"Automatic weapons US vs German" Topic

A W.W. II training film comparing US vs. German automatic weapons.

YouTube link

I liked hearing the different sounds from the weapons being fired, but don't know if the film was all that truthful in what they were telling new recruits heading to face the Germans.

The MG-42, it's bark is worse than it's bite?

It's bite is pretty bad also.

The slow rate of fire from the M-3 Grease Gun was really noticeable when compared to the Thompson and MP-40.

They might be trying to instill some confidence in the new recruits. I know I'd poop if an MG42 shot at me.

I remember a TV programme showing the M3 grease gun against other SMGs, one advantage that agreed with this film was that it is easier to keep the target 'bracketed' by the sights with the slower ROF,which is important against moving targets, and the time you need to keep firing, and therefore vulnerable to return fire – in order to get a kill. It was a reliable piece of kit too. The ex SF shooter said he preferred the M3 over the Thompson for this reason.

When I fired a modern M4 on full auto I was shocked how much the barrel wanted to rise.

I had to rip off a full magazine to see what it was like, but after the 3rd round, I couldn't see anything due to constant flash from the barrel and spent the following rounds working very hard to keep the barrel from rising.

Brought home the lesson very quickly that controlled short bursts are the way to use a hand held automatic weapon.

More like propaganda film. Tommy was a really heavy pig too but that could also be an advantage :)

Oddball thats on you not the M4. No offense but you can blame the indian and not the arrow for that one.

One and only time I ever fired a full auto.

Buddy showed up at the range with the M4, 16 loaded 30 round magazines and said, "Have fun".

He also said the only way to really appreciate firing a machine gun is:

1) You don't have to pay for the ammo (we didn't)
2) You don't have to clean it afterwards (I didn't).

I just watched that video two days ago--weird.

@Herkybird--the Philippine Marines Spec Ops teams pulled the old M3s out of inventory, made their own suppressors and use them instead of the more modern SMGs.

YouTube link

i was in combat wih an m4. it was'nt full auto(3rd burst). where did you find a full auto version?

NFA guys and FFL's and class 3 manufacturers prefer FA version, the trigger pull on the 3 round FCG is horrid.

Police issue.

As related to me by my WWII vet uncle, the problem with the M3 was an annoying tendency to go off if you dropped it or knocked it against something with a round in the chamber.

That sounds just peachy no have inside a tank!

Back in the halcyon days of my youth (1970s), there was an institution in rural north-central Illinois called Buffalo Rock Shooters Supply. This was a gun shop and range with a Class 3 license. Bunch of automatic weapons hanging on the wall* from which to choose. No rental fees, you just had to buy the ammo (they had a re-loading operation in the back**).

In our trips out there I got to fire all sorts on interesting stuff (but never had enough money to fire any of them a lot). My recollections:

BAR – this was the gun we required new members of our shooing club to fire first. It is pretty uncontrollable on full auto. Also very likely to leave a nice big bruise on one's shoulder, no matter how tightly you held it. But it felt totally bad-ass.

MG-42 – a great way to spend money very, very quickly. Very impressive, of course, but not terribly accurate. This is probably not much of a drawback since you are covering the target area with so many bullets.

Bren – I personally loved firing the Bren, and not just because my mother was English. It behaved wonderfully and was very accurate. I've read where veterans who used it thought it was too accurate, so they learned to wiggle the gun a little when they fired it to cover more area.

Thompson – heavy but fun. Never had a problem hitting a target with it. I preferred the classic "gangster" version with the foregrip and drum mag, but I probably watched The Untouchables (TV series, not the Kevin Costner movie) too much.

STG-43 – another great shooter. Weird part is when you fired it, the range guy would come out and stand right next to you (on the right). Then he would take one big step to the right and two back. And then proceed to catch all the empty brass as it flew out of the gun because it was so consistent in where it went.

The oddest part of the place is the way the range was set up. One fired from the top of one rise at targets on another rise, with a causeway connecting them. Between the rises was a duck pond, with actual ducks in it. Who were totally unfazed by the rampant automatic weapon fire. One of the range rules was "no shooting at the ducks."

* – also a Thompson under the counter to deal with unruly customers

** – which was eventually their demise, as the place finally blew up due to unsound ammo handling practices.

** – which was eventually their demise, as the place finally blew up due to unsound ammo handling practices.

link
link

Yikes!

The point I took away from the MG42 was that the sound is distinctive and threatening, but it wasn't any more difficult to deal with than any other MG.

Mserafin, I don't think that it would be fair to judge that MG-42s accuracy. That thing is a rental and was abused by thousands of clueless idiots, it probably had a throat and bore so worn that the bullet was kind of wobbling out. MG-42 barrels burn out fast and are not exactly easy to find spares.

Reading the articles the guys running the range were careless idiots, that barrel was probably chugging along well past its useful life.

Basically there is an area in the barrel between the chamber and where the rifling starts, that is where the combustion gasses escape and the "pressure" happens. It gets very hot and if you go full auto it pretty much vaporizes and erodes the riflling part so the bullet has to travel further and has space to move. The more this happens the more "skewed" the bullet becomes and to exaggerate a lot bullet enters the rifling "sideways" and deforms. Makes for a dangerous situation and poor accuracy.

Mserafin, I don't think that it would be fair to judge that MG-42s accuracy. That thing is a rental and was abused by thousands of clueless idiots, it probably had a throat and bore so worn that the bullet was kind of wobbling out. MG-42 barrels burn out fast and are not exactly easy to find spares.

That may be, but then I would expect the other weapons to be similarly worn down and inaccurate, which they weren't. Although if the MG-42 was a particularly popular rental then it may have burnt out quicker than the others.

But I have heard elsewhere that the MG-42 was noted for its inaccuracy even during the war. Someone summed up the situation as "the MG-42 isn't accurate enough, the Bren is too accurate."

Probably not too reassuring to those on the receiving end of either weapon.

I have subsequently read also about the MG-42, that the employment was short bursts that turned it more into a long range shotgun than a true machine gun, due to the accuracy issues, and the Germans exploited this phenomenon.

Damon.

the Germans believed that once the MG started the troops would hit the ground.

So short burst lots of bullets to Maximize the chance to Hit the troops the short time they are exposed.

So short burst lots of bullets to Maximize the chance to Hit the troops the short time they are exposed.

Exactly. That's also how I was trained to use the M60E3 (from the shoulder, no less!) The H&K G11 was designed around the same idea, a 3-round burst that is so fast it's more like a shotgun blast in an attempt to increase the chances of hit.

I also know that the miniguns on the AC47 were actually loosened on their mounts to enlarge their beaten zones.

I was gunner of the MG 42 (MG3) for many years and it fires hole in hole on 50 meter.
We did train fire it single shoot mode at 100m and hitting bulls eyes all the time. Yes, you can fire it that way like a sniper rifle.

It was designed to be less acurate than the MG34 which was the coax MG for Tanks and board weapon for aircraft and should hit small fargets up to 2000m.

The MG 42 was less acurate inorder to spary the hits automaticly due to the high ROF. They are still compact enough to take out a doorframe from 200m in a single burst.

I would dare to engage targets at 1500 kilometer with it. We traind deflection fire with in on aircrafts and the good performance of the MG3 did prevend that the bundeswehr bought a handheld surface to air missile like the stinger.

And dont forget… The Bundeswehr had bought 7,62 to sustain a 3ed world war for serveral years …. There is enough ammo….
And extra barrels… Our team had 4 all the time and changing them in a 4-5 min interfall taking us max 3 secs.

The idea is actuel that the MG 3 leads the fire combat and takes out the enemy. It is not for supression ( i.e. Hitting the ground) it is for destruction of enemy units in realive shot time. BIG differance!

The M60 is only a reversed engineered MG42 so it can not be so bad….

Greetings

Yea, given that the MG42 has been in service for about the last 70 years or so, virtually unchanged, excepting the designation name, I'd say it must be sufficiently accurate and rugged for anyone's use.

my platoon was (very) briefly under fire from a mg3. it was not fun…
thank GOD for the ah64.

Note on the M3 Grease gun, you cant walk around with a round in the chamber. It fires from an open bolt, so when the bolt goes forward, the round goes off.

Droping a loaded and cocked grease gun is a bad idea, but so is dropping any loaded weapon. I can see how a greasegun is a lot more likely to go off, considering the dust cover is also the saty.

And as far as inside a vehicle, magazine in the well but not cocked. To many bad things can happen to any fire arm, and there is no good place for stray bullets to go inside any armoured vehicle

Owen

MSerafin wrote:

** – which was eventually their demise, as the place finally blew up due to unsound ammo handling practices.

I think The Editor should decree this to be the new compulsory ending for all stories, in place of "…and they all lived happily ever after."

As to the original film, I'm sure it's fair enough as encouragement to US soldiers, and I have no doubt that anything designed by John Moses Browning is a sound and workmanlike weapon at least as good as most in its class. I doubt that there is much operational difference between weapons of the same class in any case -- one LMG is much lilke another, one MMG much like another, one SMG much like another, and unless the design is especially brilliant or especially crass, the design-to-design variation in weapon performance might be less than the weapon-to-weapon variation, and certainly much less than the soldier-to-soldier variation.

Of course the trick here is that the film does not include the BAR in the comparison, and while there is no German design in the same class as the BAR (well, perhaps the FG-42), a typical US squad has a BAR, whereas a typical German Gruppe has an MG-34 or -42, which is not a very encouraging match-up from the US point of view.

All the best,

John.

After reading the brilliant 'Brains and Bullets', I understood exactly why they had to make this film. The MG-42 exercised weapon pull on the users (the gunners were more likely to fire effectively) and weapon push on its targets, (Allied soldiers were less likely to engage it with their weapons, which they regarded as inferior). Hence films like this tried to reduce this psychological disparity but rarely succeeded, as combat veterans rapidly taught the green soldiers the 'truth'.