Who had the best machine guns? America or the Nazis - MOVIE
- Thread starter Amsdorf
- Start date
Most of the leaders of WWII in Europe and America had been through WWI, where the machine gun had dominated the battlefield. Yet the development of machine guns went in different directions in different places. THe MG34 and MG42 were only one countries idea of the best and there is no doubt they influenced later developments, especially the MG42. They both were produced at the same time, by the way, because the MG34 worked better in some applications.
Although the Germans used similiar light machine guns before the MG34 was adopted, they basically started from scratch because of their weapons restrictions. Everyone else carried on with the same heavy machine gun they had in the Great War, although they all also adopted a light machine gun. The thing the Germans did that was different was to use the same gun for both a heavy and a light role, whether or not it had any real advantage. However, they apparently believed in a higher rate of fire and the 7.62NATO machine gun as made in West Germany was advertisied with that as a desirable feature. But good fire discipline is necessary.
One of the disadvantages of the Browning and even the later FN machine guns, I've been told, is the necessity of setting headspace. I don't think that's required on the MG42. It is a small thing but both my father and my son mentioned it, so it must be a source of minor irritation to the user.
The MG42 was the inspiration for the M60 but from what I've read, more of the design features came from other weapons. Anyway, it always seemed to me that the designers failed in some respects. For instance, it doesn't so much have a quick change barrel as it seems to be a take-down model. At least on the ones in use when I was in (and we only had two), the bipod was attached to the barrel.
One could hardly say the MG42 made anything else obsolete and most squad automatics and light machine guns in use during WWII were still in use 30 years later and even later for some guns. Of course, some armies seem to skip generations of arms design. In the Swedish army, the M1903 FN in 9mm Browning Long was only finally replaced by the--wait for it--Glock. Technically, it was supposed to have been replaced by another pistol but it didn't seem to have the service life that it should have.
Although the Germans used similiar light machine guns before the MG34 was adopted, they basically started from scratch because of their weapons restrictions. Everyone else carried on with the same heavy machine gun they had in the Great War, although they all also adopted a light machine gun. The thing the Germans did that was different was to use the same gun for both a heavy and a light role, whether or not it had any real advantage. However, they apparently believed in a higher rate of fire and the 7.62NATO machine gun as made in West Germany was advertisied with that as a desirable feature. But good fire discipline is necessary.
One of the disadvantages of the Browning and even the later FN machine guns, I've been told, is the necessity of setting headspace. I don't think that's required on the MG42. It is a small thing but both my father and my son mentioned it, so it must be a source of minor irritation to the user.
The MG42 was the inspiration for the M60 but from what I've read, more of the design features came from other weapons. Anyway, it always seemed to me that the designers failed in some respects. For instance, it doesn't so much have a quick change barrel as it seems to be a take-down model. At least on the ones in use when I was in (and we only had two), the bipod was attached to the barrel.
One could hardly say the MG42 made anything else obsolete and most squad automatics and light machine guns in use during WWII were still in use 30 years later and even later for some guns. Of course, some armies seem to skip generations of arms design. In the Swedish army, the M1903 FN in 9mm Browning Long was only finally replaced by the--wait for it--Glock. Technically, it was supposed to have been replaced by another pistol but it didn't seem to have the service life that it should have.
Strafer Gott
New member
Considering the Army Air Corps contribution in WWII, I'd consider the M2
was the machine gun that one the war. Putting .50 cal in aircraft was absolutely brilliant. You can kill anything with a .50 cal. And we still do.
was the machine gun that one the war. Putting .50 cal in aircraft was absolutely brilliant. You can kill anything with a .50 cal. And we still do.
zincwarrior
New member
What, no love for the venerable BAR?
zincwarrior
New member
These things are all true. As other firearms have been brought besides the 1919 and MG42 I place it here as well as it filled a major role with the US forces, which relied less on the 1919.
Additionally I would add in the Bren Gun (just because its cool), and the Johnson .30 used primarily by the Marines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_machine_gun
Additionally I would add in the Bren Gun (just because its cool), and the Johnson .30 used primarily by the Marines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_machine_gun
As far as ground attack the P-38 with four .50 cals and a 20mm cannon, was imho a better platform. Mainly because all the guns were centrally placed so convergence of fire wasn't as important.
That is of the fighters, the various small bombers including a B-25 with a 75mm gun probably hit harder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-26_Marauder
Once rockets became practical in mid 1945 the machine guns and auto cannons took a second place in ground attack.
Everybody has their favorites...
But even though they often filled the same roles in combat, design philosophies are very different, as one might expect considering the near quarter century between the designs of the two guns.
The 1919 Browning is just the lightened, air cooled version of the 1917 water cooled gun. There are some minor differences, but basically its the same gun. And like ALL military small arms designed before (and during WWI) they were built like civilian guns in the fact that they were intended to be durable.
WWI changed everyone's thinking about combat, being the first war where the machine gun ruled the battlefield. Heavy built, built to last. The Maxim gun, was the main weapon, and used by both the English and the Germans.
By the closing years of WWI, some lessons had been learned, and the Browning has improved features over the earlier WW I machineguns. But there is only so much that can be done with a design, without making it into a completely different gun. We used the Browning .30 in WWII, and used it A LOT, because it was what we had, and were making.
Germany, on the other hand, as has been said, basically had to start from scratch when they rearmed. And they had a different tactical doctrine than we did. The MG 34 is a masterpiece of design, but it is also made more in the traditional manner than later arms. It was the pressure of wartime production requirements, and some lessons learned that led to the MG 42. Propaganda aside, the Nazi war machine was nearly always on the brink of being critically short of small arms, and used captured weapons, and captured weapons factories extensively to supplement the German produced arms pool.
Note that they contined to build Lugers (p.08) until 1942, when it finally became clear that cost (in terms of skilled labor time) could be better used making other arms. The MG 42 was the first hugely sucessful design that took into account the fact that the battlefield life of small arms is not very long, and its a waste to make them "the old fashioned way".
So, stampings were used for a fair part of the gun. Cheaper in cost, and much cheaper in terms of production time. For us, there was no pressing need to replace or supplement the Browning .30, because when we got going, our production capacity dwarfed all the other combatant nations. Only the Soviet Union came close to matching us in arms, and they were able to do it in some areas only because supplies of materiel from the US (Lend Lease) meant they could concentrate production on arms. The Soviets didn't build as many trucks as they needed (or used), for example because we sent them thousands of Studebakers. The capacity they would have needed to use to build trucks could instead make tanks.
We also had an unsurmountable advantage in that our supplies of raw materials were secure and nobody was bombing our factories.
The Germans built a great gun in the MG 42, but they needed to build a gun like that. The lessons of WWII meant that the Browning .30 was a luxury car, and what modern war needed was an economy car, and lots of them. When we did get around to replacing the Browning .30, we went with a gun that did borrow (or directly copy) many of the features of the MG42. The M60 was better suited for modern war, but it was NOT a better gun than the Browning. In fact as a fine firearm, the m60 was a piece of crap, with many flaws and faults. ITs true we took lots of its design from the MG42, but we didn't do it right. Many of those flaws were eventually corrected, but it took considerable time, and its still "the pig".
But even though they often filled the same roles in combat, design philosophies are very different, as one might expect considering the near quarter century between the designs of the two guns.
The 1919 Browning is just the lightened, air cooled version of the 1917 water cooled gun. There are some minor differences, but basically its the same gun. And like ALL military small arms designed before (and during WWI) they were built like civilian guns in the fact that they were intended to be durable.
WWI changed everyone's thinking about combat, being the first war where the machine gun ruled the battlefield. Heavy built, built to last. The Maxim gun, was the main weapon, and used by both the English and the Germans.
By the closing years of WWI, some lessons had been learned, and the Browning has improved features over the earlier WW I machineguns. But there is only so much that can be done with a design, without making it into a completely different gun. We used the Browning .30 in WWII, and used it A LOT, because it was what we had, and were making.
Germany, on the other hand, as has been said, basically had to start from scratch when they rearmed. And they had a different tactical doctrine than we did. The MG 34 is a masterpiece of design, but it is also made more in the traditional manner than later arms. It was the pressure of wartime production requirements, and some lessons learned that led to the MG 42. Propaganda aside, the Nazi war machine was nearly always on the brink of being critically short of small arms, and used captured weapons, and captured weapons factories extensively to supplement the German produced arms pool.
Note that they contined to build Lugers (p.08) until 1942, when it finally became clear that cost (in terms of skilled labor time) could be better used making other arms. The MG 42 was the first hugely sucessful design that took into account the fact that the battlefield life of small arms is not very long, and its a waste to make them "the old fashioned way".
So, stampings were used for a fair part of the gun. Cheaper in cost, and much cheaper in terms of production time. For us, there was no pressing need to replace or supplement the Browning .30, because when we got going, our production capacity dwarfed all the other combatant nations. Only the Soviet Union came close to matching us in arms, and they were able to do it in some areas only because supplies of materiel from the US (Lend Lease) meant they could concentrate production on arms. The Soviets didn't build as many trucks as they needed (or used), for example because we sent them thousands of Studebakers. The capacity they would have needed to use to build trucks could instead make tanks.
We also had an unsurmountable advantage in that our supplies of raw materials were secure and nobody was bombing our factories.
The Germans built a great gun in the MG 42, but they needed to build a gun like that. The lessons of WWII meant that the Browning .30 was a luxury car, and what modern war needed was an economy car, and lots of them. When we did get around to replacing the Browning .30, we went with a gun that did borrow (or directly copy) many of the features of the MG42. The M60 was better suited for modern war, but it was NOT a better gun than the Browning. In fact as a fine firearm, the m60 was a piece of crap, with many flaws and faults. ITs true we took lots of its design from the MG42, but we didn't do it right. Many of those flaws were eventually corrected, but it took considerable time, and its still "the pig".
I think the biggest ways the MG34 and the MG42 were different from their predecessors in German service at least was that they were lighter and that they had quick change barrels. The older water cooled machine guns, which did have some advantages, were simply too heavy and difficult to move around. They needed a whole squad to employ. Everyone has fairly similiar general purpose machine guns now but apparently a quick change barrel is not so important as it was considered then. Of course with the high rate of fire of an MG42, maybe it needed it more than other guns.
Obviously the MG42 was a redesign of the MG34 and the MG42 was obviously the inspiration for the M60, though everything I've read said that some design features actually came from other weapons. It's interesting to consider that the replacement for the M60 is actually an older design that was introduced either at the same time or a little earlier.
Obviously the MG42 was a redesign of the MG34 and the MG42 was obviously the inspiration for the M60, though everything I've read said that some design features actually came from other weapons. It's interesting to consider that the replacement for the M60 is actually an older design that was introduced either at the same time or a little earlier.
The M60 "borrowed" design features from the MG 42 (notably the feed cover mechanism and the extensive use of stampings), the Lewis gun (bolt group), and I believe the BREN gun (barrel latch).
Touted as a wonder weapon, the only thing it did really well was be lighter than previous guns, at 23.5lbs. The feed system (in the cover) was nearly an exact copy of the MG 42's, and worked pretty well, however, the feed tray itself was crap, being too thin (and a stamping), which was prone to crack and the rivets fastening the hanger constantly came loose.
The bolt group wasn't bad, but the designers choose poor angles for the cam surfaces between the bolt and op rod, resulting in the gun actually chewing up the op rod during operation. Can't tell you how many op rods I stoned to keep them running for a while, but it was more than a few.
Also, there was no secondary sear, so that when the trigger was released, the notch on the op rod would slam into the sear (and the op rod would also ride on the top of the sear as it worked, if the trigger wasn't held back enough) resulting in rapid wear of the rod, and the sear, which eventually would lead to a run away gun.
And, instead of working smoothly like the MG 42, the M60 was very jerky when feeding, the vibration was bad enough to overcome the spring detents and allowing the end caps of the gas cylinder to virbate loose. We wound up using lacing wire to keep them on, and that meant that the wire had to be cut, in order to disassemble the gas cylinder to clean it, and new lacing wire installed afterwards.'
Other flaws in the execution of the design were that the carry handle was on the gun (forearm) NOT the barrel, (unlike the Bren) so one needed the asbestos mitten (provided) in order to change a hot barrel without serious burns.
AND, the bipod was mounted on the barrel, not the gun, meaning each barrel assembly was bulkier, heavier, and more expensive than it needed to be, because every spare barrel also had its own bipod attached!
AND...the trigger group was held to the reciever by a single solid pin. The pin was retained by a leaf spring, which could vibrate off, or be brushed off, and was easily installed upside down, which meant it would remove itself due to gravity somtimes. And when it did, the pin was easly pushed, or vibrated out, letting the entire trigger group fall off the gun! If this happened with a belt loaded and the bolt back, the gun runs away and keeps firing until somthing jams the belt or it runs out of ammo!
All in all, the original M60 design was a fabulous gun, if you were a manufacturer interested in selling as many spare parts to Uncle Sam as you could. If you were the troops using it, at best, it was adeqate, and seldom was it at its best.
A fine example of a gun designed by a committee, taking the good features from some other guns, and putting them together in the worst possible way.
And yes, I worked on them....a lot.
I'd have to go look it up, but I don't think its correct to call the MG 42 a redesign of the MG34. The bolt groups are quite different. While there are many visual similarities overall, they are mechanically quite different at the heart of the gun. IIRC, the MG42 uses a variation of the roller lock system (actually a delayed blowback, but without the fluted chamber found in the H&K version), while the MG 34 uses rotating bolt locking lugs (might be wrong, but that what I remember. After I look it up, if I'm wrong, I'll apologize.
)
Touted as a wonder weapon, the only thing it did really well was be lighter than previous guns, at 23.5lbs. The feed system (in the cover) was nearly an exact copy of the MG 42's, and worked pretty well, however, the feed tray itself was crap, being too thin (and a stamping), which was prone to crack and the rivets fastening the hanger constantly came loose.
The bolt group wasn't bad, but the designers choose poor angles for the cam surfaces between the bolt and op rod, resulting in the gun actually chewing up the op rod during operation. Can't tell you how many op rods I stoned to keep them running for a while, but it was more than a few.
Also, there was no secondary sear, so that when the trigger was released, the notch on the op rod would slam into the sear (and the op rod would also ride on the top of the sear as it worked, if the trigger wasn't held back enough) resulting in rapid wear of the rod, and the sear, which eventually would lead to a run away gun.
And, instead of working smoothly like the MG 42, the M60 was very jerky when feeding, the vibration was bad enough to overcome the spring detents and allowing the end caps of the gas cylinder to virbate loose. We wound up using lacing wire to keep them on, and that meant that the wire had to be cut, in order to disassemble the gas cylinder to clean it, and new lacing wire installed afterwards.'
Other flaws in the execution of the design were that the carry handle was on the gun (forearm) NOT the barrel, (unlike the Bren) so one needed the asbestos mitten (provided) in order to change a hot barrel without serious burns.
AND, the bipod was mounted on the barrel, not the gun, meaning each barrel assembly was bulkier, heavier, and more expensive than it needed to be, because every spare barrel also had its own bipod attached!
AND...the trigger group was held to the reciever by a single solid pin. The pin was retained by a leaf spring, which could vibrate off, or be brushed off, and was easily installed upside down, which meant it would remove itself due to gravity somtimes. And when it did, the pin was easly pushed, or vibrated out, letting the entire trigger group fall off the gun! If this happened with a belt loaded and the bolt back, the gun runs away and keeps firing until somthing jams the belt or it runs out of ammo!
All in all, the original M60 design was a fabulous gun, if you were a manufacturer interested in selling as many spare parts to Uncle Sam as you could. If you were the troops using it, at best, it was adeqate, and seldom was it at its best.
A fine example of a gun designed by a committee, taking the good features from some other guns, and putting them together in the worst possible way.
And yes, I worked on them....a lot.
I'd have to go look it up, but I don't think its correct to call the MG 42 a redesign of the MG34. The bolt groups are quite different. While there are many visual similarities overall, they are mechanically quite different at the heart of the gun. IIRC, the MG42 uses a variation of the roller lock system (actually a delayed blowback, but without the fluted chamber found in the H&K version), while the MG 34 uses rotating bolt locking lugs (might be wrong, but that what I remember. After I look it up, if I'm wrong, I'll apologize.
)It wasn't only firepower, it was survivability of the P-47. It could take a lot of abuse from ground fire and still keep going. The big radial was reliable, and could keep running, even after some critical hits. The P-51's engine was liquid cooled. One hit to the radiator, and it was toast.
Someone else mentioned the P-38 which was also good a the ground attack role. It had TWO engines, so if one got it, the other could still get you home. Again, survivability was important. Doesn't hurt to have a 20MM either.
BTW, it can be argued the P-51 was a better air to air fighter than the P-47. It was generally considered the best piston fighter of WWII.
If you talk about armament configuration the Douglas A26 was far better suited and had a far longer life in service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-26_Invader
The MG42 gets allot of praise for its design as it should it is still used today but one that is overlooked is Ma Duece aka M2 .50 it was mentioned a few times but if you want to talk about dependability and reliability and firepower there is nothing that comes close you can take her faults in being heavy all you want but the MG42 had her faults as well the combat vets that have heard the God awful sound of the 42 firing knew that the machine gun pit would run out of ammo due to her high rate of fire. Regardless a great design still used today in the 240 variants that we currently use today. The M2 however is still used as well with very little if any modification to the original design. She is one of the ages, proof that John Browning is still the king. As for the BAR not being mentioned and even though it is classified as a machine gun but as a Automatic Rifle name says one thing the operation of it says machine gun just like the Thompson the Grease Gun, MP40, PPsH 43 they are not belt fed like the 1919, or the MG42 but it does not make them anything less they are still machine guns. The M2 is still the king for range, firepower, lethality, dependability she covers all the bases. The M2 is to the machine gun world as what George Strait is to country they are still the King.
MA Duece....
To my mind, the undesiputed king of machine guns, and a significant factor in US success on the battlefield in WW II, and ever since.
However, the M2 is a heavy machinegun. Its in a whole different class from the 1919 Browning and the MG 42. Now, while the Germans did use the MG 42 as both the light and heavy machinegun roles, the gun is not a heavy machinegun. It is best described as a GPMG, a general purpose machinegun.
And that is something the M2 definately is not. IN infantry configuration, the M2 reciever alone weighs 84lbs! The barrel is another 23, and the tripod about 65lbs. Considering each round of .50BMG fires a bullet that weighs about 6 times that of a .30-06, and at a slightly higher speed, all that weight is needed! But you pay a price in mobility. Weight vs mobility is why ground mount use of the M2 is rare. We mounted Ma Deuce on every kind of vehicle capable of taking it, on the ground, and in the air, for mobility.
True the BAR, Thompson, Sten, PPSH, MP40 etc are legally machine guns. SO is the M16. IF it fires full auto, then legally its a machinegun, be it tripod mounded belt fed, rifle, carbine or pistol.
That's how the ATF and the law define it. However, military defintions (and the terms in common use by civilians discussing these arms) are a bit different. Automatic rifle, light MG, Submachinegun, and assault rifle are better descriptors of the arms, by both their design and tactical use.
To my mind, the undesiputed king of machine guns, and a significant factor in US success on the battlefield in WW II, and ever since.
However, the M2 is a heavy machinegun. Its in a whole different class from the 1919 Browning and the MG 42. Now, while the Germans did use the MG 42 as both the light and heavy machinegun roles, the gun is not a heavy machinegun. It is best described as a GPMG, a general purpose machinegun.
And that is something the M2 definately is not. IN infantry configuration, the M2 reciever alone weighs 84lbs! The barrel is another 23, and the tripod about 65lbs. Considering each round of .50BMG fires a bullet that weighs about 6 times that of a .30-06, and at a slightly higher speed, all that weight is needed! But you pay a price in mobility. Weight vs mobility is why ground mount use of the M2 is rare. We mounted Ma Deuce on every kind of vehicle capable of taking it, on the ground, and in the air, for mobility.
True the BAR, Thompson, Sten, PPSH, MP40 etc are legally machine guns. SO is the M16. IF it fires full auto, then legally its a machinegun, be it tripod mounded belt fed, rifle, carbine or pistol.
That's how the ATF and the law define it. However, military defintions (and the terms in common use by civilians discussing these arms) are a bit different. Automatic rifle, light MG, Submachinegun, and assault rifle are better descriptors of the arms, by both their design and tactical use.
Cost of Production
Came across some other comparisons for the 1919s & Mg 34 & mg 42
The 1919a4 in 1940 cost the US over $650 each ($9993.52 US$ value today)
By 1945 the cost of manufacture was reduced to $60 ($718.96 US$ value today)
The mg34 cost 150 man hours & 500 Reichmarks to make or $119 US$ ($1917.01 US$ value today)
The mg42 cost 75 man hours & 250 Reichmarks to make or $59.50 US$ ($712.97 US$ value today)
Came across some other comparisons for the 1919s & Mg 34 & mg 42
The 1919a4 in 1940 cost the US over $650 each ($9993.52 US$ value today)
By 1945 the cost of manufacture was reduced to $60 ($718.96 US$ value today)
The mg34 cost 150 man hours & 500 Reichmarks to make or $119 US$ ($1917.01 US$ value today)
The mg42 cost 75 man hours & 250 Reichmarks to make or $59.50 US$ ($712.97 US$ value today)
bamaranger
New member
more video
There is/was a youtube video taken with a camera on the berm, looking back at the MG42 while the gun dumped a belt into the berm! Pretty amazing.
The MG42 was likely the best MG of the war. Portable, high rate of fire, and replaceable barrel. Keeping the thing fed would be another matter.
There is/was a youtube video taken with a camera on the berm, looking back at the MG42 while the gun dumped a belt into the berm! Pretty amazing.
The MG42 was likely the best MG of the war. Portable, high rate of fire, and replaceable barrel. Keeping the thing fed would be another matter.