MG-42 Range discrepancy

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 22:36

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

So can other GPMGs. Nothing's stopping them since the bullet ballistics are comparable (even better velocity for 7.62mmR vs 8mm Mauser) and using indirect fire with machine-guns was a thing since WW1. This procedure is even described in Red Army manual for machine gunners for example http://rkka.msk.ru/rbp/rbp12.shtml
Image

Now did every MG 42 HMG mount receive the special sniper sights?

It's also pretty doubtful that the rifle cartridges would be anyhow effective apart for suppression post 2000m range.

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

So can other LMGs. For example the maximum aimed distance with DP-28 was 1500m according to its manual.
Image

As for the Maxim firing videos: using model 1910 to represent the 1930 isn't accurate. The 1930 model had improved recoil mechanisms. More accurate videos:


The recoil is almost non existent.
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 22:46

Also, here's a quote about the Vickers machinegun at a range of 2000 yards.

A magnificent view of the German trench was obtained at a range of 2000 yards. The guns were disposed for barrage.Many factors in barrage work which are now common knowledge had not been learned or considered. Capetian Huchinson ordered that rapid fire should be maintained continuously for twelve hours, to cover attack and advance. Prisoners --- reported that the effect of the MG barrage was annihilating and the counterattacks which had attempted to retake the ground lost were broken up.


source

which also have pics of Australians using the maxim in a range of over 2000m range in Korea.

So if a WW1 Vickers in .303 is absolutely effective in suppressive fire within the range of 2000m. A modernized Maxim in 7.62mmR would absolutely have an effective range of 2000 meters.
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 22:49

SG-43 from first person:

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 23:30

- I never claimed pin point accuracy for any MG
- MG 42 firing at 2000 m was problematic for LMG bipod mount, read again. if not clear, I'll emphasize, the quote is from the chapter regarding the LMG mount
- the procedure described in the manual does not state the range
- the optic sight from MG42 was not a sniper sight, that's why I posted some big pictures of it but common for HMGs, I can post more.
- in the Vickers book you linked I couldn't find any mention that was used at 2000 m ranges but only "long range" which is probably 1000 meters
- what wants to prove the last video with SG-43? the carriage moves same as in the videos I showed you which affects long range fire. show me a video with a MG42 behaving the same.

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 » Sun 21 Jul 2019 10:46

- I suppose the tripod stops the bullets from separating then?

- The quote I just quoted was along the lines of 2000 yards, which equate to about 1900m range.

- The full manual that was linked by Azaal13 does prescribe instructions for ranges up to 2800m, it also came with instructions for the spotter on how to correct long range engagements with a separate collameter scope.

At this point I'm done arguing with you, I actually thought you started off with some good points, but the more I listen to you, the more I realize you're just another Wheraboo fetishising German equipment. You're disregarding several first hand experiences and direct instructions from army manuals themselves, but constantly just quote one book over and over again as some sort of credence.

No one is arguing that the MG-42 would have a better stats at max range, but there is nothing that states the MG-42 should have a higher max range? All had dedicated MG bullets, all had trained MG personal, all had long range rangefinding and all were capable of long range suppressive and plunging fire...
Image

IronHat
Specialist
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed 26 Jun 2019 08:20
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby IronHat » Sun 21 Jul 2019 10:49

I swear we had this exact same discussion in sd44, back when the tank also have different range.

Now the tank are all 2000m, and the formerly 1200m tank are still as dominate as ever simply due to superior accuracy, armor, and penetration.


Just equalize the range of all the mg to 1500m and use accuracy to make mg42 stronger.

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 » Sun 21 Jul 2019 11:49

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:- I suppose the tripod stops the bullets from separating then?

- The quote I just quoted was along the lines of 2000 yards, which equate to about 1900m range.

- The full manual that was linked by Azaal13 does prescribe instructions for ranges up to 2800m, it also came with instructions for the spotter on how to correct long range engagements with a separate collameter scope.


Yes and I cited a book saying it was 3000 m for tripod MG 42 with optical sights. In game is 1500 m so half so a Maxim should be in game 850 m if we consider an 1/2 ratio from what was reported as maximum range. 2000 m is for MG42 LMG in infantry squads. If we consider these figures in game should be:

So let's recap:
MG42/MG34 HMG: 1500 m range in game (reported 3000 m range direct fire, 3500 indirect fire)

here is another source. it points issues with stability for MG42 yet compared with the wheeled carriage it was still better.



further reading here that confirms my statement that MG34/42 as bipode LMG was comparable with what was considered HMG by Soviets (Maxims, SG-43) in performance.


Maxim/Vickers: 850 m range in game because you say 1900 m so it should be nerfed since MG42 have half of reported range in game, 1500; if we consider the manual Maxim/Vickers should have 1400 m, still less than MG but that I take it is for indirect fire so I think we should stick with direct fire ranges.

MG34/42 LMG: 750 m range in game (reported 2000 m range) so it should be buffed to 1000 m.


Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:At this point I'm done arguing with you, I actually thought you started off with some good points, but the more I listen to you, the more I realize you're just another Wheraboo fetishising German equipment. You're disregarding several first hand experiences and direct instructions from army manuals themselves, but constantly just quote one book over and over again as some sort of credence.

No one is arguing that the MG-42 would have a better stats at max range, but there is nothing that states the MG-42 should have a higher max range? All had dedicated MG bullets, all had trained MG personal, all had long range rangefinding and all were capable of long range suppressive and plunging fire...


yes, when one have no arguments, you start to attack the person. I don't fetishing German equipment, for example I think their tanks are shit from practical point of view and I prefer allied ones, including the Shermans. Same for fighters, mediocre compared with Allied ones.

I gave you information from a well documented book. You and Azazel reply with confusion between optical sightings and sniper scopes, bits of information from here and there about scopes on Maxims and although there are hundreds of pictures of WW 2 Maxims on internet you can hardly find one with your "scope".

I also showed you videos why the MG 42 was better at longer ranges, because more stability of the tripod compared with the wheeled carriage of Soviet designs which would cause such a big spray that would hardly affect a target at long distance. It was worse than MG34 due to ROF.

If you'd bother to actually read the book I suggested (which I suspect was used by Eugen to research MG3 from Wargame) you'd find dozens of accounts of Allied and Soviet officers and soldiers about the efficiency of German HMG crews which were able to pin down entire battalions or regiments from range. Nothing similar was reported about Allied HMGs of same caliber.

It has its cons, sure, the high rate of fire wasn't practical all the time due to high ammo consumption and recoil/stability (hence the bursts were prefered), you need to change the barrel often, needed well trained crews and more maintenance.

The difference I'd like to see in game (but take it with a pinch of salt, (I don't know the hidden stats) is that MGs should take some pauses for barrel change and shot in bursts while the water cooled Vickers/Maxim should be able to fire for considerable more time. But range wise, just for the sake of gaming Marxism (:P) and standardization there's no reason to give them the same range simply for the reason that according with the info linked by you and Azazel, Maxim made the range performance of the MG LMG bipod mount.
Last edited by steppewolf on Sun 21 Jul 2019 14:01, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
praslovan
Major-General
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011 21:56
Location: Slav inhabited Alps
Contact:

Re: MG-42 Range discrepancy

Postby praslovan » Sun 21 Jul 2019 13:29

Azaz3l wrote:
praslovan wrote:Quick maths... more bullets down the range, better the chance you will hit something even if you are not accurate therefore you are effective.

Isn't that contradictory to
steppewolf wrote:The standard firing of the MG42 wasn't fully auto, it was 5 round bursts.

That doesn't mean that you can't let it rip if the situation dictates to.

You guys are still stuck on the range. If I throw an apple at you from 100m away, there is a good chance I will miss. If I can throw 20 in a second suddenly the chance that I hit is greater. If you are throwing apples back at me with 8 apples per second and you are about as good at throwing as I am... Who is a more effective apple thrower? And mind you... 100m is a very long range for throwing an apple.

Is MG42 godlike? Who knows, how many reports of Allies being halted because of MG42 is actual and how many are just officers masking their failures on German "wonder weapons"? One thing if for sure... Yugoslav partisans didn't hesitate when they could drop whatever MG they had for MG42. It was loved so much that my father still slugged one of those around during service in 1980s with swastika still being on the top cover. I wonder why Maxim still isn't as popular if it was as good. :geek:

One thing that annoys me about the MG43/Maxim in SD2 situation is not the range but the fact that Maxim has a potential to keep shooting longer than MG42 since it is water cooled.
Before anyone jumps at the opportunity... Picture a situation when you have a Maxim in a church and there are infantry squads advancing towards that church from an open field. Meaning they are exposed for long periods of time. IMO in that case Maxim should be able to suppress those squads,slower than MG42 because of ROF, but keep them suppressed for longer periods of time. To me it feels that Maxim goes into a cool-down too quickly.

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 » Sun 21 Jul 2019 21:05

praslovan wrote:That doesn't mean that you can't let it rip if the situation dictates to.

You guys are still stuck on the range. If I throw an apple at you from 100m away, there is a good chance I will miss. If I can throw 20 in a second suddenly the chance that I hit is greater. If you are throwing apples back at me with 8 apples per second and you are about as good at throwing as I am... Who is a more effective apple thrower? And mind you... 100m is a very long range for throwing an apple.


Keep in mind, there will be a limit to how far you can throw, which is what I'm getting at. You can throw 10 apples or 100 apples, there is a point where you're never going strong enough to conceivably throw past. Now if we were to replace those apples with, say oranges, which have the same aerodynamics and only weight a few grams less or more, would that effect you enough to throw it that much further?

It's how I view machineguns though their calibers. There is too little of a difference between the ballistics of the two to mean one has more stopping power at a higher range, which means shouldn't they have the same(ish) max range, with the MG-42 simply being better at max range. Which is why I belive that only larger caliber guns like the 13mm hotchkiss and M2 should really have a bigger max range than small arm fire.

Once again, I feel the MG's RoF and accuracy should be represented with... Well a higher suppression (RoF) and accuracy. Now I understand that max accuracy at this point is human related, but all weapons so far have the tools that allow for a human to aim at a 2-3km max firing range.


Now, rather than salivating over semantics and arguing over which youtube gun vibrates more, I spent my lunch break looking up MG-34/42 standards and doctrines to see how the German forces treated it and found several sources or posts containing better information.

- Although it could achieve a RoF of 1200RPM, the MG-42 was restricted to a more realistic RoF of 1000RPM or less. This wasn't only restricted to Germans, the American M1919 could be modified to fire up to 1800RPM, but was mechanically limited to 600RPM.

- Fully automatic, sustained RoF is strongly discouraged due to chewing though ammunition and barrels. Instead they were restricted to bursts of 5 to 20 rounds. It's practical rate of fire was around 154 RPM compared to the MG-34's practical RoF of 150RPM

- The tripods came semi-standard with scopes, called the MGZ32 or MGZ40 scopes, which were attached to the tripod and had a 2 to 4 times zoom. The scope was not a precision scope but had a 'V' style crosshair much like tank machinegun scopes.

- While more accurate than water cooled machine guns, it actually wasn't the most accurate of the machine guns. Which online seems to be universally agreed to be the British Bren gun, which in game only has a range of 750m.

- The whole discrepancy between Allied and Axis forces is seems to be because of the General purpose machine gun doctrine, most allied troops were only given the modern equivalent of SAW's, Bren's and BAR's which simply counter battery a full purpose GMPG. However, they only took one person effectively to use compared to the 4-6 needed for German squads. This was corrected in later tactics and doctrine with the addition of more BAR's and the platoon level M1919A6.

- German doctrine effectively stared to withhold fire until the best possible effect is assured, which seems contradictory to MG-42's firing first in game.

- The doctrine between the MG-34 and MG-42 were effectively the same.

So I'm still not sure what qualifies for an effective range increase. If it's accuracy, why does the Bren have such low range?

If it's sustained curtain fire, wouldn't water-cooled guns have more ability?

Is it it's scope, if so what about other MG's which had a scope, and what about the ones without a scope but use a separate spotter to correct shots? Would it be more efficient for the gunner to use a scope, rather than have a spotter with a set of optics correcting him?

However, I think the most telling piece of evidence is it's older brother, the MG-34 (Which I've noticed has been tip-toed around whenever I brought it up). Both effectively had the same practical RoF (154 vs 150). Both handled the same, both came in the same tripod, with the same scope, both had the same doctrine. So why does the MG-42 have a 300m range over it's older brother?

What I think, is that Eugen saw that the MG-34 and MG-42 has effectively the same stats, and arbitrarily raised it's max range and it's cost in order to diversify the units a bit more. Which kind of sucks in a balancing sort of view.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/intelligence-report/use-of-mg42.html Had some good tibits of information, mostly translated from German instruction manuals. If I can be arsed sorting though my phone history I'll post those sources too.
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 » Sun 21 Jul 2019 22:31

praslovan wrote:Is MG42 godlike? Who knows, how many reports of Allies being halted because of MG42 is actual and how many are just officers masking their failures on German "wonder weapons"? One thing if for sure... Yugoslav partisans didn't hesitate when they could drop whatever MG they had for MG42. It was loved so much that my father still slugged one of those around during service in 1980s with swastika still being on the top cover. I wonder why Maxim still isn't as popular if it was as good. :geek:


Probably because of the high mobility of the modern day battlefield and the higher proficiency of motorized, mechanized and amoured vehicles, made slower, heavier machineguns such as water cooled ones obsolete. I think it's largely the same with Tripoded machine-guns at least with infantry sized calibres.

I don't know much about the Soviet Maxim, you'd probably be able to sort it's history out better than me. But the Vickers was used up until the late 1960's by the commonwealth until they basically broke apart. Wikipedia states that South Africa use them up until the 1980's, but that's a book source and I can't check on that.

On a really interesting note, I found a neat little website that details pretty much everything about the vickers, including ranges and instructions on long range firing up to 3000 yards.

https://vickersmg.blog/
https://vickersmg.blog/manual/range-tables/
Image

Return to “Steel Division 2”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests