MG 42

Discussions on the small arms used by the Axis forces.
Zygmunt
Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: 31 May 2002, 20:50
Location: Wielka Brytania

#31

Post by Zygmunt » 29 Jun 2005, 12:11

Markus Becker wrote:1500 rpm was achieved with standard ammo. AFAIK the Air Force did not use the MG42 in it´s planes...
I am not disagreeing with you about that. I was just questioning the rate of fire typically achieved in the MG-42 with standard ammunition.

Zygmunt

User avatar
Alp Guard
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 15:34
Location: Basel / Switzerland

#32

Post by Alp Guard » 29 Jun 2005, 16:22

The swiss "grandson" of MG42:

Image

MG 51 / 7,5 mm


User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10550
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

Re: MG42

#33

Post by tigre » 08 Dec 2016, 17:54

Hello to all :D; something more..............

Eastern Front 1943. Pause in combat.

Source: http://www.ebay.de/itm/Foto-Elite-23-vo ... 3d20066777.

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).
Attachments
image015.jpg
Soldiers of the Waffen SS somewhere on the eastern front - Kursk ??. Both carriyng a machine gun MG 42.................................
image015.jpg (25.2 KiB) Viewed 1216 times

Stovepipe
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 17:51
Location: near Dublin.

Re: MG42

#34

Post by Stovepipe » 12 Dec 2016, 18:57

The MG 42 had several failings, one of which was a lack of a handle for the barrel, which meant that the gunner had to be very careful when changing the barrel out, as he had to have the issue fireproof glove. If he didn't, he had to shake the barrel out, which was awkward to do. Also, the 42 could not use the drums used by the 34 and the 75 round double drum was a very useful piece of kit, especially for house clearing. A reduction in firing rate would have helped as 1200 rpm is just wasteful, when most armies manage with 600-800 rpm.

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

Re: MG42

#35

Post by yabint » 12 Dec 2016, 23:44

Stovepipe wrote:The MG 42 had several failings, one of which was a lack of a handle for the barrel, which meant that the gunner had to be very careful when changing the barrel out, as he had to have the issue fireproof glove. If he didn't, he had to shake the barrel out, which was awkward to do. Also, the 42 could not use the drums used by the 34 and the 75 round double drum was a very useful piece of kit, especially for house clearing. A reduction in firing rate would have helped as 1200 rpm is just wasteful, when most armies manage with 600-800 rpm.
Some corrections:
The hot barrel is very easy to pop out, to avoid handling it with bare hands any object can be used to hook and slid it out. Gunners were issued with an asbestos glove/pad to pick the barrels up.
The MG42 accepts the same 50 round belt box as the MG34
The 75round saddle drum for the MG34 required a special top cover that meant normal belts couldn't be used. It was phased out of infantry use by the middle of 1941 and after that issued only to MG34's mounted in armoured vehicles.
The MG34 had a rate of fire of around 900rpm, and a feature of all German MG development afterwards was increasing that rate of fire, so the Germans must have had their reasons.

Stovepipe
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 17:51
Location: near Dublin.

Re: MG42

#36

Post by Stovepipe » 13 Dec 2016, 02:00

The 50 round belt drum was too small as the gun could consume 50 rounds in two or three seconds; the saddle drum stayed in service right to war's end as it was used in vehicles as well as converted aircraft guns and anywhere the MG 34 was operated; while the asbestos glove was standard issue, it often got lost in service and changing the hot barrel without one was dangerous and the lack of a handle for the barrel is regarded as a serious flaw. Every contemporary and current MG has a handle for the barrel, to this day; the Germans got the MG 42 up to 1500 rpm, but it was impractical for field use as it ate barrels and required huge effort to feed; modern armies tend to not exceed 800 rpm for guns as it eats barrels and adds weight to the load of the soldier. the gun is brilliant, no doubt about it, but it has its flaws yet remains the gun every MG man wants to fire.

shamirnewell
Member
Posts: 417
Joined: 25 May 2015, 15:08
Location: South Africa

Re: MG42

#37

Post by shamirnewell » 13 Dec 2016, 02:33

Anybody got any time motion studies on barrel change time for say

Mg 34
Mg 42 has to be better then Mg 34
Bren
Browning .30 caliber

I would think the Mg 42 would be the fastest and easiest to change hands down.
But I have not changed a Bren or browning.

Somebody surely did the studies. Wonder what data says.

losing the 75 round saddle does not strike me as a major loss cause those 50 round drums were handy, the 25 more rounds is a second of fire

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

Re: MG42

#38

Post by yabint » 13 Dec 2016, 02:52

Arguing that the 50 round drum was too small is not the same as saying that the MG42 couldn't use the same drums as the MG34. To say that is was too small is your opinion and ignores the various tactical deployments of the MG34/MG42 and the fact that they didn't have another option. On the move gunners would fit 50 round belts to their guns, these would either be loose or in a belt drum. Two belts linked into 100 rounds is too unwieldy for movement. These belts were carried loose by other squad members for quick re-supply of the MG. Stationary the gun would have been supplied by ammo cans that contained linked belts, one of 100 rounds and the second 150 rounds.

The saddle drum for the MG34 was phased out of infantry duty by the opening stages of Barbarossa. Show me a photo of a German soldier using one after then. Like I said they did continue to see limited service in armoured vehicles through out the war but they are a rare piece of kit. As far as I am aware MG34s were not used in aircraft. That was the MG15 which used a different saddle drum (a lot more common) that was not interchangeable with the MG34 either. The MG15 was converted into a ground role as well.

I don't have an original asbestos glove, but they are not required to remove a hot barrel, the starter tab on the belt has a little hook on it that can be used to pull out the hot barrel. You can just let it fall out and focus on getting the replacement barrel back in. You do need the glove to pick it up though.

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

Re: MG42

#39

Post by yabint » 13 Dec 2016, 03:12

shamirnewell wrote:Anybody got any time motion studies on barrel change time for say

Mg 34
Mg 42 has to be better then Mg 34
Bren
Browning .30 caliber

I would think the Mg 42 would be the fastest and easiest to change hands down.
But I have not changed a Bren or browning.

Somebody surely did the studies. Wonder what data says.

losing the 75 round saddle does not strike me as a major loss cause those 50 round drums were handy, the 25 more rounds is a second of fire
I have a MG34, M53, DP28 and DPM. Of those the M53 is hands down the quickest to change barrels in.

Basic steps are:
MG34
1. lock back the bolt
2. press and hold the retaining latch
3. rotate the barrel away from the receiver
4. pull out the barrel

DP28 / DPM
1. lock back the bolt
2. press and hold the retaining pin
3. Give the barrel a quarter clockwise turn
4. Pull the barrel forward and out of the receiver.

M53
1. lock back the bolt
2. Push forward the retaining clip and the side latch swings open
3. pull the barrel out.

I believe that the Bren is similar to the DP28 but made easier by the carry handle on the barrel. I've had a go at stripping a friends Browning .30 cal and I think you have to take the guts out before you can replace the barrel.

A note to the MG34, because the barrel housing rotates on a pin on the right side of the receiver it's actually a bit of a pain to change the barrel when using it with a bipod as the receiver needs to be rotated down and to the right. The logic for this is that when the gun is on a tripod, the receiver is clamped down to the tripod and there is a special clamp on the barrel allowing the assistant to rotate the barrel housing up and to the right.

shamirnewell
Member
Posts: 417
Joined: 25 May 2015, 15:08
Location: South Africa

Re: MG42

#40

Post by shamirnewell » 13 Dec 2016, 03:26

about what I though also. The Mg42 family is a quick change dream. Allowing for sustained high volumes of fire output.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: MG42

#41

Post by Yoozername » 13 Dec 2016, 06:43

The MG42 on the tripod mount has a buffer spring built into the mount that allows the weapon mount to take up the recoil and not angle up like a US 1919A4 does when firing. I believe there was a heavier bolt option that slowed the rate of fire. Can't recall where I read that.


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

Re: MG42

#42

Post by yabint » 13 Dec 2016, 09:11

That's a nice clip, it also shows how you long you can make a 50 round belt last by taking short bursts.

Stovepipe
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 17:51
Location: near Dublin.

Re: MG42

#43

Post by Stovepipe » 13 Dec 2016, 13:44

the Bren barrel change is very quick; cock the weapon; with your right hand, reach forward and flick up the barrel release catch, then push the barrel forward off the gun by using the handle and slide the new barrel on, taking care to mate it correctly to the slot for the gas plug. A good team can have the gun firing again, from a new clip and barrel in about three seconds. The GPMG MAG 58 is quite similar and about as fast.

Stovepipe
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 17:51
Location: near Dublin.

Re: MG42

#44

Post by Stovepipe » 13 Dec 2016, 13:47

regarding moving with belted ammunition, common practise is the "make safe" move, whereby the gun is loaded, the weapon cocked and safety applied and the belt is wrapped around the gun so that it doesn't tangle in clothing or undergrowth and the gun crew change location, so that when they come to a halt, all they have to do to fire is to unwrap the belt and let off the safety.

Stovepipe
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 17:51
Location: near Dublin.

Re: MG42

#45

Post by Stovepipe » 13 Dec 2016, 13:53

Some of the design requirements of the MG 42 were to reduce the build time and cost, reduce the amount of vital materials used, reduce the parts count per gun and reduce the amount of tools and spares that went with the gun, because it was getting beyond a joke and the losses in the field was putting pressure on the supply system, yet it was supposed to retain enough familiarity that the soldiers wouldn''t have to learn about an entirely new gun and it was supposed to be able to use certain MG 34 parts.

Post Reply

Return to “Small Arms”