"King Tiger: Why No MG-42" Topic

"If you have ever wondered why late war German tanks retained the MG-34 machine gun despite the fact that it had been replaced by the MG-42, the Military History Visualized youtube channel answers your questions…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting, Thanks Tango!

Good find. Thanks Tango.

Dave
WargamingMiniatures.com

Yes, very good find. Some of the other videos are interesting as well. Thanks!

A votre service mon cher amis!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I'd read somewhere that it was due to the way the ammo feed and casing ejection worked.

My real question is why the older MG in the panzer I (I don't remember offhand what it was, MG08 maybe?) was not replaced with the MG34 when that gun was developed.

I knew how each had their barrels changed but didn't even think that would be the reason.
Yeah lots of good videos there

Thanks for sharing the article, I never thought of that

I don't buy that it was because of the way the barrel change was done . Because of the pistol grip it takes more room to swing the receiver to the right enough to change the barrel.

I my opinion it's more likely due to already having the tooling to manufacture the necessary parts for installing the MG-34 and the fact that they didn't have to deal as much with the dirt and mud in the tanks.

The tank-mounted MG 34 'Panzerlauf' had an armoured barrel. It was not the standard infantry issue gun. The MG 42 would have had to have had a special armoured barrel made for it. Why bother?

link

I don't buy that it was because of the way the barrel change was done . Because of the pistol grip it takes more room to swing the receiver to the right enough to change the barrel.

I don't think it is a question of total area. Sure, total area is a factor, but the controlling issue here was WHERE the area was, not how much area.

When mounted in a tank, the receiver of the gun is on the inside. The muzzle of the gun is on the outside. These are basics that are true in (almost) every case. They have to be true for the gun to be fired and loaded from the inside, and for the bullets to be a threat to the outside. The only exception would be remotely fired guns, which can be wholly on the outside of the tank (but that's not what we are discussing here).

If the receiver is on the inside, and the muzzle is on the outside, then the barrel of the gun must go THROUGH the armor of the tank.

You have a LOT more room on the inside of the tank, then you do IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ARMOR of the tank. With an MG34 the receiver (inside the tank) rotates away from the barrel (goes through the armor). On an MG42 the barrel (goes through the armor) pivots away from the barrel housing (goes through the armor). There must be an opening in the armor, next to the barrel, that is about the width of the barrel, to make this work. Any opening in the armor of the front plates, whether the glacis or the mantlet, is a significant vulnerability. Any weapon on the battlefield can punch through into the tank's interior if there is an empty hole in the armor. This is why pistol-ports and direct vision devices went out of fashion in new or updated tank designs as the war progressed.

Put a hole in the armor next to the gun in order to be able to change the barrel, when you already have a gun that can accomplish the same result using space on the inside of the tank? It just doesn't make sense.

Or so I believe.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)