Evolution of the MG and modern combat?

K

Kimio

New member
So I was reading an article discussing the different tactical doctrines that various nations employed during the last world war. From my understanding, the allied approach focused more on the rifleman, with less emphasis on the machine gunners. The Wehrmacht however, put a great deal more emphasis on the role of the MG in regards to infantry doctrine and tactics, typically having twice the amount of MG's than the allied forces would have (please correct me if in wrong).

I find this intriguing, provided that what I'm reading is true. That said, I'm curious about how much changed in the US military and how we now approach infantry combat and the use of suppressive fire. How do we compare to other countries, and where do we differ?

Ultimately, I imagine the use of MG's, such as the M249 SAW and M240B is situational. I don't remember hearing a lot about Wehrmacht troops clearing houses with their MG42's and MG34's. Such things typically being reserved for more versatile and compact weapons like the MP40 if I'm not mistaken.

For those who have served as MG carriers in the military? Could you please share with is what your experiences were?
 
Essentially the Allied and Axis powers, other than Germany, used the machinegun to support the infantry squad. Germany, thanks to their development of the first practical GPMG, (the MG34, and later 42) used the infantry squad to support the machinegun.

We used the LMG (automatic rifle) as squad support. BAR,, BREN, and the Soviet Degtaryev (spelling?) primarily. Officers carried handguns, NCOs carried SMGs/rifles, and the squad carried rifles, with a BAR gunner for support.

Of course, there was a lot of deviation from the standards...

Belt fed machineguns were support weapons, like light mortars. Each squad did not have their own, but each platoon had a weapons squad, each company a weapons platoon. Generally.
 
Just now reading Max Hasting's Armageddon, the final year of the war in Germany. He's saying the Wehrmacht learned early on the Eastern Front that they could not have too many machine guns, and the Allies in the west found that a company of infantry could be outgunned by a German platoon.
 
I was a wsl(weapons squad leader) in an infantry platoon. One thing I think we did right a lot more this time was using the trucks (1151) for support by fire. The guntruck is essentially a bullet proof mobile machine gun nest. Very effective. I've known too many poor leaders who would dismount and bring less ammo, less water, leave behind a much greater asset to help maintain fire superiority and provide cover&concealment, and bring tired soldiers to the fight in the hopes of being "old school" or making sure it was known they were still light infantry.

Other than that range cards, trp's (target reference points), using sustainable or cyclic rates of fire, changing barrels, fpl (final protective line), intersecting fields of fire, that's all really basic and effective things that have been around for a long time. I've heard said that three 240b's are effective for around 30% of a platoons firepower. That's including the 2 249s per squad. Not sure if I answered any questions or not but those were my experiences.
 
You might try to find a copy of "The Social History of the Machine Gun " ,John Ellis , 1975. John Hopkins University Press , Baltimore ISBN 0-8018-3358-2

The Germans learned from use in Africa and India and used it in Europe. Other forces thought that Europeans were different so they didn't use things they learned earlier.
Very interesting book..
 
a company of infantry could be outgunned by a German platoon.
Click to expand...

Until, that is, the German platoon ran out of belted ammo.

Both the MG34 and the MG42 had a high cyclic rate and there is a limit to how many boxes of belted 8mm ammo the rest of the soldiers could carry.

Of course, they didn't have to carry water, as did the gunners for Vickers or Browning 1917 machine guns.

Bart Noir
 
According to some Germans who were there, the training and use of the MG42 was very strict .Short bursts only !!
 
It's interesting to think that our tactics for infantrymen went from largely bolt-action rifles to semi-automatics to submachine guns with high cyclic rates and has settled back down largely to semi-automatics. We have the capability to far outshoot, in terms of pure lead downrange, most of what was available in the past. It seems it is very rarely used, though. Most of our rifles are used in semi-automatic mode. Even the development of the M27 was because of a call for a more rifle-like support weapon. Lighter, more accurate, and harder to visually identify as an MG gunner, even if that means sacrificing overall fire volume.

There's a quote out there by a major name in the military. Something to the effect of "When you put a lot of bullets towards the enemy, they take cover and shoot back. When you start getting hits with those bullets, they retreat".

The MG and LMG, while still seeing use in the form of an M249/M240, seems to be slowly transferring over to the armored vehicle role now.

All of this from a civilian point of view, so I could be wrong about some things.
 
Let me start out by saying I just completed infantry OSUT about 3 months ago so I'm a new and somewhat inexperienced soldier, but I think I can still offer a little to this. I'm currently a rifleman, but my platoon is doing a lot of changing, which will have me put in weapons squad soon (most likely as an assistant gunner, but it's still possible i'll be given a 240), either way I'm going to have to be an expert with the 240. From what I've learned so far, the 240 is a HUGE asset on the battlefield. When you need heavy suppressive fire, you rely on the 240 gunners. On the modern battlefield a lot of emphasis and responsibility is placed on the 240 gunners, not having them would be a big loss. The 249 saw is more in between a MG and a rifle, it does provide a lot of firepower, however is inferior to the 240 in most cases. However it excels at providing the heavy firepower needed at closer ranges where the 240 would be too big and a little less practical to use (like in a building). This is how things are in a light infantry unit, or mountain infantry in my case, where we seldom use vehicles. It does however seem like mechanized infantry units are becoming more common.
 
At the beginning of the war I think there were a number of different ideas about how to win on the battlefield.
By the end of the war it seems everyone wanted as many machine guns as they could get their hands on.
 
You still have to have the training and discipline .In Viet Nam many ran out of ammo -full auto and zip you're out with little hit probability. That's why they went to the 3 round burst.
Same with the police -a 14 round pistol and the hit probability went down to no more than 10 %.Community relations was wiped out with poor shooting problems ,but they didn't want to spend the time and money for training !
 
The main takeaway from WWII, was that the West was so impressed by the MG42, that the entire free world endeavored to turn every soldier into a light machine gunner. That's why we ended up with select fire FALs, G3s, and M14s. For whatever reason, the Russians were more enamored with the assault-rifle concept, probably due to their already having a great LMG (DP28/DPM/RP46/RPD) and their enormous success with submachine guns. The Assault Rifle wasn't terribly far removed in size, weight, or use from their heavy steel burp guns, but fired a much more powerful and capable round while being nearly as controllable.

Once the Allies developed a great universal light MG of their own, they rapidly came to the same conclusion as the Russians ;)

TCB
 
From my understanding, the allied approach focused more on the rifleman, with less emphasis on the machine gunners.
Click to expand...

That's understandable when you consider that the Germans were defending and the Allies were assaulting. It's not that easy to maneuver crew served weapons in the assault.

In the assault, its not just the rifle but the Squad Automatic Weapons. In WWI, we didn't have SAWs, Our troops were issued the French Chauchat, which was a machine rifle, but it didn't really catch on with our troops. The Chauchat was a long recoil type action as opposed to gas operated, and was prone malfunctions. Several spare parts were required to be carried by the gunner.

Regardless, any machine rifle (or SAW), not withstanding being an asset to the rifle squad was no match for the entrenched crew served MG's across no man's land. So WWI ended up being a war of attrition. Who had the most troops and national resources won. That being the reason that the Russian Collapse on the Eastern Front gave the advantage to the Germans, who lost that advantage when the US entered the war.

WWII was a different war, MGs didn't play the part they did in WWI, yes they were effective, but WWII was more of a war of maneuver as oppose to being static like WWI.

The US, understanding the need for SAWs, and their experience with the Chauchat, turned to Browning for the BAR, which was quite effective. Plus the fact that the fire power of the Garand assisted the BAR in fire power, allowing infantry troops to maneuver against stagnate MG positions.

Also you had the mech. infantry and armor you didn't have in WWI, which negated the abilities of the MG.

The US tried to replace the BAR and M1 with the M14 and E14E1. Good ideal but the M14E1 was too light and too hard to control in full auto. At the Same time the M-60 was adopted. It was a GP machine gun, meaning it could be used as an SAW and Crew Served MG. It was basically a copy of the German M42 family of Machine guns.

I was a machine gunner a good deal of time as an Infantryman with the 2/502IN 101st in the RVN. It was an effective SAW, and also in fixed positions it worked with as a Med MG, while set on it bipod. However most of the MG use in that war was with the '60 being used as a SAW.

The problem as I saw it, in Vietnam was the use of the Bipods on the M-60. Even set on the lowest position they tended to shoot high. The reason being, is soldiers tend to want to get low when getting shot at, so the gunners would get down behind the gun as low as possible meaning they would be shooting over the Indians who they are tying to engage.

Most of the firefights were combatants in one wood line shooting at combatants in another wood line. I too liked to get as low as possible but I eliminated the use of the bipod and rested the gun on its pistol grip. The gun was level and fired about 6 inches above the ground instead of 3-6 feet,(depend on the range) of the same gun using the bipods.

After my tour in the RA, I joined the Alaska NG, we had 5 BN, three of which were Alaskan Natives. They were issued MGs but had little real training of their use. I was selected to do a series of Machine Gun schools.

During this period based on experiences from Vietnam (we always train for the next war with the tactics we used in the last war), most Machine gun training was using the '60 as a SAW and not a medium Machine gun. I found very few people (even combat infantry vets) who understood the T&E Mech. and use of the Tri-Pod. You asked some one about MILs and they eyes glassed over.

I bet today you'll find the same thing about MG'ers in the rifle companies now.

Anyway, I divided the MG schools into two sections, the Med Machine gun and the SAW. If property trained then both aspects of Machine gun use can cover both the tactics of WWI and WWII and everything in between.

MGs are great in the assault, but they are quite useful in covering the assault troops from a fix position, much like snipers were used in Iraq.

Its an art, it requires knowing the trajectory of the MG rounds to determine safe zones. I wrote a paper about this a while back, it the latest version is floating around the internet (and magazines) now.

When the SAWs we have now first came out, the only ammo we had was the M193, or that's all we had when we first started getting the SAWs in the AK NG, but now they have better ammo witch extends the range and effectiveness of the system. I believe replacing he 62 gr. Ball with the 77 Gr. bullets would inprove it much more, but we'll see what the future brings.

I learned in Vietnam that the lighter the ammo, the more you carry, the more you carry the more firepower you put out, and that's what infantry is about now, Firepower.

Machines guns have many uses, but one gun doesn't always fit every occasion. The biggest problem with Machine Guns is there is no real training.

When was the last time someone taught Indirect fire with a Machine Gun in infantry schools?
 
From my understanding, the allied approach focused more on the rifleman, with less emphasis on the machine gunners.
Click to expand...

The British had the rifle squad support the Bren gunner. Every man in the squad carried spare 31 round Bren magazines in those "Utility pouches" & their own rifle ammo in bandoliers.

There was still an army training exercise in use in the late 60's where the MG would knock down a heavy steel plate, which required several hits to topple. Once the plate fell the riflemen would engage targets hidden behind it. The Light or "squad" MG was integrated well, but heavy MGs were more of a "fire support" type of employment, probably because they were almost crew served with the heavy water cooled Vickers.

So I'm not sure how you can say the allies relied on the rifleman more. It was much more of a combined effort than that.
 
the Russians were more enamored with the assault-rifle concept, probably due to ....
Click to expand...

Don't you think it had something to do with being the first army to get shot at with the world's first real assault rifles? The early model Sturmgewehr guns were shooting at Soviets in 1943.

kraigwy, another fine post from you! But I disagree a bit in saying the M60 was a copy of the MG42. I think you meant to say that it was a copy of the "concept" of the MG42.

Although, the feed mechanism on the M60 was pretty much a copy from the MG42, wasn't it?

Much of the rest of the M60 was based on the FG42 select fire Nazi paratrooper rifle. See this forum link for a picture of a US Army test weapon which was basically an FG42 with the MG42 belt feed scabbed onto the left side :eek:. This led to the M60.

Before the M60 there was...

Bart Noir
 
Kraigwy your post brought back a lot of memories and had a lot of truth in it. I remember drilling rates of fire, barrel changes and the whole nine into my guys heads but that T&E device just was a hard one to make stick. Most guys got it but under pressure needed reminding. On the plus side you're right, most don't get the big picture in infantry school but at the units we sure tried hard. . At least I know I did.

I really sat down and thought about this last night. Majority of the time on TFL stuff is usually better answered by more qualified people so I try not to chime in. MGs were something I really felt if I was ever proficient at anything I was with them so here goes.

I don't know diddly about WW2 compared to most but when I have the time I try learn. From what I gather it was fought in a variety off terrains and a lot of it was in trenches. Some urban some others. A MG in an entrenched position and a mobile crew served MG is two very different things.

Secondly Urban combat compared to woodland/forests, trenches are different things. You're always in an open or linear danger area it seems like, but line of sight is also great usually. Especially from a rooftop. I couldn't hit a cow in the tit with a tin cup at 1000m with a rifle of any kind. ..period. Best believe though if I'm on a 240b and I start walking them in you better move. Unfortunately in recent wars I never heard the term backstop. PID stood for probably in that direction. ..unfortunate. Know better now but that doesn't account for much.

Thirdly when using an MG the type of enemy has changed. Vietnam, Korea, all of it force on force (for the most part I believe. ) The MG especially equipped with a m145 can be precise but for the most part is a broadsword. Mass casualty producing weapon. It was very effective in my wars, but force on force and fighting small bands of insurgents with mainly IED attacks it can become less effective than in a force on force environment. I know someone is gonna say, "Well what about here in Afghanistan or there in WW2". I'm not a historian or a bean counter that's just MY experiences.

Overall I'm truly proud to have served as a MG man, and consider myself fortunate to have returned. That being said I recognize and tip my hat to the men of prior wars that fought force on force in a variety of environments. I always try to be objective and I have no problem saying, IN MY EYES, what I did was NOT greater to or equal than what they did. If you look at transportation of the MG alone, much less environment/enemy. I am truly honored to be here and to have done the things I do everyday because of them. On this website we hear from a lot of "opperators" and experts, and their opinions. .. Just don't forget Joe Snuffy, and his buddy Murph who humped a Browning, tripod, spare barrel and ammo up countless mountains for us....it was slightly heavier than a hunting rifle. .
 
a copy of the "concept" of the MG42.
Click to expand...

This is closer to the reality. Although it is often said the M60 was based on the MG42, it wasn't. The did take the feed cover from the MG42 (its almost an exact copy) and used the concept of stampings for non critical parts, but that's where it ends. The bolt, and the gas system are nothing like the MG42. I have heard they were taken from the Lewis gun, and another I cannot now recall, as base designs.

Essentially the M60 was created by taking the "best" features of some other guns, and combining them in one gun. Badly. (my opinion)

WWII was fought in literally every terrain found on, above, or under the earth. The first real ballistic missile (German V2) even touched on space. And there was combat underground as well, in tunnels and sewers. Think of a place humans on earth can reach, and something in WWII went there. (leave the moon out of it).

Most nations infantry squads were supported by automatic fire, in one form or another. Light machine gun (magazine fed) were often included in the squad, the BAR, the BREN, the Lewis gun, were the US and British standards. Each nation had something in that role.

The Germans, didn't, not exactly, they used a belt fed for that. The MG 34 became the first really successful General Purpose machinegun. In the role of a LMG it was widely used in the assault, there was a "drum" that held a 75rnd belt, making it much easier to maneuver than a regular belt fed with its belt flapping as you move.

On a tripod, with a T&E mechanism and an optic sight, it filled the role of heavy machine gun. And while not quite as good in either role as the guns purpose designed for one of those roles, it served more than adequately well.

They kept that ability with the MG42, and added a gun that was cheaper and easier to make, and had a higher rate of fire, as well as an improved barrel change system.

Today, every infantryman carries what is essentially a light machine gun. That's what assault rifles are, essentially. Bridging the gap between submachine guns (pistol calibers) and machineguns (rifle calibers).

Because of this, the belt fed MG has moved back to the support role again, as a medium/heavy gun, usually mounted.

The SAW is a LMG, even when belt fed, using the smaller intermediate cartridge, the same as the current infantry rifles.

Tactics change, evolving based on what you have, and what you can do with it, where you are, and what the enemy has, and what they are doing with it.
 
44amp, my post specifically points out which weapons the M60 was developed from. I get the impression you did not follow the link...

Bart Noir
 
44, you were actually correct in mentioning the Lewis gun, since the Germans used the basic operating system (gas and bolt carrier and bolt) of the Lewis, when the FG42 was designed. Of course, they did not use the coiled “watch spring” under the receiver that gives the Lewis a distinctive shape.

The US designers of the M60 used the FG42 basic operating system as I said above. But they did not make the M60 fire semi-auto from a closed bolt, which is a feature of the FG42.

Still, it is true that however odd the path, the Lewis helped lead to the M60.

Bart Noir
 
Always though the Soviets became enamored of the assault rifle because it gave their troops more range and punch than the PPSh and PPS submachine guns most of them carried. Also the somewhat more compact design used less raw material and fit inside APCs better.
In some of my readings on the ETO I noted units found they needed twice as many automatic weapons as allowed by the TO&E.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top