StG 44 influence on German tactics

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

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

.


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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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

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.

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).

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.

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

How did the M1919A6 compare?

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.

gjs238 said:

How did the M1919A6 compare?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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