Affects of an MG42

Does anyone think that the Mg42 had any psyhcologial affects on enemy troops in the field?

My great uncle who fought for the united states told me a story about soldiers panicking as soon as they heard the sounds of the MGs in the distance. He said it was the sound that scared them the most.

 

Guten morgen Pzgr......wie gehts ?

To these effects I am not sure. The MG 42 had a very characteristic sound. At least Allied troops could tell that they were in range of German fire when they heard the sound. I do beleive this mg had the highest rate of fire of any mg in WW 2.

E

 

Ive seen a few documentaries that was about the MG-42, and in one, which I think was Tales of the Gun "German small arms of ww2" It was apparently much feares by the allied soldiers.

I saw a training flim that showed G.I's who were advancing in a forrest, and an MG-42 started firing bursts.

The G.Is scattered and started eating dirt. The film was to teach them how to deal with the MG-42. Was pretty interesting

 

Thats interesting if the army had to make a training film about it, then there had to have been many reports of men getting scared from the sound of the gun.

 

As I said in the earlier post. The mg 42 had the highest rate of fire and was quite a mobile weapon that was had a variety of uses. You bet the allies as a whole were afraid of this thing.

E.

 

I tell you what, about 14 years ago, I had the chance to fire an MG-42 at a MGunners club in San Antonio. It cost me $20.00, but, I loved every second of the sound and the feel, of that MG when firing it.

Had I had more money to spend, I would gladly have done so. Also, I got to fire a can full of .50 cal atuff-for free, because i helped the club set-up a few things and did about 2 hrs worth of work there.

The Brrreeetttttt vs the Tat-a-tat-tat, was very impressive. It does sound a bit like a saw. The rate of fire was just overwhealming, so I think I too, having heard it fired at me in combat, would have more than been a bit scared.

 

Carl :

You didn't have $ 3,500 to buy the MG ? shame on you !.......hee,hee. I got to check one out at a gun show some 10 years ago here in southern Oregon before they outlawed automatic gun sales. What a beautiful weapon and easy to dismantle. I could see it being a scourge to anyone coming into contact with it's power. By the way, thanks for the e-mail posting....got it !!!!!!!

E

 

But Erich, didnt you know?? I HAVE one mounted on the hood of my 93 Chevy Lumina!!!

Glad you got the email, pllus yer photos in the mail

Here in TX, you can get a fully auto Sten MK4 for about $1,200. I would rather have an MP-38/40 or STG-43/MP-44 etc.

 

Technically the MG-42 was a brilliant design, but wasn't supplying it with ammunnition a bit of a tactical nightmare? I mean with a rate of fire at least twice that of allied machine guns It had to be hell just carrying it into battle. Just imagine trying to perform fire and move manouvers and still carry an adequete supply of ammo. I also read that of course firing more bullets faster meant a lot more misses. That being said I sure as hell wouldn't want one shooting at me

 

The MG 42s rate of fire was absurb. The high rate affected its accuraty because of the recoil, with a lower rate of fire the gun would be alot better for field use.

 

trained gunners could fire single shots and 3 round bursts with the MG42. It could be fired from the shoulder if need be. Most of the reciever of the M-60 is a direct copy of the MG42.
Its still completely legal to own fully automatic weapons. The main stipulation is they must be 50+ years old. You are now required to possess a Curio's and Relics FFL, issued by ATF. The C&R FFL costs $45 for 3 years and must be signed by your head of local law enforcement, after his inspection of your home to insure you have proper security.
Complete info on FFL's can be found at the ATF's website. The ATF even has the forms downloadable now as Adobe files, you can print em right out of your printer.

 

I recall that Bren Gunners were trained to fire in short bursts that were accurate and more controlable. The instructors had a unnique training technique called fish and chips. thats how long you fired for, as long as it took to say that phraze, Apparently some of them would actually say it out loud in combat

 

firing in bursts is still advisable for machineguns unless you're in close quarters or your weapon is on a tripod. I've fired the MAG machinegun, the SAW and FN para, and with full auto fire you will not hit much at distances above 300 meters.

Teh amount of ammo that the mg42 used up was high, but I reckon that many soldiers were quite eager to carry extra ammo for the group weapon that gave them the advantage in a fight, i know i would...

 

The German Infantry Squad of 10 men was structured around the Machine gun. The rifleman's job ws to support and to protect it.

Infantry squads were taught and expected to act woth more independence and initiative than in other armies. The high rate of their machine guns fitted well with their practice of always making sure that a large voluem of fire was produced, rather thanbeing to concerned about the accuracy of individual rounds.

So the German Mg 42 fitted well with german tactical doctrine.

And for those who tink that the MG 42 had a rate of fire that was far to high and a waste of ammo I have this snippet of infomation:

"The Mauser team, not satisfied with having produced a superb machine-gun design, went on to develop the MG 45 with a higher rate of fire. The end of the war curtailed the program,"...

May I add that the MG 42's unique sound undoutably made a great contribution to the lowering of Allied morale, this in conjunction with the Nebelwerfer mobile rocket launcher, whos's scream was also most feared, almost certainly made Allied soldiers, be they green or veteran troops, crack under the pressure.

[ 02 August 2001: Message edited by: Madcap7 ]

 

Actually, the MG42 was not made by Mauser, but by a company that specialised in sheet metal stamping. They had never made a gun before.

The MG 42's rate of fire was indeed a bit high. That's why we've reduced it and fire with a maximum of 1200 rpm now. It's still fun to use. As for expenditure of ammunition - sure, if you fire long bursts one after the other you're out of ammo in seconds. On the first day we used 'em in the field (German army) the MGs were out of ammo within half an hour.

The MG 3 (42) is indeed very easy to dismantle. Especially changing barrels is very easy. It's also very easy to get rid of blockages etc. In a nutshell, it's still a splendid weapon and I couldn't wish for a different machine gun. The only worth-while additions might be somehow to make a single-shot ability and a scope for long-range sniping.

 

Forgot something - you can easily get back the old 'saw' rpms if you remove the spring in the 'breechlock' (that's what my dictionary gives me, but I guess you all know what I mean).

And training doctrine hasn't really changed since WW2. It proved to be so effective, why change?

 

Great postings Andreas, and welcome aboard to the forums.

 

Andreas :

Welcome to our board !

Interesting as I was attending a family reunion (Baer), just this last week and noted in one newpaper out of Vacaville, California that the Pakistanie's still seem to have a surplus of the old mg 42 and mounted them on the back of trucks.

E

 

Doubt it's a surplus. In fact, I doubt it's the old MG42 at all. We still build it as the MG3 (fires 7,62mm NATO standard and is slightly modified), and this gun is made under license by many states, and probably sold to many many more. Wouldn't surprise me if Pakistan has the MG3...

 

It very well could of been. I just found it interesting with the smae type of outward characteristics, distinct barrel and jacket, flash-hider, hand grip. Looked very clean if my memory serves me right. The guy was hand feeding the belt himself with-out another doing it for him, but very well was a propaganda shot.

E