Armor Penetration - 20mm vs. .50 cal.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Ref. the bolded bit; US 20 mm ammunition was exported and used by the RAF, RAAF and the SAAF. There were some first hand reports that it tended to suffer more misfires than UK manufactured ammunition, but it might have just been a perception, as US ammo was generally used outside of the UK, where Hispano stoppage rates were generally lower.
 
Re the US 20mm. On Malta they had a series of stoppages and it was tracked down to US produced 20mm ammunition. Despite the desperate shortages of all stores on Malta, the decision was taken to destroy all US produced 20mm ammunition. As a result of this the problem disappeared.

Also in the US they tested the US produced 20mm against the UK produced 20mm and the UK built weapon was far more reliable than any of the US produced gun. So far so good, but the stoppage rate for the UK 20mm was still considerably less than the RAF were experiencing in combat. I have often wondered if this was because they presumably used US 20mm ammo for the test and I admit that this second part is just a theory on my part.
 
I see people comparing this and discounting that. I have a question, well several. Who made 300000 military A/C in ww-II, who by 1945 had a Pacific Fleet larger than any other 2 navys on the planet? Who produced more bomber (and transport) A/C than all other combatants combined? Who made more military trucks than all other combatants combined (just under 2.4 million)? Who produce more merchant ships almost 4 million tons) than all other combatants combined? Who kept England afloat when they were, isolated and no longer effective as a fighting force? Look at Coal, Iron and Petroleum production.
So who cares if the BAR was not a MG42? If the German mobile AA had SLIGHTLY better armor than a US Army half-track? You want to sit in any open topped armored vehicle with someone shooting at it from above with eight 50 BMGs? I would think it was a poor idea, based on having been shot at by 4 on a truck mounted WW-II AA mount one night some years back. 20 MM vs 50 BMG? Anyone here read Robert S. Johnson's book? He flew against 20MM armed German fighters and thought that their making a head on pass at his P-47 would just add another cross on his A/C.
The Germans, Italians and Japanese LOST THE WAR. They were inferior on the battlefield for several reasons and they LOST. This is ALL that matters. We out produced them and outperformed them on the battlefield and they LOST. Then who had the M42s and the panzers???
 
The only reply I can give is that the poor bloody infantry who had to use a BAR whilst the enemy had the Mg 42 cared. You know the same guy's who no doubt saw there friends killed and wounded because the other side had the better weapon. Also the crews of the Sherman tank, who knew that the probability was that they would lose 3 Sherman's to a single Panther. I'll bet they cared.

I find it sad that Icorps doesn't care, it may well say a lot about him.
 
Last edited:
I have been the "poor bloody infantry". I also have carried and used a belt fed MG to some considerable extent in a "combat zone". Don't tell me about caring, I just know what to care ABOUT. The Americans did not have a MG42 the enemy did. Setting in my living room typing on a laptop will not change this or bring back the dead. My point was that the MG42 being superior to the BAR or the BREN or any other mag fed squad automatic weapon while true, did not change the outcome. The guys with the BAR defeated the guys with the MG42. I also know or in some cases now knew "poor bloody infantrymen" from WW-II and Korea. One who fought in North Africa talked about how good one of the men was with a BAR. I do not recall Charlie ever saying "boy we wished it was a MG42". I have never heard a WW-II or Korean vet complain about what a POS the BAR was it was accurate, reliable and apparently popular probably why we did not develop a lightweight belt fed in the late 1930s and it was used in combat between the two World Wars. Any advantage the MG42 might have had in rate of fire was completely offset (actually more than offset) by the German's use of an obsolete general issue battle rifle with what was an low rate of fire compared to the Garand. While less accurate the Garand would consistently produce more hits per pound of ammo fired than the 1903 Springfield in any kind of realistic rapid fire scenario. So while WE fought with a state of the art 1917 squad automatic weapon the Germans fought with state of the art Spanish American War battle rifle, a bolt action with crappy battle sights. I am sure this killed more Germans and saved more Americans than our using the BAR cost us, no matter WHAT MG we had the Germans would have still had the MG42. Tell me how the US Army having something "better than the BAR" will somehow make the German weapons less effective. If I had the choice of being in a platoon with M1s and BARs or K98s and MG42s the M1 wins every time. But I would also point our that the American Infantry doctrine was different than the German infantry doctrine. They figured the MG was going to dominate the battle field as it did in WW-I and built their small units around it and relegated the rifle to secondary importance. They were wrong.
When in combat one learns not to worry about things one cannot change. So no matter how poorly the Sherman might have been the crews carried on. Just as the German infantryman did with his obsolete battle rifle that might get HIM killed when he has work the bolt, the GI sees the movement and drills him with his M1.
 
Unlike yourself I do not claim to have experience of these weapons but I have read extensively and read many times how the US and British infantry stated that they preferred the German mg's compared to the Bren and BAR. As an experienced infantry man can I ask you to confirm or deny my understanding that the better and more effective your weapons, the more you can impose your will on the battlefield, the more you can do that then a reduction in your casualties is almost certain.

No one is doubting that the tankers be they any allied nation pressed on in their Shermans, Cromwells and T34's, they all showed great courage, the question is did they care and I believe that they did.

In the British Army there was in many ways more flexibility in the weapons that were used. In many units it was normal to ditch the Sten and replace it with captured Axis sub machine guns. It was also common to use Mg 42's in set pieces when defending but not in normal operations where the Bren was considered better for a number of reasons. Interestingly I have never heard of a British soldier dumping his Lee Enfield for something else.
 
Last edited:

Battlefield performance =\= manufacturing performance


Ask the troops what they want, the best of its type, or simply adequate.

Yes, there is grass is always greener syndrome. But frankly, the BAR was pretty much at the bottom of the heap when it came to automatic weapons for infantry for WW2.

Similarly, would you want to drag 800 kg of weapons and ammo in a fighter, or 600 kg of weapons and ammo with better performance?


Much of the US approach to WW2 was like the M2 machine gun: adequate for the job, provided it was deployed in sufficient numbers.

In industrialised warfare, industrial capacity matters. To paraphrase Stalin: In war, quantity has a quality all of its own. I've notice you've not mentioned the Soviets at all in your little rants.

I wonder if you can find a WW2 battlefield where the Germans were inferior - on a man to man basis - than the US. The Dupy Institute has some studies that might interest you.
 
The BAR is always a problem in these discussions because it was a bit of an oddball gun. It didn't put out the volume of fire of a true light machine gun. BUT, being a John M. Browning design it was rugged and reliable, two things some other WW II LMGs were not. The Italian LMG was pretty much a disaster and most of the Japanese ones weren't very good either. Both of these countries had LMGs that jammed more often than the Browning and broke more often. Having a gun that works when you need it to work means a lot to soldiers so many veterans (who had no chance to use Bren guns or even German LMGs) have very positive memories of the BAR.
 
And you couldn't change barrels which meant that it couldn't undertake sustained fire. So you have a weapon that was unable to undertake important tasks, was tricky to reload and had a small magazine but was reliable. Would that sum it up?
 
I am not sure about the tricky to reload part. It was certainly much easier than a Breda 30

A number of LMGs used 20-30 round magazines (a few used 25 round mags). The lack of a quick change barrel was a problem but a few others also lacked quick change barrels.
 
Seems a bit sensationalist

I have no doubt that a single MG 42 may have fired 12,000 rounds during D day, but that is not exactly typical use and makes no mention of barrels used, or where the gunner GOT 12,000 rounds, for perspective in 1940/41 in the US Army 12,500 rounds belted .30 cal was the payload of the 1/2 ton weapons carrier (soon upgraded to 3/4 ton). I would also note that back in WW I ten Vickers machine guns averaged over 8000 rounds an hour for 12 hours in one action. Since the MG 42 was a GPMG that was supposed to replace the Maxim gun (counterpart to the Vickers) it is not surprising that in a defensive position (much like WW I) a single gun could kill hundreds of men trying to advance over somewhat open ground. (and there were instances in WW I of single or paired dug in MGs killing hundreds of men while using 1/2 the cycle rate).

The MG 42 was one of the best LMGs of the war, it was also a creditable MMG. But it was not a super weapon and the fact that it was one of the two best LMGs does NOT mean the BAR was the worst, there were plenty of other guns that fell below the BAR even if the Bar wasn't in the top 2-3.
 
I have often wondered as the MG42 was such a distinctive sound did the gun become a shell Mortar bomb and bullet magnet as soon as it fired. I wonder what the average lifespan of a MG42 crewman was.
 
OK, Old thread to dig up, I was just trying to look up some info. But I cannot resist responding.


So I guess the Persians at Thermopylae should think this as well. Who needs well trained and armored infantry with large shields to defend a battle line? Since we (the Persians) won the battle, our method of warfare, arms and armor, as well as the training of our men is superior to the Greeks as we have proved.

Well, at least the Persians were bit smarter than that, after this point hiring out Greek Heavy Infantry to supplement their armies. You would wonder why they did not develop their own, but at least the learned the value of such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

C
500 Pound Bomb vs 1000 Pound Bomb
Replies
8
Views
1K
alsaad
Ejected shells vs pusher props
Replies
5
Views
608
CATCH 22
Japanese 100 rd box for the 20mm cannon?
Replies
3
Views
953
tomo pauk
M
20mm M97 and 7.62mm Minigun gatling gun with turrent manuals with ipc and diagrams1981 - government public released
Replies
1
Views
2K
m13katyusa2020
M
M
F4U-1 Corsair "blast tubes" for .50 cal MG's?
Replies
4
Views
2K
MrSmoothie
M
Menu
Log in
Register