"Should the Germans be penalized for all those MGs?" Topic

The weight penalty for carrying thousands of machine gun rounds is pretty severe: should rules penalize the Germans compared to the Americans and British with their much lighter machine guns when (in modern terms) doing dismounted manoeuvre?

Regards

They didn't carry thousand of rounds. 1200rpm doesn't mean they fired 1200 rounds per minute.

few men, many weapons.
i had a club friend get very bothered over german squads having 2 mg42's. this from a guy who played russians and would fill the table with his late war kit.
no penalties, considering the fact that the most steady guys in the squad were trusted with the mg's.

Having an uncle who carried a Bren gun with all the kit and ammo I am not sure he was any less burdened than the MG-42 gunner

I carried a GPMG with 200 rounds in Northern Ireland in the 80s, I was one of the biggest guys in the platoon and could keep pace with everyone else without bother.

Raglan

I don't know of hardly any rules where that sort of detail is included, nor would I want to play any that had it. It would be far too fiddly and would invariably end up adding all sorts of other ridiculous levels of detail to the game. Does a guy carrying a bazooka and rounds move slower? Load slower? Does a truck carrying more men and equipment move slower, or a Jeep with two men rather than four move faster? Etc. etc….

I guess it's worth a thought or two but that's about it. 8)=

I'd say no really to this, as I'd expect the differences between the nationalities squads/sections to not be big enough to affect the game. I would argue at a tactical level that the Germans many times had an/the edge over the allies due to their flexible command doctrine and ridiculous amount of MGs. However the allies had the strategic superiority (resources, multiple nations, caught up technologically-wise etc) mostly from a mid to late war point of view, so any rules I believe should reflect these differences more to give a fairer balance of forces. I wouldn't say penalising one of the German strengths just to make things fairer, would be the best approach (if that's the purpose of your question…)

Hope that helps…

Ark3n

The M1919 Browning was heavier than the MG42 (31 lbs vs 25.5 lbs)

It is a genuine question, I don't know the answer. It is inspired by the thought that infantry load *does* matter for dismounted manoeuvre, and there have been recurring worries in a few armies about this problem. It was also inspired by the thought occurring in a recent thread that a BAR might have been not that brilliant as a defensive weapon, but a bit handier if you were moving around a lot than carrying an MG42 plus a thousand rounds. So the Germans with their MG42s would be a lot better off in defence than their British or American opponents (unless reinforced with a Vickers or an M2) – and that advantage shouldn't change – but maybe not have the same level of advantage when attacking?

Regards

An MG42 (or MG34) used as an LMG should not be any more encumbered than a BAR or Bren, but a tripod-mounted MG42 (or MG34) with a 3 or 4-man team definitely should move slower. The same goes for the .30-cal and .50-cal MG teams.

Just my 2 cents.

You should hear about the load out my grandfather (a US infantryman) carried during the war. Plus he carried belts for a .30 cal.

The burden becomes fairly heavy for any infantryman, and it depends on how mechanized they are as well. If they have a half track, they are likely to leave a large part of the burden with it. They will be carrying pretty much ONLY ammo, so I think it probably averages out.

That, and eventually, for my tastes, details can overwhelm a game.

Remember too that in action a lot of soldiers would carry ammo for the MG other than the gunner and loader. My Dad said in his time in Italy 43-45 they always carried at least one spare mag for the bren if they could. Having someone other than the No2 carrying an extra spare barrel was useful as well.

As the LMG was the centerpiece of the German squad I daresay multiple infantrymen would be tasked with hauling ammo and the spare barrel. In defensive positions you have a horse cart or truck drop off a bunch. No-one likes to carry too much crap, but the outcome will not be too good if you don't have enough of the right crap.

Carrying stuff sucks, especially stuff you have to clean afterwards. Infantry drop off much of their stuff once they expect contact. The only problem with dropping stuff off is that you then mostly get to dig holes. Once you've dug a hole, then you get to pick up all your stuff and move somewhere else to dig another hole. Even if you get rid of some of your stuff, you are usually given more stuff. Now you have a lot of stuff, are tired and usually dirty and probably either dysenteric or constipated. So when you see the enemy you are pretty ed off and happy to give him plenty of your stuff as you really don't want to move from the place wherein you've finally dumped all your stuff. If you do move and leave your stuff behind you'll usually not be given stuff as good as you had or that fits. That would probably explain in the attack why you need 3-5 guys to capture one person's stuff.

yes German squads , 2 machine gunners the rest ammo carriers. The Germans adapted the carrying frame of the 5cm mortar to hold three ammunition boxes..you never see that made. Everybosy else usually had a an ammo box in hand , unless they had a faust.In an eight man section you would have a corporal, usually with an MP 40, a mg gunner and his number 2 and number 3 both the latter carrying amunition, a lance crporal with an MP40 and two riflemen on probably carrying a box of ammunition and the other a box as well or a faust.
some sections certain carried two MG42..

No-one likes to carry too much crap, but the outcome will not be too good if you don't have enough of the right crap.

I want this either on a shirt, or framed on my office wall.
Most excellent.

As for the question, I agree no penalties.

Belted ammo weighs less per round than ammo in magazines, so for a given weight of e.g. Bren or DP mags a German section could carry 30 to 50% more ammo.

Ww1 Lewis teams had five men just to carry the drums.

Arguably German infantry superiority at a tactical level in ww2 was simply because they carried more mg ammo than anyone else.

We tend to do it this way. The germans are allowed to use their MG42 as a sustained fire MG when stationary, which is perhaps a bit of an overestimate. However to do so the rest of the men cannot use their personal weapons till they drop off their ammo at the MG. This seemed simple and appers to be in like with the fact that the rest of the squad are more like ammo bearers unless to assult. The MG 43 was a very respected weapon but to be a significant treat greater we assumed it must be becuse it is a good weapon and has lots of ammo. Logic (although logic can only go so far)from the pictures is that many pictures of german infantry show them festooned with MG 42 ammo. Thus we have a germa squad being more in the roles of ammo bearers unless counter attacking where the cover fire from the MG's is the key issue anyway.

Whirlwind,

remember a MG34/42 is a cone fire weapon, not a point weapon like the Bren and BAR, so a german MG gunner can pin an entire allied platoon with several 6 round bursts, the number two loads and changes the barrels. So I suggest German sections with 2 MGs are probaly penalised and under represented for firepower in most rules.

my two cents

Also consider that as it is belt fed an therefore requires a dedicated loader to fire at optimum RoF, the loss of a Shutzen from firing their own weapon would also balance out (slightly) the high RoF. So the 2 x MG42 in a squad would take 4 chaps to fire, less the NCO likely having an SMG. If the volume of fire is so much higher then the cost and unit choices should be the restriction on weapons instead of 'other' rules brought in to restrict.

Considering that it did take about 2:1 allies (or thereabouts) to equal the Germans for platoon levels in firepower it is not unreasonable that a gaeme should represent these facts. I like the point you made there too bluewillow. Good thread this!

@bluewillow,

totally agreed on the effectiveness of the MG42 as a supressive weapon, but my question isn't about downgrading German firepower but rather German movement i.e. if you are carrying lots of ammunition to make supressive fire happen, then you should be moving (at full speed) slower than an opponent who isn't.

Now it may be that the Germans, even when using two MG42s in a section dismounted, did not have any greater combat loads than their adversaries, in which case, fair enough, no question. But if they did, then shouldn't they be a bit penalized for this? I don't play FoW, but if I did, then perhaps a Rifle team moves '6', a Rifle/MG team moves '5' and an MG team moves '4'. Or something like that. Not complicated individually calculated loads or anything.

Regards

Strange question?
I was gunner and ammocarrier ( called schuetze 1 und 2 as both are gunners) of the MG3 and my grandfarther had the same function on the MG42. Fact is that you train and run around all time with it, so that you dont feel the weight anymore. You can easily handle it with the bipod and you can take it even with you on a toillet.

The most important point is that the MG42 is a support weapon and not a assault weapon. Meaning you shoot it from a prepared position for covering fire or inorder to repulse an attack. You bands and boxes of 2000 round are gone in seconds and your barrel overheads very fast. I remember running around in a two men team with for 4 boxes of ammo and 2 extra barrels. Finally we used it only in bursts of 3 rounds per touch of the trigger inorder to prevend overheating. The high rate of fire with the rather great spread is great for suppression or shooting door of buildings out of their frame. A 2-3 seconds burst disloged any standart door. The every 7th tracer round does the rest to the building…

Please also take note that the MG 42 /3 leads the firecombat for the squatd and the rest of the squard with K98/G3 support and covers the MG or moves. So the squard recons the target and the MG knocks it out or supresses it untill the rest of the squard have outmanoever it to stike. Incase of a normal combat situation, fought on the terms of the german, is the MG always stationary and fires at a optimal target chosen by the officer. Dont underestimate that concept…. A MG42 is not in a random position and fires at a target of opportunity but is the leading instrument in breaking the enemy and is the cornerstone of infantry tactics of the german army since the ww1.

In a assault can it be shoot too, but only in 2-5 round bursts. If longer bursts are needed i would run to next covered position for setup the the gunner 2 or drop and gave a longer burst for supression and get up again and run to the intended position which is now already prepared by gunner 2. This means that no time in lost for covering the ground is you count the complete team.
It is differant for the MG42 on Lafette. Than it become another routine and you have to do this 3 soldiers. One extra for the lafette and the extra ammo.

Think about it… If this MG would be something to get a penalty for it would not been in use 70 years later with no replacemnet planned…..

Greetings

If there is going to be a penalty for higher rates of fire of rifle ammo than maybe a penalty for UK troops as they were trained to fire at a higher rate than other riflemen. Then there is the US M-1 rifle troops. Do they get a bonus for semi-auto fire? If so they must be using more ammo than a bolt action rifleman. What is the penalty for that?

Excellent questions, Mobius. And don't forget the Russians will need to be penalised for all those SMGs.

All the best,

John.

Someone needs to make this miniature –

"MG 42 gunner on the crapper" …..

Maybe follow-it up with MG 42 gunner assembling IKEA shelving, or MG42 gunner helping old lady cross road, MG 42 gunner watching movie…

That's enuff MG42 gunners.

Think about it… If this MG would be something to get a penalty for it would not been in use 70 years later with no replacement planned…

If there is going to be a penalty for higher rates of fire of rifle ammo than maybe a penalty for UK troops as they were trained to fire at a higher rate than other riflemen. Then there is the US M-1 rifle troops. Do they get a bonus for semi-auto fire? If so they must be using more ammo than a bolt action rifleman. What is the penalty for that?

Excellent questions, Mobius. And don't forget the Russians will need to be penalised for all those SMGs.

Well, if they were carrying a *lot* of extra ammunition, that would make a difference. Were they?

Think about it… If this MG would be something to get a penalty for it would not been in use 70 years later with no replacement planned…

Not questioning the excellence of the weapon or its utility, just suggesting that their may be disadvantages in carrying heavier weapons and lots of ammunition, which is why actual militaries *do* question this stuff.

Regards

To enlarge upon Martin "Right Again" Rapier's answer with some numbers, by my calculations Russian, British and Germans sections (US: squads) with a full standard load would be carrying something like:

Russian  DP    12 x 49-rd drum mag        588 rds   31.3 Kg
British  Bren  25 x 30-rd box mag         750 rds   31.25 Kg
German   MG-34 5 x 50 box + 3 x 300 belt 1150 rds   33.76 Kg

Ignoring the differences in the weights of the guns themselves and whatever crap goes in the spares parts wallets, and considering the ammunition alone (and, yes, I *know* the Russian and British mags should not be completely filled) you can see that the Germans are only carrying two and a half Kgs more than the Brits or the Russkies -- about a quarter of a Kg per man over the whole section, or a good-sized bar of Cadbury's Fruit and Nut -- for which they get 400 rounds more than the British and a whopping 550 more than the Russians.

Nobody on the thread to date seems to believe that penalising the Germans would be a good idea, I think with good reason. Rudi's first-hand experience I would pay attention to in particular. I also have a good deal of sympathy for Nazrat's opinion that rules shouldn't bother with such niminy-piminy detail, but if you do choose to dive into the detail I think you'll still find no justification for the sort of penalty proposed.

All the best,

John.

Cheers for that John, and for all the other excellent thoughts on this thread.

Regards to all