MG42- Buzz worse than its Bite?

You are very right but a higher ROF has also a psycholical(sorry if I spelled it wrong)effect see the m134 minigun 3000 RPM (though it the ROF is divided by 6 barrels)

The m60 is based on the FG42 and MG42.Some points are used some points aren't.

 

One well-aimed shot had more psychological effect than a burst hitting nothing. Contributing to the dim of battle doesn't mean contributing to the battle.

 

That "burst hitting nothing" serves to keep the enemy's head down while the rest of the squad is moving around to outflank them.

 

Suppressive fire is the most effective when it is accurate. Inaccurate fire does not suppress. It wastes bullet and betrays your position.

 

That's certainly true but you don't have a machinegun to 'snipe' you have a machinegun to keep their heads down.And if you don't know where 600rpm or even 1200 rpm from the mg42 come from you're blind.
And if you know where they are you need the balls to shoot.

 

The same is true of any machine gun, regardless of it's ROF.

 

Thanks. That's the point I have been trying to make--that a 600 rpm machine gun really isn't any less effective than a 1,000 rpm machine gun in suppressive fire. Rounds need to be close enough to the intended target to have the desired effect. Veterans learn to tell the difference between the sounds of accurate and inaccurate fire. In an engagement I will have to guess that in terms of real effectiveness, the MG-42's higher ROF over say, M1919 or Vickers, is probably close to nil.

 

In terms of suppression and pinning the enemy it doesn't matter what the weapon used or its ROF. A single Sniper and his Bolt action Rifle can suppress and pin an infantry unit easy enough since after all just like the machine gun he can only target one person at a time.

 

There seems to be a focus on direct aimed fire much in the same way as a battle rifle/assault rifle.

The MG's in question have more functions not immediantly apparent with non service personell.

As our SF friend mentioned earlier, the "beaten zone" effect of the MG was used to great effect by us during OP Karez in Afganistan.

 

Do you mean they used MG-3 for indirect fire?

 

Triple C

Yes. The Taliban was trying to adapt to our tactics and equipment. We had a mix of of vehicles to choose from and tried to have them second guessing what we would use for different duties.

In the end they ended up ambushing from a longer range (who does thier intel???), coupled with IED's. But we started using UAV's to scout ahead so we generally knew what was coming.

In OP Karez the ambush was set at 1300m and the mixture of direct 30mm from the bushmaster on our CV90 and MG3's creating beaten zones made it hugely unsuccessful.

Sadly many of the Taliban soldiers were mere lads in their early teens, whilst the "officers" were in their 40ies and a great deal of them managed to get away. They were generally not in the front lines. Hard on our lads to find you've just killed a wee boy who has been brainwashed. It has been a common topic referring to what some of these boys are going to do with all those virgins (die as a martyr and you'll get them in the next life rubbish) when their stones haven't dropped...

 

Thanks for the information, Jaeger. I have read an account in WWI where the British used a machine gun battalion's worth of Vickers to interdict a town and rained tens of thousands of rounds to deny access.

It's too bad about the boys the savages are using to fight. An American ex-Marine from Helmand told me that many enemy fighters were amateurs who were paid to shoot at his firebase for a day, like it's a temporary construction work. A good number did not survive to get their pay.

 

Um... You are wrong on so many levels, it's becoming irritating.

The crack of an accurate shot directed at you is very different from the whiz of a distant round. Veterans can tell the difference and are therefore much harder to suppress. I can't explain it, but it's true and you are welcome to ask vets. And the military absolutely discourage rifleman to use inaccurate fire to conserve ammunition and maintain the concealment one's position. US Army FM: "Suppressive fire is rapid, aimed fire." This is true of WWII as well. You are free to read SW Pacific Vet, Sapper and Marlowe's threads on their service during WWII or consult a modern field manual. The saying goes, one shot gives the enemy awareness, two direction, three location...

 

Sorry I've become an irritation. Let me tell you a little about myself; I am not now serving nor have I ever served in the military. I have never been in combat but have been downrange of gunfire. I am in my mid 40's, a firearm enthusiast & casual student of WWII.
If due to your training & military service & combat experience you feel I am wrong I can respect that. I can't respect your use of the word "irritating" as though I am wasting your time or taking up space on your forum.
As I said, if you have military combat experience I respect your opinion.
Now what are your credentials?

 

The high art of beaten zones was figured out during WW1, with the water cooled MMG's. The usage is basic maths. All weapons have a natural spread of bullets. In a fine tuned marksman rifle it is almoast nought, wheras a rapid fire machine gun will add more spread. This makes what we call a a cone of fire. Fire a burst at a target and you acheive a hit pattern like if you'd shot a shotgun.

This is highly desirable at moving targets that appear and disappear quickly.
The Bren gun was known for its phenomenal accurancy, leading veteran gunners to use very worn barrels for shorter ranges, and often blasting longer bursts to hit moving targets.

The MG 42 was very much the opposite weapon. A ferocious rate of fire makes it easy to hit mobile targets with "relative" short bursts. The rate of fire coupled with the fittings of the barrel makes the cone ideal for that purpose.

The Germans have received some critisism for going all in for a general purpose MG. But with the right training it fulfills all roles very well.

When mounting the MG-42 on a tripod and the wee optical sight it is possible to create a large beaten/dead zone.

Basically the cone of fire crates an area where there will be raining down bullets. Combining and interlocking such zones causes havoc amongst footmen and was used a lot on the east front.

The same effect was used as I mentioned in Afganistan.

It is a nice and efficient way of boxing in forces, or killing them on the move, without exposing your own men.

 

Jaeger,

It's been awhile since we heard from you. Are you still training cadets, or are you deployed at this moment?

Oldschoolr,

I am just another student of World War II myself. I do hang out with old soldiers online, some of them had experience fighting WWII, some others in current operations. To fire for the sake of firing is strongly discouraged.

Veterans told me that one learn to tell between the difference of an enemy who is spraying and praying and a marksman who has you in his sights by listening to the sould of the incoming fire. I think the physics, according to my unscientifically oriented brain, is that a dangerous close shot emmits the crack of sonic boom very loudly, while a missing round makes a whip. According to those who had been shot at, they are very distinctive even on the battlefield during a firefight and you use the information to your advantage.

Another thing is that when the question of how often they used their personal weapons: Sapper who was "from Sword Beach to Bremen" rarely fired his Bren for the lack of defined targets. Only amateurs shoot at shadows. Marlowe, a 101st Airborne paratrooper and a sharpshooter, told me S.L.A. Marshal's famous statistics that only a small precentage of soldiers in an engagement fired their weapon is largely explained by the limited ammount of ammunition supply and the lack of clear targets. SW Veteran did an immense number of close quarters combat with the Japanese. At range, when on patrol, he would not fire more than two rounds from his Thompson in semiaumatic if he must shoot.

The sign of green troops is their readiness to go to the ground at the first sound of small-arms fire or distant explosions. Veteran troops were often hard to pin down as the psychological effect of massed but inaccurate fires is missed on them. We all get the point that the machine gun is a suppressive weapon. But MG-42 did require a bit more skill from the gunners and some getting used to its quirks; I knew a rather knowledgable Yugoslav veteran who complained of extremely poor scores in his familiarization course with the MG-42 compared to the PKM.

I haven't talked about machine gun tactics indepth which is why I am speaking to Jaeger at this moment.

 

Yes, the Germans turned indirect MG fire into an art. Who else could dream of turning an MG into mini-arty? The Lafette mount is truly amazing-- how cool is Searching Fire?! I kept mine even though I've sold the MG42.

 

I think most Norwegians would be amazed to learn how much kit that has found it's way down to the basements of certain officers.

 

LOL, you are just conjecturing, right? If my trigonometry teacher had told me it could be applied to shooting... I would have been far more interested in the class! The tools the Germans developed were excellent aids but what if you lose one walking around at night? The Germans had to abandon IF training mid-war because of the need for replacements but also they were constantly falling back to their own border. Emplacing an HMG is a lot of work if you'll only be in a location for 24hrs. If the tripod does not have the optics mounted-- it was used for direct fire only.