MG42- Buzz worse than its Bite?

Problem is the most common Machine Gun faced by allies at Normandy were second line weapons such as MG31(f) in 7.5mm and a host of about 30 other types ranging from Zfr Gr38 booby trap guns to heavy SMG07 Schwarzlose.

MG42s and MG34 tended to be used by Ist division mobile troops.

~Steve

 

Really? But I'm pretty certain that MG42/MG34s were used by German regular infantry divisions. You're talking about static divisions, right?

 

I am refering to beach defence positions in reply to a post that was refering to beach defence at Normandy.

Turrets from redundant German tanks as stellung would retain the original weapons for the most part and other nearbye weapons would be similarly chambered but often would be redunant types. Ft31 and R35 Stellung turrets would be supported by French weapons for commonality, but that certainly would not rule out the use of 8mm Hotchkiss heavy weapons which were also used.

The multiplicity of weapons used in the "Atlantic Wall" is well documented and my point was to try to dubunk what amounts to another case of "Spitfire syndrome"-had the fire on the morning of D.Day been as devestating as infered in Post#18, as the cliche says, we might be all speaking German.

~Steve

 

I did remember having a online discussion with a South African who had been a sturmpioneer. They had some German weapons in the South African Army back then, and he thought a world of the MG-42. He had been a convert for the high RoF school ever since he saw how his instructor by firing an MG-42 cut a steel sihouette target in half. His exact sentiment is that that it is a fine weapon he would like to be in his squad, as long as he does not have carry it.

Other modern soldiers, many of them have, combat experience, feel that the MG-42's rate of fire is excessive. However, they are from not armies that uses them.

Razin,

How was the German 352d Infantry Division in Omaha equipped? Was it, like static divisions next in line, armed with whatever weapon that had already been emplaced in the West Wall? Or as a kempfwert 1 formation they would at least be able to bring their MG-42s to the pillboxes?

 

Triple C.
The 352nd was a mobile infantry Division and supported the 716th which was the static infantry division (garrison). The Static divison was was raised in France expressly to garrison the coast.

It would very unlikely that a mobile division unit would be involved in manning pillboxes. even if they did the fixed weapon mounts would not be easily configured for weapons such as MG 34 & 42. Open loop holes could take anything.

The 352nd formed as a Standard (none reduced regiment) infantry divison and spent its time in support on the Normandy coast improving defences. It was required to be fully functional by mid May 1944 and was to supply a Regimental Combat Team component to act as a flying squad covering all of France Belgium and the Netherlands, although it was very under equiped for this function -perhaps they expected the bicycle rifle batalion to cover it .

The 352nd would be a normally equiped Infantry Division although it had problems getting its full alocation of equipment, therefore the 916th Gr Rgt
which was on point in the Ohama beach head area on D.Day would have its alocation of MGs.

Its function would be supporting the 726th Gr RGt (716th Garison Div)which garrisoned the strongpoints in the Ohama beachhead sector these were grouped mainly around the beach exits and inland road crossings. To this end there were about 40 Pillboxes and Strongpoints including some Panzerstelungs two at least equiped with German rather than French tank turrets. Additionally there were 100+ support points such as MG nests and mortar pits. The 916th would cover the gaps between the strongpoints and it must be remembered that the Ohama beachhead was approx 30miles in length. -The 726th covering the sector from Vierville to Arromanches and 916th covering as far as Point du Hoe, so both units were stretched.

~steve

 

Thankyou for the clearafication (<-- i think i murdered that word)
Your right I think Hitler knew he would lose the beaches and didn't want to waste and MG42's and MG34's

 

Thompson Tony

Field Marshal Rommel was of the view that the only way to win on the Atlantic Wall was to push the allies into the sea on the first morning, Field Marshal Von Runstedt was of a different view he thought as did many other Commanders -the O.C. of the 352nd Infantry was one, that to have the infantry caught on the edge of the beach was unacceptable. Rustedt prevailed I think he wanted to pin the allies with the mobile infantry and use the Panzer force to counterthrust, isolate and eliminate the Allies. Whether he was capable enough to do this, is conjecture.

Hitler believed (it is said he had a preminition) that the Normandy landing was a feint and that the real landing would come in the Pas De Calais.

~Steve

 

MG-42- 750,000 units

MG-34- 354,000 units

Both were pretty common weapons

 

wow is that how many were really built

 

I agree with this. The MG-42 was a better weapon than any comparable Allied weapon, but for mechanical and production reasons as well as tactical reasons.

 

nah that is where you are wrong the 30.cal was better than he mg-42 for the simple fact that it has a lower fire rate and does not waste as much ammunition during firing time

 

A higher rate of fire is no always best. The newer version of the MG42, which is called the MG3, is actually a slower firing weapon due to the addition of a heavier bolt.
They can make guns capable of over 6,000RPM; however, it's rather inpractible when out on the field. The best way to go is trading fire rate for accuracy.

 

Partially correct lad. It depend which bolt you are using. If you look on my last post (page 1 on this thread you'll see more about it)

You are basing that statement on what?

Instead of posting what you think to be clever, come over to Norway and I'll let you try the the various make ups of the MG's.

I think you will find that a high rate of fire to be accurate. And by accurate I mean that you will hit what you are shooting at before it drops out of view.

 

Steve,

Were the garrison divisions equipped differently from regular infantry divisions? Judging from their function, they seem to be the kind of units that one topps off with heavy crew served weapons and low rifleman strength. Kinda like Russian Fortified Zones.

 

Bödenstande divisions (ie., static divisions) differed from regular ones for the Germans in having only two regiments rather than three. Individual squads were still organized the same. The major armament difference here is that they were frequently equipped with beute arms, particularly the heavier weapons.
That is, a static division in France might find that itself equipped with Hotchkiss M1926 (7.9mm leMG 152/I(g) in German usage) automatic rifles, Czech artillery, and ex-Soviet mortars. These divisions frequently got hand-me-downs, captured equipment, and obsolete or obsolesent materials. But, the squads themselves would still nominally be 12 men with 1 LMG, 1 SMG and the balance toting bolt action rifles.

 

The German static divsion would have the function of a Fortified Region (or fortified area) covering an area of about 30miles by 2miles deep. The static division having three lines of defence and both use similar dedicated divisional teams, whether the Soviet system is true divisional or what they like to call a Corps is open to debate but basically a unit with several batallions and support troops.

The Static division had varrying strengths the 716th had 8000 troops to cover the area from the Orne to Vire so was quite thinly spread, covering what would become the beaches Ohama, Gold and Juno, the 709th occcuping the Contin Penisular (Utah) had a strength of 12000 but included a batallion of "eastern" troops for pioneer duties. Sword beach was covered by another Army group and I think the 243rd static division.

The mobile (attack) divisions were originally designed with a manpower ranging from 15000 to 20000 men and would have;-

15000 rifles, 700 SMGs, 525 L/Mgs, 120 H/Mgs 60 medium mortars

after 1943 it was modified to

9000 rifles, 1500 SMGs, 560 L/Mgs, 90H/Mgs 50 medium mortars

The reduced 2 regiment divisions (Reserve and Static Division) had
9000 rifles, 1500 SMGs, 500 L/Mgs, 50 H/Mgs, 40 medium mortars.

Obviously the reduction in personel altered the support and heavy weapons detachments to some extent but the heavy weapons component was minimal to begin with.

As I said in my previous post on this subject because of ammunition needs and availablity of first class weapons would mean that L/Mgs and H/Mgs might often be limited standard or foreign types. On the West Wall most would be either Czech weapons such as ZB26-30 and ZB53 and french weapons such as 7.5mm Mle31 and Mle 24/29, other types in particular the Medium Heavy Hottchkiss weapons in various calibres, however it other nationality weapons such a Nowegian and Danish Masdens would tend to remain in national areas an outstanding exception were Schwarloze 07s that seemed very popular with Artilery batteries in particular.

It is rare to see Static division troops using French rifles, no doubt some were used by 2nd and 3rd echelon troops, I remember seeing several 11mm M1871 Mausers that were used as training weapons by garrisons.

Rifles all tended to be 7.92mm Mauser clones which is understandable due to training, some reserve units in Russia had M31/91 rifles as did some of the "eastern foreign" units. There were a hotch potch of pistols used in France and virtulally all SMGs were German types. The strongpoint crews would retain their personnal weapons in case of a retreat and the divisons auto weapons would be used in open pits,loopholes and slit trenches thus giving a re-enforcement of the automatic fire power of the defence system.



Some photos foreign types

View attachment 5917
the fairly standard Mle31 machine gun on a post mount, note the soldier with a Silver Panzer assault badge- no doubt he hoped for a quiet life
View attachment 5918
Bren gun
View attachment 5919
A older soldier using a Masden on a Clamp mount, The madsens were modified to belt feed and produced in Denmark during WW2.

 

No doubt if Static units could get them MG34 and MG42 would have been prefered, Possibly training shortly after Dieppe.
View attachment 5921
The MG34 fortress mount
View attachment 5923
A outdated MG08/15 possibly on the southern French coast with an FT18 Stellung in the background.
View attachment 5926

~Steve

 

On the static divisions, Tessin had this to say (Volume 1, p. 57) (btw the word he uses translates as "occupation" rather than "static"):

Cheers

BW

 

BW

thanks for that,

~Steve

 

Were Ost battalions generally useless in combat? It would seem to me that these static regiments could not stand up to massed armor and thus would be deployed in built up areas.