# StG 44 influence on German tactics



## gjs238 (Nov 13, 2013)

Did the introduction of the StG 44 change German tactics?

For example, I've read about how in the American military, machine guns supported the riflemen - and in the German military, the riflemen supported the machine gun.

Did this change with the introduction of the StG 44?


----------



## wiking85 (Nov 13, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Did the introduction of the StG 44 change German tactics?
> 
> For example, I've read about how in the American military, machine guns supported the riflemen - and in the German military, the riflemen supported the machine gun.
> 
> Did this change with the introduction of the StG 44?



AFAIK no, it just made infantry more effective in their role. Also your above is at best a misunderstanding of German doctrine:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CltNkdyykmw_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz0a_QGifPM_


----------



## davebender (Nov 13, 2013)

Pre-1944 Heer infantry squad leaders were armed with MP40 SMG. Automatic fire with distinctive sound allowed him to easily direct the fire of his squad.

Did squad leaders still carry SMG when their infantry company converted to StG44 assault rifle?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 13, 2013)

even today, the standard procedure for the squad once it engages, is for each member of the squad, to get his share of the GPMG ammunition to that gun. Most squads today have reduced to 8 men or less, whereas back in 1945 it was 11 or 12 men. A well trained squad will have some men putting down a suppressive fire whilst others in the team are getting the ammo to the MG. once thatelement of the squad has done that, the roles are revers, and the remainder of the ammo from the other element of the squad. 

Then the squad would break into teams, usually three teams. One team might just be the MG, the other are the rifle teams. Whilst one team is laying down covering fire along with the MG, the other team is moving (either forward or back, depending on what the squad is trying to do). SMGs would be with at least one element, and really did not provide a lot of help until the enemy was engaged at close quarters. 

During Vietnam, the US and Viet forces were equipped with automatic fire assault weapons, the armalite and the AK47. Australian forces were equipped with the semi automatic SLR. The SLR was, in the opinion of the Australian Army superior to both these weapons. Human nature, being what it is, soldiers equipped with a 20 round mag switched to auto fire tended to empty their magazines in short, uncontrolled burst. Most soldiers only carried a very limited supply of ammo, so in a short space of time were out of ammo. SLR equiped squads had a far superior and more accurate weapon, that could deliver less firepower, but at a more sustained period. Long after the auto fire equiped grunt was left fumbling for a reload, or screaming he was out of ammo, the better trained, better equipped Australian were still advancing and still delivering good levels of fire in the direction of the enemy

Assault rifles are useful, more because they combine the roles of the SMGs to that of the traditional Infantry side arm, the rifle. They dont displace or substitute the role of the MG.

A more fundamental change of German origin was their development oif true GPMGs. Thir FG42 and its predecessor are really revolutionary in terms of squad tactics, and german squads would often have two such weapons attachedso that one of the weapons could advance with one of the squad elements in a direct support role.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 13, 2013)

Where is Soren when you need him?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 13, 2013)

yep, he was a pain but he knew this stuff backwards


----------



## parsifal (Nov 13, 2013)

In 1946 there was a lengthy conference in the Us Army to discuss the implications of the recent war. A written report was prepred rom that confernece, which is summarised as follows:


The third critical factor concerning the infantry squad was firepower. As with the other three points, the Conference members based this conclusion on their combat experience. They agreed that WWII had demonstrated that the
infantry squad needed an organic light machine gun. rather than an automatic rifle. The conferees felt that only a
squad LMG could provide the squad with the requisite fire suppression to accomplish its mission in attack or defense.
Furthermore. the members felt that the US standard rifle, the Ml "Garand*. although reliable, was too heavy and too
limited in firepower, particularly during the assault. Likewise, the BAR was also too heavy and too limited in
firepower."

Like the majority of US infantrymen, the members were particularly impressed by the performance of the German
Army's squad LMG. the MG42, and the SG44 *assault* rifle.

The MG42 had a quick barrel change capability which allowed it to provide sustained-fire support. Additionally, thi
MG42 weighed only twenty four pounds, compared to the US LMG, the M1919A6, which weighed thirty three pounds and had no quick barrel change capability. The assault rifle, as the name implies, gave the German infantryman additional firepower during the assault. The German SG44 had the capability to fire in both semiautomatic and full auto modes. Additionally, it had the added benefit of a twenty round magazine. This prevented the constant reloading as
with the US Army's eight round Ml rifle. As a result of these weapons' performance against US troops, the Conference
members felt an American version would be id6al for the infantry squad of the future.'


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 13, 2013)

Wonder how the Bren light machine gun compares.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 13, 2013)

Wonder how the US would have fared in Korea and Vietnam with StG 44's and MG 42's.


----------



## DonL (Nov 13, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Wonder how the US would have fared in Korea and Vietnam with StG 44's and MG 42's.



Much better, the important weapon would be a MG 42 or MG 3 instead of the US crap at this time.
I think the M 14 was a good weapon, but the M 60 at the Vietnam timeline, has not a single chance compare to the MG 42 or MG 3.
I know that today it is much better, but at the timeline of Vietnam it was simply crap compare to a german MG


----------



## parsifal (Nov 13, 2013)

DonL said:


> Much better, the important weapon would be a MG 42 or MG 3 instead of the US crap at this time.
> I think the M 14 was a good weapon, but the M 60 at the Vietnam timeline, has not a single chance compare to the MG 42 or MG 3.
> I know that today it is much better, but at the timeline of Vietnam it was simply crap compare to a german MG



The US GPMG for Vietnam was the M-60. this MG was derived from the FG 42, and continued in service until very recently. It doesnt stack up to claim it was crap in 1965, and not crap in 1995. it was literally the same design. Im not saying it doesnt have some serious problems, it does, but overall, it was rated as a very good weapon for its time. 

The design drew on many common concepts in firearms manufacture of the period, such as stamped sheet metal construction, belt feed (a modified mechanism for belt feed from the MG42 with a single pawl), quick barrel replacement, a pistol grip and stock, and a Semi bullpup design similar to the FG42 (much of the action occupies the weapon's stock). The M60's operating system of an operating rod turning a rotating bolt was inspired by the FG42, which was based on the much earlier Lewis Gun. The M60 was even constructed with a secondary assisting firing pin spring that is used in the FG42 in semi-automatic mode even though it is actually unnecessary in the M60 (which operates only in full automatic mode). The M60's gas operation is unique, and drew on technical advances of the period, particularly the White "gas expansion and cutoff" principle also exploited by the M14 rifle. The M60's gas system was simpler than other gas systems and easier to clean. but it needed more regular cleaning as well....

The M60 was designed for mass production, just like the MG42 it was based on. While the M1919 required much machining for its large, recoil operated internal mechanisms, the M60's stamped sheet receiver had a gas operated, carrier-cammed bolt mechanism; the same type of mechanism was used on the Lewis machine gun.

The straight-line layout allowed the operating rod and buffer to run directly back into the buttstock and reduce the overall length of the weapon. This was both a good and bad design feature of the gun

As with all such weapons, it can be fired from the shoulder, hip, or underarm position. However, to achieve the maximum effective range, it is recommended that a bipod-steadied position or a tripod-mounted position be used and fired in bursts of 3–5 rounds. The weapon is heavy and difficult to aim when firing without support, though the weight helps reduce the felt recoil. The large grip also allowed the weapon to be conveniently carried at the hip. The gun can be stripped using basic field equipment such as a bayonet or even a a live round of ammunition as a tool.

The M60 is often used with its own integrated bipod or with the M122 tripod. The M60 is considered effective up to 1,100 meters when firing at an area target and mounted on a tripod; up to 800 meters when firing at an area target using the integral bipod; up to 600 meters when firing at a point target; and up to 200 meters when firing at a moving point target. United States Marine Corps doctrine holds that the M60 and other weapons in its class are capable of suppressive fire on area targets out to 1,500 meters if the gunner is sufficiently skilled. Having seen it in action persoanally, its weight in my opinion makes it easier, not harder. the extra weight makes it a stable gun platform 

Originally an experimental M91 tripod was developed for the M60, but an updated M2 tripod design was selected over it which became the M122. The M122 would be itself replaced in the 2000s (decade) by a new mount, in time for the M60 to also be used with it.

So what are its flaws. There are quite a few, but none of them put it in the category of crap, i can assure you

At the time of the M60's development, other designs, like the still unproven Belgian FN MAG and the proven German MG1 (MG42 derivative) had yet to enter production. In Army tests, the M60 proved fairly effective, but in the jungles of Southeast Asia in which it was soon used, it displayed a number of troubling issues.

A common complaint was the weapon's weight; though M60 was among the lightest 7.62 mm machine guns of the era, the weapon was poorly balanced, and thus awkward to carry for long periods. The single most common complaint was that the M60 was unreliable in extreme conditions and prone to jamming and other malfunctions during heavy firing, especially when it was dirty. The humidity and mud of the jungles combined with powder fouling and grease/oil in the action of the M60 to produce severe stoppages unless kept dry and thoroughly cleaned with solvent after each engagement, a difficult proposition for many units.

The M60 did best in aerial and static-defense roles where it could be stored in controlled conditions and regularly maintained by skilled personnel. US Marines especially disliked the M60 and were among the last units to be issued the weapon; many Marine units held onto their BARs in the squad automatic weapon role until 1967–68 officially, and longer unofficially.

The M60 sometimes (depending on the version) tore the rims off from fired cartridge cases during the extraction cycle, causing a jam that required a cleaning rod be rammed down the barrel to extract the torn cartridge, a potentially deadly procedure while under fire in combat. The barrel latch mechanism (a swinging lever) could catch on the gunner's equipment and accidentally unlatch, causing the barrel to fall out of the gun. On new M60s, the lever was replaced with a push button mechanism that was less likely to be accidentally released, but few of the older M60s were modified due to expense, with many of the extant weapons still bearing them.

The grip/trigger housing assembly is held in place with a rather fragile leaf spring clip instead of the captive pins used in other designs. The spring clip has been known to be prone to breakage since the first trials at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Duct tape and cable ties have been seen on M60s in the field, placed there by their crews in case the spring clip breaks. The sear in the trigger mechanism gained a reputation for wearing down and a malfunction could cause the gun to "run away".[9] A second sear notch was eventually added to the operating rod to reduce the chance of this happening.

Several critical parts of early production M60s, such as the receiver cover and feed tray, were made from very thin sheet metal stampings and were prone to bending or breaking; sturdier parts were eventually available in the early 1970s. Early M60s also had driving spring guides and operating rods that were too thin and gas pistons that were too narrow behind the piston head (part of an attempt to save weight), leading to problems with breakage. Metallurgical problems also played a part, (blamed by some on low-bid contractors), but after 1970 a slightly heavier part was designed and slowly put into the supply chain. High-round-count weapons were also susceptible to stretching of the receiver and other parts.

A major criticism of the M60 was the inseparability of the barrel from the gas system regulator and the bipod. The sole advantage of the fixed regulator was preventing the operator from inadvertently damaging the weapon by setting the gas pressure too high, though this actually proved to be a major disadvantage in combat; the lack of an adjustable regulator also prevented the gunner from combating progressive fouling of the gas system by increasing the pressure to compensate. The result was insufficient gas power to operate the action after lengthy periods of fire, a situation only remedied by a full field strip of the weapon and cleaning the gas system with solvent and pipe cleaners, a virtually impossible procedure in a combat environment. The non-adjustable front sight is welded to the barrel, causing the weapon's sight calibration ("zero") to be ruined every time a barrel was changed. This design error was recognized early in the weapon's service, but was ignored due to financial reasons; every barrel in service would have needed to be replaced, and given the cost involved, the Department of Defense decided the loss in accuracy was comparatively unimportant given the weapon's role. Australian M-60s did not have this problem I might say. 

Perhaps the most convoluted and unnecessarily complex aspect of the M60 was the quick barrel change procedure, a critical aspect to any machine gun used for suppressive fire. Although equipped with the same quick change lever as the MG-42, each barrel on the M60 had a permanently mounted bipod and no carrying handle to grasp during combat barrel changes. The gunner was thus forced to come out of his prone supported firing position, retract the bipod, lay the entire weapon on the ground and don a large asbestos glove before he could even begin to handle the red-hot barrel to remove it. No other machine gun in history used such a cumbersome system; this system caused the M60 to take far longer to change barrels than other comparable GPMGs. The predictable loss of the glove under combat conditions was also a consistent problem.

The U.S. rejected the improved M60E3 and adopted the M240—a licensed version of the FN MAG—as their standard general purpose machine gun in 1995; this followed torture tests in which the veteran MAG proved more reliable than the M60E3 of the late 1980s that was designed specifically to fix the original design's reliability flaws. The U.S. Navy special operations forces continued to use the M60E3 for years because of its portability and low weight for its caliber, with a number of upgrades, including a change in feed system and barrel configuration, and fitted with optical sights and other modern accessories


----------



## kettbo (Nov 14, 2013)

Parsifal,
EXCELLENT essay there!
I used the M-60 from 1986 until the were phased out, Cavalry Scout. I'll add that the low use units (no NEW ONES) were pretty fair shooters. Dead-on re your comments on barrel changes. Then there were some weapons that malfunctioned, went in for repairs, no better afterwards. Really loved the M-240C, co-ax weapon on the Bradley M2 and M-3s. Pleased and relieved to turn in the M-60s for the M-240 series. For my role, The SAW was much handier to carry at night, long missions, in difficult terrain, inclement weather...perfect RECON TIME. Beat lugging A PIG (M-60 pet name). I liked the 5.56 SAW though it lacked the 7.62 penetration. 

Re changing tactics? Most late 44-on pictures you see the German squad having a wide assortment of weapons; still many Kar 98K, and some STG and G43, but always a MG-42 and a Panzerfaust by every foxhole. Rather doubt the STG changed much, just added weight of fire when the action got close, an awkward situation for a bolt action rifle with 5 rounds. STURMGEWEHR, Assault Weapon, bit of a misnomer when retreating on all fronts. Widespread service of the STG for Kursk could have been a revolution.


----------



## silence (Nov 14, 2013)

Just as an aside, if I recall correctly US ground troops in Vietnam preferred the shotgun over all other personal weapons. As one might expect, though, they and ammo for them were hard to get hold of.

The wiki article says few FG42s were made. Were they difficult to make, expensive, or just another Nazi manufacturing screwup?

And just as a fun little aside for me when I was playing "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" the FG42 was far and away my favorite all-around weapon. Even sounded real cool.


----------



## DonL (Nov 14, 2013)

> The wiki article says few FG42s were made. Were they difficult to make, expensive, or just another Nazi manufacturing screwup?



The FG42 was a special weapon only for paratroops and also very expensive and complecated to produce compare to the MG 42. It was developed mainly for less weight with optimal firepower.
In summary 7500 weapons were produced between 1942-1945

Edit:



> The US GPMG for Vietnam was the M-60. this MG was derived from the FG 42, and continued in service until very recently. It doesnt stack up to claim it was crap in 1965, and not crap in 1995. it was literally the same design. Im not saying it doesnt have some serious problems, it does, but overall, it was rated as a very good weapon for its time.



Parsifal you have provided an execellent post and mostly I agree, but I can't understand that you are talking at one side, of the very serious problems of the M60, which it had at the early years (here timeline of Vietnam), but also claim it was a very good weapon at the same timeline (again timeline of Vietnam)

When the M60 was at Vietnam a very good weapon, what name calling you would give the MG 42?
To reconstruct the MG 42 to 7,62mm and to equip it with a heavier breech to reduce the firerate was very easy and well known at the late fiftys.
The MG 42 and all it's "derivates", were and are compat proven at every extreme climatic terms and it had no problems with rain, snow, ice, mud, dirt and wet conditions, it was and is a very very reliable weapon or MG.
Also from my knowledge from german veterans (WWII) and today BW soldiers, it is a very accurate weapon/MG in the hands of a skilled crew, the barrel change also cost only 4-5 seconds for a skilled crew.

I stand to my point, at the timeline of Vietnam the M60 with all it's serious- or kindergarden problems was miles away from the reliable and accurate MG 42.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 14, 2013)

Other than the caliber difference, as there particular reasons why the US could not simply adopt the MG42 as-is post war?
It seems other nations did so with minor changes.


----------



## DonL (Nov 14, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Other than the caliber difference, as there particular reasons why the US could not simply adopt the MG42 as-is post war?
> It seems other nations did so with minor changes.



I can't see any reason and indeed it was pretty easy to reconstruct the MG 42 to an other caliber and also reduce the firerate a bit.


----------



## Glider (Nov 14, 2013)

The paper that was referred to is first class and shows up the indecision at the higher ranks of the US Army which as ever was paid for in the lives of those on the front line. Having identified in 1946 that the US army needed an LMG, there is no excuse for the delay before the M60 came into service.
Re the comment about the FN being untested in the Vietnam era, I thought that it was in use from the late 1950's certainly in the British Army so it at least as proven as the M60.

I have a book on the fighting in Vietnam written by an Australian member of their recce unit. His favorite weapon was the Owen, it was light, fast firing and very reliable. Range wasn't an issue in the jungle but if you came across the enemy the ability to fire a lot of ammo in their direction often gave you the time to act. They were then issued with M16's which they got rid of as fast as they could and relied on modified SLR's.


----------



## davebender (Nov 14, 2013)

That comes down to national doctrine. Many nations preferred a magazine fed LMG. ZB vs.26 LMG (Bren was a variant) compares well to BAR, RPK, Madsen LMG etc.

Germany preferred (and still prefers) belt feed LMG with an exceptionally high rate of fire. Difficult to argue with the results. MG-42 might be the best all around LMG in history.


----------



## wiking85 (Nov 14, 2013)

DonL said:


> I can't see any reason and indeed it was pretty easy to reconstruct the MG 42 to an other caliber and also reduce the firerate a bit.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T24_machine_gun



> The T24 was a copy of the MG42 during the war as a possible replacement for the Browning Automatic Rifle M1919A4 for infantry squads, the new version being adapted for the .30-06 cartridge. Saginaw Steering Gear constructed a working prototype designated as the T24 machine gun which could also be used on an M2 Tripod. However, the realization that the .30-06 cartridge might be too long for the gun's mechanism to easily cope with, and most notably a design flaw in the prototype resulted in the discarding of the project.[1]


----------



## DonL (Nov 14, 2013)

And to forward some interesting new news,
the good old G3 is back in town.
Inofficially the BW started a major reinstallment of the G3 at their action forces, because of the many experiences (bad) of the war in Afghanistan.

Reasons.

1. The G36 has massivly heat problems at long (hours and day long) fire fights. The barrel is overheating under specific circumstances, which leads to massive dispersion. Accurate point fire isn't possible after the overheating, only if the barrel would be cooled.
2. Also the 5.56 caliber is regarded as insufficient by the experiences in Afghanistan.

Also the planed successive withdrawal from service of the MG 3 (to forward the MG4) is totaly of the table, now the BW will plan with the MG3 for the next 20 years.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 14, 2013)

> The FG42 was a special weapon only for paratroops and also very expensive and complecated to produce compare to the MG 42. It was developed mainly for less weight with optimal firepower.
> In summary 7500 weapons were produced between 1942-1945




I thought the MG42 was renamed postwar to the FG42. i was refrring to the MG42, for simplicity, not the parachute assault weapon, which had the same name. :





> Parsifal you have provided an execellent post and mostly I agree, but I can't understand that you are talking at one side, of the very serious problems of the M60, which it had at the early years (here timeline of Vietnam), but also claim it was a very good weapon at the same timeline (again timeline of Vietnam)



I base it on three things.....comments made by veterans that trained me on the weapon and used it in action in Vietnam in combat. Next things that I have read, and lastly on my own experience with the weapon. It had problems, but overall it was an accurate, reliable weapon, produced at low cost and in quatity




> When the M60 was at Vietnam a very good weapon, what name calling you would give the MG 42?



I thought it was referred to as the FG42, but if thats incorrect, fair enough. 




> To reconstruct the MG 42 to 7,62mm and to equip it with a heavier breech to reduce the firerate was very easy and well known at the late fiftys.
> The MG 42 and all it's "derivates", were and are compat proven at every extreme climatic terms and it had no problems with rain, snow, ice, mud, dirt and wet conditions, it was and is a very very reliable weapon or MG.




It was also subject to an export ban until the late 50's and as i understand it, was a bit more expensive than the M-60. 
But in many ways the MG42 was a great design, not just a good one



> Also from my knowledge from german veterans (WWII) and today BW soldiers, it is a very accurate weapon/MG in the hands of a skilled crew, the barrel change also cost only 4-5 seconds for a skilled crew


.


Barrel change for the M-60 was perhaps its weakest aspect, followed by the fixed regulator. These reduced costs of manufacture, but came at a little too great a price in operating efficiency. 




> I stand to my point, at the timeline of Vietnam the M60 with all it's serious- or kindergarden problems was miles away from the reliable and accurate MG 42.




I assume youve never used the m-60, never trained on the m-60, never had people with combat experience teach you about the weapon. I would suggest you are not in a good position to pass judgement on a weapon you dont have much experience with. If my assumptions are incorrect, i will stand corrected.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 14, 2013)

Glider said:


> The paper that was referred to is first class and shows up the indecision at the higher ranks of the US Army which as ever was paid for in the lives of those on the front line. Having identified in 1946 that the US army needed an LMG, there is no excuse for the delay before the M60 came into service.
> Re the comment about the FN being untested in the Vietnam era, I thought that it was in use from the late 1950's certainly in the British Army so it at least as proven as the M60.
> 
> I have a book on the fighting in Vietnam written by an Australian member of their recce unit. His favorite weapon was the Owen, it was light, fast firing and very reliable. Range wasn't an issue in the jungle but if you came across the enemy the ability to fire a lot of ammo in their direction often gave you the time to act. They were then issued with M16's which they got rid of as fast as they could and relied on modified SLR's.



Very good post. Regarding the m-16, the Aussies did, and still dont like them, because of the lightnes of the round and the basic innaccuracy of the weapon. The Australians fighting in Vietnam preferred the SLR by miles both in its semi auto (the majority of weapons) and the auto version (I confess ive forgotted its designation....getting older now)...

Dont know about the Owen, though ive fired it. its a very pleasnt autometic weapon to fire, and controllable in short bursts. The account you give is certainly very believable.


----------



## DonL (Nov 14, 2013)

> I assume youve never used the m-60, never trained on the m-60, never had people with combat experience teach you about the weapon. I would suggest you are not in a good position to pass judgement on a weapon you dont have much experience with. If my assumptions are incorrect, i will stand corrected.




Ähm personal I have very minor experience with the M60, that is correct. (I have experience with the MG 3)

But most of my informations comes from my father, who was trained at the MG 3 and very often trained at the late sixtys with american soldiers at several maneuver but more important at many challenges between the two Armys.
He and his friends have told me a lot of the problems, the US soldiers had with the M60 at those challenges and that there was not a single US soldier, who would prefer a M60 over the MG 3 at that timeline, especially the US soldiers who were trained and knew the MG 3 from personal experience.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 14, 2013)

I think the german MG is superior to the m60, though I have no experience on the MG42, so in that sense we agree. My issue was your refernce to the m60 as crap, which runs contrary to all the experience Ive had on the weapon. Some of the written accounts are pretty critical of it, and even my own experience does show that it could only be termed a qualified success. but crap it aint. 

This thread was about the impact of the SG44 on Infantry tactics. I would say profound, but it still doesnt displace the GPMG as the primary means of a squad delivering firepower. The emergence of the assault rifle, whether it be fully auto like the AK47, or semi auto like the FN-SLR, more or less eliminated the magazine fed LMG as part of the inventory. Belt fed, continuous fire MGs capable of fulfilling both the support and the assault role became the norm, and the MG 42 led the way in that department as well. i would say that the MG42 was more revolutionary than the SG44 in that respect, but both concepts have completely altered the tactical methods of the western Infantry Squads. 

I do think it worthwhile to point out that that the venerable 50 cal remains a major weapon in both the US and the Australaian inventory. My main exposure to the fifty was when i was on the maritime patrol line. It it is a potent, cheap, and appropriate weapon for such things as hunting Somali (or in my case, Indonesian) pirates (except when they fire back using RPGs!!!) forciing drug runners to stop, or boarding boats with illegal immigrants. There is nothing quite like a warning shot from a 50 cal. it says "Stop, or things are going to get serious!" really well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Nov 14, 2013)

I admit that the word crap was too much and wrong.
Perhaps in summary the M60 wasn't the best weapon for it's duty and the US Army had the possibility to get a better one.



> This thread was about the impact of the SG44 on Infantry tactics. I would say profound, but it still doesnt displace the GPMG as the primary means of a squad delivering firepower. The emergence of the assault rifle, whether it be fully auto like the AK47, or semi auto like the FN-SLR, more or less eliminated the magazine fed LMG as part of the inventory. Belt fed, continuous fire MGs capable of fulfilling both the support and the assault role became the norm, and the MG 42 led the way in that department as well. i would say that the MG42 was more revolutionary than the SG44 in that respect, but both concepts have completely altered the tactical methods of the western Infantry Squads.



I agree but after your very qualified arguments the merits go to the MG 34, it was the first high performance belt fed "squad" MG in mass production.
More complicated and more expensive to produce and not as good at mud and dirt as the MG 42.



> I do think it worthwhile to point out that that the venerable 50 cal remains a major weapon in both the US and the Australaian inventory. My main exposure to the fifty was when i was on the maritime patrol line. It it is a potent, cheap, and appropriate weapon for such things as hunting Somali (or in my case, Indonesian) pirates (except when they fire back using RPGs!!!) forciing drug runners to stop, or boarding boats with illegal immigrants. There is nothing quite like a warning shot from a 50 cal. it says "Stop, or things are going to get serious!" really well.



I also agree,
but to me it would a realy interesting discussion, which is and/or was the "better" (or maybe both ways are good) way,
the 50cal way or the german 20mm way for heavy infantry support.
I'm a huge fan of the 50 cal Browning and I'm undecided at the issue 7,62/7,92 to 50 cal or direct to 20mm.


----------



## Glider (Nov 14, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Very good post. Regarding the m-16, the Aussies did, and still dont like them, because of the lightnes of the round and the basic innaccuracy of the weapon. The Australians fighting in Vietnam preferred the SLR by miles both in its semi auto (the majority of weapons) and the auto version (I confess ive forgotted its designation....getting older now)...
> 
> Dont know about the Owen, though ive fired it. its a very pleasnt autometic weapon to fire, and controllable in short bursts. The account you give is certainly very believable.



Thanks for thi,s the book is called Crossfire An Australian reconnaissance in Vietnam. On Kindle it only cost me GBP 1.80 which is almost nothing, its worth a try.


----------



## davebender (Nov 14, 2013)

I thought Germans preferred 20mm weapons such as Rh 202 cannon on the Marder IFV. Have you become a convert to the American way of war?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 14, 2013)

Dont know too much about the modern german autocannons, but cost is probably the main thing going for the 50. You get a lot of bang for your buck and the thing just keeps keeping on no matter how badly abused


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 14, 2013)

The M-60 went through a number of changes. Many people (users) didn't keep track of which version ( M-60E2 or M60-E5 or ????)
Later versions did solve some of the problems.

The main limit of firepower for a LMG was barrel heating, not the type of ammo feed. Firing as fast a possible ( not aiming and not firing bursts, just firing as fast as magazines or belts could be changed) you can totally ruin a barrel in 500-700 rounds. That means barrel glowing red, no rifling left for a number of inches in front of the chamber, in some cases mainsprings loosing temper and gun stopping firing. 
Quick change barrels allow a much higher rate of fire than fixed barrels and start to push the 'fire power' question into how much ammo the squad is carrying for the gun. Belted ammo is around 6 pounds per hundred, give or take for each countries ammo. 800 rounds is going to be about 48lbs _not including boxes_. Magazine fed guns add weight of magazines to the ammo load. 
Foot infantry and infantry carried by APCs may have very different loads of ammo available. 

The M-60 does have an advantage than many other guns didn't have in that the barrels had a stellite liner or insert that tolerated heat much, MUCH better than plain steel barrels and allowed troops to abuse them in the field (combat) in ways that other guns would not tolerate. Which was a good thing because the barrel change on the early M-60s truly su**ed. Having to use an asbestos glove to change barrels in combat is NOT a valid solution. Having the bi-pod attacked permanently to the barrel means there was no support for the gun with the barrel off and each spare barrel had the weight and bulk of the bi-pod. 

Some guns had chrome lined barrels and would tolerate higher rates of fire than plain steel barrels.


----------



## Denniss (Nov 15, 2013)

So in short: MG 42 and derivatives like MG 3 were far better than the M60 upon introduction in both RoF and sustained rates of fire (due to quick barrel change).


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 15, 2013)

The high rate of fire as an advantage is debatable. 

It is certainly an advantage if the gun is being used for AA work, the MG 42 being used as an anti-aircraft gun perhaps more than any other 6.5-8mm machine gun of it's time. 
It is an advantage in the first 1-3 seconds of an ambush (most ambushees will have taken cover in the first few seconds). 

After that things start to get fuzzy. How much can good training keep the bursts short to match the available ammo supply? In which case the cyclic rate of fire becomes almost immaterial. A Bren gun can use up it's "book" ammo supply of 750 rounds in 6.25 minutes at the "book" rate of 4 magazines a minute (120rpm) for 'sustained' fire. Granted the belt feed guns do not have the weight of the magazines to lug around and _may_ have more ammo in the squad. 
How effective are the bursts? How much does the gun move during the burst affecting the impact point? In other words how effective are the last several shots of an 8 shot burst compared to the first 4 shots or the 4 shots fired from a slow firing machine gun (in the same time) IF the gun has swung higher or wider than the target area under recoil?
Much more of a problem with bi-pod mounted guns than tripod or vehicle mounted guns. 

The MG 42 did have one of the best quick change barrel systems ever used if not _THE_ best. To be clear I mean it very well could have been the best. But then it may have needed a _very_ good quick change barrel system. 
The MG 34 fired at about 1/2 way between the MG 42 and most other guns and it's barrel change was better than some but certainly not ideal. The Receiver could be unlatched from the barrel housing and rotated about 180 degrees and then the gun _tipped up_ to allow the barrel to slide out to where the gunner/s could grab it and pull it out to replace with fresh barrel. A glove was often helpful. Increasing the firing rate by 1/3 (and the heat production) meant that solution might not have been acceptable.

Please also remember that _most_ of these guns had _ONE SPARE_ barrel with the squad and the hot barrel taken from the gun had hardly cooled to air temperature when it was it's turn to go back in the gun ( barrels swaps were often around every 2 1/2 minutes when firing at 120 rounds a minute "by the book"). Streams, wet grass, canteen water and snow all helped but cannot be depended on.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 15, 2013)

Probably, but its advantages are not "far better" in the real world. 

perhaps if you are a weekend warrior fighting in the nice temperate fields of the north German Plain, where your re-supply depot is 2 miles down the road somewhere, yes, you can shoot all day at 1200 rpm, change the barrel in a few seconds, not worry about your ammunition supply and not have a care about barrel wear. For most battlefields, where logistics is far harder, there isnt much difference between the two weapons.

Back in the early 80's i observed a number of big excercises with the US in the northern Australian outback. thousands of miles from the nearest depot, hot dry conditions with limite supplies of ammo. Our Leopard tanks were fitted with MG3s as a turret mounted weapon. They had the same effective rof sustained as the M-60, were not as accurate, and wore out barrels just as quickly. And their replacement costs for us were prohibitive, evene against the US stuff. About twice the price for each barrel used. Thats probably why we ditched em in the finish....too expensive to maintain

There is technical superiority, and real superiority. The MG3 has both, but not marked for the real advantages on real world battlefields, and not nearly as much as what the books say. its because the weapon is not the main limiting factor....its getting the supply to keep it firing that is the big issue


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 15, 2013)

How did the M1919A6 compare?


----------



## DonL (Nov 15, 2013)

An ordinary squad carries 3-4 change barrels today at the BW and at the Wehrmacht.

Also I realy doubt that a M60 is more accurate as the MG 3 or MG 42, here training and crew skill is the focal point.
The MG 42 and MG 3 is in need for a trained soldier, but then it is very accurate. My father and me have shot very accurate point fire with a MG 3.
The trigger is to control the burst with your finger and have a solid position.

Also the MG 42 and MG 3 were much more reliable (against mud, dirt etc) at the introduction of the M60, the M60 took a very long time to sort all problems out.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 15, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> How did the M1919A6 compare?



It didn't. 

It was too big, too heavy, too, clumsy. It was a "quicky" solution to the FACT that the BAR was what it said (Browning _AUTOMATIC RIFLE_) and NOT a light machine gun and some US forces needed more firepower. Taking a medium machine gun (no matter how good) off it's tripod and fitting a bi-pod and shoulder stock does not make it a good light machine gun. It was 6-8lbs heavier than most other LMGs, while you could change the barrel it was not as quick but since the barrel was heavier to begin with it could sustain fire a bit better, the ammo was clumsy in that it was a belt feed that came 'normally' in 200 round belts in boxes, the belt could be 'broken' in shorter lengths for carrying the gun while loaded, The German ammo came in 50 round belts that could be linked and there was a "drum" that held one 50 round belt that could be attached to the gun for fire and movement by one man. Unlike the movies carrying dangling belts often wind up with the belts snagging in underbrush. Either slowing down the gunner or jamming the gun or both. 

The MG 34 and MG 42 were the first GPMGs (_general purpose_ machine guns) but as with all weapons that try to multi-role they may not have been the best at any ONE thing. 
The savings in training time, logistics and manufacturing can overcome small deficiencies in one area or another as long as they are not too great. At least most nations thought so after WW II.


----------



## DonL (Nov 15, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> It didn't.
> 
> It was too big, too heavy, too, clumsy. It was a "quicky" solution to the FACT that the BAR was what it said (Browning _AUTOMATIC RIFLE_) and NOT a light machine gun and some US forces needed more firepower. Taking a medium machine gun (no matter how good) off it's tripod and fitting a bi-pod and shoulder stock does not make it a good light machine gun. It was 6-8lbs heavier than most other LMGs, while you could change the barrel it was not as quick but since the barrel was heavier to begin with it could sustain fire a bit better, the ammo was clumsy in that it was a belt feed that came 'normally' in 200 round belts in boxes, the belt could be 'broken' in shorter lengths for carrying the gun while loaded, The German ammo came in 50 round belts that could be linked and there was a "drum" that held one 50 round belt that could be attached to the gun for fire and movement by one man. Unlike the movies carrying dangling belts often wind up with the belts snagging in underbrush. Either slowing down the gunner or jamming the gun or both.
> 
> ...



In general I agree with your post.

But you should show me a squad MG that was better then the MG 34/42 at the WWII. And also to my opinion the MG 3 is the cutting edge today for a squad MG.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 15, 2013)

RE: The M-60
It just seems it would have been much more efficient to clone the MG42, especially after the 7.62×51mm NATO was adopted.

It seems we often feel it necessary to re-invent the wheel, perhaps to avoid royalty fees.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 15, 2013)

They still had the German-American competitions when I was in Germany in the early 70's.
At Wildflecken they had a competition between a Bundeswehr MG3 team and a US Army M-60 at the 1000 meter mg range.

Pop up targets from 100 meters all the way out to about 800-850 meters, since these were bipod guns. Two boxes of ammo allowed, 400 rounds total.
Close targets were solitary pop ups while mid range were double, and long range ( 700 m+) were squads, 6-8.

The M-60 team won because the BW team went thru their allotted ammo before the problem was over. The M-60- team engaged the close targets with 3, sometimes 2 round burst, while the German team didn't or couldn't get out that small a burst for a solitary target.

Just a training situation maybe, but with real world implications.

The M-60 was my weapon in Vietnam, the only machinegun I have extensive experience with. I've fired others, including the MG3.

There was features I liked about the MG3, the barrel change in particular. The high rate of fire would be useful in some situations, not so good in others.

Ideal would be a machinegun that could fire single shot from a closed bolt, then open bolt at, 600 rpm, and 1000-1200 rpm, but that would be a complicated and expensive weapon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mobius (Nov 15, 2013)

Obviously, the Germans would have gone to a 4-5 man fireteam. One MG 42 with 2-3 StG 44 armed men have about the same firepower as a regular squad.


----------



## wiking85 (Nov 15, 2013)

Mobius said:


> Obviously, the Germans would have gone to a 4-5 man fireteam. One MG 42 with 2-3 StG 44 armed men have about the same firepower as a regular squad.



The question is whether they stick with 2 or 3 fire teams per squad.


----------



## Mobius (Nov 15, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> The question is whether they stick with 2 or 3 fire teams per squad.


Probably 1, and then redefine it as a squad. Thereby getting enough squads to fill the paper divisions.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 15, 2013)

DonL said:


> But you should show me a squad MG that was better then the MG 34/42 at the WWII.



Bren gun. 

But the Bren was a lousier AFV gun, especially for co-ax or turret use, The Bren was worse at trying to fill the medium mg role on a tripod even though tripods were available. The Tripod mounted mediums were _supposed_ to sustain 200rpm for long periods of time that is asking a bit much form a Bren. The Bren was a lousier AA gun even with the gas regulator opened to the max and fitted with a 96-100 round drum. So you have three roles where the MG 34 or 42 was better and one role where the Bren was better. 

As for the MG 3 today? fit the barrels with stellite inserts, slow the gun down to around 900rpm (fit heavier bolt?) and make dam* sure the quality of your ammo stays high. 

And that is not cutting edge but things that could be done in the 1950s.


----------



## wiking85 (Nov 16, 2013)

Mobius said:


> Probably 1, and then redefine it as a squad. Thereby getting enough squads to fill the paper divisions.



What? Why? Even the Germans were still fielding 8-9 man squads in 1944-45. You need a minimum of 2 fire teams to have a squad; just calling a fire team a squad doesn't me it has the strength to do the tasks a squad does, so even if you fill out your paper divisions with fire teams called squads, its just a semantics game at a different level. Rather than calling an paper division a division, you're just calling a paper platoon a platoon.


----------



## DonL (Nov 17, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Bren gun.
> 
> But the Bren was a lousier AFV gun, especially for co-ax or turret use, The Bren was worse at trying to fill the medium mg role on a tripod even though tripods were available. The Tripod mounted mediums were _supposed_ to sustain 200rpm for long periods of time that is asking a bit much form a Bren. The Bren was a lousier AA gun even with the gas regulator opened to the max and fitted with a 96-100 round drum. So you have three roles where the MG 34 or 42 was better and one role where the Bren was better.
> 
> ...



You can look here! You will see short burst with a MG3 are the norm. The BW has* two* bolts, one with 900 rpm and one with 1200 rpm.

At the two videos you can see the *major* difference between a MG 42 and MG 3 of today.
The MG 3 is able to manage very short bursts
Also that the MG3 is able to manage the historical belts (MG 42 and M60) and also the modern belts of the FN.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32b51Hpsfmc_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAxkvctd5Ps_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxKFs2vANJw_

You can see and hear the major differences of the MG 3 compare to the MG 42 and that it is possible to do a short burst with a MG 3

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 17, 2013)

Excellent material DonL, I really enjoyed watching those training images. They show very clearly, both the great stengths of the MG42 and at the same time its weaknesses. 

The strengths are of course its terrifying rof and continuous fire capabilities. This enabled it to operate in both the offensive and defensive role at the same time.

The weaknesses of the MG42 were its high rate of fire and its ability to fire large volumes of ammunition more or less continuously. in other words, the MG42s strengths were, at the same time its weaknesses. A high ROF in a situation where ammunition was in short suppy was a definite liablity, moreover the High ROF meant that barrels were needed to be changed every 150 rounds or so . Human nature being what it is, people will tend to keep pulling that trigger and not conserve ammunition. This increases ammo expenditure and inherently makes the weapon less controllable, except if a second squad memeber is there to help unjam snagged belts, feed additional ammunition boxes and hold the bipod down to try and keep the weapon steady. Not big problems, except if you are short of bullets and/or short of men, like in the jungle. 

By comparison, the Brens apparent weaknesses were its low rate of fire, and its magazine feed. Its strengths wer its low rate of fire and its magazine feed!

Low ROF made it a far more controllable weapon, and greatly reduced the ammunition expenditure. It also greatly reduced barrel wear, because it allowed barrles to cool more regualalry. A barrel change might be needed every 1000 rounds, or more. Having a magazine feed greatly reduced the problem of mud and grit, and more or less forced breaks in shoot, that enabled the gunner of commander to take stock and order a ceasefire if that was what was required

In some situations the Bren was a far better squad weapon for these reasons


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QaPxbiQATE_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-CfuvCHq4I_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL09sLcKW4M_


----------



## parsifal (Nov 17, 2013)

Another intersting comparison, SG43 vs MG 42


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5MAg5feoUQ_


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 17, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Excellent material DonL, I really enjoyed watching those training images. They show very clearly, both the great stengths of the MG42 and at the same time its weaknesses.
> 
> The strengths are of course its terrifying rof and continuous fire capabilities. This enabled it to operate in both the offensive and defensive role at the same time.
> 
> ...



I would note that in the first video the gun is NOT firing 'real' ammo. The total lack of recoil is something of a giveaway 

Some re-enactors use guns converted to use compressed gas (propane or acetylene ?) for noise and muzzle flash while being safe and avoiding legal problems of machinegun ownership. 

The MG 42 was a very good design and as I said before, could do a number of jobs fairly well with little or no modification even if not being the ideal for some of the jobs. But going for the ideal in _each_ job might mean 2 or 3 or even 4 different guns.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 17, 2013)

Much criticism has been leveled at the M60 for that asbestos glove that was used with changing barrels.

On the MG3 or MG42 you better be wearing a good pair of gloves too when you pull that barrel out, of course you could just tip the muzzle up and it'd fall out, but that would tell the world where you were and what you're doing.

What I thought was funny in the first video was the troop that had a misfire, or simulating clearing a misfire. He drops the ammo belt on the ground, then picks it up and puts it back in the gun. In my experience that action would have resulted in some choice words and many pushups.

In the 70's when I encountered the Bundeswehr and their MG3s, they had the light bolts and buffer and faster 1200+rpm firing rate, not the slower firing rate of the MG3s in those videos. In that era the M60s and MG3s were still considered part of the AA defense capabilities against the then lightly armored helicopters .

You could drive around the training areas at Wildflecken and tell when the BW was using each area by that distinctive sound the MG3 made.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 17, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Much criticism has been leveled at the M60 for that asbestos glove that was used with changing barrels.
> 
> On the MG3 or MG42 you better be wearing a good pair of gloves too when you pull that barrel out, of course you could just tip the muzzle up and it'd fall out, but that would tell the world where you were and what you're doing.









Now maybe you could hold onto the bi-pod without using the glove but please notice that _without_ the tripod the gunner may have difficulty holding the gun up. 

With the Bren the bipod held up the gun and the carrying handle could be used to change the barrel.

One BIG criticism of the M-60 is how much of it they got wrong or how many better solutions for various details had been used around the world years before the M-60 came out.

For guns designed and built in the 30s it is one thing to get a few things less than optimum but for gun developed in the 1950s to get soooo much below par is a true puzzle considering ALL the WW II experience they had to draw on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 17, 2013)

> I would note that in the first video the gun is NOT firing 'real' ammo. The total lack of recoil is something of a giveaway
> 
> Some re-enactors use guns converted to use compressed gas (propane or acetylene ?) for noise and muzzle flash while being safe and avoiding legal problems of machinegun ownership


. 

I posted that clip just for mood or effect. I saw staright away that it was not a live fire. 




> The MG 42 was a very good design and as I said before, could do a number of jobs fairly well with little or no modification even if not being the ideal for some of the jobs. But going for the ideal in _each_ job might mean 2 or 3 or even 4 different guns


.


The MG42 was the best all round "General Purpose" MG for many years. The BREN was the best LMG. Trouble for the BREN is that its role pretty much became obsolete with the introduction of Assault Rifles. not completely, but enough so....


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 17, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 248053
> 
> 
> Now maybe you could hold onto the bi-pod without using the glove but please notice that _without_ the tripod the gunner may have difficulty holding the gun up.
> ...


 
Also note how far you had to pull the barrel forward to get it out of the barrel shroud, hard to do and keep under cover, most guys pulled the whole gun back into the fighting hole to change barrels.

Me being in a chopper rarely had to change barrels . I had a nightmare of changing one inflight and fumbling it out the door, so I usually carried two, and the mitt.

I never thought it was so bad until I saw the MG3.

And we don't have Hitler and Goring to blame.


----------

