely from suppression your going to overcome your enemy quickly? I’m biased here but that weapon is so so damned sexy looking or is it just me? Second last point I know the man who was shooting MG-42 in Saving Private Ryan. And it’s not a blank firing it’s a live round firing MG-42. Nothing catches your attention as quickly as this does. Used today shows something is right with this weapon having over 1 million made from WWII tells something special about out it? There were troops carrying two extra boxes on special built back packs for this rate of fire. Good gunners knew how this was to be used short bursts through lots of lead to effect attacking forces. Cheers all and keep following Paul who is a genuine great guy who deserves more followers than is present. Keep up the great work Paul 👍🏻🙏🏻🇮🇪🇬🇧🇫🇷
Boring, the reality of MGs in front line combat ,, is everyone in a unit from top to bottom carries as much ammo & gun spare barrels as they possibly can , the word allocation , is just totally irrelevant , lost touch with reality, to geeky , just couldn’t make it to end sorry. Believe me to adhere to fire disciplines when being overwhelmed by an infantry attack on the Russian front for example is impossible.. hang in let me just check what the manual and period photography shows .
And what are your sources for that? You say that everyone carried as much ammo as they could, but based on what sources? The Heer had pretty strict rules and structures, which was the whole point of this show. Maybe in modern armies there is more freedom to carry what you want, when you want to, but in WWII the German army had a very restrictive set up. You liked Michael Miller's show - a user of archival sources, and yet not this one. Even though Nick wa s also using actual German sources rather than the usual rubbish stated about the MG42
![จบจนได้ ! | Black Myth: Wukong #007 [ตอนจบ?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DSqvWndF0sw/mqdefault.jpg)
As an M-60 Gunner, I was trained in three modes of fire. Rapid Fire: 100-150 rounds RPMs with barrel changes at 10 minutes; Sustained Fire: 150-200 RPMs with barrel changes every 5 minutes; and Cyclic Fire: 450-500 RPMs with barrel changes every minute. Much depended on our mission. In an an assault, using the weapon with a bipod mount or "on the hip" we used the Rapid ROF. If on a hasty defense (Not dug in with prepared defenses) we used we used a sustained rate. In a prepared defense (well dug in with tripod mount and deliberate sectors of fire) we used the sustained or cyclic rate. As we had plenty of boxes of ammunition, and sometimes extra barrels, we could and would often use the maximum ROF, especially if conducting a Final Protective Fire. Then we would provide a continuous fire along our FPF sector even if we exceeded our barrel change times. This was if we were about to be overrun. If one reads many accounts of infantry combat, one can find examples of this type of firing. In "Footsloggers" by Peter Hart, I think the Durham's referred to the MG 34s and MG 42s as "Spandau's." They certainly respected the high ROFs of these weapons as they caused many casualties. They also refer to times when ROFs would be exceeded in contingencies. Interesting viewpoint, but one must always remember that there was how things are done "by the book" and how they are done in an actual firefight.
ty for this detailed information, it's interesting. didn't know that you were a gunner.
"sustained or cyclic rate" those are very different things.
Anyway, yes, if you are firing on your final protective line you are firing as much as humanly possible.
Good points. The book often gets thrown away.
The m60 was modeled off the mg42 I believe, the feed tray covers look very similar
@@johnnuss5955 Yes indeed, but the ROF was more akin to the MG-34. Interestingly, the current US light machine gun the SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) has a similar ROF to the MG-42, only in 5.56mm ammunition. Fire discipline is still the key, with rapid and sustained fire using 5 to 9 round bursts being encouraged. Ammo bearers are a must if one wants to remain supplied in the fight.
I fired the MG3 in the Schutzenschnur qualification in 1987. They gave you 15 round belts, one to acquaint you with the gun and it’s rate of fire, the second for the actual score. The targets were various circles scattered across a panorama. Each circle was maybe six inches in diameter, with smaller, maybe two inch circles inside each. To qualify, one had to engage three different circles, place six or seven bullets within the three larger circles, and three bullets in the three smaller circles. The key was to have the smallest bursts possible. One was likely to hit what one aimed as the gun was extremely accurate, so if one could maintain two or three round bursts, he likely would’ve inflicted enemy casualties with each burst.
Even at 1200 rounds per minute, the MG3 was insanely fast. Merely touching the trigger with the slightest pressure would loose three or four rounds. Personally, I loved it. I adapted quickly to the trigger (qualifying silver), and the barrel change was as simple as sliding the barrel handle to the side, remove the hot barrel, exchange it, then slide the handle back-much easier than our M60.
The MG42 / MG3 barrel change design is hard to beat.
21:20 and 45:25 finally someone hits the nail on the head! I hear a lot of complaints about “the rate of fire was useless” from people that are sour grapes about the MG42. There has always been a misunderstanding that the primary purpose of high RoF was never about simply dumping ammo downrange for suppression. The point was always to maximize the damage done in a specific burst when enemy infantry was exposed rushing cover to cover or otherwise.
The Germans were looking for a Universal Machinegun and figured that a high rate of fire was probably the better option. The general idea was that a high rate of fire would be more useful to catch somebody running from cover to cover (or aircraft if used in that role) than a steady slug chugger going half the rate like the Maxim.
Everything else is just ad hoc attempts to either speak ill of or praise the Germans. It was their choice, they had a good enough weapon and used it to good enough effect in general.
Paul your work ethic is impressive. You have already built a notable archive of deep dives on WW2. I just hope you don't get burnt out with such a strenuous recording schedule.
Great show! When I used to give M-60 classes (diassemble/reassemble/functions check) during "Sergeant's Time," I always made sure to reference the MG42. Enjoyed this one a lot especially the German mindset behind the high cyclic rate of fire. Never knew that. BRAVO WW2 TV!
With presentations like this from Nick, the standing of WW2TV can only grow!! A factual assessment of a 'mythical' weapon and the doctrine behind the development of a high cyclic rate LMG. Educational, informative, and a good reality check.
Woody/Nick, A really interesting presentation. Cant believe that a one hour plus presentation on the history of one gun can be so informative! Thanks, Bob
Bingewatching your complete collection. Loved the Market Garden week. Very interesting and detailed. Shot an MG42 yesterday at a range in Budapest. Single shot and limited number of rounds to spare the barrel but still…. Magical moment. Amazing feeling and it was an ww2 original for sure. Churchill shooting range in Budapest, people interested can check out the website. Thx again, really my kinda channel 👍
welcome to the ww2tv fan club! join in on the sidebar during a live show when you have a moment, great group of folks.
Great deep dive on this topic. I think part of the effectiveness of the MG-42 lay in German organization and training--the built their infantry squad around the light MG, and adjusted their tactics accordingly, where other armies thought of their MGs as platoon or company-level support weapons.
Thank you Paul and Nick very much for again a very interesting presentation ! As a scale modeller (of mostly WW2 subjects) i am always curious to learn about facts and fiction and
find this channel very informative and therefore helpfull. I really enjoy the way you and your guest bring us all that knowledge
O and... i would love to see a part two about the MG-42 in the role of HMG !!
Cheers 😀👍
Let's talk ammo supply.
On the high level, if you're the G4 (supply) officer for a WW2 infantry division, you have a lot of supply tonnage to manage. But small arms ammo of all types, combined, are a tiny fraction of that tonnage. Most ammo tonnage is artillery ammo. Supplying more small arms ammo is not a significant issue.
On the low level, say, the rifle platoon, you can figure about 6 pounds for every 100 rounds of belted MG ammo of that era. It's normal for some or all of the men in a rifle platoon to carry some MG ammo, and indeed it is difficult for me to think of something more important they'd carry. In a defensive position, of course, you can pile up a lot of ammo without worrying about having to move it.
I’m old so Vietnam was my war. When we went outside the wire we lowly 11 bravos almost always carried a couple belts of 7.62 ammunition for the M60.
@@Chiller11 Right, exactly.
At 39 min.....it is completely normal practice in any infantry unit for the unit leader to take very close personal control of the most important weapon at the moment.
The barrel life is surprisingly low! And surprisingly small amounts of dirt or dust can render firearms non-operational. If you carry a pistol daily you can see accumulations of dirt or dust even on a pistol stored in a drawer overnight. And there is a reason so many instructors include "tap, rack and clear" drills in classes. Clearing a malfunction quickly may save your life. Great presentation!
An outstanding presentation by Nick. I really appreciated his thorough and detailed presentation. I hope Nick comes back on WW2TV soon.
it was nice to see all of the folks who were able to join in on the sidebar during the show. good turnout today. sorry I couldn't make it.
Great show! One of the best I’ve watched so far. I really think Nick SHOULD write a book, he clearly knows the subject very well!
Very rare to see any consideration of things like who carries the ammunition, how much ammunition you have, what the firing doctrine is, etc.
Thanks to Nick for this profound presentation. I loved it that he span the arc from WWI through WWII to the Bundeswehr. Especially the part towards the end about training was interesting, as I experienced the same in 1990 with the MG3: We were trained to shoot only short bursts and we got a very small number of ammunition.
Everyone supposed it was because there was no money for ammunition (the Bundeswehr had just lost the enemy due to the reunification), but maybe it was also due to doctrine?
Thank you again, it was most informative and entertaining.
Best greetings, Peter
Really interesting show. I would have never guessed that this topic would take up an hour of discussion, but it left me wanting more when it wrapped up! Another great episode Woody!
Great interview, thank you.
An excellent presentation by Nick,I had never thought that although the MG 42 had a fast rate of fire, the amount of ammunition supplied didn’t last long. A point I had never thought of, always under the movie impression etc limitless ammunition. Thank you Nick and Paul
IMO that part of the presentation is misleading. No infantry unit has limitless ammo; no unit can fire continuously for more than a few minutes. It's like WW2 fighter aircraft with maybe 20 seconds of firing time or something (obviously I don't know much about WW2 airplanes). Most of the time, you aren't actually firing. When you are, it's in bursts. You might blaze away for 3,4,5 bursts and then stop.
The other thing is that the entire platoon can be (and were) used to carry ammo. At 6 pounds or so for every 100 rounds, it's not a huge burden to have every man carry a box of ammo. Finally, if you are defending, you can pile a lot of ammo into your position without worrying about having to move with it.
Anyway, the ammo issue is universal, and the high cyclic rate of the MG42 makes the problem a bit worse, but not fundamentally different from any other weapon. In exchange for that slightly-worse ammo problem you get a magnificent amount of firepower.
You have to remember that the MG-42 is belt fed, unlike most other WW2 LMGs that fire from 30-50 round magazines, so it can provide sustained rapid fire. The belts were 50 rounds which could be couple together to have a couple hundred rounds of sustained fire. Standard practice was to move with one 50 round belt loaded, sometimes in an attached drum otherwise simply wrapped around the gun, and then the assistant would attach a longer belt when setting it up in a position. I think the lack of sustained fire is very overblown with the MG-42 and is just a silly point people make to try to tear down the MG-42 as the greatest LMG of WW2 with no comparison. It was clearly the most modern machine gun in WW2 and is fundamentally what all machine guns were based on in terms of features.
Love this tech talk. This is the real nitty-gritty of warfare. Please more shows like this about small arms, anti-tank weapons (I loved your series about "What is a tank-destroyer?") artillery, less glamorous aircraft types, and the F-4U Corsair. I can never get enough of the "Beast."
ive been watching your stuff since i found it recently,very enjoyable and very informative especially tackling myths, quite timely as we are coming over to normandy in september for a week or so, allways wanted to see the d day locations
There was still quite a few of these being used in Yugoslavia during the 90s'
The ones I saw all had 'slogged-out' feed trays but the still worked
23:54 exactly the same with the Bren in commonwealth service . Military History Visualised or possibly Military History Un Visualused (same channel really) has an excellent break down of German WW2 section tactics which tells you this .
A point at 19:30. In late World War One the German machine gunners generally fought until killed. The rest of the army was of very, um, 'mixed' quality.
The 'respect' for the MG08 was not its virtue as a weapon: the Lewis was far more useful, especially in the attack. The MG08 gave the Germans a way to stiffen their defence with only a few hand picked motivated men. A 'force multiplier', as we'd say today.
Seems to me a very high rate of fire, and a gunner trained to fire short bursts, gives the best of all worlds.
Great discussion as always.
The Lewis was of course far more portable and there's no question it's the better choice for an assault element. But once in place, give me an MG08 any day. The 'cost' of much higher weight is worth the 'benefit' of a lot more firepower.
sorry i missed the stream. late again
Another great show. Informative and engaging as always, both host and guest. 👍
Glad you enjoyed it
In the direct with tripod firing on fixed lines it was unbeatable.
Not that unbeatable, because the Germans did lose the war, but point taken
IMO certainly the best MG of WW2 and one of the best of the era since then.
But of course you defeat such an MG position with accurate mortar fire or, if you're the WW2 US Army, with a storm of 105mm or 155mm fire.
Really interesting. Thanks a lot for this episode and all the other ones. I wonder where are all the people who watch Timeghostarmy or Tankmuseum and so on.
By the the way Nick, it is "Richtschütze" not Richtshutze. I know german is not easy and for that my respect for reading all the old manuals.
I can tell you, firing the MG3 in my basic training at the Bundeswehr was impessive, but also cured me from ever wanting to fire a weapon in anger. We had a contest with a US company, so we had a lot of ammo and shot a belt of 50 rounds. Devastating for the target. And when it was my turn in the target pit, it was horrifying when the rounds buzzed overhead.
I hope your work Paul will open the minds of many people that war is horrible and futile.
It was not German Squad tactics for the MG to cover the riflemen in the final assault, the MG went in as well ideally at the centre. Fired from the hip. The squad may have had supporting fire from other squads Mgs but the MG was always focus of the squad including in the close assault. The MG covering the riflemen as a seperate element eg the British BREN team was not German practice. The Germans had seperate MG and Riflle teams in Poland in 39. It is shown in the KSTN and early manuals but they decided that method was unwieldy and switched to an integrated Gruppe. The post 39 manuals state that the Gruppe is no longer to be regarded as two elements and would only be split in extreme circumstances. One of the main duties of the Deputy gruppe leader was to ensure the squad stayed together.
That's interesting - and definitely not US practice. Machineguns provide a base of fire for an assault team but do not typical join the assault. US squads in WW2 were expected to maneuver in two elements.
German rifle companies had more MGs than their allied counterparts so maybe that's why they could make this tradeoff. I mean, if you take an MG *away* from the base of fire you are obviously weakening that element. Clearly they thought the tradeoff was worth it.
@@executivedirector7467 Their Panzergrenadier gruppes which had 2 MG and around 12 men, would split into two elements, but each with an MG, so still not an fire base and maneuver element basically two smaller gruppes. Yes alot of other nations had a fire base element and an maneuver element in the Squad the Germans went the other way, the squads in Poland were 13 men and that was considered to large to be effectively controlled. The US also reported that 12 was unwieldy and reduced the Squad post war. The British went from an 8 man section to a 10 man section during the war but it wasnt until after 1940 that the BREN group as a fire base element came into use. Before that the BREN was simply part of the section. Effectively the Germans and British went in opposite directions.
@@andysykes4328 Interesting.
The one squad - two fire teams approach is what the US Army adopted postwar.
To get a full picture we'd need to know what assets were available from higher level too. In the US Army, every rifle company had a heavy weapons platoon with the Mgs and 60mm mortars; the Mgs were parcelled out to rifle platoons as needed. Then at Battalion level, there was a heavy weapons company with more MGs and 81mm mortars. Again the Mgs would be attached to whatever part of the Bn needed them.
Many of late have come to argue that the distinction between Brit and German doctrine is a myth, Gun Jesus and Bloke on the Range among them. I think you have put your finger on it here. Recognising that the Bren constitutes the main source of firepower in the section, and having all others carrying ammo for it, does not necessarily mean that the section is doctrinally formed around the gun, as it was for the Germans. The Bren (gun group) was there to support the rifle group.
If memory serves the Company HQ section, would have a heavy MG, aka a tripod mounted 34 or 42, serving as base. Including a 5cm mortar(early war) later a 8cm mortar too🤔
Thanks!
This a proper video for anyone who’s been in the infantry and done the training. Great stuff
Much like fighter planes, ammunition cycles through quickly. Bursts are always the method. Thompson submachine gunners took pride in keeping bursts DOWN to three short bursts.
There's also something to not giving your position too precisely.
Thanks for this guest and your fine channel. And greetings from California!
@@SKILLED_two That's very true, but, I assure you if you start firing a machinegun everyone will know where you are. They are much, much louder than rifles and tracers work in both directions ;)
@@executivedirector7467 Machine gun doctrine called for mobility and generally more than one gun would be in place. A degree of sniping was often called for. As steady stream of fire was impractical and suicidal.
@@SKILLED_two I don't know if anyone advocated for a steady stream of fire but I didn't.
James Holland in his book ' Normany 44' gives credence to my belief that Firing discipline went out the window on D Day despite efforts to maintain the training given, panic/fear set in with the amount of ground forces landing.
Well yes, but that's one of the things I think James (as much as he's a good mate) is perhaps exaggerating? I think there is more evidence that the Germans maintained good discipline - mostly
@@WW2TV I think all three of us are right Woody lol
I would say that at those critical moments during D-day as depicted in the movie scene we are all thinking about, the only acceptable ‘fire discipline’ would have been as seen in the movie. When 19-year-old Fritz - enjoying a summer holiday in his concrete beach hut -suddenly sees a few floating steel boxes in front of him with evil Yanks pouring out of them, he will hold that trigger down until the belt is done, or so much smoke comes off the gun that he can’t see, or there is nothing left moving in those steel boxes. He is in a fixed position with (presumably) plenty of boxes of ammo next to him. He does not have to drag it with him across the steppes of Russia. Every second that Fritz lets go of the trigger allows some number of evil Yanks to disperse and become a much greater threat after lunch.
At 28-29 Min or so, the presenter is quite correct not to compare the Bren to the Mg42 too closely. They are not weapons in the same class at all.
But people do, indeed I do. It's not a fair comparison, but it's interesting
@@WW2TV The main conclusion from that would be that the British Army (and the US Army with its BARs and M1919A4s) should have had a much better light machinegun.
I would put the Bren alongside the BAR and DP28 as a 'class' of weapons, of which the Bren is easily the best. But no weapon in that class can complete with an MG42.
I only partially disagree. The weapons may not be mechanically comparable but the application of the weapons are comparable. They are both the designated automatic weapons at the small unit level. It is fair to compare and contrast the two weapons as they functioned doctrinally within the small units.
@@Chiller11 Yes, I don't disagree with that at all, but mechanically there is a vast difference. I have a 1929 Chevrolet truck and a 2013 Toyota. Both are motor vehicles. But one is significantly more useful than the other.
.....which then leads us to the conclusion that British and US rifle platoons were really outclassed with their MGs. Thank god British and US artillery was vastly better than the Germans'.
@@alganhar1 The Bren gun was very versatile that's for sure, it even saw action in Vietnam, the Indo Pakistan war and the Falklands war.
Any MG has three measurable rates of fire: cyclic, effective, and sustained. I think at 40-44 or so the presenter may not be aware of that.
Very interesting presentation. Many myths busted.
Excellent presentation and discussion - thanks Nick and Woody. Much appreciated ta.
21:20 and this is the key to the MG 42 , lots of bullets short time .
This is an interesting little bit of context on why the MG 42 . Pity people dont realise the same applies to the Bren in allied service , the Bren takes the place of the Lewis in the combination of Lewis , hand grenade , vickers MGs in a sustained indirect role and mortars that wrecked the Germans in the 100 day offensive .
After WW2, Zastava started making a version of the MG42 called the M53 (still chambering 7.92 x 57 ammo) for Yugoslav armed forces. They saw extensive action in the breakup of Yugoslavia and my friend who was in a Croatian HOS unit near Vinkovci in 1991 swears blind the weapon saved his section on a number of occasions. There are still number of them sat with old farmers in Slavonian farms just in case things ever kick off again with the Serbs.The only major difference was a slower rate of fire.
*Content Level:* 🪙
Howdy folks. Great presentation by master gunner Nick on the iconic MG42. No bullshit just the facts ma’am from the manuals and German combat doctrine. Impressive show.
Fantastic
Thank you so much 😀
Wow, what a great session!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very imformative talk, thanks.
Knockout a machinegun get a medal. Keep firing your machinegun get a medal.
Wonderful show! Learned a lot and enjoyed it. ❤
Glad you enjoyed it!
When firing the British army's GPMG I found that 3-5 round bursts took the same time it did to say 'Tom Thumb' in my head but there were of course times when I said 'TOOOOOOOOOMMMMM THUUUUUUUUMBBBBB'.
magical machine gun that fires faster than anthing, About the same as a an Late war ,50 Aircraft machine gun.
Or a late 1930s .303 Vickers K aircraft machine gun. Though the 100 round drum makes it more limited than a belt fed M2
Excellent video and topic, would love to see others similar
More to come!
Please hit the like button.
I did!
Dick winters talks about finding rounds with wooden bullets with captured MG. I have seen them for the K98 and was told used for practice. Also, a few diaries talk about problems with steel not brass cased ammo. Also I think if your groupa lost it's MG The troops left got moved to other groupa. Your thoughts? I always learn from your shows. Keep it up, please!!!!
Great information! Thanks
Fascinating insight! I noticed from watching forgotten weapons fire the mg-42 on longer bursts that the user is pushed back quite a bit and Ian on that channel mentions this. Maybe that's also why longer bursts are not approved as the sight picture is lost.
You lose some accuracy but mostly you burn the barrel out a lot faster and waste ammo if you fire really long bursts. Once the weapon overheats and stops firing, that's a significant event that is difficult to recover from. ;)
@@executivedirector7467You'd change the barrel then
@@nickjohnson710 Of course. My point was that if you fire enough over a short enough period of time, no matter how many times you change barrels, you can eventually overheat the weapon and it will stop firing. At that point, changing barrels doesn't work any more.
Wish he would have talked aboutthat this is used as a area weapon kind of like a water hose where the cone of fire lands is the beaten zone
Quite right.
Nick will be back for a part 2
This really explains why intermediate cartridges were developed; Ammunition was too heavy to carry at the rate of use.
Intermediate cartridges were developed because it was essentially impossible to develop a rifle that could fire full auto, with a full-power cartridge, in any useful package. Things like the BAR were way too heavy for use as a universal rifle. Things like the M14 or FN FAL could be made to fire full auto, but not usefully. They are uncontrollable at full auto, so fire is ineffective.
It wasn't directly a 'weight of ammo' issue, although the lighter ammo of, say, the AK or M16 is a really nice bonus.
@@executivedirector7467 I agree but logistics play a role here. The combat loadout of the ~.30 cal full power round was under 100 for bolt guns and just over 100 for semis. For the kurtz or 5.56 it doubled. Now the U.S. appears to be returning to a traditional round with the 6.8 and seems comfortable with select fire in the rifle and that round BUT the composite case is keeping the weight closer to the 5.56 round. Not sure if that means the US is being farsighted or has their head up their arse but it is an interesting point. After all the US went initially to the 7.62x51 and shoved it down everyone's throat; not exactly an intermediate round...
@@executivedirector7467 it is also worth noting that even the Garand was not designed for a full power cartridge but for a .270 round and that this was overruled for logistical reasons; existing stockpiles of .30-06 and need to supply 2 rifle calibers.
@@silvermikeGA You're right about the M1 and it's quite a story, The US Army came so close to inventing the assault rifle in the 1920s and 30s. The 'Pig Board' recommended an intermediate cartridge and was overruled for exactly the reason you gave.
The M1 was still a great rifle, but, wow, what could have been.....
@@silvermikeGA That ammo loadout is an effect, not a cause, for the development of the intermediate round.
Wouldn't it be better to just have second firing mode in 4-8 round burst with single trigger push, whole system and doctrine cannot emphasize enough how crucial is trigger discipline and training here.
Also, speaking about myths, wikipedia says its supposed to fire uninterrupted and that the allies could only move between barrel changes. That needs to be desperately corrected.
The reverse engineered MG was the M60, known as the best single shot MG in the world.
Well eventually, but there was a different version that came before the M60 called the T-24
Although the US Army wanted an MG-42-type weapon, there is almost nothing in common between the MG-42 and the M60. The feed mechanism is nearly an identical copy. But the similarity ends there. Frankly the MG-42 or MG3 is a much better weapon. The M60 was significantly less reliable than the FN MAG58 (which has now replaced it in US service, 50 years late) and whoever designed the barrel change on the M60 should be jailed.
The M60 is pretty much an FG-42 with the MG42's feed system.
The M-60's used in Vietnam generally had a good reputation, but by the 1980's were worn out. I totally agree w/ the barrel change being criminal (wonder which whiz kid came up with that- probably the same one who decided cleaning kits weren't necessary for M-16's).
@@mattds45 yes, everyone who used them liked them, but if you knew about the competition, then they look pretty bad.
Firing blank rounds isn’t going to give you the kickback on your shoulder is a strange one in the training of the weapon?
The live rounds was needed elsewhere. And mainly training, still today, is about the noise, making correct movements/choices in an "simulated" noise inferno
Training for 3-5 round bursts ? US Army trains for 6-9 round bursts. I wonder why.
The MG 42 (MG 3) is controllable for 3-5 rds, the 1917, BAR, and their later children are controllable for 6-9 (all bipod mounted).
@@mattds45 makes some sense. The M1917 was always tripod-mounted. That's the watercooled heavy MG.
It would be interesting to hear from somebody who actually understands German an account of Rommel's machine company attack during WWI -- up mountains and down mountains for several days. How did they do that?
Mg 42 took a squad to feed.
Is there something more important for a squad to do?
fire and manuver
@@USAACbrat Sure. But a platoon has several squads. If I were a WW2 rifle company commander and had to devote a squad in every platoon to take care of the MG42s.....I would happily do that. It's worth the massive firepower advantage it provides.
@@USAACbrat For fire and maneuever the Bren gun, but if holding down a trench position against waves of Soviet infantry or in a bunker against landing allied soldiers on a beach head? the MG42 wins.
the Germans never planned for defense, 1 resons they lost.@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-
Doctrine makes sense. Trained enemy isn't exactly going to be in the open for long periods of time
Please have a show on the Ma Deuce. The Browning .50 caliber machine gun has a mythical reputation in the US. This maybe popular legend but I have been told many times in the past that the M-2 Browning was outlawed as an anti-personnel weapon by the Geneva Convention and is only supposed to be used as an anti-aircraft weapon nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
That Geneva convention stuff is a myth. But yeah it's a great MG. Over 100 years old now.
You're thinking about the quad.50
Not a single. 50
Many Americans referred to it as a "tremendous ammo waster".
Off-topic but have you done anything about the Chicago 50? 1944
No I haven't - an interesting subject though for sure
😂it is not lost upon me that while discussing a machine gun...you used "bullet points" in your introductory remarks...I see what you did there🤓
LOL
I love these comments, gamers and reenactors that have never fired any of the weapons they furiously argue about.
From what I read about German machine guns in WWII in the '80' and '90's the MG34 was a superior weapon but was more expensive and took longer to build than the MG42. The big advancement of the MG42 was its superior rate of fire, except that later in the war the Germans incorporated (please forgive me because I'm not an expert) various methods to slow down it's rate of fire because it was extremely wasteful of ammunition and at full auto not very accurate. Also, in my readings about the Wehrmacht in WWII their machine guns were always considered state of the art and highly effective, not so much with the Allies and their machine guns.
The MG34 was a terrific weapon also, but you're right that it was expensive to make and less reliable than the '42. The MG42 was developed as a cheaper, easier-to-manufacture, more reliable alternative. Both were kept in production because ....they needed a lot of MGs! And the MG34 was better suited to use inside AFVs. The tank mounts the Germans had were designed around the MG34 and not adaptable to the MG42.
@@executivedirector7467 Also the use by the Luftwaffe of the MG34.
@@executivedirector7467You couldn't change the barrel on the MG 42 when it was inside the tank.
@@nickjohnson710 Correct, at least, not with the vehicle mounts the German had. Ironic I guess, because the barrel change is one of the nicer features on the MG-42 if you're a dismounted infantryman.
Were these all steel cartridges with wax a coatings.
Fantastic and informative presentation. Sorry I missed the live.
One must remember
100 rounds of 7.62×51 NATO weighs 7 pounds
8mm Mauser
303 British
30-06
7.62×54 Russian
Was 7-8 pounds
Ammo restricts mobility
Being a machine gunner is hard work
0331 rule
But ammo is firepower. Distribute that load across an entire platoon, which is what every army does, and you are good to go.
At 31 min.....the Bren does NOT have the same effective ROF as an MG42, not even close.
Nick was talking about over a number of minutes in practical use not mathematically
@@WW2TV Hmm, he seemed to be saying that squads carried about the same amount of "firing time" of ammo, and then seemed to conclude that the two weapons could engage for the same amount of time.
Yes, that was his conclusion based on the intended use of the two weapons. You disagree? He has spent a lot of time looking at the German paperwork on this
@@WW2TV I'm not sure I disagree so much as I think it's kind of a misunderstanding of firepower. it's not quite about how many minutes of fire your platoon can carry, although I'm not disregarding that point. It's more about how well your squad/platoon/company can dominate a piece of terrain, creating a beaten zone that nothing can cross (or will even try to cross) . There's simply no question that almost any functioning belt-fed weapon will do that in a vastly superior manner than any magazine-fed weapon.
So in that specific example (Bren v MG42) the Bren gun not only has a much lower cyclic rate, it has a much lower effective rate as well. It is required to swap magazines every 30 rounds. The MG42 can fire at a much higher cyclic rate (a little too high, but I digress...) for 150 rounds before you need to swap belts. Modern NATO infantry MGs can clip belts together endlessly (in theory - there's a practical limit of course) so you could fire 500, 800 etc rounds without ever swapping belts. The difference in responsiveness between belt-fed and magazine-fed is gigantic.
@@alganhar1 I've never heard the term 'practical rate of fire'. Machineguns are typically described as having cyclic, effective and sustained rates of fire. Can you define 'practical rate of fire' for me please? Is that a British army term?
I don't see how the tripod makes any difference at all to the effective rate of fire. It can enable firing under cover or in the dark (accurately) or enable greater accuracy at longer range. But I am not seeing how it would influence ROF.
Paul, how about adding Close Caption.
Its always on, but will take about 12 hours to work
Perhaps, if you aren’t getting enough calories, you care a little less about maintaining a piece of equipment.
Ah good old Heinz at the end . He may of talked up how much of a hero he was that day , but no doubt he pushed his MG 42 to the limit ........ But that was not a normal situation and not one youd want to be in anyway .
The French and Americans used the machine gun in trench raids since the beginning of the war. This is the German prospective as if you had blinders on.
Because it was specifically about the MG42 and where it came from! It would be like you complaining we didn't talk about the P51 in a show about the Spitfire
I'm pretty certain the Americans in particular didn't use MGs in trench raids at the beginning of the war. If nothing else, because they weren't there 😉
That made me spit my drink out - brilliant, thanks Martin
The French Army used the Chochat then trained the Americans, the Lewis Gun was also used in trench raids. @@martinkirk3810
Damn it Paul, I got click baited.👍🏻😂
This weapon drove fear into troops so bad for new and seasoned troops. They knew don’t pop your head up or its lights out for you if you got grazed how many lost limbs because of that?
The men knew and feared it’s tree sawing action especially, when this was on the Lafayette 42 tripod. Made this a perfect weapon for a crew well dug in, made it a ferocious item to attack?
Would you want to believe this nut head saying this to you 1000’s of KM away from home this word salad of lies?
th-cam.com/users/shortsvNrpmv6IR3s?si=YCJLWtAMyfR1umnx
When it’s still in use 80 years now having a NATO bullet chambered in 5.56x51 mm NATO from the 7.92×57 mm Mauser is only difference with better optics today.
Still facing this on the Lafayette platform guys was goodnight as accuracy was deadly . The more lead you fire at the enemy the more likely from suppression your going to overcome your enemy quickly?
I’m biased here but that weapon is so so damned sexy looking or is it just me?
Second last point I know the man who was shooting MG-42 in Saving Private Ryan. And it’s not a blank firing it’s a live round firing MG-42. Nothing catches your attention as quickly as this does.
Used today shows something is right with this weapon having over 1 million made from WWII tells something special about out it? There were troops carrying two extra boxes on special built back packs for this rate of fire. Good gunners knew how this was to be used short bursts through lots of lead to effect attacking forces. Cheers all and keep following Paul who is a genuine great guy who deserves more followers than is present. Keep up the great work Paul 👍🏻🙏🏻🇮🇪🇬🇧🇫🇷
Boring, the reality of MGs in front line combat ,, is everyone in a unit from top to bottom carries as much ammo & gun spare barrels as they possibly can , the word allocation , is just totally irrelevant , lost touch with reality, to geeky , just couldn’t make it to end sorry. Believe me to adhere to fire disciplines when being overwhelmed by an infantry attack on the Russian front for example is impossible.. hang in let me just check what the manual and period photography shows .
And what are your sources for that? You say that everyone carried as much ammo as they could, but based on what sources? The Heer had pretty strict rules and structures, which was the whole point of this show. Maybe in modern armies there is more freedom to carry what you want, when you want to, but in WWII the German army had a very restrictive set up.
You liked Michael Miller's show - a user of archival sources, and yet not this one. Even though Nick wa s also using actual German sources rather than the usual rubbish stated about the MG42
Thanks!
Thanks for the good work. Please use my small donation to continue your excellent endeavors!
Thanks buddy
Thanks!
Thanks Christopher