AHC/WI: NATO-service FG-42

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps, the British EM program (my terminology) is less concentrated on spanking new round, but instead they decide to save money and time during the war, and introduce a copy of the newest German gun. The 7.92x57ammo is in production anyway in the UK, so the introduction will be as seamless as possible.
Come late 1940s/early 1950s, US is hell-bent for the 7.62x51, so British designers adopt the gun for the new, somewhat less powerful cartridge, and make the 'definitive' L.42 in the new NATO caliber. The L.42 trashes the future M-14 in tests, and gets adopted by a number of NATO and non-NATO countries.

Does this sound plausible in any way, and if so, who might be losers and winners (apart from British)? New developments in similar or smaller calibers?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Perhaps, the British EM program (my terminology) is less concentrated on spanking new round, but instead they decide to save money and time during the war, and introduce a copy of the newest German gun. The 7.92x57ammo is in production anyway in the UK, so the introduction will be as seamless as possible.
Come late 1940s/early 1950s, US is hell-bent for the 7.62x51, so British designers adopt the gun for the new, somewhat less powerful cartridge, and make the 'definitive' L.42 in the new NATO caliber. The L.42 trashes the future M-14 in tests, and gets adopted by a number of NATO and non-NATO countries.

Does this sound plausible in any way, and if so, who might be losers and winners (apart from British)? New developments in similar or smaller calibers?

The Brits did try this with the EM-1 rifle by the Polish designer (Korasch?) who turned the FG-42 into a bullpup. Didn't work out well, too complicated and unwieldy. Even used the 7.92 cartridge.
Even the FG-42 adopted in 7.62 NATO would need to be modified to drop the open-closed bolt feature due to the complexity and sensitivity of the mechanism in service. Even then to work would still require it to be quite a bit heavier than the M14 and need that fireball inducing muzzle brake. IMHO unless developed and simplified, as well as reduced in weight the system isn't really mass produceable, even with the British access to raw materials to make something like the original version that was smaller and lighter. The question then would be if the British/NATO-ized version would be of sufficient quality or made too complex, as the post-war British designs, even those adapting German developments like the EM-1 and roller locked EM-2 prototypes did.

The Brits would be better off just adopting the CETME rifle IMHO. Plus they'd have some stiff competition from the FAL, which the British adopted IOTL anyway. BTW why the FG42 instead of the FAL?

 

[tomo pauk]

The Brits did try this with the EM-1 rifle by the Polish designer (Korasch?) who turned the FG-42 into a bullpup. Didn't work out well, too complicated and unwieldy. Even used the 7.92 cartridge.

No, do not turn it in anything else - just make it as-is.

The Brits would be better off just adopting the CETME rifle IMHO. Plus they'd have some stiff competition from the FAL, which the British adopted IOTL anyway. BTW why the FG42 instead of the FAL?

FG-42 worked by mid-war, with full-power cartridge. FAL did not, let alone the CETME rifle. No need to pay for licence, either.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

No, do not turn it in anything else - just make it as-is.

They'd have an expensive, over complicated weapon only ever intended for special operations forces and decidedly inferior to the FN FAL for regular infantry.

FG-42 worked by mid-war, with full-power cartridge. FAL did not, let alone the CETME rifle. No need to pay for licence, either.

The FAL and CETME were later, but better and lighter designs, much more practical for the average infantryman. The FG42 would need more development to be a mass issued rifle competing with the M14.

 

[tomo pauk]

They'd have an expensive, over complicated weapon only ever intended for special operations forces and decidedly inferior to the FN FAL for regular infantry.

Decidedly inferior to the FAL for regular infantry by what metric? Certainly not inferior for automatic fire, either from standing or from bipod, despite using a more powerful cartridge.

The FAL and CETME were later, but better and lighter designs, much more practical for the average infantryman. The FG42 would need more development to be a mass issued rifle competing with the M14.

Originally CETME did not used full-power cartridge. G3 did, weighted 1/2 kg less than FG-42 + bipod + bayonet. Ditto for the FAL. 'Much more practical'?
Full auto in M14? Bad idea.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Decidedly inferior to the FAL for regular infantry by what metric? Certainly not inferior for automatic fire, either from standing or from bipod, despite using a more powerful cartridge.

Weight, cost, and complexity. For starters as a regular grunt you'll spend more time lugging your rifle around than using it, grunts have a way of breaking things with any sort of complexity, and cost and complexity makes producing them more difficult and painful when lost in combat or through accidents, loss, and wear and tear.

Don't get me wrong, the FG42 was a spectacular gun for what it was supposed to do, but that was to be an all around weapon replacing everything, than a good rifle that sometimes could be used for automatic fire.

Originally CETME did not used full-power cartridge. G3 did, weighted 1/2 kg less than FG-42 + bipod + bayonet. Ditto for the FAL. 'Much more practical'?

The production CETME did. The production CETME was very simple and reliable, not to mention significantly lighter. The FAL was basically a lighter STG44 and while not as simple or reliable as the CETME or G3, it was somewhat lighter recoiling and a fine weapon. Plus both lacked that open-closed bolt system, which made the FG42 sensitive to rough field conditions and a lot of use. Fine for SF units, not so much for regular infantry.

Full auto in M14? Bad idea.

No argument about the M14 being a PoS. BM59 all the way if you want a M1 with a magazine and select fire.

 

[riggerrob]

How many posters have fired both FG42 and FAL?
I have.

I carried an FN C1A1 as a young soldier and fired many hundreds of rounds through it. I always thought the FAL was too long, too heavy and too complex to manufacture. Recoil was too much for comfort. The full-auto FN C2 was an amusing range-toy, but only accurate from its bipod.

The only time I handled an early, original FN C1 was at the Canadian Airborne Centre in Edmonton ..... and I did a few jumps with it.
I also did a few jumps at the Bundeswehr Luftelande Lufttransport Schulz in Altenstadt, Ober Bayern.
Does this reveal my paratrooper bias?

I have fired a few shots through a modern, German-made replica of a first pattern FG42.
The first pattern FG42 was light, bordering on fragile, but it had half the felt-recoil of the FAL. Yes, it “barked” flames out of its flash-hider, but I prefer that to recoil. FG42 is lighter and easier to carry than FAL.
The full-auto function is at best a skirmish function, but great for FISH (Fighting In Someone’s House) where the 1 metre length is realllly handy. Even a refined, fictitious FG42 Mark 3 would still be lighter, easier to maneuver and recoup less than an M-14.
When the zombie apocalypse arrives, I want to cradle an FG42, second pattern replica made by SMG in Texas. And I want to be sitting on a crate of NATO 7.62 x 51 mm ammo. Their replica only fires semi-auto, but that is plenty for mowing down zombies.

A perfected FG42 Mark 4 would be a full-bull pup with the magazine under neath the butt stock and almost back to the butt pad ...... like the latest Kel-Tec rifle in 7.62mm. It would eject downwards. The overall length would still be a metre, but the barrel would be a few centimetres longer, reducing muzzle flash, while improving accuracy.

 

[tomo pauk]

Weight, cost, and complexity. For starters as a regular grunt you'll spend more time lugging your rifle around than using it, grunts have a way of breaking things with any sort of complexity, and cost and complexity makes producing them more difficult and painful when lost in combat or through accidents, loss, and wear and tear.

Weight: G3 + bayonet, CETME 58 + bayonet, FAL + bayonet = FG 42.
Cost - yes, the FG 42 will cost more, however it can be produced, at least in this case, without paying licences to the 3rd party.
Complexity - here being more a concern for manufacturing, than for an infantryman?

The production CETME did. The production CETME was very simple and reliable, not to mention significantly lighter. The FAL was basically a lighter STG44 and while not as simple or reliable as the CETME or G3, it was somewhat lighter recoiling and a fine weapon. Plus both lacked that open-closed bolt system, which made the FG42 sensitive to rough field conditions and a lot of use. Fine for SF units, not so much for regular infantry.

CETME 58 weighted as much as FG 42.
Any source for the FG-42 more sensitive for rough field conditions and lot of use?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Weight: G3 + bayonet, CETME 58 + bayonet, FAL + bayonet = FG 42.
Cost - yes, the FG 42 will cost more, however it can be produced, at least in this case, without paying licences to the 3rd party.
Complexity - here being more a concern for manufacturing, than for an infantryman?

I'll have to look into those numbers more when I get home. I think the numbers you're using for comparison are for the mark 1 FG42, not the heavier late production model, that was longer and differently laid out.
The complexity issue is one of production cost/issues, but also more stuff that could be broken in the field.
Edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CETME_rifle

Mass 9.9 lb (4.49 kg)[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG_42

Ausführung "G": 4.95 kg (10.9 lb)

That's without bayonet.

CETME 58 weighted as much as FG 42.
Any source for the FG-42 more sensitive for rough field conditions and lot of use?

"Death From Above" a Collector Grade book on the history and technical details of the weapon.

A perfected FG42 Mark 4 would be a full-bull pup with the magazine under neath the butt stock and almost back to the butt pad ...... like the latest Kel-Tec rifle in 7.62mm. It would eject downwards. The overall length would still be a metre, but the barrel would be a few centimetres longer, reducing muzzle flash, while improving accuracy.

IMHO the best option would be to replace the gas piston with either the roller delayed blowback, though that would mean having to strengthen the receiver, or adapting it to the Grossfuss STG's gas delayed blowback, which apparently the Soviets tested and found extremely reliable, though the relatively undeveloped rifle had a number of issues that would probably have been correctable with time. Still, it allowed for a very light bolt and overall operating system. To fix the muzzle brake/fireball issue I think the SME Lang bullet would have been ideal, lighter than the regular 7.92 bullet, but longer for better accuracy, while having a lighter propellant load due to that length, but no compromised range and a similar trajectory out to 1400m. The lower propellant load deals with the residual propellants not yet burned off in the shorter FG42 barrel with standard 7.92 cartridge, while it then allows for a less hefty muzzle brake for shorter overall length as well as it being unnecessary due to the lower recoiling SME Lang cartridge. A longer barrel doesn't improve accuracy by itself, it is only the increased muzzle velocity that would do that to some degree.

 

[jsb]

however it can be produced, at least in this case, without paying licences to the 3rd party.

But so effectively could the CETME (also based on captured tech StG 45(H)) or FAL (free gift to GB due to the war and offered to US/Nato for the same).

 

[yulzari]

The Brits did try this with the EM-1 rifle by the Polish designer (Korasch?) who turned the FG-42 into a bullpup. Didn't work out well, too complicated and unwieldy. Even used the 7.92 cartridge.
Even the FG-42 adopted in 7.62 NATO would need to be modified to drop the open-closed bolt feature due to the complexity and sensitivity of the mechanism in service. Even then to work would still require it to be quite a bit heavier than the M14 and need that fireball inducing muzzle brake. IMHO unless developed and simplified, as well as reduced in weight the system isn't really mass produceable, even with the British access to raw materials to make something like the original version that was smaller and lighter. The question then would be if the British/NATO-ized version would be of sufficient quality or made too complex, as the post-war British designs, even those adapting German developments like the EM-1 and roller locked EM-2 prototypes did.
The Brits would be better off just adopting the CETME rifle IMHO. Plus they'd have some stiff competition from the FAL, which the British adopted IOTL anyway. BTW why the FG42 instead of the FAL?

In 1944 the British had made the Self Loading Enfield Model 1 (SLEM-1) already in 10 round semi automatic in 7.92mm Mauser. Designed in Cheshunt, Britain by the refugee FN team and was the proto-FAL. Plenty of room for a 20 round box magazine.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

In 1944 the British had made the Self Loading Enfield Model 1 (SLEM-1) already in 10 round semi automatic in 7.92mm Mauser. Designed in Cheshunt, Britain by the refugee FN team and was the proto-FAL. Plenty of room for a 20 round box magazine.

Yes but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLEM-1

When the 8×33mm Kurz was tested everything changed and the British set up the Small Arms Calibre panel that led to the .270 in (6.9 mm) and .280 in (7.1 mm) rounds. The Belgian team then redesigned the SLEM to become the prototype FAL, first in 8mm Kurz and then in .280 British. The extractor groove of the .280 was changed to meet US specification and became the .280/30.

After the war, the SLEM was further developed into the FN Model 1949 and subsequently the FN FAL.

As to the Korsak-ized FG42:
http://armamentresearch.com/british-korsac-e-m-1-light-machine-gun/

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Per the video about the Korsac design, perhaps the FG42 could have been adapted into an LMG/Autorifle to replace the Bren. Issue them like the BAR, 2-3 per squad, perhaps with a 30 round magazine instead of the 20 the Germans used, and you'd have some pretty potent rifle squads even with the rest of the riflemen using the SLEM-1. That way the open-closed bolt feature wouldn't necessarily be an issue, though you'd probably have to lengthen the barrel, use a small flat based bullet whose weight would be limited enough to reduce recoil compared to the SS 7.92 bullet, reduce the rate of fire, and either use a flash hider or muzzle brake-flash hider.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'll have to look into those numbers more when I get home. I think the numbers you're using for comparison are for the mark 1 FG42, not the heavier late production model, that was longer and differently laid out.
The complexity issue is one of production cost/issues, but also more stuff that could be broken in the field.

My numbers are for the later, heavier production model. Not the early, lighter one.
Is there somewhere an un-biased & verified list of how much the complicated were automatic rifles on 1940s/50s?

Edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CETME_rifle

4.3 kg for the rifle, 0.275 kg for an empty 20rd mag, 0.155 kg for an empty 5rd mag.
Version with bipod and metal handguards went to 4.5 kg empty.
link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG_42

That's without bayonet.

With bayonet. But without grenade launcher, optical sight and the empty magazine (0.38 kg; full it weights 0.91 kg).

"Death From Above" a Collector Grade book on the history and technical details of the weapon.

Where exactly (pg. number), what excerpt exactly, when compared with what?

IMHO the best option would be to replace the gas piston with either the roller delayed blowback, though that would mean having to strengthen the receiver, or adapting it to the Grossfuss STG's gas delayed blowback, which apparently the Soviets tested and found extremely reliable, though the relatively undeveloped rifle had a number of issues that would probably have been correctable with time. Still, it allowed for a very light bolt and overall operating system. To fix the muzzle brake/fireball issue I think the SME Lang bullet would have been ideal, lighter than the regular 7.92 bullet, but longer for better accuracy, while having a lighter propellant load due to that length, but no compromised range and a similar trajectory out to 1400m. The lower propellant load deals with the residual propellants not yet burned off in the shorter FG42 barrel with standard 7.92 cartridge, while it then allows for a less hefty muzzle brake for shorter overall length as well as it being unnecessary due to the lower recoiling SME Lang cartridge. A longer barrel doesn't improve accuracy by itself, it is only the increased muzzle velocity that would do that to some degree.

No, no introduction of yet another German mechanical novelty that is not known in the UK mid-war - FG 42 works, we're in a major war that we don't know when will end, we have German ammo in production, we can use captured ammo, so lets produce the rifle ASAP.
FG 42 mechanism was based on Lewis MG, meaning that British gunsmiths, mechanics and a lot of soldiers will find it familiar.
I do like the idea of the SME Lang bullet. Introduction of 7.62 NATO will further improve the situation.
SME Lang will still make a hefty recoil if not 'tamed', being a 12 g bullet.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

How complicated is it to field strip compared to gods own bang stick?

The SLR L1A1 is a piece of piss to field strip

Also how expensive is this Cold War FG-42 relative to the SLR/FN FAL?

In the 50s for a lot of cash strapped nations this was an important consideration (even the USA which took the ability to build M14s with the M1 tooling into consideration when choosing it)

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Where exactly (pg. number), what excerpt exactly, when compared with what?

It turns out my digital copy is missing several pages, which included the section I was talking about. Pp.118-119 are missing in my copy and they cover a US report on the weapon during the war, which points out several of the serious problems of the design, including fragility. Part of that is mentioned on P.117, but I think the missing pages cover it in more detail.

On the following pages (staring at 126) cover a postwar test at Aberdeen that was run against the improve Garand with select fire system. It failed the standard mud test and the magazine design was apparently pretty fragile. Other than that there wasn't anything specifically noted other than to make models in .30-06 for further testing.

P.133 starts a section where the book's authors comment on the weapon. They note that the tolerances of the weapon would be unacceptable today and the muzzle device produces and unacceptable flash, which post-war testing indicates was worse without the device. There was also some room for improvements as well planned by the Germans before the war ended.

No, no introduction of yet another German mechanical novelty that is not known in the UK mid-war - FG 42 works, we're in a major war that we don't know when will end, we have German ammo in production, we can use captured ammo, so lets produce the rifle ASAP.

I thought we're talking about the Brits producing the weapon AFTER WW2?

FG 42 mechanism was based on Lewis MG, meaning that British gunsmiths, mechanics and a lot of soldiers will find it familiar.
I do like the idea of the SME Lang bullet. Introduction of 7.62 NATO will further improve the situation.
SME Lang will still make a hefty recoil if not 'tamed', being a 12 g bullet.

Yes, a muzzle device would be necessary, one with a flash hider of some sort, otherwise the recoil would be too much as found when the US tested the rifle without it.
The 7.62 NATO conversion would require some significant changes given the way the system extracted the cartridge.
Thinking about it further it would be an ideal Bren replacement with 2-3 per squad, but it's still too complex and expensive for a standard rifleman especially with that muzzle device and the unacceptable fireball it produced; that could be tamed, but the British version would require adopting something like the SME Lang and/or lengthening the barrel.

Edit:
now if only they made it in 7mm Mauser...

 

[Deleted member 1487]

How complicated is it to field strip compared to gods own bang stick?

There is a field strip at the end of the video:

 

[tomo pauk]

It turns out my digital copy is missing several pages, which included the section I was talking about. Pp.118-119 are missing in my copy and they cover a US report on the weapon during the war, which points out several of the serious problems of the design, including fragility. Part of that is mentioned on P.117, but I think the missing pages cover it in more detail.

On the following pages (staring at 126) cover a postwar test at Aberdeen that was run against the improve Garand with select fire system. It failed the standard mud test and the magazine design was apparently pretty fragile. Other than that there wasn't anything specifically noted other than to make models in .30-06 for further testing.

P.133 starts a section where the book's authors comment on the weapon. They note that the tolerances of the weapon would be unacceptable today and the muzzle device produces and unacceptable flash, which post-war testing indicates was worse without the device. There was also some room for improvements as well planned by the Germans before the war ended.

There is always a room for improvements.
The AK-47 managed to fail the mud test as performed by the 'In range' team.

I thought we're talking about the Brits producing the weapon AFTER WW2?

Introduced in 7.92 before the end of the war, later modified to use 7.62 NATO.

Edit:
now if only they made it in 7mm Mauser...

Opens possibilities to either lighter and/or simpler design, more ammo to be carried, less of a recoil.
Or, make the 6.5mm Italian with spitzer bullet and then make the FG 42 in that ammo from day one.

 

[yulzari]

So introduced in 7.92 Mauser before the end of the war (and 7.92mm Mauser was the then proposed new British standard round) they have the EM-1 and the SLEM-1. In effect a fight between an ersatz FG42 and a proto FAL.

The British wanted to cover the SMG, rifle and LMG. Hence their preference for a bullpup to eliminate the SMG. However, their finances could tempt them to just convert their Brens to 7.92 and keep them pro tem as the LMG and replace the Mk4 with the SLEM-1. As for SMGs. Well. they had Stens coming out of their ears. Enough for a few generations properly stored. The arms systems chaps might want an all singing and dancing new system (OTL Mk9 and taden) but the bean counters ask where the money is to come from.Thus a replacement in 7.92mm Mauser for the Mk4 with the semi automatic SLEM-1 and 7.92mm by conversion of Brens. Vickers too can be easliy converted and the tankies use 7.92mm Mauser anyway.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

There is always a room for improvements.
The AK-47 managed to fail the mud test as performed by the 'In range' team.

Right, which is what I was suggesting earlier, improve the design.

Introduced in 7.92 before the end of the war, later modified to use 7.62 NATO.

Why before the end of the war? They were dead set on increased production and didn't really encounter the FG-42 until it was too late to copy and introduce it during the war. Especially the much improved final model.

Opens possibilities to either lighter and/or simpler design, more ammo to be carried, less of a recoil.
Or, make the 6.5mm Italian with spitzer bullet and then make the FG 42 in that ammo from day one.

If you want lower powered 6.5, the Brits were making 6.5 Arisaka, but not 6.5 Carcano.
http://quarryhs.co.uk/256brit.htm
That of course means a major changes to the design to switch calibers, even if they remove the rim on the Arisaka. Of course they could also just chop the 7.92 case down to say 45mm and add a 6.5mm spitzer 120 grain bullet.