B.A.R. m1918a1 VS fg42 model 2

Discussions on the small arms used by the Axis forces.
User avatar
Boone Vidricksen
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 20 Jan 2006, 00:00
Location: Kansas USA
Contact:

B.A.R. m1918a1 VS fg42 model 2

#1

Post by Boone Vidricksen » 16 Mar 2006, 09:30

which was better as a LMG?

FG42 model 2 7.92*57mm
10 and 20 round magazine
bayonet
4 zoom scope
bipod
rifled grenade
select fire
sling
infra-red device?

B.A.R. m1918a1 30-06
20 round magazine
bipod
sling
select fire
Last edited by Boone Vidricksen on 30 Mar 2006, 19:38, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PPoS
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: 22 Sep 2004, 13:35
Location: Sweden

#2

Post by PPoS » 16 Mar 2006, 18:49

I think the BAR M1918a1 would be the better one. I don't know so much about this weapon, but I do know that the FG-42 had problems. One of them was the weight (which was lower than the BAR), it caused alot of problems when the weapon was firing in full-automatic fire. Both weapons had 20 rds magazines and bipod.

BAR M1918
*Caliber: 7.62x63mm (.30-06)
*Weight: 8.8 kg (Empty)
*Magazine: detachable box magazine, 20 rounds
*RoF: 450 or 650 rounds/min, selectable

FG-42-2
*Caliber: 7.92x57mm
*Weight: 5.05 kg (Empty)
*Magazine: 10 or 20 rounds
*RoF: 600 rounds/min


User avatar
dect
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 13 Apr 2005, 18:19
Location: Poland
Contact:

#3

Post by dect » 16 Mar 2006, 20:14

Hi
Yes, FG42 was very hard to control and much less accurate when firing full-auto.
And I've never heard of rifle grenade (launcher) and infra red device for the FG42.

Regards
Jacek

yabint
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: 17 Mar 2004, 04:15
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#4

Post by yabint » 16 Mar 2006, 20:28

Carrots or tomatos which is the better vegetable?

Really this is a poor comparison as they both served different roles. The BAR was supposed to be the squad automatic rifle wile the FG.42 was supposed to be the standard issue rifle that could serve as a light machinegun in a critical situation.

User avatar
PPoS
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: 22 Sep 2004, 13:35
Location: Sweden

#5

Post by PPoS » 16 Mar 2006, 21:01

Really this is a poor comparison as they both served different roles. The BAR was supposed to be the squad automatic rifle wile the FG.42 was supposed to be the standard issue rifle that could serve as a light machinegun in a critical situation.
Well the history behind the FG-42 is actually that the Fallschirmjäger wanted a lighter automatic weapon after their experiences during the invasion of Crete. They had encountered weapons such as the British Bren, which was lighter than the standard MG-34, and they wanted a light support weapon of their own. The initial idea was further developed into a concept weapon that could handle all the roles required by the Fallschirmjager in the field, this new weapon would effectively replace the bolt-action rifles, submachine guns and machine guns already in service.

So I guess that it's really not a so bad comparison after all.

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#6

Post by fredleander » 29 Mar 2006, 10:39

yabint wrote:Carrots or tomatos which is the better vegetable?

Really this is a poor comparison as they both served different roles. The BAR was supposed to be the squad automatic rifle wile the FG.42 was supposed to be the standard issue rifle that could serve as a light machinegun in a critical situation.
Wasn't these weapons meant to be approx. the same from the outset? The BAR, however, was "relegated" to the SAW function due to its rather high weight.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

#7

Post by Tim Smith » 07 Apr 2006, 23:20

BAR was better in the LMG role. FG42 was too light for accurate fully automatic fire.

FG42 was better when used as a semi-automatic rifle with the 10-round mag.

I'd also say that the BAR plus ammo was a very heavy piece of kit to jump out of an airplane with! The BAR with a 20-round mag weighs almost twice as much as an FG42.

Walther Panzer
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 23 Apr 2014, 08:22

Re: B.A.R. m1918a1 VS fg42 model 2

#8

Post by Walther Panzer » 23 Apr 2014, 09:22

As far as what I know, most people had been using specifications from games, which is very inaccurate due to balancing and bias.
BAR vs FG 42:
BAR
Heavy
Too long for a rifle
Highly corrosive barrel
Solid bipod that lacks pikes
Muzzle flash is obvious at night

FG 42
Lighter (around 3kg)
Short (shorter than Kar 98k)
Flash hiders
Bipod tends to bend
Scope (effective beyond 50 yd)

I would choose the FG 42 if I were to carry any weapon, even if there's HK 416 and HK 417. It is still comparable to weapons today, just one major drawback: Ammunition size. But it is much better than the 5.56x45mm NATO.

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: B.A.R. m1918a1 VS fg42 model 2

#9

Post by LineDoggie » 12 May 2014, 00:57

Walther Panzer wrote:Heavy
True, but absorbed recoil forces and stayed on target
Walther Panzer wrote:Too long for a rifle
M1 Garand 43.5" long, M1918A2 BAR 43.7" long GEW98 49.2" long
Walther Panzer wrote:Highly corrosive barrel
How exactly is a barrel highly corrosive? the US ammunition primers were corrosive (as was the German 7.92mm)
Walther Panzer wrote:Solid bipod that lacks pikes
many automatic rifles and light Machineguns today do not have pikes on the bipod feet and not complaints, Bren never had them as example. And there were never complaints about the BAR being Inaccurate. If anything its cone of fire was small compared to other auto weapons
Walther Panzer wrote:Muzzle flash is obvious at night
and there isnt horrendous muzzle flash from either version FG-42 Muzzlebreak? seems to be belied by photographs of the weapon fired in low light

Walther Panzer wrote:FG 42 Scope (effective beyond 50 yd)
Why would one need a Scope for Under 50 yd/m?
Walther Panzer wrote:I would choose the FG 42 if I were to carry any weapon, even if there's HK 416 and HK 417. It is still comparable to weapons today, just one major drawback: Ammunition size. But it is much better than the 5.56x45mm NATO.
[/quote]I've actually used 5.56mm m855 in combat operations in Iraq, and every single person I saw hit in the torso by 5.56mm died
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re:

#10

Post by LineDoggie » 12 May 2014, 01:05

Tim Smith wrote:.

I'd also say that the BAR plus ammo was a very heavy piece of kit to jump out of an airplane with! The BAR with a 20-round mag weighs almost twice as much as an FG42.
And thats why the BAR wasn't on the scale of issue originally to Parachute Infantry Regiments but for Glider units. It could be packed in the A-5 parapack container along with the M1919A4/A6 Browning and after Normandy a MSG in the 101st rigger section developed a modified griswold to carry the BAR.
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re:

#11

Post by LineDoggie » 12 May 2014, 01:08

fredleander wrote:
yabint wrote:Carrots or tomatos which is the better vegetable?

Really this is a poor comparison as they both served different roles. The BAR was supposed to be the squad automatic rifle wile the FG.42 was supposed to be the standard issue rifle that could serve as a light machinegun in a critical situation.
Wasn't these weapons meant to be approx. the same from the outset? The BAR, however, was "relegated" to the SAW function due to its rather high weight.
The BAR as originally designed was for Walking fire, a WWI French concept where the Mle 1915 Chauchat was used for Mobility in the Assault. After that it became the SAW of the Squad.

The FG-42 IIRC was designed to replace the Bolt Action completely in FJ use.
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Nautilus
Member
Posts: 261
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 23:13
Location: Romania

Re: Re:

#12

Post by Nautilus » 20 Jul 2014, 13:39

LineDoggie wrote:The BAR as originally designed was for Walking fire
Which it did very poorly, due to being too heavy for a rifle (twice the weight of a K98 and almost as heavy as an African elephant gun) and too light for a LMG (it fired automatically full-loaded .30-06 or 7.92x57 ammo). FG-42 was light enough to be uncontrollable when firing automatic. So was Lahti-Saloranta M26. None of them had quick-change barrel devices. The first machine-rifle to set things straight and work as a reliable machinegun was the Degtyarev DP-28.

User avatar
JTV
Member
Posts: 2011
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:03
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Re:

#13

Post by JTV » 21 Jul 2014, 13:07

Nautilus wrote:... So was Lahti-Saloranta M26. None of them had quick-change barrel devices. The first machine-rifle to set things straight and work as a reliable machinegun was the Degtyarev DP-28.
Huh... Lahti-Saloranta has sort of quick-change barrel feature with barrel & bolt combination that could be swapped in about 25 - 30 seconds.

Jarkko

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Re:

#14

Post by LineDoggie » 25 Jul 2014, 07:47

Nautilus wrote:
LineDoggie wrote:The BAR as originally designed was for Walking fire
Which it did very poorly, due to being too heavy for a rifle (twice the weight of a K98 and almost as heavy as an African elephant gun) and too light for a LMG (it fired automatically full-loaded .30-06 or 7.92x57 ammo).
Really?

M1918 BAR belt had a metal cup to place the Buttstock in to support the weight of the gun while performing Walking fire.

Image

M1918 BAR weight-7.25 kg (15.98 lb) Rate of Fire- 500–650 rounds/min
Mle 1915 Chauchat weight-9.07 kg (20.0 lb) Rate of Fire- 240 rounds/min


I've actually fired the M1918, & M1918A2
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Gustav_SC
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: 26 Oct 2004, 06:45
Location: Charleston, SC, USA

Re: B.A.R. m1918a1 VS fg42 model 2

#15

Post by Gustav_SC » 17 Aug 2014, 16:18

The question was "which was better as a LMG?"

If you use the definition of LMG as "belt fed, quick barrel change capability" then the answer is NEITHER ONE. They both fail.

If you use the definition of LMG as a squad automatic weapon, then the answer is the BAR. It served effectively in this role in US forces in the European and Pacific theaters. It's heavier weight was necessary to have controllable automatic fire.

The FG42 was too light for this as a main role, though having a bipod and firing from an open bolt in fully automatic mode means it could do the role better than, say, an StG44.

If the question is "which one would be better for general infantry issue?" then the answer is FG42. Lighter and smaller.

Post Reply

Return to “Small Arms”