Was it really necessary to give the MG42 such a high rate of fire?

its takes 8 seconds to replace faggot, less if you have an experienced crew

It needed its high rate of fire for anti-aircraft use. Remember the MG42 was mean to fill all rifle-caliber mg roles.

>why wouldn't you want your gun to fire as fast as possible

Accuracy

add more barrels

Attached: M134-minigun-13.jpg (2200x1570, 430K)

>implying 1200rpm require accuracy, the mg3 can be used to "snipe" with using single shots according to bundeswehr crews

Maybe in a fixed position or on a tripod

standard bipods should be enough, i think. you definitely can make accurate shots with machine guns.

>not understanding german WWII squad tactics.
Your first mistake when posting any german MG

yea because a lower rate of fire would make it too accurate

hit probability > accuracy
when it comes to automatic weapons

youtube.com/watch?v=GzhP-fKivn4
Of course it was

I mean not really, but it was pretty cool

The MG42 was created as a "universal", or general purpose machine gun. This meant that it had to fulfill 5 or 6 different roles, with the anti-aircraft role in particular why such a high fire rate was needed.

youtu.be/OTh4f7ye1IQ?t=61

One of the stated goals of the program was to create a machine guns who's fire it was impossible to run through.

Yes

Fire discipline can give you an artificial lower rate of fire, but not a higher one. When you are firing at enemies who give you a lower exposure window, high ROF is desired, especially for machine guns.

For Assault Rifles, not so much. But machine guns, anything lower than 850 rounds per minute is a fucking disgrace.

The MG42 had an adjustable rate of fire by installing different bolts and recoil springs. So the rate could be between 900 to 1500 rpm.

I would bet most infantry units ran their guns at 900 rpm. And that is still fucking fast.

Isnt there a point where you ended up with two bullets in the barrel at the same time?

Attached: D2F6D090-7D52-4FD6-9043-F0D67E17F979.jpg (500x352, 38K)

>this faggot kid hasn't heard of fleeting targets

Attached: 1414749314263.jpg (480x557, 35K)

>But machine guns, anything lower than 850 rounds per minute is a fucking disgrace.
Piss off.

Attached: 1546766242778.jpg (2236x3139, 1.1M)

>But machine guns, anything lower than 850 rounds per minute is a fucking disgrace
the M240, one of the most widely used and frankly one of the best, can only go up to 900rpm
most people set it to 600 or 700 rpm, and only increase the gas rating to compensate for sluggish operation, so even at maximum speed it still wont be an overly high RoF

nearly all modern GPMGs other than the MG3 are set somewhere in the neighborhood of 700rpm, because anything higher is not necessary

That's whole 8 seconds of not firing

they made the MG42 shoot fast to make my pee pee hard

Attached: 1540013006584.gif (496x486, 3.38M)

That's quite impossible.

lmao fuck no.

>length of MG42 barrel: 21 inches
>velocity of 8mm round: 2700 feet per second

that means that it only takes the bullet approximately 0.00064 seconds to leave the barrel once fired. even at the MG42's highest possible rate of fire of 25 rounds per second, that still leaves a gap of 0.04 seconds between each shot which is nowhere near fast enough to result in two rounds being in the barrel simultaneously. retard.

There is the double feed failure but that's not really two bullets in the barrel and more like two bullets trying to share the chamber and failing horribly.

There's also squib loads where the powder was so weak it couldn't get the bullet out the barrel.

So if you've got two bullets in the barrel it's because something went horribly wrong.

S P A N D A U

Anyone that's ever worked in a weapons detachment or had to use a GPMG for just about anything could state many reasons. Some can be solved by having properly disciplined troops, but a lot are problems with the gun itself.
because it shoots so quickly, it wears down the barrel faster and will require more maintenance/have more barrels get lugged around.
Tied with the previous point, barrels overheat, and changing them exposes not only yourself but removes much of the firepower being brought down on the enemy for precious seconds. The MG42 didn't have a handle for the barrel which made this process even worse, you needed mitts to swap them, adding more time and an item you could lose in the field.
While scaring the shit out of the enemy, the rapid rate also means you burn more ammo. This is where discipline kicks in, but the less experienced will burn through their supply much faster. The obvious downside being you could suddenly be out of ammo entirely. A secondary problem is if that's a concern you're likely to bring more ammo to compensate. A weapons team already carries a bunch of extra weight and while necessary, it's just an extra grievance to have.
Finally, it's just overkill. Sure it puts the fear of death in the enemy, but so does most automatic fire. You're basically adding needless levels of suppression at the cost of being able to focus on several targets if need be. Again, discipline matters a lot in that regard, but in combat the less things you need to worry about the better.

So yeah, while a high rate is nice, it's not necessarily always better.

Feel free to explain the tactics and how ROF applies to them then, I'm all ears.

>Sure it puts the fear of death in the enemy, but so does most automatic fire.
Yeah, that was my point.
If you're getting shot at by an enemy with an MG, you're going to keep your head down the same regardless if the ROF is 500 rounds a minute or if it's 1500. Increasing the ROF does not make suppressing fire more effective.

see> >40849699

First shots for sure, just nothing sustained.

Clearly you don't know much about firefights, but 8 seconds is an unbelievably long time. It sometimes looks like military folk are being autistic in splitting hairs over performance numbers, but that's all it takes for a victor to be made. There's nothing louder then a dud gun or a machine gun getting a barrel change, and every second you aren't operational is giving them a chance to kill you.

Pretty much flank and force the enemy into a kill zone or suppress and flush.

Different user here, but it's well known among machinegunners. Germans preferred killing with the MG to killing by maneuver, vs the US who did the opposite.

Higher ROF let them get an effective beaten zone at longer ranges, which traded off against higher ammo expenditure per period of suppression fire at medium ranges.

Somehow my post looked a lot cleaner when writing it then how it is now. Apologies to anyone who reads through that.

your post would have actually been more legible had you employed "reddit spacing" but autists would complain about that

>Clearly you don't know much about firefights, but 8 seconds is an unbelievably long time.

I feel this needs more context.

How many targets can you shoot in 8 seconds? How far can you run in 8 seconds? How many grenades can you throw in 8 seconds?

>ctrl+F
>"plane"
>0 results
They were going with a "one MG to rule them all" philosophy meaning they wanted to produce one MG for every role. ~600-800 RPM is good for infantry use and ground vehicle mounting but if you are going to be strapping it to planes you want a higher rate of fire because the engagement windows are so narrow while dog-fighting.
This is why the M61 Vulcan and every other cannon you find of planes today has RPM measured in thousands.

>How many targets can you shoot in 8 seconds?

With a GPMG going cyclic against multiple squads in the open? All of them.

the high ROF for aviation guns makes perfect sense in the Jet age. But how relevant was that back in WWII, with props everywhere?

Just as relevant, you can only make hits when your plane is pointed in the exact right direction and with the enemy trying to evade that doesn't last long.

>With a GPMG going cyclic against multiple squads in the open?

No. I'm sure the question is referring to what the attacking Allied infantry might do in the 8-second window the MG42 is not firing while Fritz and Hans are replacing the barrel.

>you can only make hits when your plane is pointed in the exact right direction and with the enemy trying to evade that doesn't last long.

Sure, but isn't the available window much much longer when planes are flying around at 300 mph instead of 1500?

Keep in mind planes back then were smaller and more maneuverable (on account of flying slower). A high volume of fire was still incredible important, hence the fact planes had multiple MGs rather than just one.

most plane-armaments of the luftwaffe werent the MG42
they used custom made weapons like the MG 131 and MG 17

MG42 wasnt used for AA defence all that much either, especially since vehicles preferred the MG34 so that they could change barrels in a ballmount

in modern times, super-high RPM weapons are used for specialized niches like para-rescue
while GPMGs like the M240 all top out at about 700rpm because the times when they are going to need 1000+ rpm is so rare it would defeat the purpose of "general purpose"

>Higher ROF let them get an effective beaten zone at longer ranges
Why did it take so many posts to state this?

I highly doubt jets attempt to engage each other with their gatling guns when travelling mach 2

Relative speed is all that matters, if two planes are doing mach 2 in a straight line with one of the others tail the relative speed is nil.
They might only be doing 300mph but pulling back is still going to move them out of the "beaten zone" in well under a second.

At 300mph, the gun is the main weapon so it's important to optimize.

Today, it's the backup to a backup.

Also keep in mind that making even small maneuvers at mach 2 is quite taxing due to G-forces so if you're tailing another jet at that speed it would probably actually be harder for him to maneuver out the way of machine gun fire as apposed to if he was travelling just 300mph

It didn't see much aircraft use but that is why it had the high ROF, it was one of the many "this is a great idea" until they actually saw how little the 7.92mm did especially against the armoured cockpits of the allies.

I mean that depends on the situation, but that could range from Allied troops being able to secure a more tactically viable position, to all of the Axis being killed. It really depends on the context obviously, but never is there a time where giving your opponent 8 seconds to do anything is the right thing to do.

And obviously this is looking at merely one gun crew so the whole argument is a bit redundant. There's a reason why we set up several MG's and offer as much support as possible, so situations like this don't happen.
But the original point being that yes, 8 seconds matters a lot, and the closer the two combatants are the more severe things become.

Because most posters never served and wouldn't understand why that's important. Nonetheless I still stand by the argument that the ROF is still too high on the MG42, and how machine guns have developed since then would agree with me. Not that it's a bad gun by any stretch, and I'd rather have it then most Allied firearms at the time.

This is what I meant andgot the point. You only really need 2 seconds for an aimed shot and even less if you're already holding a point of aim.

try reading the threads you post in

In this thread you can perfectly see that most of Jow Forums has never served.
Believe it or not, we Bundeswehr guys actually are trained to fire in bursts, the length of the Burst depends on the situation you are in right now, but usually is between 3-15 rounds.

I am pretty sure that is the case in all modern armies of any remotely relevant countries.

You what does not happen when you fire in controlled bursts?
Too quickly overheating your barrels.

what is your squadmates job then?

Bundeswehr guy here, well trained MG3 guys replace it's barrel withing 2 seconds.

Shoulda been faster

Attached: 1541362333440.jpg (583x892, 65K)

there are several versions of its bolt
the one you think of starts out at 850 rpm then gets faster up to 1400 ish rpm
there is a latter type that was less complex to make and stayed at 850 rpm

It had to fire fast enough to kill 6,000,000 jews.

What's the point of having a machine gun without having a rate of fire faster than semi auto? Regular rifles need a controllable rate of fire to make them practical but MG's have bipods

They reduced the MG3's ROF down to around 900 back when it was still the MG2.

mate, 400 rounds per minute is faster than semi auto

Ballet

To make it slower they would have had to increase the bolt mass. So yes. Heavy is bad

Do you know what’s heavier than a bolt? Ammo.

Attached: Dillon_MG42.jpg (1754x1321, 763K)

Yes. When your logistics is 1870-tier, you absolutely need to burn through as much ammo as humanly possible.

Necessary? No. Feels good though.

intimidation same as the jericho trumpet on stukas

worked so well low test soiboi americucks signal corps had to put out propaganda on it even before they got their dainty socks wet at Normandy

sic. “its bark is worse than it’s bite”

Attached: ADC6422B-4ABD-4BAF-93CC-F00C1084A72E.jpg (960x638, 106K)

what are you a dummkofp? I wonder what cover fire means.

>3-15 rounds
On the 1,200 RMP MG42 that is 0.15-0.75 second bursts, assuming you have served and actually fired an MG then you know you could only use it for directed fire and not area suppression with such a short burst.

Read pic related if you want to know what a ww2 german machine gunner thought.

Attached: {81DDEB65-BA25-4D4A-A194-0601C9463355}Img100.jpg (510x680, 353K)

This, the Bundeswehr is in the process of replacing the MG3s in service with the slower firing MG5 but will retain the MG3 in vehicle mounted and anti-air roles
Wether the MG3 makes sense in an anti-air role for modern combat is another question

against helicopters or drones, a nearby machine gun to drive it off is your best bet
since a competent helo pilot will have ducked behind a hill or else properly suppressed the targets before you can bring heavy weapons to bear
while drones are generally not worth wasting a missile on

its not wholly unreasonable to have a super fast weapon in this role
although whether germany will ever face massed attack helicopter attacks in the near future or ever is another story

Fake News nigger

Because Jerry overextended, made the gun fill every niche possible for a rifle-caliber machine gun. Including anti-aircraft duty. For every other application this rate of fire was excessive, hence literally every infantry gpmg (literally every single one on the planet, including MG42 descendants) right now has a lower rate of fire, with the most popular ones (PKM, FN MAG, etc) having twice as low rof. It was a mistake, plain and simple. Everyone who pulls any excuses in this thread is a know-nothing know-it-all.

I really do not think that you are wrong but the bullet speed is not fixed. It starts at zero and increases on a curve. The math is more complicated than dividing muzzle velocity by barrel length.

That's impossible. If that were to ever happen, you'd have the gun explode. Think about it. You have a barrel pressurized to 35,000 PSI while the bullet is still in it, imagine extracting a case while it's under that much pressure.... Kaboom.

It's not meant for continuous fire, it's meant for quick bursts against bounding targets.
Almost like different doctrine of use for weapons have different requirements, imagine that.

>necessary?
No
>useful?
In some ways yes. It was great at suppressive fire, and it’s weaker tolerances made it less prone to malfunctions like the over-built MG-34.
However it’s rate of fire had a draw back, a belt of ammunition could be expended within 8 seconds unlike the MG-34 with had a slower more controllable rate of fire.
>inb4 burst fire
Though this works with most machine guns the MG-42’s high rate of fire caused a lot of issues with decoupling of links when attempting to burst fire. Also the cyclic speed caused barrel overheating to occur often. Obviously it had a quick change barrel system but this was still a flaw none the less.

Attached: 1537050622627.jpg (960x540, 49K)

The mg42 was used here in spain for a lot of time (sorry about my english), i think they are still on use, or it could be a modern version?.
Anyway, i was told by a friend of mine who was a mg gunner in the 80s:
-the mg squad were two guys, the gunner and the guy which made the barrel changes (and carried more ammo, the barrels, etc..), so they could change them very fast (i dont recall how fast). I think they were changed at the same time that they put a new belt of ammo
The gunner was usually selected between the soldiers with better accuracy skill, so recruits soon learned that displaying high accuracy at the start of your military service was "rewarded" with carrying more weight.
-as germanfag has said, they were trained to shot short bursts. But the important thing is, they were trained to shot in a coordinated way with the other mgs in the unit (at platoon level and company level, i guess), so the unit always keeped a continuous volume of fire regarding of change of barrels, ammo, etc..
I recall that he told me that in an military exercise his unit (the whole battalion i think) was praised by some high commander because of their fire discipline as the mmgs were heard as a continuous volume of fire, without interruptions

was it necessary to put sirens on dive bombers? no but it makes it more spooky

he ist correct, ze answer ist ja

This one?

youtube.com/watch?v=DHP9u2QRaAk

Your English is fine. Thanks for the infodump.