MG-42 Range discrepancy

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 883
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby steppewolf » Sat 20 Jul 2019 19:42

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:
steppewolf wrote:M2 Browning is a different league, I mentioned it before as best of its caliber, M1919 is not in use in NATO countries anymore and wasn't produced after 1945. SG-43 is just from older stocks but it was replaced with General Purpose MG PKT while M3, an adaptation of MG43 was used in NATO as GPMG


So if it's not used by NATO it's bad?

it's very good.

@Azazel, to finish this discussion, if you don't believe me, look what this guy is saying, he must know something.

Image

optical sights

Image

from MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns by Chris McNab

I'd say this guy is competent enough that his conclusion justify a increase of range for MG 42 LMG :o :mrgreen:

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Sat 20 Jul 2019 20:09

steppewolf wrote:
Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:
steppewolf wrote:M2 Browning is a different league, I mentioned it before as best of its caliber, M1919 is not in use in NATO countries anymore and wasn't produced after 1945. SG-43 is just from older stocks but it was replaced with General Purpose MG PKT while M3, an adaptation of MG43 was used in NATO as GPMG


So if it's not used by NATO it's bad?

it's very good.


This makes no sense... What's very good?


I'd say this guy is competent enough that his conclusion justify a increase of range for MG 42 LMG :o :mrgreen:



Once again, if the scope was what gave the range advantage, why is it unique to the MG-42? The scope was used on the tripod, not the gun, which could also carry the MG-34. So there is still a discrepancy.
Image

User avatar
Azaz3l
Brigadier
Posts: 3295
Joined: Sat 1 Oct 2011 10:38
Location: Bus 410
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby Azaz3l » Sat 20 Jul 2019 20:23

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:Once again, if the scope was what gave the range advantage, why is it unique to the MG-42?

Image
Image
Image
Image

etc.
Image

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Sat 20 Jul 2019 20:47

Azaz3l wrote:etc.


Turns out I've been looking at the wrong Soviet machine-gun. However I can't see the scope on the pics?


I've also heard anecdotal evidence that, although not standard, US and Canadian infantrymen would wield/rivet scopes on their Browning's.

EDIT: Turns out the tripod MG/08, which is in game, also has a mounted scope too.

https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images4/28/1013/22/german-maxim-mg08-1918-movie-used_28_720e8cf3354e5aeff8be845774ef3889.jpg
Image

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 883
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby steppewolf » Sat 20 Jul 2019 21:23

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:Once again, if the scope was what gave the range advantage, why is it unique to the MG-42? The scope was used on the tripod, not the gun, which could also carry the MG-34. So there is still a discrepancy.


Same McNab's book. I can only snapshot small patches because I have the book in google play so it's protected but I'll continue writing what I cannot snapshot. What I posted previously is from public pages.

So, hang on:

Fire control was critical to MG34 and MG42's effective tactical use as LMG. As noted above, fire tended to be delivered in bursts of 5-7 rounds, or up to 20 rounds in full one-second burst. The barrel would typically require changing after 250 rounds of rapid fire, but a single barrel could take up to 400 rounds of fireing in an emergency before before a serious danger of malfunction arose. [...].
In terms of sighting and range, both MG34 and MG42 were capable of delivering direct fire using iron sights up to ranges of 2,000.

The rear iron sight on the MG 34 consisted of an adjustable notched 'V'-sight blade mounted on a post, the post marked with range increments from 200m to 2,000m. The 'V' notch was aligned with a front blade to aim. Iron sights on the MG 42 were of slightly different configuration, with the 'V'-notch blade sliding along. a range platform that, at its lowest set, sat virtually perpendicular with the barrel jacket. The increments ran in 100m intervals from 100m to 2,000m.

Actually seeing a target at 2,000 m, let alone engaging it accurately with open sights, was problematic. Generally speaking, 800m was the practical limit for direct MG 34 and MG 42 fire, stretching out to 1,500m when necessary. An additional guidance to accuracy accuracy came in the form of SmK L'spur armourpiercing tracer rounds, which featured in the belts of sS (heavy ball) and SmK (armourpiercing rounds) at a typical ratio of 1:4. Operators had to learn to use tracer to guide their fire accurately. Tracers lose their mass more quickly than standard ball rounds, hence slow down in the air more quickly than the surrounding bullets.Therefore at long range the gunner needed to compensate by firing slightly higher than the observed fall of the tracer.


MG34 and MG42, Chris McNab, Ospreys, Google play edition, pg. 39.

Now let's recap. HMG MG42 and MG34 can fire up to 3000 m and 3500 plunging gire (in game range 1500 m)

LMG MG 42 and MG 34 can fire up to 1500 m (in game range 750 m)

Can you please provide reliable info that Maxim and SG 43 were even close of this? Sounds like LMG MG34 iron sightings are the same as Maxim/SG-42 HMG setup :)

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Sat 20 Jul 2019 21:39

No one is arguing that the German MG-42 is capable of firing at a 2+km range, however, as pointed out by many, so are most other GPMG's used in game.

All countries had bullets specifically designed for machinegun fire and I can't see enough of a difference between the 8mm mauser and the 30-06/7.62mmR to warrant a higher max range than most other machineguns.
Image

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 883
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby steppewolf » Sat 20 Jul 2019 21:48

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:No one is arguing that the German MG-42 is capable of firing at a 2+km range, however, as pointed out by many, so are most other GPMG's used in game.

All countries had bullets specifically designed for machinegun fire and I can't see enough of a difference between the 8mm mauser and the 30-06/7.62mmR to warrant a higher max range than most other machineguns.


no. MGs fire up to 3000 m in HMG configuration and 2000 in LMG configuration. Vickers water-cooled for example can send teoretically 1/3 of ammo to 2000 m as HMG which is comparable with MG34/42 LMG as range but not as rof.

As for wheeled Soviet types, the videos I posted previously are pretty much self-explanatory. There's no source to compare the effect on target of MG 42 with Maxim or Vickers or even more modern designs as SG-43. One thing is to reach that distance and a completely different thing is to make it in an effective manner. MG 42 was a psychological shock for allied troops which was solved by using mortars/artillery because their own infantry comparable weapons were not an answer.

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Sat 20 Jul 2019 22:00

steppewolf wrote:
no. MGs fire up to 3000 m in HMG configuration and 2000 in LMG configuration. Vickers water-cooled for example can send teoretically 1/3 of ammo to 2000 m as HMG which is comparable with MG34/42 LMG as range but not as rof.

As for wheeled Soviet types, the videos I posted previously are pretty much self-explanatory. There's no source to compare the effect on target of MG 42 with Maxim or Vickers or even more modern designs as SG-43. One thing is to reach that distance and a completely different thing is to make it in an effective manner. MG 42 was a psychological shock for allied troops which was solved by using mortars/artillery because their own infantry comparable weapons were not an answer.


Once again, you're not making sense, MG's can fire up to 3000 meters, yes?

Now a Vickers only 1/3 makes it? What do you mean by that? Do 2/3's just give up at the 2000 meter range and walk home?

Also, that whole MG-42 can't be countered by counterfire reeks of the same bullshit as the "Tiger kill 4 sherman before die" wheraboo meme. Allies answered with indirect fire because they had both aerial and vehicle superiority by the time Normany was in full swing and would rather use that than simple throw bodies into the pile.
Image

User avatar
steppewolf
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 883
Joined: Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby steppewolf » Sat 20 Jul 2019 22:06

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:Now a Vickers only 1/3 makes it? What do you mean by that?


ammo on target compared with a MG42. I said two pages ago that while a Vickers (and generally water-cooled) HMG can reach 2000 m range in direct fire(doubtful), the effect on target would be negligible.

I provided you info from a respectable source, an English historian, not an German one which clearly says in his book that these MGs were a class above whatever allied fielded on same caliber. You answer with silly comparisons and attributing me things I didn't said. Can you come with a comparable information from a good source ? Because I don't think you're serious when you try to attack my person by claiming I said something I didn't.

As for Normandy and the time after until the break out of the region, I recommend you the last book I read on this topic and things weren't that pink as you picture them

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/ ... al-bernard

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6592
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Sat 20 Jul 2019 22:25

steppewolf wrote:
Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:Now a Vickers only 1/3 makes it? What do you mean by that?


ammo on target compared with a MG42. I said two pages ago that while a Vickers (and generally water-cooled) HMG can reach 2000 m range in direct fire(doubtful), the effect on target would be negligible.

I provided you info from a respectable source, an English historian, not an German one which clearly says in his book that these MGs were a class above whatever allied fielded on same caliber. You answer with silly comparisons and attributing me things I didn't said. Can you come with a comparable information from a good source ? Because I don't think you're serious when you try to attack my person by claiming I said something I didn't.


First of all, pinpiont accuracy at a range of 2km is bullshit. Hell there are war stories on this very forum from military members talking about how hard it was to score a direct hit at 2-3km ranges with a god damned 25mm bushmaster!

Second of all, the source you directly quoted, just a few posts ago, specifically states that the MG-42 firing at 2km was "problematic" and that lighter and heavier bullets started separating at ranges beyond 800m.

Which is fine, because pinpoint firing at 2km range is not the MG's job, it's being able to suppress and blanket fire advancing troops, which the MG could do, as well as all the other machine can do. Could a MG-42 do it more effective, perhaps, probably, but as proven by the posts before, the MG's employed by opposition forces were just as capable as the MG the effective range.
Image

Return to “Steel Division 2”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: steppewolf and 2 guests