Best light machine gun of WW2

I'd consider the M2 .50 cal a heavy mg, not a light mg as the OP stated. I'd say the MG42 was the best because of its ease of production and reliability.

 

The M-2 Browning is a heavy machinegun and in no way can be mistaken for a "light" machinegun in the same class as the MG-42.

For comparison purposes you might interpose the AN/M2 850rpm or the AN/M3 1200rpm again these are not "man portable" and were mounted on aircraft.

That being said the MG-42 was something that the Germans did right: one weapon that was supported accross all platforms with the same ammunition as the standard service rifle. Had the weapon been developed in a 12.7mm variant it may have done very well in an aircraft role.

 

It doesn't seem like there is any real debate here on the MG42 being the best lmg. The M2 was introduced because it was claimed that the MG-42 was "the best mg" which is a bit over the top IMO.

 

I'm not that dense Brad, the problem was that the thread got off topic, and like a dolt I followed along. This devolved into a mention of "design timing", and got away from the original topic.

If one goes back a few replies, I support the MG-42 being the best light infantry MG of the period. Hand's down. I was only pointing out some things which were altered later to make it less of a "fire-breather" (heavier bolt, stiffer spring) all the time. It is now more stable with a choice of ROF speeds, down from the original speed in its modern M3 configuration.

And I was pointing out that the BREN quick-change barrel design was slightly less bothersome than that on the MG-42, no asbestos glove needed. Handle attached to barrel. That is it, and that's all folks.

 

I think you might have read too much into that I actually quoted you as an agreement...check your PM's.

I am pretty confident that you would not mistake a Ma Deuce for a light MG.....

 

Can we try something different for a change and actually stay on target with the Opening post?

The OP said,

The MG42 and 34 have been done to death on every forum on the net, so lets focus on the other machine guns of the time as the examples given in the OP.

If you still feel the need to prove or disprove the MG42 discussion then move it to another thread.

 

Here are a few other excellent machineguns from the WW 2 period:

The Czech ZB vz/53. This became the Besa in British serivce as their main tank machinegun. The Germans were impressed enough to give it a regular type number the MG 37(t).

The Swiss Solothurn Modell 29. This is the machinegun that led to the MG 34.

The Vickers-Berthier. This was the competitor for the BREN. It was a good machine gun but the BREN was just enough better to win the competition. The Indian Army adopted it and, it was widely used in the RAF as an aircraft gun. The SAS later adopted it on their jeeps.

 

Let's have a look at the others then ...

- ZG 26 and it's derivatives like the BREN (don't know if the use of the British ammo for the BREN made much difference after the initial incompatibilities were ironed out).
- French Mle 24/29
- Italian Breda in 6.5mm
- Japanese type 96 and 99 (6.5 and 7.7)
- BAR
- Browning 7.62 air cooled MGs
- Soviet DP

There are of course lots of others but I think the above list contains the main ones.


If you believe an LMG is just an MG light enough to be carried by one man for protracted periods, and should be able to take any MG's role, the ZG, and it's derivatives and the French M.le 24/29 are about equivalent, but inferior to a belt fed weapon.
The BAR is a non runner, it's a full power assault rifle rather than a true LMG and will become unusable due to barrel overheating pretty fast if used in a MG role.
The air cooled 7.62 Brownings are too hard to carry for non motorized troops.

The Italian and Japanese type 96 are underpowered and have a bad reliability reputation, deserved for the Breda, don't know for the type 96 and 99 but the 96 also had that infamous oiled cartridge requirement.

An interesting weapon is the DP, it's big drum comes close to a belt fed cabability and while drumms are usually delicate it had a good reliability reputation.

Has anyone has a comparative table of
- Weight (with and without ammo)
- ROF
- muzzle energy with standard ammo
- magazine size
- barrel change time
- countries of adoption (what were the axis minors using?)

 

The BAR really shouldn't be included in this because it's intended function and tactical employment wasn't that of a LMG, but as the name implies an automatic rifle.

My vote would be for the MG42, it wasn't perfect, but was substantially better than any of it's contempraries that I can think of.

T. A. Gardner wrote:

I agree that the rate of fire was too high. Many people don't appreciate the difficulty of humping enough ammunition to keep the guns fed. While the rate of fire of 12-1500 rounds per minute looks impressive on paper it is unusable in most situations and, when utilized, cannot be sustained but for a very short time.

Proeliator wrote:

I agree with the first statement but the second is a bit of a stretch. The M2 was adopted in basically it's current configuration in 1938, is still in service today and will continue to serve into the foreseeable future. The MG42 was adopted in 1942 and while it is related and quite similar to the MG42 it's not the same gun. But for the sake of argument, if it were, the German Army is scheduled to be replace it next year, so the Ma Deuce's longevity is really unchallenged.

brndirt1 wrote:

Good point Clint, and not a small matter.

Proeliator wrote:

And for allied gunners, but gloves get lost, misplaced, are not readily at hand, are destroyed or wear out. Not a moot point.

Well stated Mr. Gardner.

Thanks, Lwd, I was wondering how we got off track. You're right if it's LMG then hands down the MG42, IMHO it's next closest competitor is the MG34. If we're talking MG's in general the Ma Deuce would be a good choice, and if we're including HMG's then I'd say the M1917A1 .30 Caliber Water-Cooled Machine Gun would be superior in some areas. While not as nearly as good as the MG42 overall or in most applications, it would be superior in a defensive role because of it's ability to sustain a high rate of fire for a much longer period of time.

Again, very well put Clint.

Tomcat wrote:

It is amazing how easily we get off topic, isn't it. But it does make for some interesting discussions.

 

That video is simply amazing. I had no idea that an automatic weapon like the MG42 could be completely disassembled so quickly and easily, without tools.

Is this an exceptional weapon for ease of maintenance, or is this typically the case for most similar arms? I'm genuinely curious; being a mere civilian, I've had very little experience with military weapons.

 

Most military weapons can be field stripped without tools for cleaning and, most can be fairly quickly disassembled. This isn't particularly unusual

 

The MG you-know-what was revolutionary, and no other army had anything even close. The design was sheer genius as the MG-42 was an mg-34 redesigned for mass production. It introduced features still used in modern machine gun designs to this day, indeed considered essentials: quick change barrel, built in bipod, cheaply and quickly produced using stampings and a minimum of machining. Probably the single most important German small arm of the entire war. (It is still used today by Spain, Germany and several other nations, basically unchanged, as the MG3).

By contrast most other nations' machine guns were only adequate and some were downright pathetic. The Italian army used a machine gun that required oiled cartridges to function. This may have seemed like a swell idea on a test range but on a filthy battlefield in the North African desert this weapon was a disaster. The japanese too, had some odd designs, including a machine gun that fired from 20 round stripper clips and was known as the "woodpecker" due to its odd noise when firing. The British bren gun, and American BAR, were good, solid, reliable weapons and usually used in the squad automatic weapon role. They were however not in the same league as the MG 42: both had a clip capacity of 20 rounds, and neither had a barrel that could be changed in the field. They were also almost as heavy as an MG 42 while delivering much less firepower.

The British and Americans did have some decent medium machine gun designs -but both were pretty much hold-overs from world war 1. The British continued to use the Vickers water-cooled machine gun, even until well after WW2. It worked, after all, and evidently they had nothing better at the time. However, the vickers not only lacked a quick change barrel, it weighed over twice as much as an MG 42 and required a team of several men to lug it, and its water and ammo around in battle.

The Americans had the good old Browning 1919 machine gun, and it was a good, reliable, and accurate design. But it also used old technology, as not only was it too heavy, it also lacked a quick change barrel and had a relatively slow rate of fire.

Whether russian, American or British, every allied infantryman had a healthy respect for German machine gun crews - and with very good reason. The Germans had used their considerable combat experience to develop a number of techniques to employ their machine guns extremely effectively. One of their favorite tactics was to emplace the machine gun for enfilade fire off to one side of, or at an angle to the enemy's line of march. The Germans had discovered that when fired upon, a unit of troops usually look to the front and aim their initial return fire in that direction. So an allied unit would often take very heavy casualties (the mg42 fired at 1300 rpm) before they could discover, and knock out the well emplaced German machine gun.

 

.

Actually.... When you release the MG42's barrel with the buttstock on the ground so that the muzzle is pointed up the barrel slides out on its own. Anyone who has changed the barrel even once can allow it to slide out and back into the barrel carrier without a glove. http://www.germanmilitaria.co.uk/pics/bbb.jpg


There are many examples of the asbestos gunners gloves for sale on militaria sites, Ebay, etc. because they didnt see all that much use.

 

That hasn't been my experience.

 

That's because A-gunners steel them!!! There is a fine line between barrel gloves and oven mits

 

Thanks for the information. I'm learning a great deal from this forum!

 

And the exact same is true for the MG42, which is still in service today in exactly he same configuration as in WW2 but under different designations and in the 7.62 NATO caliber. Still the exact same weapon.

Again, the MG42, MG3 MG74 etc etc.. are all the exact same weapon, the only difference is caliber and name, and that's a fact. Why anyone would ever challenge this is beyond me.

Secondly, the MG3 (MG42) 'might' be started to be phased out next year by the Bundeswehr, but there are still a dusin or so countries who intend to keep it as their standard squad MG for many years to come.

 

Bollocks! I've spent 20 years around that weapon, the MG42 & MG3 are the same weapon, only difference (or modification as you would probably call it) is the caliber & designation. I've seen both types side by side and they are the same. Infact the MG42 has seen less number of improvements made upon it since its introduction than has the M2 Browning.

Wrong, nations such as Austia, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Holland, Switzerland & Turkey have no plans of retiring their MG42's any time soon.

The Bundeswehr will first begin phasing out the MG3 in 2012, but it will likely stay in service for many years still.

 

There are however situations where this will not be practical and/or fast enough depending on where you and your gun are situated. But yes it can be done that way.

 

Last warning, enough talk about the MG 34, and 42 series Machine guns, and get back on topic on the other light machine guns.