WWII MGs
I will have to agree with the guys suggesting two categories of MGs: Light and
heavy.
Much of the equipment the Germans carried during WWII was superior. But,
much of Germany superior equipment really was over-hyped (the Tiger for
example).
The MG42 while an exceptional MG for it's day had one glaring flaw. It's rate
of fire was too high. Most gamers do not see a high rate of fire as a flaw,
but it was. It took a very well trained and disciplined soldier to be able to
use an MG42 in combat and not either jam the weapon or burn through his ammo
in a matter of a couple of minutes. And the MG42 could eat ammo at an
incredible rate. The main difference between a "heavy MG42" and a "light MG42"
is actually just how much ammo and spare barrels are carried by the crew.
Almost all MG42s were equipped with both a tripod and a bipod as standard
equipment.
Keep in mind that a version of the same basic design of the MG42 has been in
service since the end of WWII. The only major change that has been made is
that the rate of fire was been drastically reduced. This reduction in ROF was
made immediately after the war. And no other MG in the world has ever been
produced in any substantial quantity with a rate of fire as high as the MG42,
and there is a reason for this.:)
Incredible rates of fire look great on paper and they are devastating when you
are on the receiving end. But, they have some real drawbacks that gamers often
fail to fully appreciate.
Just my 2 cents,
Incredible rates of fire look great on paper and they are devastating when you
are on the receiving end. But, they have some real drawbacks that gamers often
fail to fully appreciate.
Especially if your the poor Pvt. that has to log in the ammo boxes...Speaking
from personal experience.....)
--- Scott Clinton <grumbling_grognard@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> WWII MGs
-------
Which explains why air support was normally called for when dealing with
Tigers!
> The MG42 while an exceptional MG for it's day had
-------
It would seem the 'Day' of the MG42 is not yet done, it is still in production
as the MG3.
It's
> rate of fire was too high. Most gamers do not see a
> At 9:09 AM -0600 3/7/03, Scott Clinton wrote:
[snip]
> Incredible rates of fire look great on paper and they are
Real sustained rates of fire are far better. That's why I'm a fan of the
Vickers family of MGs (water cooled of course).
250 round belts
450-550 rounds per minute.
Water jacket for keeping that barrel nice and cool. You can keep a vickers
running four hours with a few good crews and enough ammo and water. You'll eat
through barrels in the MG42 long before then.
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:37:03AM -0500, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> You can keep a vickers running four hours with a few good crews and
I understand that the continuous-fire record for a Vickers is something
over a week. Yes, _continuous_ fire.
That's long enough to hamburger anything soft and squishy down-range!
It makes me wonder why there aren't modern weapons with water-cooling
capability for use in static positions... or perhaps there are and I'm
showing my Ameri-centrism...
--Tim
> On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 11:45, Roger Burton West wrote:
> At 11:53 AM -0500 3/7/03, Flak Magnet wrote:
There was an instance that I'm rather fond of recounting in the Battle of the
Somme where 10 MGs from an MG company fired just shy of a million rounds over
the course of 10 hours. The point of the effort was to deny the Germans vital
ground for assembling a counter attack on positions that the British had just
taken. From what I've read, it worked too. All of the fire was indirect at
long range.
> It makes me wonder why there aren't modern weapons with water-cooling
There are AA guns that are configured thusly. I think the ZSU-23-4
has water cooling jackets on it's barrels.
Mainly I think it's a doctrine thing. We dumped them in WWII because they were
too heavy, then we loaded up the infantryman to, what, Twice his load in WWII,
reduced the range and weight of the ammo load and doubled or tripled it.
The British had the Vickers guns up through the 50s and I think 60's as
reserve weapons based on their utility and durability alone. In mechanized
roles with some kind of transport vehicle (Austin Champs or Land Rovers post
war) they're just as useful as any other weapon and more durable. The water
supply is the only critical thing.
On 07 Mar 2003 11:53:23 -0500 Flak Magnet
> <flakmagnet@tabletop-battlezone.com> wrote:
> It makes me wonder why there aren't modern weapons with
While I know considerably less about this matter than I do of, say, Linear B,
it occurs to me that it might have something to do with the
modern idea that a _static_ position merely invites highly accurate
counter-battery fire. Even arty uses shoot-n-scoot tactics these days,
I believe, and so a water-cooled weapon could require too much in terms
of support to be sufficiently mobile, and so is not considered preferable to
less durable, but less demanding alternatives that are easier to move. I guess
what is needed is a good water recycling system...
Phil
----
"Sic Transit Gloria Barramundi" (Or, So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!)
> On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 12:06, Ryan M Gill wrote:
And here I'm thinking that mines and arty were the only viable
area-denial weapons. Go figure.
> >It makes me wonder why there aren't modern weapons with water-cooling
I was thinking more along the lines of line-infantry weapons, though I
didn't explicity state that.
> Mainly I think it's a doctrine thing. We dumped them in WWII because
> From what I hear, there are 3rd world countries still training with
> At 12:25 PM -0500 3/7/03, Flak Magnet wrote:
Mortars were new at the time. MGs were pretty well and developed at the time.
You can get a finer Area denial with the MGs than you can with mortars and
AFVs weren't an issue much at the time. All that plunging fire would naturally
preclude the use of trenches with out over head fire.
Max range was something like 4600 yards. Pretty respectable. At about a belt a
minute standard fire rate (bursts, faster than what modern MGs can keep up and
not over heat) you have about 7 belts worth before your barrel jacket has
boiled off. Fill it back up or maintain it and you're good to go for far more
belts. Barrels are good for 10,000 rounds if kept cool.
> I was thinking more along the lines of line-infantry weapons, though I
Infantry weapons are generally too light to be water cooled. The water iteself
is bloody heavy. Vickers gun teams tended to have a vehicle of some sort for
each gun. A Vickers carrier (universal carrier) in WWII was ideal. You'd move
to the battle area in the vehicle, sometimes operate from the vehicle,
sometimes from ground positions. The effective range allowed for a nice long
distance from your targets as I understand it.
> From what I hear, there are 3rd world countries still training with
India still has them. So does Pakistan. I see them in photo's of Kashmir every
so often. They have the range and the firepower (as well as reliability) to
handle the harsh conditions. Those receivers are all milled steel that's
forged in some cases. They're bloody tough guns and last for millions of
rounds. If you look close, you'll see Enfields, Brens, Fals and other old
british weapons alongside the AKs that are really only good for short ranged
work. Those enfields can put lead out to 1000 yards.
http://photo.worldnews.com/PhotoArchive//Kurt/RPH2002121100596_large.jpg
Fn Fal, Mk III turtle helmet (I think). WWI Mills Pattern sling, just green.
I'll see these photos and videos every so often. When you see footage, look
close at what they have.
Perhaps "heat pipes" might come into use after a few years...
http://www.heatpipe.com/heatpipes.htm
Note that heat pipes are being installed in laptops that don't rely on gravity
to return the liquid to the heat source, instead using cappilary action. So a
ruggedized, larger version that clamps over a barrel when it isn't going to be
fired on the move might come into use.
> On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 12:22, Phillip Atcliffe wrote:
> I believe, and so a water-cooled weapon could require too much in
> --- John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm not going to engage in the discussion of MG's in general, but that seemed
a little argumentative! Of course the two different configurations have
different applications, but that's the difference in their applications, not
the difference between the weapons themselves. That's like saying the main
difference between an M16 and an M2 is how they're used. Ummm.... no. To be
sure, the M16 and the M2 have VASTLY different roles or "applications", but
it's the physical difference between the two that permits them to fill the
different applications to which you refer.
Sorry if this seems a bit pedantic, but it appears to me me that the argument
was a bit specious.
In a message dated 3/7/03 9:34:54 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> john_t_leary@yahoo.com writes:
> It would seem the 'Day' of the MG42 is not yet done,
Having the wonderful experience of being a member of the (5 person by the time
it was organized:o) Morbach community (American) gun club while I was
stationed in Germany, I can tell you from personal experience that the MG3 is
a VERY nice piece of weaponry. And also that the tactical doctrine in the
German Army, (and Politzie as far as I can tell:o) is STILL tight, controlled,
minimum ammo bursts. On target and at long range.
We finagled an "invite" to the local annual Military shooting contest.
Required "events" were MG3, Uzi, (with wooden stock) and the G3/M16. Not
to brag, (maybe a little:o) but we'd positioned ourselves in first
place....
before the Politzie showed up that is. (Partially to me being REAL accurate
with the MG3. Kind of neat picking off single 'hiding' soldiers with only two
round at [simulated] 200+ meters :o)
The Politzie showed up and, (like usual:o) swept the events.... again
:o)
Randy