MG42- Buzz worse than its Bite?

I do think the MG42 was probably the best designed MG of WWII, but I think the big thing about the MG42 is the fact that since most of the time you will be firing in short bursts, it begs to ask did it really put out that much more rounds per minute than the allied guns did? There is a difference between maximum rate of fire and sustained rate of fire and I suspect that the MG42s sustained rate of fire was not much higher than that of allied guns. Still without a doubt in situations where you needed large volumes of fire the MG42 would heavily outperform contemporary allied guns.

 

17 countries still use the mg3 and it is still the most widly used machine gun to date. I also have actual footage of german soldies doing 1 to 2 round burst with a 42.

 

With good men behind the gun it doesn't matter if you fire 3 sec and wait 7 sec or shoot 5 sec and wait 5 sec same ammo usage.
But the first gun would kill faster if it's needed and a higher hit chance because it's harder to dodge 20 bullets than 10.

 

How much harder?

 

Twice as hard, I am an avid mg42 shooter and it is no problem getting 1 to 2 round burst out of the gun and if you want to diable a vehicle it can be done in about 1/2 a second which leaves the other 1/2 second to shoot the guys getting out of the pasengers side.

 

Perhaps that is true but have you ever been on the receiving end of one?
Quantity of bullets does not guarantee success.

 

That's why knowledge of the weapon's cone of fire and beaten zone are crucial.

 

Putting it that way Tomcat I would much rather have some one shooting at me with a 1919 than a 42.

 

That is an incredibly silly thing to say. No, I will rephrase that. It is an astoundingly asinine statement. Who the hell in his right mind would feel safer at the receiving end of one type of machine gun over another? With a good gunner behind the trigger both will kill you dead. Even a Bren or BAR will kill you dead. Heck, a stray bullet from a pistol will kill you dead.

 

If it shoots 2 times as fast 2 times as hard.

 

I recall reading that strangely enough, the Germans actually increased the rate of fire for the MG 42 late in the war, especially on the Russian Front.

 

That pretty much confirms my suspicion that the difference is meaningless.

I've never heard of anyone dodging even one bullet.

 

What about replacing barrels? Wouldn't a gun firing twice as fast wear out it's barrel far more then twice as fast? It seems to me barrel wear will be exponential to it's ROF.

 

I mean running into cover.

 

Sorry for dubbelpost.
You could replace the barrel extremely fast.

 

Obviously, you've never been shot at.

 

Froek,

While higher rate of fire does offer an advantage over certain slower-shooting weapons, beyond a certain point it becomes a hindrance. In the hands of a competent gunner, the difference in ROF really doesn't mean much in terms of lethality. The MG-42's cyclic ROF is arguably too high; most modern MMGs and GMPGs, such as FN MAG, PKM and Mk 48, have much lower rates of fire than the MG-42. For light machine guns, FN Minimi, RPK and RPD also had a decidedly lower rate of fire.

I can explain what Devilsadvocate is getting at. When you are under machine gun fire, you IMMEDIATELY go to the ground and CRAWL for cover. Anyone who stands up will be killed. From the machine gunner's perspective, the MG-42's over high rate of fire makes it harder to fire controlled bursts and it eats through your ammo supply quickly. Overheating barrels is also a major concern; spare barrel is more weight to hump and not always available.

You also need a very good gunner to shoot the MG-42 effectively. They are also in short supply in a total war or in that matter in any war. I know conscripts from Yugoslavia who had shot the PKM and MG-42; the former he scored very well, and with the latter he almost can't hit his target. Granted it was the only time he fired an MG-42 and that had he been trained on it, he would have done much better, but how many well-trained machine gunners did the German have at late war?

Unlike tanks, planes and artillery, MMG, as long as it is well-designed, doesn't really differ from each other very much in lethality. More than any other type of weapon, small arms is all about shooter skill and the level of exposure and vulnerability of the target at the moment of the fire.

 

The MG42s high rate of fire was for the AA role. The Germans were still clinging to the "universal MG" concept. Experienced gunners would actually leave certain links empty (like every 6th link empty) in the ammo belt to avoid burning through ammo. They then had to recock the bolt to resume firing. Officers transferred from line units to command VG and volksturm-types also implemented the practice. Blank ammo was also tried, instead of the empty link, but the results were less than desirable.

 

you know certain gurellia groups nad so called "freedom fighters" in africa still use MG42s. i think the higher rate of fire will ensure a good amount of bullets will enter the target and the gunner wouldnt go all out with it he would go with bursts. i reckon its a top scoring weapon. remmeber the us based their M60 off the success of the MG42

 

I did a little more research and actually 31 countries use the mg3 to date. Sounds like a pretty good design to me.