MG-34 vrs MG-42

[Ursus]

What are the differences between these two machine guns? The MG-42 seeem to be better, but I dont know why?

[Pistolenschutze]

There really isn't a great deal of difference, Bear. The Maschinengewehr 34, first operational in 1934 as the name implies, was designed as a multi-purpose, highly reliable machine gun with an extremely high cyclic rate of fire and it performed admirably in this role. The Maschinengewehr 42 was not greatly changed in design EXCEPT it utilized stamped rather than milled parts, making it much faster and less expensive to produce during wartime. Both designs were air-cooled which meant that the barrels heated up rather quickly with sustained fire. The Krauts compensated for this by making the barrel extremely easy to change out.

[southernshooter]

They are both fun

[Ursus]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

There really isn't a great deal of difference, The Maschinengewehr 42 was not greatly changed in design EXCEPT it utilized stamped rather than milled parts, making it much faster and less expensive to produce during wartime. Both designs were air-cooled which meant that the barrels heated up rather quickly with sustained fire. The Krauts compensated for this by making the barrel extremely easy to change out.

So ease of manufacture, (no a better performance) was the real reason why the MG-42 was a bit more common, right?

[LIKTOSHOOT]

Yes stamped parts and speed of manufacture were important, but barrel swapping wasn`t the safetest or fastest on the 34. The 42 vastly improved this feature and could not only be done faster-it could be done without gloves and without exposing your body.

42 had higher rate of fire-----nearly 400rpm`s faster than the 34.
Very scarey sound, KNOB CREEK will verify that, I cannot imagine, knowing I had to charge the dirrection of one.


LTS

[Ursus]

Those are good reasons LIKTOSHOOT. Thanks.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by LIKTOSHOOT

Yes stamped parts and speed of manufacture were important, but barrel swapping wasn`t the safetest or fastest on the 34. The 42 vastly improved this feature and could not only be done faster-it could be done without gloves and without exposing your body.

42 had higher rate of fire-----nearly 400rpm`s faster than the 34.
Very scarey sound, KNOB CREEK will verify that, I cannot imagine, knowing I had to charge the dirrection of one

True, LTS. The barrel swapping feature of the 42 was one of its strongest attributes, and very, very necessary with the rate of fire possible with that weapon. Compared to the .30 Browning machinegun--both air and water cooled versions, our primary MG of WWII--the Maschinengewehr was a far more efficient design. The problem the Krauts had with it toward the end of the war though, was that it went through a lot of ammo very quickly, and supplying the 7.92 x 57 rounds it needed came to be something of a problem.

[polishshooter]

PS, I have read, recently, that the MG 42 was nowhere near as accurate as the Brownings, (Granted, it threw a HECKUVA "beaten zone...) or the MG 34 and coupled with the rate of fire, it used WAY too much ammo for similar missions...PLUS you throw in the fact that the Germans were MG "Heavy" in their platoons, and cosidered all other infantrymen to be "MG Support," instead of the other way around, it caused a logistical nightmare...

And with the pivoted trigger,the 34 could be fired semi-automatically by pulling the top of the trigger, F/A by pulling the bottom

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

PS, I have read, recently, that the MG 42 was nowhere near as accurate as the Brownings . . .

That could be true, Polish, I honestly don't know, but I don't see that it is relevant when we are talking about machine guns. The purpose of an MG is to lay down LOTS of fire, not achieve pinpoint accuracy. That is for the riflemen. The Brownings were good, reliable weapons, no doubt about that, but they were really obsolete by the time WWII broke out. Changing out a barrel on one of those critters--and yes, I have helped do it on a similar weapon, the M2 .50--was both time consuming and a pain in the butt. The cyclic rate of fire on the Browning was also rather under par, at least when compared to the 34 or 42 Maschinengewehr. Ballistically, both weapons were pretty close to equal--30-06 v. 7.92 x 57--but the German weapon was a far better design overall.

[Ursus]

I've always have the MG-42 as the best WWII MG design. If it was tactically best, could be debatable. I lean to favor it. Maybe germans would had did better arming most of theirs platoons with MG-42, and G-43 or STG-44, instead of Mausers? What do you think, gentlemen?

[Pistolenschutze]

I think the Germans made a basic mistake--as did the Brits and the Russians--in not developing a good, reliable semi-automatic rifle for battle use as we did with the Garand. Instead, they relied on the slower bolt-action system that had not changed significantly since World War I. The Germans and the Brits certainly had the technical expertise to do precisely that. So did the Russians for that matter, but they had manufacturing and time-constraint problems that would have made that impractical.

[polishshooter]

I always wondered what would have happened had the BRITS adopted the Garand, and WE would have adopted the BREN? Talk about Infantry firepower!

The BAR did well, and was loved by GIs, but actually was just a heavier M1 with a bigger mag, not REALLY a LMG...while the BREN was...

But I think MAYBE the Brits were just a little better off...the Enfield rifle was the CLOSEST thing to a Semi Auto battle rifle of any B/As of the war....and the BREN had it ALL OVER the BAR.....at least for sustained fire....

[Ursus]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

But I think MAYBE the Brits were just a little better off...the Enfield rifle was the CLOSEST thing to a Semi Auto battle rifle of any B/As of the war....and the BREN had it ALL OVER the BAR.....at least for sustained fire....

Agree with you on that.