MG34 vs MG42

I've wondered about that too, Crazy.
Guessing wildly, could it have had something to do with : -
a) mountings designed for MG34
b) ammo stowage considerations

? ?

 

Yeah, I have a feeling it has to do with the mounting...
Although, that does bring up another question- does anyone know for sure that the MG34 used in tanks was (or was not) a modified version, designed for vehicle mounting?
And that brings up yet another question (sorry!)... I have read about soldiers salvaging the machineguns from german tanks to use on foot, sometimes when the tank broke down or was knocked out. Does this mean foot soldiers were using a modified MG34, with out bipod, etc? Or would this suggest the MG34 germans used in tanks was NOT modified?
I've always wondered about that one...

 

I have no technical info to hand to back this up, but I have seen a photo of a 'dismounted' armoured vehicle MG34 with no butt ( pistol-grip only ) and a barrel with minimal cooling holes.

 

I believe they wetre one and the same. Going off the British GPMG, the butt is removable, hats how you strop the weapon. A small plug would be inserted in its place. You may have noticed German tanks with a mounting on the cupola for a MG, andthe guns is occasionally seen. Most acouns suggest hat ths gun was one of the two internal weapons, usually the co-axial gun, removed and mounted on the roof

The reason for keeping MG 34s in tanks is most likely the mounts. The 34 is round, while the 42 is square. Its also possible that the 42 was kept soley for the ground troops, as the machine gun in a tank is only really for defecive fire, not for fire support. I do not think 42s were mounted in aircraft, while the 34 was. Probably for the same reasons.

 

Nice questions. I think the MG34s were used in tanks because, as you say, the mountings were disigned for them. Beside, it was better to have the newer and more lethal machine guns as offensive weapons on hands of the infantry than wasted defensive weapons in tanks. Beside, I think that the ammunition storage played its part too. The MG 42, for its faster rate of fire took more ammunition and therefore needed more ammunition to be storaged. That is a good point. I like this thread.

 

I am not to sure about ammo storage. The two weapons used the same ammo, so thats not a problem. If you consider the Tiger, which was being developed around the same time as the 42 and so could have concievable been adapted to carryb it. It carryed over 5,000 rounds of ammo for 2 MGs. This is far more than the ground troops would have carried, probably no more than 3 boxes between them. And they would not have been given more rounds with the new gun. It would not have been possile to cary them. So, when you consider that the tanks MGs are mostly defensive, this amount of ammo is ample what ever the gun.

Personaly, i'd go for nothing more complcated than wating to have the better weapon were it was needed most.

 

Well, I agree Herr Bish. It was just a thought I had. But yes, the 42s were far more efective with the infantry.

 

Both the MG34 and the MG42 were fine weapons, but I believe the MG42 was just a little better due to its greater reliability and ease of manufacture.