| mwindsorfw | 02 May 2016 11:23 a.m. PST |
I've seen some photos of what look like tripod mounted German machineguns. One man is clearly the loaders. The other man is behind the gun, but he isn't looking through a sight (that I can tell), and he seems to have his hands low (not near where I thought the trigger mechanism is). How is he firing the gun? |
| haywire | 02 May 2016 11:34 a.m. PST |
|
| Weasel | 02 May 2016 11:36 a.m. PST |
When fitted on the tripod, its fired from a much lower point on the attached tripod system, rather than the pistol grip YouTube link Check this video around 7 30 or so. |
| Steve Wilcox | 02 May 2016 11:41 a.m. PST |
You guys beat me to it, but here ya go, to see it in use:
YouTube link |
| mwindsorfw | 02 May 2016 11:44 a.m. PST |
Wow, y'all nailed that really fast! Thanks! |
| FABET01 | 02 May 2016 12:14 p.m. PST |
Besides the obvious advantage of stability/accuracy what really nice about this setup is a parascope can be fitted to the tripod and the MG fired while the gunner stays under cover. |
| wrgmr1 | 02 May 2016 1:27 p.m. PST |
The tripod Heavy MG42 had a telescopic sight as well.
If you want a good read about a German Heavy Machine Gunner on the Russian front try this. link |
| Jemima Fawr | 02 May 2016 4:22 p.m. PST |
Yes, the tripod-mounted MG42 also had a periscopic sight that was often fitted. However, tripod-mounted MGs were/are frequently set up to fire on fixed lines. That is, you set up your MG to fire at a fixed point, across the front of your defended locale, preferably interlocked with the fire from another MG at the other end of your position. All you have to do then is keep firing and loading – the enemy has to walk through a wall of fire to reach your position. You don't look down the sights, because the MG is already sighted on a fixed line. |
Frederick  | 02 May 2016 4:47 p.m. PST |
Great gun – the German army still uses it |
| PzGeneral | 02 May 2016 5:19 p.m. PST |
My father said it wasn't all that great. It's high cyclic rate was overkill that required too much ammo to have to be carried around…..a slower firing weapon would be better, just as deadly…but with less ammo needed….. |
| Hafen von Schlockenberg | 02 May 2016 6:13 p.m. PST |
I believe the design for high rate of fire stemmed from experience in WWI. It seemed likely that,in the future, enemy soldiers would be visible for only a few seconds at a time. Therefore,it would be important to deliver as much firepower as possible in those couple of seconds.
The drawback is that this requires training and fire control. The temptation to keep firing is very great. This was the argument against repeating rifles for troops in the latter quarter of the 19th Century. Not without reason.Some Cossacks were armed with Winchester 73's in the Russo – Turkish War. The observer Greene,in his book on the conflict,says they would ride up,empty their weapons in seconds (usually at extreme range),and gallop away. Not the best test subjects,perhaps,but you see the point. BTW,both the 34 and 42 had variable rates of fire. |
| Desert Fox | 02 May 2016 6:57 p.m. PST |
What is the purpose of the two pads on the front leg of the tripod? Pads for carrying the MG? |
| Blutarski | 02 May 2016 6:59 p.m. PST |
The rate of fire was adjustable (within limits). The 1000+ rpm rate was not a design defect in German eyes; they saw it as an advantage when the gun was employed in LMG mode engaging fleeting targets and when the gun was delivering suppressive fire ….. a function a great deal more common and important than many wargame rules allow for. Strictly my opinion, of course.
B
|
| 7dot62mm | 02 May 2016 9:19 p.m. PST |
I believe the two pads lean against the loader's back when the dismantled laffette is carried by the loader. |
| Skarper | 02 May 2016 10:12 p.m. PST |
The high rate of fire is a plus but the high ammo consumption is a minus. Good training and logistics mitigates this to some degree. Modern versions have cut the rof somewhat. 800rpm is plenty it would seem. |
| Martin Rapier | 03 May 2016 12:07 a.m. PST |
The recommended rate of fire for the gunner was 50rpm, ten bursts of five. You'd still burn through an entire sections ammo load in 25 minutes though. |
| Weasel | 03 May 2016 6:03 p.m. PST |
It's also worth noting that the gun was intended as a tank and aircraft mount as well as infantry use. So there's a chance those roles may have influenced the rate of fire as well. |
| Andy ONeill | 04 May 2016 8:28 a.m. PST |
It's also worth noting that the gun was intended as a tank and aircraft mount as well as infantry use.
I don't think that's right, mate.
Check out how many tanks and aircraft it was used on. They were stuck on top of some stug and the jpz4, some of the bean tins like marders as well maybe but otherwise the armoured mg34 was used. |
| Weasel | 04 May 2016 12:28 p.m. PST |
I was referring to the original MG34, not MG42, sorry for not clarifying. |
been building and painting his own army for Flames of War for a while now.
