Probably 1, and then redefine it as a squad. Thereby getting enough squads to fill the paper divisions.
StG 44 influence on German tactics
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
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.
Last edited:
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
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
Banned
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
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
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
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
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
Shortround6
Major General
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.
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.
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
Major General
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.
parsifal
Colonel
.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 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....
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.
