MG45 Machine Gun

Discussions on the small arms used by the Axis forces.
User avatar
Phil D.
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 09 Jul 2002, 02:04
Location: Bronx, NY

MG45 Machine Gun

#1

Post by Phil D. » 09 Jul 2002, 23:41

Can anyone give me any information on this experimental design?
All I know is that it would've been a replacement for the MG42.
Thanks in advance.

Phil

User avatar
Y Ddraig Goch
Member
Posts: 371
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 12:07
Location: Cymru

#2

Post by Y Ddraig Goch » 10 Jul 2002, 11:40

I've asked about the Mg 45 before. All I know is that it would have en even higher rate of fire!
/ Mike

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger"
Friedrich Nietzsche


Ljunggren
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 20:13
Location: Scania, Sweden

#3

Post by Ljunggren » 10 Jul 2002, 16:24

"Nachdem 1944 umfassende Materialsparmaßnahmen eingeführt wurden, wurde eine vereinfachte Version der MG. 42 gefordert. Durch die Verwendung zahlreicher Teile des MG. 42 entstand das MG 45, welches einen neuartigen Rollenverschluß besaß, welcher nicht vollständig verriegelte und dadurch eine Schußfolge von 1800 S/min erreichte. Die Waffe wog 9kg und wurde bereits im Juni 1944 erprobt. Die weitere Entwicklung zog sich jedoch in die Länge, so daß bei Kriegsende nur 10 Waffen gefertigt waren."

source: lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#4

Post by Mark V » 10 Jul 2002, 18:00

Germans had quite common flaw.

They just didn't understood when it's time to stop developing and concetrate to production.

User avatar
Erich
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 00:28
Location: OR

#5

Post by Erich » 11 Jul 2002, 02:51

Correct, and there was experimentation with several Luftwaffe mg's as well, the MG 131 twin .30 with longer barrels for one as a ground mount.

E

User avatar
Erich
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 00:28
Location: OR

dang !

#6

Post by Erich » 11 Jul 2002, 02:52

correction, should of read MG 81 zwilling.

:oops:

E

User avatar
Mait
Member
Posts: 440
Joined: 16 Jun 2002, 15:18
Location: Estonia

#7

Post by Mait » 12 Jul 2002, 05:17

With the acute material shortages of 1944 it was deemed necessary to further simplify [MG42] to save resources. This resulted in the MG 45, also called MG42V, which modified the breech mechanism of the MG42 so that it didn't completely lock before firing. This increased the theoretical rate of fire even further, the weapon now only weighed 9 kg and - most importantly -production was simplified and needed only steel of minor quality. First tests were undertaken in June 1944, but development dragged on and eventually only ten were ever built.
(from Panzerfaust webpage)

Best Regards,

Mait.

PS! The constant upgrading of existing models is not a flaw. All nations in WW2 did that. Take American Sherman for instance. And due to remodeling, the older models were constantly fitted with new add-ons, helping to keep the limited number of units (tanks for instance) up to date and capable of front-line duty.

Mark V
Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002, 10:41
Location: Suomi Finland

#8

Post by Mark V » 12 Jul 2002, 07:07

Mait:

What is your opinion. If that MG-45 would have got in to production, would it have been an improvement?

I don't think so. Rate of fire is definately too high for practical purposes and weight reduction combined with increased rate of fire would make it much harder to control when firing.

Many people think that MG-42 (MG-3) is still the best GPMG.

I didn't mean that development is bad as a whole. I meant that Germans should have understood that they had in MG-42 a weapon which is pretty near optimum.

User avatar
Mait
Member
Posts: 440
Joined: 16 Jun 2002, 15:18
Location: Estonia

#9

Post by Mait » 12 Jul 2002, 14:56

Well, personally I think the MG45 was developed not because the MG42 rate of fire was too slow for Germans but because Germans were lacking quality steel and top-level factory workers.
I agree with You that MG42 is the best, but I have read some opinions from users that the MG34 was better in rate of fire, stability and fire control. But it needed more work hours and materials to produce, it was not resistant to field conditions, etc. But primary reason for developing MG42 was the "price/time needed to produce one gun", because German Army was lacking machineguns constantly.

About the developement - the constant developement is bad IF the new models are not compatible with old models.

Best Regards,

Mait.

User avatar
Phil D.
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 09 Jul 2002, 02:04
Location: Bronx, NY

#10

Post by Phil D. » 15 Jul 2002, 01:55

Thank you all for this good information.


Phil

Kapitan Drago
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 04 May 2002, 22:59
Location: chicago
Contact:

#11

Post by Kapitan Drago » 29 Jul 2002, 01:19

"MG34 was better in rate of fire"
No way.
My web page ,with info about Bulgarian military history:
http://hometown.aol.com/bogdanovaslava/index.html

User avatar
Mait
Member
Posts: 440
Joined: 16 Jun 2002, 15:18
Location: Estonia

#12

Post by Mait » 29 Jul 2002, 07:33

Kapitan Drago wrote:"MG34 was better in rate of fire"
No way.
To be precise I meant that some specialists believe, that the MG34-s rate of fire was more practical for actual combat situations.

Best Regards,

Mait.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

MG 34

#13

Post by Scott Smith » 29 Jul 2002, 08:13

The MG 34's slower cyclic rate helped conserve ammunition but the faster firing of the MG 42 is way-cooler. The MG 34 was also selective-fire; it could fire one round at a time, a handy feature unusual for a machine gun. And those drum magazines were pretty handy.
:)

Image

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14027
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#14

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 29 Jul 2002, 17:56

On the other hand, the MG-42 (iun the NATO version) is still the best MG in the world... ;)

Christian

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#15

Post by Scott Smith » 29 Jul 2002, 22:48

Ferdinand Porsche wrote:On the other hand, the MG-42 (iun the NATO version) is still the best MG in the world... ;)
I agree. The NATO 7.62 x 51mm cartridge is not as powerful as the 8mm but the NATO version does allow for firing both continuous belts and disintegrating-link belts (like the M-60 uses).

The Spanish have a mini MG 42 Squad-automatic-weapon that fires 5.56mm NATO as well. 8)

If anyone wants to know what to get me for Christmas it would be a functioning MG42. :D

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Small Arms”