It was a cost effective and easily produced weapon perhaps one of the best weapons to come out of the war in my opinion.

If you notice the US M-60 light machine gun is modeled after the MG-42 cause us Americans had such a fascination with it.

------------------
Out side is America!

The German army still uses a modified version of the mg-42. I gues 1200 rounds a minute never goes out of style.

Ya here are it is:



HK21E



A rare variant of the HK21 tripod with shock absorbing mount. The HK21 tripod is one of the rarest accessories in private hands in America, with only a few known specimens. I don't believe that there are any of these particular shock absorbing mounts in private hands in America. The version below is the more common version. In German these are called Feldlafetten, or field mounts.





Im not sure if this is what your talking about because i think there is something even more similiar.


------------------
Out side is America!

Hello. Sorry for chiming in so late (I'm new to the board). Nice pix of the HK! The weapon Otto was referring to is the MG3, which is a slightly modified MG42..some differences include:
re-chambered for the .308 round (7.62x51mm)
modified flash hider
heavier bolt/slowed cyclic rate
and a few other mods.
Have a look at:
http://bundeswehr.de/bundeswehr/luftwaffe/mg3.html

Yeah, I wasn't sure, but I thought the new weapon looked more like the original mg42. Thanks for the correction Wolfgang.

But.....

Was its effectiveness due moreso to its actual capabilities, or - like other German weapons - to the psychological effect its use created as an aside.
I recall seeing a US training film from the WW2 era belittling the MG42 as an inacurate noisemaker. Granted, this had to have been intended to allay somewhat the understandable apprehension that US troops must've felt at merely hearing the ripping sound of the 42 cutting loose. Also, as I understand it , the operational doctrine for the 42 involved firing short bursts intended to act almost like high-velocity, long range shotgun blasts or flechette rounds.
Nonetheless, while I can envision the effectiveness of such a blizzard of fire against masses of Soviet infantry, I must question whether or not it was at least a slight case of overkill...

I tend to think that the psychological aspect of a weapon is just as important at the weapon's actual effectiveness. Take the Ju 87 "stuka" divebomber for example. Many types of aircraft could deliver a bomb with similar accuracy, but to listen to its siren wail while it dove down on a target in many cases broke the will of troops even before the bombs hit. From most accounts I'm familiar with, the mg-42 was scary and effective. No doubt this is why a similar weapon is still used today, over 55 years later!


[This message has been edited by Otto (edited 20 December 2000).]

I have seen the interviews with the German Machine gunners and they said they were rarely aloud to cut loose with the ammo because it ate up the ammo so much. They often would have to take their time and fire in bursts (not using it to its full potential) or else the officers would come over and yell at them.

------------------
Out side is America!

The only thing I know about MG-24s are that they fired something like 1200 bullets a minute.

If a machinegun is fired in short bursts, it is relatively accurate. With full auto fire, the accuracy dissappears. This is so for all machineguns, old or new. The MG42 was no exception to this rule. One of the big advantages of the MG42 was its multipurpose role. Light enough to carry around and to be used as a squad weapon, easily converted to a heavy machinegun on a tripod. Its canvas-ripping sound made it a true terror weapon.


------------------
*** We shall not retreat, nor shall we surrender. If we cannot stay here alive, we shall stay here dead***

Well the MG was meant to be used in that and there are situations where just openiong up wit hthe MG is a good decision (especially on the eastern front)

I was under the impression from previous reading that the Wermacht actually based a portion of its infantry tactics on the presence of the MG among riflemen....
Something on the order of the MG supressing enemy fire while the riflemen advance, whereupon the riflemen await the repositioning of the MG to leapfrog ahead once more.
Of course, even if this is accurate, it does not necessarily presuppose the use of the MG42...



------------------
Novus Ordo Seclorum

its true,

german army was one of the few that had infantry squads with support weapons such as the MG34 or the czech machine guns and later the mg42. allied forces did not have this squad setup until later in the war. Yes the brits had the bren gun, and the americans the BAR, but they are not comparable with a belt-fed machinegun. I think that german soldiers were highly effective because of these support weapons at squad level.

------------------
*** We shall not retreat, nor shall we surrender. If we cannot stay here alive, we shall stay here dead***

The germans would fire and always advance the infantry squad was great for over running and the American military copied it and still uses the tactic to this day.

------------------
Out side is America!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mart:
its true,

Yes the brits had the bren gun, but they are not comparable with a belt-fed machinegun.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No the Bren is not comparable to the MG34. The bren was much lighter, fired clips of bullets which could be supplied by any other rifleman, and could be fired when almost totally full of sand. Whereas the MG34 had to be meticulously clean or it ceased to work.
The Bren could put successive bullets through the same hole at 200 yards whereas the MG34 would spray bullets over a 3 metre pattern at that range.
The MG42 was certainly a fine weapon, but too costly to produce at a time when other nations were mass producing throwaway weapons.
The average German MG gunner would carry a few belts of ammo plus whatever he could stuff into his pockets. At 1200 rounds per minute it does not take long to run out of ammo.
A buddy who was a bren-gunner in the paratroop regiment carried 6-8 clips of ammo plus a couple of bandoliers. This additional ammo was not standard issue- he carried that because at only 110lbs he needed the extra weight. I can't see many guys weighing in at 110lbs lugging a BAR or a MG34 very far.

__________________
If dogs don't go to heaven, I'd like to go where they go.