Browning M1919 vs MG42

In my opinion, the MG42 was a waste. While it did have more firepower than any American MG (Meaning that it had a greater RPM, though the American Browning M2 had a much bigger and far more devastating round) I think it was slightly overkill. You can kill just as many enemy units in one sweep using a .30 cal browning as you could with the MG42, but the MG42 ate more ammunition and wore its barrels out much faster.

 

I do not beleive everyone shares your opinion because as you may or not know many mg42's were converted to the MG3. The sound made by the machien gun when fired was very distinct and it served kinda as a mental factor. And I beleive that the MG3 is still in use today. And I read somewhere that the M60 was develpoed from the MG42. But that is what I would consider a waste the M60.


I add picture with a Jaguar with what I beleive is an MG3 on the back of the tank.

 

If the M60 is based off the MG42, how can it be considered a waste when the MG42/MG3 is not? That is self-contradictory.

 

Something that is based off another cannot be compared on equal footing in my opinion.I do not know the technical aspects of these two machines....But the least you could do is tell us why you think that something that is based on off the MG42 that is a waste in another's opinion,do make it seem that the MG42 is a waste as well?

 

That doesn't seem to be what Panzerman is trying to say. What he's saying is, if both the MG3 and the M60 were based on the MG42, how can the MG3 be proof of the MG42's quality where the M60 is a "waste"?

 

MG3 is a popular universal machine gun. it is a modified version of the MG42. It was adoped to fire 7.62 rounds. So technically the MG-3 is pretty much the mg42. I also beleive it was designated mg42/59.









I m not saying the the m60 is a waste what i ment is if the mg42 was a waste why did it spawn off the two guns? If you look at the pictures above there is little or no visual difference between the two guns.

oh by the way i there were like 4 other pics but i copied the wrong url and i have to go get a haricut some hopfully i can repost them when i get back.

 

You might want to check your sources there guy: The MG3 rate of fire was also kicked down a notch.

The point is, the MG-42 and Browning .30 Cal did an equal job, however the .30 cal did not gorge itself on ammunition nearly as fast as the MG42. You only need to sink one bullet into someone to stop them, so why fire 20 rounds a second? And that's a conservative RPS count because I have heard that the actual MG42 ROF is somewhere in the 1500s.

And if you want to get into the whole psychological effect argument, I have read accounts of the Browning M2 causing German soldiers to act unrationaly due to the haunting, booming noise of the .50 cal round. And guess what? This gun was almost on the complete oposet end of the ROF table as the MG 42!

 

Faster firing rate ,while depleting ammo,also meant that you can sweep an area more effectively with fire.Using your same argument,why develop the submachine gun when a simple rifle bullet can kill someone too?

 

Well,we can only wait for him to clarify himself can't we?Let's not assume too much first.

 

Ok, let’s compare the Browning M1919 .30 Cal Air-cooled with the MG-42.

Browning
RPM: Sources will state anywhere from 400-500.

RPS: If we go ahead and use the 500 RPM figure, it's 8 rounds a second.

MG42
RPM: 1,200 (again, conservative as I have seen arguments about the MG42 being 1,600 RPM)

RPS: If we go ahead and use the 1,200 figure, it's 20 rounds a second.

Now ask yourself: Which one of these guns is more efficient? You can sweep almost just as well with the M1919. 8 shots will down someone, assuming they all hit. But then again, MGs are suppression weapons anyway. Then you got the MG42, a gun inhaling more than twice as much ammunition and tearing threw barrels faster than I can eat French fries.

 

Personally, I would fear a .50 cal more than any other MG. The round is so powerful that many of the places of cover that would suffice for a .30 cal MG would not protect you from .50 cal fire. Most light cover can be mowed down by a .50 cal MG.
If one round strikes you most anywhere you are "all f**ked up" (as we used to say back in the day).

 

Man,you sure eat your fries slowly. Well,Grieg,i have to agree with you there...i hate that sound when i'm playing Close Combat.haha.

Anyway Danyel,Let us assume that the 0.30cal is a better gun,but it still fulfill its duty like the MG42 right,that of a suppression weapon.A faster firing rate,in my opinion sweeps an area faster and it well depends on who's shooting don't you think?

 

Indeed.



The M60 is a controversial weapon. It is said that the mechanical parts of the M60 could break quite easily, and, since the gas mechanism was permanently attached to the gun, changing the barrel was quite difficult.

 

Exactly.

 

ah i see.

 

Why not, if they serve the same function and/or has the same performance?

What do you mean?

Its high ROF is a waste, IMO. Efficient covering fire can be achieved with a lower ROF. It also makes for decreased ammo usage and barrel wear.

 

But do they?

I mean the reason you think it's a waste besides high firing rate.

Somehow,i do not think that when one is suppressing the enemy and giving covering fire,one has to squeeze the trigger for 5 minutes.In that case,the high ROF is irrelevant then.

 

That depends on the object we are discussing. Some might even be superior . My point is, not all copies are inferior to the original product, just because they are copies.

It is a well constructed weapon, as evidenced by its "copies"... however, ROF is a determining factor with MG's. And a well constructed weapon can still be a waste.

My point was that 8 RPS was sufficient for covering fire, while making for less barrel wear and reduced ammuntion expenditure. All factors taken into consideration, this makes the .30 a better weapon, IMO.

 

Hi everyone, welcome to the split topic on MGs. Here's what Zhukov_2005 wrote, it slipped through while I was splitting the thread.

They don't. The MG42 was never truely a light machine gun, while the M60 was designed for just that role.

The MG42 fit the bill, with its high rate of fire perfect for the outnumbered Germans in the second half of the war. A gun that spits out bullets at an incredible rate of fire is more likely to hit more enemy infantry in a much shorter time and/or pin down many more. Kaiser said it, the MG42 is a suppression weapon.

Then again, the weapon was a waste, for the German military was beginning to break under enourmas supply and logistic demands. Ammunition was always short, so a weapon that fired at 1,200 rpm didn't help much.

Could that have been the MG45? I read that this weapon had a ROF at 1,800 rpm. That's insane for a LMG.

I kind of find myself agreeing that as long as the Germans could afford to fire that many bullets, they should, seeing as they were trying to fight the infamous Soviet assault tactics. On the other hand, a German equivalent to the M2 would have been even better, since that gun has much more punch to it.

 

Panzerman wrote:

It goes beyond barrel wear and ammunition expenditure my friend. The easy and cheap construction of the MG42 allowed many replacement barrels to be made. Ammunition was a problem, but machine gunners were trained to shot in short, controlled bursts, so at least some control over ammo usage was exerted.

Now, the Browning .30 cal was quite heavy and bulky, so its use was much hindered by that. It did not have the flexibility and mobility like the MG42. The MG42 could be thrown around and already shooting a storm of bullets by the time the 1919 could be set up to fire.