mg34 vs. mg42

Yes...yes I am !

 

Big deal! Not as accurate as a Kar98k!


:lol:

 

Ah Za my lad. I'll wager that the majority of the people on this forum would hit better with the MG's than the k-98 at 600 meters... Who bothers with just one round anyways? Anyone worth shooting is worth shooting twice (or 30-40 times)

Since this thread is slowing down I propose we discuss if the F-18 Super Hornet makes more sound than the Bren Carrier, and how the Germans could/should have won the war as a result.

 

sorry you think its stupid. They cant all be gems i suppose.

Like the other fellow said: the mg-34 was a revolutionary machine gun but was designed in leisurely pre-war conditions. Mg 34 simply too complicated to produce in huge wartime quantities. The mg-42 and 34 look sort of similar but they are manufactured very differently, the 42 takes advantage of more sheet metal stampings and spot welding construction, wherever complex machining can be eliminated on this gun it is. Meanwhile the good features of the mg-34 were retained, the quick change barrel for one, and on the MG-42 the rate of fire is about 1200 per minute- 300 faster than the mg-34.
MG 42 also had looser tolerances allowing for entry of more dirt and still function on the battlefield.
The shops already had the tooling made up for the mg-34 so there was no reason to stop making it. As if there is one thing you need in war, it is alot of machine guns. The mg-42 was much faster to manufacture so more were made than the 34. At least 500,000 mg-42's were built, i dont know the production figures of mg-34.

 

The MG34 continued to be made because there are specific places which the MG42 could not be used. Tanks used the MG34, because the rear half of the receiver rotates out of the way, which allows the barrel jacket (mantel) to remain in the gun mount while the barrel is changed. The MG42 cannot do this, because the barrel comes out the side through a hinged door. While both guns feed from left to right, the MG34 also had parts available for feeding from right to left. This allowed two guns to be mounted beside each other much closer (one left feed, one right feed). The MG34 was also made in shortened versions for use where there was little room, and had a feed cover for using the double drum (doppeltrommel), which was convenient for shooting within armored personnel carriers. The MG42 was not provided with that capability . Also, the MG34 was made for 8 years before the MG42 was approved. During that time, there were several bunker and fortress mounts made for it that could not be easily adapted to the MG42.

 

I agree, but you did not address any of my objections.

 

the MG34 had a select fire option so it could sound like a normal rifle then let loose and both were quite accurate

 

Except that you probably wouldn't be doing that, because machine guns aren't normal rifles. The whole point of a machine gun is to keep the enemies' heads down at a variety of ranges (often including long range, sometimes even an indirect fire role) with a hail of bullets and possibly make a kill. They're not meant for pinpoint shooting or shooting individuals. Even today, squad automatic weapons like the FN Minimi are primarily meant to keep the bad guys stuck behind cover while you flank or use explosives to actually kill them.

As was said on the first page, adding a select fire option to a machine gun only adds complexity. The tactical considerations of machine guns means that it would likely go unused, as machine guns typically open up a defense or ambush by putting up a terrifying and potentially very deadly spray of lead.

 

From some of what I've read US troops have been using the single shot option a lot over in SWA.