supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
17
I wrote that âactual for a minute or so turns the barrel into scrap metalâ
I did NOT say that the Germans used the MG 42 like this.
YOU wrote : âactual is 900 vs up to 1800 for the MG42.â
to which I responded that âactual for a minute or so turns the barrel into scrap metalâ
I could probably have written 'actual for half a minute"
" The MG 42âs high cyclic rate of fire sometimes proved a liability mainly in that, while the weapon could be used to devastating effect, it could quickly exhaust its ammunition supply. For this reason, it was not uncommon for all soldiers operating near an MG 42 to carry extra ammunition, thus providing the MG 42 with a backup source when its main supply was exhausted. Another disadvantage of the MG 42 was that the high cyclic rate of fire led to the barrel overheating quickly during rapid fire. After around 150 rounds of rapid fire, the gun operator would open a side hatch (leading to the barrel) and replace the hot barrel with a new cooler one. Non-observance of this technical limitation renders the barrel prematurely unusable.[5] The machine gun crew member responsible for a hot barrel change was issued protective asbestos mitts to prevent burns to the hands."
Discourse keeps moaning that I have already posted this link but since it appears that the text in the link does not get read I posted it again. I hve marked the relevant section with bold font.
Maybe I should not interpret âprematurely unusableâ as 'turned into scrap metal but a metal product turned into something unusable means scrap metal to me. It could be that the Wehrmacht could reuse the barrels as tent pegs or something but they were not usable as MG 42 barrels anymore.
After about 150 rounds, replace barrel to prevent destruction. With 1200 to 1500 rds/minute, say 1350 on the average, the 150 rounds limit would be reached after approximately 6.7 seconds and then it is, per training and doctrine, time for a barrel change.
The firing rate you are referring to can only be sustained for 150 rounds (or 6 - 7 seconds).
" The German military instructed that sustained fire must be avoided at all costs. They ruled that the results of sustained fire were disappointing and that the expenditure of ammunition involved was âintolerable.â[6] In the bipod-mounted light machine gun role, MG 42 users were trained to fire short bursts of 3 to 7 rounds and strive to optimize their aim between bursts fired in succession.[6] According to comparative tests by the US military under battle conditions, 5 to 7 rounds bursts with 22 bursts in a minute were most effective.[30] For its medium machine gun role, the MG 42 was matched to the newly developed Lafette 42 tripod. In the tripod-mounted medium machine gun role, MG 42 users were trained to fire short bursts and bursts of 20 to 50 rounds and strive to optimize their aim between bursts fired in succession.[6] As a consequence of factors like the time spent reloading, aiming, changing hot barrels if necessary to allow for cooling, the MG 42âs practical effective rate of fire was 154 rounds per minute, versus 150 rounds per minute for the MG 34.[6]"
" The different versions meant that the service life of an MG 42 barrel varied between 3,500 and 8,000 rounds assuming the barrel was used according to the regulations, which prohibited rapid fire beyond 150 rounds. Excessive overheating caused by rapid firing about 500 rounds through a barrel resulted in unacceptable wear of the bore rendering the barrel useless.[5]
For carrying and protecting spare barrel units, consisting of a barrel and its locking piece, the LaufschĂźtzer 42 (barrel protector) was used as a field accessory. When closed the LaufschĂźtzer 42 looked like a tubular container with mountings at its ends to attached a carrying/shoulder strap. During a barrel change a cool MG 42 barrel unit coming out of the LaufschĂźtzer 42 can be inserted in the machine gun and the replaced hot barrel unit can be placed in or on the opened LaufschĂźtzer 42 to cool down.[47] The LaufschĂźtzer 42 was derived from the LaufschĂźtzer 34 that served the same purpose for MG 34 barrel units. Later in the war the universal LaufschĂźtzer 43 was introduced that could be used with MG 43 and MG 42 barrel units.[48]"
The Laufbehälter 34 had space for two spare barrels which makes mea ssume that two spares were needed to allow sufficient time for cooling.
Summing up: The Germans would have been forced to throw away barrels if they had tried to fire at the maximum rate for longer periods. Doctrine said: switch barrels after 150 rounds.
Ergo, the maximum rate, rds/min, is a value that can not be applied to a full minute.
It would have been better if they had specified it as â20 to 25 rounds per second for six seconds.â
Did you read and understand the Wikipedia article when I posted the link the first time?
Your questions give me the impression that you only read the small bits and pieces I copied.
Bonus content for comparison.
The M60 (partially derived from the FG 42 and MG 42, NOT a copy but the interpretation if derived vs copied varies âŚ) fires 500 to 600 rounds per minute.
Watch this video and observe the soft glow that appears after about 30 to 32 seconds, i.e.about 250 - 300 rounds :
Once you start to get observable hot spots like this the barrel is more or less finished.
The barrel in the video was already near the end of its life so it was presumably less âtightâ than it was when originally manufactured which could mean that there is less heating due to friction and most of the heat comes from the powder gases. A brand new barrel in an MG 42 would heat up faster.
German doctrine said that 150 rounds was the limit. Such limits are set with some safety margin BUT the doctrine also said bursts of 6 to 7 rounds which would allow for short periods of cooling.
Nail. Hit. Head.
1 Like
True story.
In the British Army at Section Level, the Section Jimpy carried 200 rds. Every other member of the section carried 50 Jimpy rds in a belt as back-up for the gunner.
Bear in mind this is going back a bit as the FN GPMG is no longer a Section weapon in the British Army.
Each rifleman carried 4 x magazines x 20 of 7.62mm for their personal weapons, the FN (SLR). It was useful if the gunnerâs ammunition state got really low and it wasnât uncommon in sustained battle for more âjuniorâ members of a Section to be sent back with a sandbag to collect the disintegrated link so that individual rounds could be reconstituted back into belts again.
Non believers read âExcursion To Hellâ, an account of 3 Paraâs assault on Mt Longdon in the Falklands War.
I canât remember what the actual design rates of fire were for the Jimpy, but it was easily capable of 800 rounds a muniute at max chat.
But frankly, that would have quickly destroyed the weapon. The actual cyclic rate of fire was maximum around 2 - 400 rds per minute. This was because the barrel had to be changed every 250 rds (training) or 400 rds (war). Each gunner carried only one spare barrel and before it could be used again, it had to have cooled considerably, which took time (and no, you canât just chuck it in a bucket of cold water⌠or throw it in the snow). Believe me, you can get through 250 rounds pdq on a GPMG so fire discipline was vitally important, the deliberate rate of fire was a 3 - 5 round burst every 5 - 6 seconds, so around 50 rpm. Rapid rate was double that.
Therefore, I can imagine that this sexy GPMG pin up, the MG42, with a theoretical rate of fire in excess of 1000 rounds per minute would, in actual fact, have had a cyclic rate in the very low hundreds.
I understand that in the later stages of WW1, in response to evolving Allied tactics the Germans moved their heavy machine guns (previously in the front line, firing directly) a considerable distance to the rear (over a Kilometer?) so they were clear of the Allied barrage suppressing the German front trench but could inflict indirect fire on the Allied troops advancing behind their barrage.
Regards,
M
This happened quite early on in the war, I was watching a documentary about WWI only just this weekend. The majority of German MGs were employed in the indirect role.
The treaty of Verseilles severely limited the amount of heavy machine guns, or MGs of any type really that Germany could field and so, the GPMG was born. Its size and weight meant that its production didnât fall (as much) under the auspices of the crippling treaty and on paper appears to be only one type of gun.
Doctrine evolved with the GPMG, but fire support/area supression remained embedded within its DNA. I seem to remember a scene from Band of Brothers, where some stragglers come across a '42 simply firing lengthways down a causeway - area supression.
1 Like
150 rds/minute according to Wehrmacht training and regulations.
The Germans did love their rules & regulations âŚ
I answered.
If you donât care to read the answer,
then please feel free to juggle your balls âŚ
Edit: about Wikipedia.
Articles on Wikipedia need to be evaluated just like any other source.
The better articles have a long list of references to support them.
The arguments used for bashing Wikipedia may just as well be applied to
your professors works as well. Citing other works and articles is a common practice,
the âstatusâ of a researcher partially depends on how many other published
articles have cited his/her article.
The Versailles treaty.
Germeny did what it could to sneak around the rules until they felt that they could safely
break them publicly.
Submarines and ships: Developed and sold by the NV Ingenieurskantoor voor Scheepsbouw (a dummy company set up in the Netherlands), there is a Wikipedia article about it but I wonât waste my time linking to it.
Tanks: desgined as âagricultural tractorsâ (fascinating that nobody called them on this bluff).
Did you ever wonder why there are model kits of Leichttraktor and Grosstraktor?
https://archive.armorama.com/review/6950/
Where did they test and develop tactics using tanks? Coudnât do it in Germany because that would give the game away. The answer is here: Historian offers first deep dive into secret German-Soviet alliance that laid groundwork for WWII | News | Notre Dame News | University of Notre Dame One facility was in Kazan.
GermanyâSoviet Union relations, 1918â1941 - Wikipedia
Good summary of the basice facts but you will not dare to read it since it is Wikipedia 
Soviet officers visiting Germany when they were still âfriendsâ were surprised, almost shocked that Germany did not have any heavy tanks (Pz I and Pz II were no match for the Soviet designs at that time).The early versions of Pz III (small gun) and Pz IV (low velocity gun for infantry support) were not impressive either.
Airplanes: Junkers set up a factory in USSR (see Wikipedia link above, oops sorry, you canât âŚ)
Bombers were also designed disguised as civilian aircraft. The Bf 109 re-used (copied) design principles worked out with the Bf-108 (Taifun) sports aircraft. What is the significant difference between a sports/aerobatics aircraft and a fighter? Size and the armament.
More about tanks: GutehoffnungshĂźtte, Aktienverein fĂźr Bergbau und HĂźttenbetrieb, GHH for short,
took over a majority of the shares in the Swedish Landswerk company (a foundry and mixed industry company, they had also built railroad cars). Their economy was bad in 1920 so GHH could become majority owner. German engineers (Otto Merker & Joseph Vollmer (designed LK II)) came to Landswerk and started designing tanks. Most were bought by the Swedish Army but tha knowledge build up could be reused in Germany.
Summary: Germany did circumvent the Versailles treaty in every way they could so switching to light machine guns was an easy move to avoid the ban on heavy machine guns.
Thats on awful lot of into to still not get this addressed.
Catagory- white noise.
Professor- fail
Iâm afraid you appear to be a rather sad person with an obvious inferiority complex and a childish, petulent nature. I think you might be on the spectrum somewhere.
I donât normally entertain non-handlers at length - however, since it is obviously absolutely vital to you that, like most petulent children, you must have the last word, iâll continue to reply in the hope that your tantrums may one day be sated.
No, it isnât. GPMGs were, are, and continue to be area weapons that in some cases have a high degree of accuracy. This has been quite clearly and rationally explained several times by different posters.
It depends upon the role in which a GPMG is employed, hence the designation, âGeneral Purposeâ. Germany used its GPMGs in the indirect fire role in every single battle it fought during WWII.
It might be easier to understand the question if youâd written it in English in the first place - nonetheless, this has got nothing to do with planes and tanks. This is a discussion about MGs (GPMGs).
It is absolute fact that the GPMGs actual design concept was that it originated with the MG 34, designed in 1934 by Heinrich Vollmer of Mauser on the commission of Nazi Germany to circumvent the restrictions on machine guns imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. It was introduced into the Wehrmacht as an entirely new concept in automatic firepower, dubbed the Einheitsmaschinengewehr , meaning âuniversal machine gunâ.
You started digging yourself a hole and now you seem intent on jumping into it. You claim to have found a secret fountain of knowledge which you will not share with us unless we fall on our knees and worship your encyclopediac knowledge of MG & GPMG developmentâŚ
Because that is never going to happen, you might as well run along and continue to play with your balls.
This has been made quite clear and explained in simple terms. But, when youâre blinkered, youâre blinkeredâŚ
Example:
You see, on another topic about Modelling during the Ukraine Crisis, pictures of Bradley IFVâs having been delivered to Ukraine that donât yet have the Bushmasters fitted. You question, incredulously (arenât I a smart boy for being the first to spot it!), why nobody had thought to comment that there were no guns fitted.
Despite the fact that at least three people had already commented that the guns werenât fitted (myself included) in previous posts.
I absolutely LOVED firing the MG3. I had fired the M-60 several times and then fired the MG3 many times later in my career. I much rather have the MG3 than the M-60. Perhaps it was learned âexperiencesâ later in military life, or the âHOOAHâ factor was higher, or who knows what, but I was a good âshotâ with the M-60 but a much better shot with the MG3.
Regardless, if itâs fully automatic and belt-fed, Iâm a fan. (Area suppression baby!)
Mike
1 Like
WoWâŚlooks like the MG-42 itâs the new Olive Drub⌠
That guy on the HMVV wonât get cold!!!
I once got a empty shell of a MAG in my sleeve while firing! I had a burn blister immediately, and it took quite some time to go away!
2 Likes
I seem to recall that during the filming of the 1965 movie âViva Maria!â an ejected shell case dropped into Brigitte Bardotâs cleavage, the stampede to assist her in removing it wes quite the sightâŚ
Cheers,
M
5 Likes
Did it using a GPMG during some FIBUA on Thetford Trg Area.
Firing through a wall apperture at floor level from inside on a wooden floor. A 5 round burst and two casings went down, hit the floor and bounced back up into my sleeves.
Fooking painful that was.
2 Likes
Dona Ana, New Mexico - a place that sucks so bad I volunteered to go to Iraq early just to get away from there. We were doing convoy live fire at near Fort Bliss. My GMV lacked the right rear pedestal mount, so I fired the SAW from the shoulder. It was hot as balls out so I didnât notice the casings hitting my arm at the time. (I was in a T-shirt only, no uniform top)
I had dozens of burns on my forearm, most of them ring shaped. Someone from another unit saw me and reported it. I had to go to White Sands to see a psychiatrist to ascertain if I was trying to harm myself. When the interview began I told him he must have me confused with someone from some REMF unit that was trying to get out of deploying. I told him in my unit weâre all fighting for a slot as not everyone was going to âget to go.â
He said something to the effect that clearly a mistake had been made and sent me packing. I got some good photos out there before I left though.
2 Likes
Damn, that must have hurt as hell!!! We were obliged to button up our sleeves when firing, so that casing was lucky to sneak in (not for me). No way we would be allowed to fire in t-shirt onlyâŚ!
Being a turret gunner myself for the longest, i know what itâs like to do the âHot Brass Mamboâ; thatâs why you wear a top. Have had my fair share of burns on my neck, forearms, etc⌠The one thatâs really painful is when you get a piece of hot brass stuck between your eye pro and your eyebrow⌠
4 Likes