MG.34 & MG.42

Hi, what was the difference in the rate of fire and the maximum range of the MG.34 & MG.42 in there repected firing modes, Bi-pod (LMG) Tri-pod (MMG)
I have this data only,

MG.34
Rate of fire: 800 rpm
Range: 2000m
MG.42
Rate of fire: 1500 rpm
Range: 2000m

There must of been some difference in the data of the two models when used in the two different modes

I also have been looking at the FG.42 and have come up with this,

FG.42
Type: Light Machine Gun
Design: Rheinmetall
Year: 1942
Amount: 7000
Weight: 5.5 kg
Calibre: 7.92mm
Shell Weight: 35 g
Muzzle Velocity: 750 m/s
Magazine: 20 Rounds
Rate of Fire: 600 r.p.m.
Range: 1.200m
Crew: 1



Regards Yan.

 

The info on the MG's looks good for the rate of fire and for tripod use. Max range when used with just the bipod would be much less due to issues with accuracy. Sure the round could still travel 2000 meters, but not accurately. The German laffette mounts (had four legs) had an excellent recoil system and also had optics for long distance accuracy.
The range and rate of fire of the FG42 looks off though. It was basically a semi-auto rifle with a full auto capability. I wouldn't expect accurate fire beyond 400 meters from it and I believe the rate of fire was closer to 8-900 rpm.

 

The FG 42 had two different rates of fire: The theoretical with 900RPM and the practical, which was dictated by the small mag, 250RPM. Interesting is that the "Erprobungsstelle der Luftwaffe, Tarnewitz" wrote in their report to the FG42 that it has a long lifetime with 17.900 rounds. Source is the " Deutsche Waffenrevue"

 

What source classified the FG42 as a LMG? Selective fire battle rifle is more correct.

 

Was it the MG42 that was sometimes called "Hitlers buzzsaw"? Or chainsaw maybe?

 

Buzzsaw, based on the ROF. The MG.42 was capable of 1200 rounds/minute. To the human ear 1200 rpm doesn't sound like BANG!-BANG!-BANG!, it's more like BRRRRAAAANNNG!

 

View attachment 13156
Arisaka Heavy Type 1 MG
Gas Operated
400 - 450 Rounds/min.
7.7 mm
770 m/sec Muzzle Velocity
1400 m Eff. Range
4100 m Max. Range
589 Barrel Length
30 Round feed trays
Rapid Change Barrel
36.8 Lbs.
Scope adaptable
Sight Graduations from 200 m to 2200 m
This baby was found on Okinawa and part of a private collection posted on OkinawaRelics.com
Long arms, knives and bayonets are also too cool.

 

The Japanese also used these,

Type 3 Medium Machine Gun
Introduced Year: 1914
Crew: 11 man squad (1 x NCO, 10 x Men)
Caliber: 6.5mm
Barrel Length: 737mm
Length: 1.19.8mm
Weight: 55 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 740 m/s
Rate of Fire: 450 rpm (Max.), 200 rpm (Practical)
Magazine: 30 rounds
Effective Range: 1000m
Maximum Range: 4000m
Type 92 Medium Machine Gun
Introduced Year: 1932
Crew: 11 man squad (1 x NCO, 10 x Men)
Caliber: 7.7mm
Barrel Length: 721mm
Length: 1.15.6mm
Weight: 55.3 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 800 m/s
Rate of Fire: 450 rpm (Max.), 200 rpm (Practical)
Magazine: 30 rounds
Effective Range: 1000m
Maximum Range: 2.200m
[FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]

 

Would you suggest that I class the FG.42 the same as the BAR,
FG.42, 5.5 kg
BAR, 7.25 kg

 

No, it's intended use was as a rifle and not a squad automatic (different roles). It falls into the same category as the M1 Garand, G41-43 series, SVT-38/40 and Ljungman as a semi-automatic rifle. It just happend to be unconventional in design from the others but not application or intended purpose.

 

So the Fallschirmjager had to use on the MG.34 & MG.42 like the Heer. I thought it may have been used as a Squad MG, for its lightness and rate of fire and to overcome the problem of finding weapons canisters to get to your support weapons.

 

By the time the FG42 was fielded there weren't a whole lot of combat jumps to worry about weapons canisters. There were some experiments with belt fed FG42's, but thats about it for testing it in the LMG role. The FJ's used the same MG's and related equipment as the Army did, they also got the Berretta SMG's. Other than that their small arms were about the same.

 

Did the FG.42 use the same ammo as the MG.34 ect, 7.92mm. or did they use a shortend version (7.92mm Kurz).

 

It used the normal K98k ammo which is the same round for the MG 38 and the MG42 too.

 

The major differences between MG42 and 34: while they do look quite similar and function the same way, they are actually quite different weapons and the parts interchangeability is low to non-existent except perhaps the belted ammo and tripods. Rate of fire of the MG42 was 1,300 rpm which was incredibly high even back then.

The MG 34 used a lot of machined components in its manufacture, the MG-42 was an almost complete redesign to minimize machined parts in favor of metal stampings, which are much faster cheaper and easier to make.

(The MP 38 submachine gun was redesigned into the MP 40 for the same reason, and the MP44 sturmgewehr was constructed in the same fashion - that weapon was completely made of stampings except for the barrel and bolt). On the MG42 almost every part except the barrel and bolt is a stamping. (over 500,000 were manufactured, of each type, some figures claim up to 750,000 mg-42's were manufactured).

The difference in rate of fire to 1,300 rounds per minute was an unconventional and odd choice but since the Germans had plenty of combat experience by the time the MG42 came out, they must have had good reasons for doing this. But modern machine gun designers almost all agree, this ROF is way too high - at keast 300 rpm too high. If anyone knows why they increased the rate of fire i'd like to hear it.

An interesting sidenote many people have noticed, is that on study of many WW2 german photos, note that in pictures of German armor and aircraft, most were equipped with the MG34. For combat troops on foot almost always they are carrying the MG 42, particularly this is evident late in the war. This was no doubt a recognitiion that the MG 34 was considered much more finicky, required more maintenance, and did not function as well in dirty, muddy and wet field conditions then the MG42 (another reason for the MG42's existence). I am guessing it was thought the MG34 would be a better choice for conditions where it could be kept cleaner, easier then in a mud and dirt choked battlefield.

You might have thought the MG34 would have been discontinued during the war since the MG42 was far superior in almost every way. This did not happen, both the 34 and MG42 were produced until the end of the war. My guess is since they were already tooled up to produce it, they were not about to stop production of a perfectly good machine gun - even though a better one was already in use. In a war, you can never have too many machine guns, after all.

 

Thanks Marc, Funny enough I was reading an old book last week and it gave a segment copied from an old magazine published in 1969 called Miniature Warfare were a guy called David Nash gives a breakdown of a Panzer Grenadier Platoon, I quote,
The First Platoon travelled in four Sd.Kfz 251s (it says APCs so I imagine it’s the 251) but could get away with three at a pinch, each of the four sections contained,
1 x NCO (Officer in the first section) SMG
3 x men armed with LMGs
2 x men armed with SMGs
4 x Rifle men
That gives a total of 40 men with 12 x LMGs, it ends with a caption that says, we had fewer man but a lot of firepower.
Regards Yan.

 

I think there is an error there, it should read:
1 x NCO (Officer in the first section) SMG
3 x men in LMG section (1 gunner, 2 ammo bearers)
2 x men armed with SMGs (the Squad leader listed above and the Assistant Squad Leader)
4 x Rifle men (1 grenadier with cup style launcher).

Thats 9 men, 1 MG, 2 SMG, 6 rifles and one with grenade launcher and a few rounds.

 

Hi Mark, I know it sounds odd but that is what the article says, I allways thought that the infantry had four sections and the panzer grenadiers had only three, it all so says that compared to what the infantry sections had in 1939 when they were all equipped with rifles and one LMG, to how many LMGs the panzer grenadiers had in Normandy in 1944, do you think he ment the SS Panzer Grenadiers ?, maybe they had a higher alotment of LMGs in comparison with Heer troops, I dont know, but I agree with you about the amount of LMGs per section.

 

Going back to the MG.34 & MG.42, If the range & rate of fire were the same in both LMG & MMG versions, it seems that the only difference was accuracy, it seems a waste of men other wise, 2 x men LMG, 6 x men MMG.

 

MMG? Do you mean heavy MG? There are more men assigned in heavy MG teams to carry the extra ammunition for sustained fire and the extra equipment. Thats a doctrinal issue and has nothing to do with the equipment, whether is MG34, MG42, MG08 or ersatz foreign equipment (Russian Maxim, Schwartzloss, etc.).