Different German machine gun philosophy for WW2

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

This isn't about having a war winning POD, just a technical/tactical what if and what impact it might on doctrines post-war.
So then, after the disclaimer on to the what if:
In the interwar period most militaries adopted LMGs with magazine feed to avoid problems with mud and dirt getting into a belt feed mechanism or the ammo fouling due to being exposed to the elements in a belt. In fact the Germans had such a weapon in the MG30, with a 30 round magazine side feed, that later was adapted into the MG34 with a belt feed mechanism. The thing is the MG30 looked a lot like the FG42, just bigger and heavier, which led me to wonder why it couldn't have been turned into something like the FG42, just open bolt only and with a 30 round magazine feed, while being made much lighter (like 6kg or so) with a reduced rate of fire for controllability (as well as simple muzzle brake) and to limit heat build up and conserve ammo. It would also have to ditch the quick change barrel and adopt a long stroke gas piston like the ZB26. Due to it being much simpler, made of stamped sheet metal and wood, and much lighter it could be produced much more cheaply and therefore issued two per squad and allow for a fire team approach to squad function, rather than the MG team and the rest of the squad division.

IOTL during offensives the German army found that the heavy belt fed MGs were too heavy to keep up with the rest of the infantry and helped lead to the push to try and replace it entirely with the StG44 when it was available.

So what if rather than adopt a belt fed heavy GPMG the Germans just work to make the MG30 very light, mass produceable, cheap, and have multiple MG/auto rifles per squad so that they could keep up with the infantry and provide mutually supporting fire for different elements of the squad? How does that impact tactics during and after WW2? Might the US adopt a version of that themselves as they did with their FG-42/MG-42 mashup the M60? It would fit better with the model they developed during WW2 with the BAR, except this would be a much more modern BAR.
 
Doesn't that leave German infantry very badly off when they're facing numerically superior opponents (particularly the Soviets) and on the defensive?

Although it's no fun having to carry any machine gun instead of a rifle, the MG-34 doesn't seem all that heavy at 12.1Kg - it's only 300g heavier than the Gimpy which is still being carried around by lucky infanteers now. There's a fair amount of weight in the ammunition and ancils too but you obviously share the ammunition out amongst everyone and many of the ancils are only really used by SF (sustained fire) platoons rather than rifle companies using the guns in light role even today. The MG-30 is barely any lighter than the MG-34 (12Kg according to Wiki) and is such a big step down in capability when on the defensive that the tiny weight saving doesn't really seem worth the loss of firepower.
 

Deleted member 1487

Doesn't that leave German infantry very badly off when they're facing numerically superior opponents (particularly the Soviets) and on the defensive?

Although it's no fun having to carry any machine gun instead of a rifle, the MG-34 doesn't seem all that heavy at 12.1Kg - it's only 300g heavier than the Gimpy which is still being carried around by lucky infanteers now. There's a fair amount of weight in the ammunition and ancils too but you obviously share the ammunition out amongst everyone and many of the ancils are only really used by SF (sustained fire) platoons rather than rifle companies using the guns in light role even today. The MG-30 is barely any lighter than the MG-34 (12Kg according to Wiki) and is such a big step down in capability when on the defensive that the tiny weight saving doesn't really seem worth the loss of firepower.
Depends. There would still be some version of a belt fed sustained fire MG at the company level and this new set up gives an infantry platoon with 3 squads 6 official AR/LMGs and who knows how many additional unofficial ones like the US infantry did with the BAR. It also prevents the problem of what happens when an MG goes down leaving a squad with nothing else but bolt action rifles and maybe a machine pistol.
The modern US 7.62 MG is really heavy, which is why the US is adopted a light 6.8mm MG/SAW, because the heavy MG can't keep up and no one wants to lug it around on foot. It's great for a positional defense situation, but outside of that it's more a burden than help in many cases. That's also why the M60 got replaced with the M249 SAW.
Plus the British seemed to do just fine with the Bren gun, which was largely in a similar situation, but worse given that they only had one per squad and it was nearly as heavy as the MG42.

Also I'm not suggesting the MG30 as 12kg be kept, rather a light version closer to the FG42 is developed that weighs about 6-7kg. I'm just saying for the squad that would be a lot more useful than a 12kg weapon given that a prepared defensive situation would see the weapons platoon's sustained fire belt fed MGs being able to support them and do the heavy lifting. I'd argue something like the MG42 wasted a bunch of ammo due to it's rate of fire and was potentially too much of a burden then due to how many extra barrels needed, as well as all the extra ammo to feed the beast. Between the MP40s and TTL's squad AR/LMG that should be more than enough firepower even on the defensive when supported by company HMGs.
 
All of what Viking says in entirely true. Most 1st rate military's with a decent industrial base had the capability to produce an assault rifle in the 1930's. The problem is what they actually produced where direct consequences of their experiences in WW1. For the western allies (who tended to be on the offensive) their experience called for a light automatic weapon that could move at the same pace as the rifle armed infantry and which could put down decent levels of automatic fire to suppress enemy infantry in cover/trenches. This led to the British and French developing the Bren and the FM24/29 respectively and the US to soldier on with the BAR. German experience was different due to spending more time on the defensive. When the allies attacked they would move from cover to cover so the Germans felt that a weapon that was accurate and fired a lot of lead in a short space of time would be the most useful in killing/suppressing the enemy when they where exposed in the open for short periods of time. This led to the MG34. For the Germans to introduce a LMG instead of the OTL MMG would take a very different WW1 for Germany.

These drivers could include;

Someone else introducing a stand out LMG in WW1 which so impressed the Germans that they develop a similar weapon (although such a POD could very well mean another nation also developing an early assault rifle).
A greater use of SMG's in WW1 shows the usefulness of lighter automatic weapons used as a part of the infantry squad/section (as apposed to the specialist element of a separate squad/section). Although again these lessons would be available to all.
The Germans spend more time on the offensive (which requires a lot of POD's).
Or someone guessing the right answer like the story (unsure how much truth is in it, as I suspect by this stage in WW2 the lesons that led to assault rifles where already apparent) of Hitler not wanting a less powerful (than a Mauser 98) automatic rifle but was more than happy to authorise a heavy SMG.
 

Deleted member 1487

All of what Viking says in entirely true. Most 1st rate military's with a decent industrial base had the capability to produce an assault rifle in the 1930's. The problem is what they actually produced where direct consequences of their experiences in WW1. For the western allies (who tended to be on the offensive) their experience called for a light automatic weapon that could move at the same pace as the rifle armed infantry and which could put down decent levels of automatic fire to suppress enemy infantry in cover/trenches. This led to the British and French developing the Bren and the FM24/29 respectively and the US to soldier on with the BAR. German experience was different due to spending more time on the defensive. When the allies attacked they would move from cover to cover so the Germans felt that a weapon that was accurate and fired a lot of lead in a short space of time would be the most useful in killing/suppressing the enemy when they where exposed in the open for short periods of time. This led to the MG34. For the Germans to introduce a LMG instead of the OTL MMG would take a very different WW1 for Germany.
You're forgetting all Germany's experience attacking on the Eastern Front, in Italy, in the Balkans, to some degree helping in the Middle East and of course their attacks on the western front that got them the MG08/15, which wasn't so much about having a sustained fire MG instead of a light, mobile MG (attacking units prized captured Chauchats for that), but rather having a design as similar to the basic MG08 so as not to disrupt production. They had other designs, but they were concerned about volume vs. capabilities. Plus they captured a lot of Allied weapons they used themselves.

The history of the MG34 and it's genesis was complicated and involved interwar theory about what a future war would look like and production constraints rather than being just based on western front experience; if you want me to type out the history of that I will, but don't want to necessarily make this about the history of the OTL MG especially if there is no interest.

Also as a point of order I didn't say assault rifle, I said automatic rifle that might qualify as an LMG.

These drivers could include;

Someone else introducing a stand out LMG in WW1 which so impressed the Germans that they develop a similar weapon (although such a POD could very well mean another nation also developing an early assault rifle).
A greater use of SMG's in WW1 shows the usefulness of lighter automatic weapons used as a part of the infantry squad/section (as apposed to the specialist element of a separate squad/section). Although again these lessons would be available to all.
The Germans spend more time on the offensive (which requires a lot of POD's).
Or someone guessing the right answer like the story (unsure how much truth is in it, as I suspect by this stage in WW2 the lesons that led to assault rifles where already apparent) of Hitler not wanting a less powerful (than a Mauser 98) automatic rifle but was more than happy to authorise a heavy SMG.
Arguably the assault rifle existed in many versions during WW1. I'd rather not focus on the reasons why this POD happens as much as the results of the POD.

Hitler had no influence on the adoption of the MG34/42, that was entirely army driven. Same with the assault rifle, which was brought to production against Hitler's will. And the Germans did have an assault rifle ready in 1939, the Vollmer M35, but the army turned it down to focus on production of existing weapons so as not to disrupt production, which was already lagging, and the weapon was more expensive than they wanted.
 
I'd argue that the GPMG being too heavy simply isn't true as the weapon type is still in wide use today in packages that has the same weight as the MG-34. It is basically the first truly modern MG. The germans based their basic squad infantry tactics around the firepower of this weapon and in essence had the whole squad be a tool to sustain it. Removing the quick change barrel and the mag would greatly reduce its role as a fire base weapon. I myself was trained in the same tactics based around the MG-3 and its role as base of fire was undisputed even as we carried much more modern HK-416s (basically we had a manouver fireteam of 5 and an MG fireteam of 3, the Manouver team moving ahead in smaller bounding movements and the MG team moving in longer increments to compensate for its cumbersomeness and longer setuptimes using its longer range as a covering base of fire.).
 

Deleted member 1487

I'd argue that the GPMG being too heavy simply isn't true as the weapon type is still in wide use today in packages that has the same weight as the MG-34. It is basically the first truly modern MG. The germans based their basic squad infantry tactics around the firepower of this weapon and in essence had the whole squad be a tool to sustain it. Removing the quick change barrel and the mag would greatly reduce its role as a fire base weapon. I myself was trained in the same tactics based around the MG-3 and its role as base of fire was undisputed even as we carried much more modern HK-416s (basically we had a manouver fireteam of 5 and an MG fireteam of 3, the Manouver team moving ahead in smaller bounding movements and the MG team moving in longer increments to compensate for its cumbersomeness and longer setuptimes using its longer range as a covering base of fire.).
Not at the squad level and finally the US is getting around to modernizing the GPMG with a better caliber/light design as the heavy weight finally showed it's faults in Afghanistan.
Arguably the Soviets/Russians have changed the paradigm with the PKM, which was a much lighter GPMG and ended up outperforming the NATO GPMG. Plus HK developed a LMG out of their g3 rifle (originally started by CETME), which effectively created the modern modular rifle-SAW system.

Also you're a bit off about German squad tactics, the squad did not support the MG, the MG supported the squad, while the squad helped carry extra ammo and dumped it with the MG team at the start of combat in a meeting engagement...assuming it kept pace. As you note it was an unwieldy system in maneuver, even worse when you don't have assault rifles to give the riflemen sufficient firepower to cover the MG moving for a while and getting winded in the move. There is a reason the US switched to the SAW as the GPMG M60 was too heavy for any sort of maneuver.

Having two automatic rifle type weapons would remove the need to rely on one weapon that if knocked out rendered the rifle squad ineffective and as soon as it opened up drew all the enemy fire in the area. It also allows for a lot more flexibility in squad tactics and frees it from relying on one weapon for firepower.
 
The whole light/ heavy MG squad MG has been a constant thing back and forth for the past 100 years and neither offer a good compromise so they keep changing it. Unless there is a marked improvement in firearms technology it will keep changing back and forth.
 

Deleted member 1487

The whole light/ heavy MG squad MG has been a constant thing back and forth for the past 100 years and neither offer a good compromise so they keep changing it. Unless there is a marked improvement in firearms technology it will keep changing back and forth.
Well, things could be changed sooner had the US actually pursued any number of options available after WW2 and again in the 1970s, but that's another topic.

Let's get back to the topic at hand though, having somewhat heavier, FG42 style automatic rifles (Louis Strange developed both the MG30 and FG42) as the squad base of fire with a fire team organization for the German squad, rather than a single 'light' GPMG.
 
This isn't about having a war winning POD, just a technical/tactical what if and what impact it might on doctrines post-war.
So then, after the disclaimer on to the what if:
In the interwar period most militaries adopted LMGs with magazine feed to avoid problems with mud and dirt getting into a belt feed mechanism or the ammo fouling due to being exposed to the elements in a belt. In fact the Germans had such a weapon in the MG30, with a 30 round magazine side feed, that later was adapted into the MG34 with a belt feed mechanism. The thing is the MG30 looked a lot like the FG42, just bigger and heavier, which led me to wonder why it couldn't have been turned into something like the FG42, just open bolt only and with a 30 round magazine feed, while being made much lighter (like 6kg or so) with a reduced rate of fire for controllability (as well as simple muzzle brake) and to limit heat build up and conserve ammo. It would also have to ditch the quick change barrel and adopt a long stroke gas piston like the ZB26. Due to it being much simpler, made of stamped sheet metal and wood, and much lighter it could be produced much more cheaply and therefore issued two per squad and allow for a fire team approach to squad function, rather than the MG team and the rest of the squad division.

IOTL during offensives the German army found that the heavy belt fed MGs were too heavy to keep up with the rest of the infantry and helped lead to the push to try and replace it entirely with the StG44 when it was available.

So what if rather than adopt a belt fed heavy GPMG the Germans just work to make the MG30 very light, mass produceable, cheap, and have multiple MG/auto rifles per squad so that they could keep up with the infantry and provide mutually supporting fire for different elements of the squad? How does that impact tactics during and after WW2? Might the US adopt a version of that themselves as they did with their FG-42/MG-42 mashup the M60? It would fit better with the model they developed during WW2 with the BAR, except this would be a much more modern BAR.
The MG30 had a quick change barrel?
 

Deleted member 1487

Also the MG 13, which predates it, has one, so it's really bizarre that lacks that feature.
The MG13 is a separate design. It was based on the 1918 Dreyse MG and actually came after the MG30, which was not adopted by the German army, but several others. The modernized Dreyse MG was chosen and then the MG30 was modified based on army demands and supplanted the MG13. The Luftwaffe then went ahead and adopted a modified MG30 as the MG15.
 
The MG13 is a separate design. It was based on the 1918 Dreyse MG and actually came after the MG30, which was not adopted by the German army, but several others. The modernized Dreyse MG was chosen and then the MG30 was modified based on army demands and supplanted the MG13. The Luftwaffe then went ahead and adopted a modified MG30 as the MG15.
Did it? When was the MG30 designed?
 
Did it? When was the MG30 designed?
Sometime around 1928-1930. The MG 30 was part of a series of weapons designed for Solothurn (then Rheinmetall-owned) by Louis Stange, Rheinmetall's chief designer at Sömmerda.

In 1928 Solothurn was purchased by Rheinmetall and began exporting these weapons as the S1-100 submachine gun (better known as the MP34), the S2-100 machine gun (better known as the MG30), the S5-100 AA cannon (better known as the ST-5), the S18-100 anti-tank rifle, and several others. Of these, it should be noted that most of the 2 cm weapons were either based on the S18-100 or the S5-100, and as such used the same mechanism. In turn, the S2-100, S5-100, S18-100, and probably most other weapons (except the S1-100) used what is known as the Solothurn lock. This mechanism was invented by Louis Stange in 1928 or earlier (this is the 1928 patent for it, US1801179A), and is best known as the design of the MG34's bolt.
US1801179-drawings-page-1.png
Another website has this to say about it:
Another rotating mechanism is the Solothurn lock (invented by Louis Stange early in the twentieth century), which consists of a rotating collar fitting around the barrel extension and locking this to the bolt by means of an interrupted thread. As the barrel/bolt assembly moves rearwards, the collar is rotated by cams in the receiver, thereby disengaging the lock and enabling the bolt to be separated.
There are some drawings from that website showing this principle in action on an MG131 cutaway, presumably taken from the MOD's Pattern Room (but the site's links are dead):
3036_30_84-22lr-bolt-face.jpg

3036_30_85-sako-pieces.jpg

3036_30_86-rear-locking-lugs.jpg

These provide a good explanation, as does the patent drawing, but the important thing to note is that this design is characterized by a bolt with a bunch of interrupted thread locking lugs in front, with 2 rollers behind them which ride in cam grooves to unlock the bolt. This can be seen in pictures of an MG 34 bolt (right side is bolt face):
MG34-GNPT-0008-NOFN-SABA-2.jpg


The Solothurn ST-5 was developed into the 2 cm Flak 30 family, including the 2 cm Flak 38 and the 2 cm Kwk 30 and 38 (the Flak 30 and 38 adapted for vehicles). Looking at a Flak 38 bolt (3rd from top, left side, right side is bolt face), the same design of bolt can be seen:
2cm_Flak_Parts_s-745x562.jpg
In the Solothurn S18-1000 anti-tank rifle video below, at around 4:55 Ian notes that the bolt head "looks an awful lot like an MG 34 bolt head," which is not just because they shared patents. The S18-1000 (and its S18-1100 derivative) were based on the S18-100 and the MG 34 was based on the MG 30, so both guns were based on Louis Stange-designed weapons and used the same Solothurn lock.

In addition, the MK 101 30 mm aircraft cannon is also noted by Wikipedia as:
The bolt locked via a Stange-type machined sleeve with internal interrupted threads, similar to some Solothurn weapons such as the 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 30 light machine gun.
This is definitely the Solothurn lock design, and the earlier website describing the Solothurn lock also states the MK 101 used it. This was also developed into the MK 103 cannon, which almost certainly used the same locking design (it really only differed in a lighter cartridge and electronic firing).

So if we look at all the different families of weapons using the Solothurn lock, it includes:
  • the MG 30 family (MG 30, MG 15, MG 17, MG 34, MG 81)- note the MG 42 was a redesign that used a different Mauser-designed locking mechanism and is not part of the family)
  • the MG 131 family (MG 131)
  • the S18 family (S18-100, S18-1000, S18-1100)
  • the ST-5 family (ST-5, 2 cm C/30, 2 cm MG C/30L, 2 cm Flak 30, 2 cm Flak 38, 2 cm Kwk 30, 2 cm KwK 38, 2 cm Flak 38 Flakvierling, 2 cm Gebirgsflak 38)
  • the MK 101 family (MK 101, MK 103)
  • and probably all other Solothurn 2 cm designs, and probably most of their other larger-caliber designs period
All of these families (or at least the first member of the family) were unsurprisingly designed by Louis Stange. This is why they all have such similarities.

Hopefully this gives a bit of detail that can't be found in Forgotten Weapons videos.

The thing is the MG30 looked a lot like the FG42, just bigger and heavier, which led me to wonder why it couldn't have been turned into something like the FG42, just open bolt only and with a 30 round magazine feed, while being made much lighter (like 6kg or so) with a reduced rate of fire for controllability (as well as simple muzzle brake) and to limit heat build up and conserve ammo.
The problem is how would the MG 30 be made much lighter? It uses a completely different mechanism from the FG42. The FG42 is based on the Lewis Gun's gas-operated mechanism, while the MG 30 uses a recoil operated Solothurn lock. Without any connection to the FG42's design, it's hard to see any obvious changes that could make the gun equally light.
 
The Bren was intended to be used 2 per Section but due to lost weapons during the evacuation of France and the rapid expansion of the Army - production did not allow this until late 44

So a lightened ZB26 with a 30 round mag would serve - although this would be about 10 KG of weapon

2 weapons per Squad would allow for 2 'fire teams' with one fire team advancing while the other covers

The Heer would have to develop the same sort of load carrying equipment that the British had - ie Bren Gun chest pounches - the Brits retained about 24 magazines across the Squad with the majority of ammo carried intended to refill magazines

But with 2 guns it might be necessary to carry more? Perhaps half again?

The original German Squad up to 1939 was I believe 13 men - SL and assistant SL, 7 Riflemen and a 4 man LMG team with 1 LMG, 1 rifle and 3 pistols - this might be due to a lack of MG34s where the heavier older MGs were still being used?

So with 13 men Squads - it might be possible to absorb an additional 12 or so Magazines and extra ammo and have the squad acting as 2 x 6 man fire teams with the SL acting independently?

Post Poland we might still see the unit reduced to 10 men with 2 x 5 man teams each with an LMG (Historically 1 SL, 6 Riflemen and a 3 man LMG section led by the ASL)

SL = Squad Leader
ASL Assistant Squad Leader
 

Deleted member 1487

The problem is how would the MG 30 be made much lighter? It uses a completely different mechanism from the FG42. The FG42 is based on the Lewis Gun's gas-operated mechanism, while the MG 30 uses a recoil operated Solothurn lock. Without any connection to the FG42's design, it's hard to see any obvious changes that could make the gun equally light.
I was suggesting a move to the long stroke gas piston system, which Strange knew about, as he adopted it. There were all sorts of lightening moves that could have been taken with the design, including using more wood say for the butt stock and a shortened barrel. The MG42 and FG42 lost about 4 inches of length for instance. Making it half the wait would require a significant redesign which included something like the FG42's piston system.

The Bren was intended to be used 2 per Section but due to lost weapons during the evacuation of France and the rapid expansion of the Army - production did not allow this until late 44

So a lightened ZB26 with a 30 round mag would serve - although this would be about 10 KG of weapon

2 weapons per Squad would allow for 2 'fire teams' with one fire team advancing while the other covers

The Heer would have to develop the same sort of load carrying equipment that the British had - ie Bren Gun chest pounches - the Brits retained about 24 magazines across the Squad with the majority of ammo carried intended to refill magazines

But with 2 guns it might be necessary to carry more? Perhaps half again?

The original German Squad up to 1939 was I believe 13 men - SL and assistant SL, 7 Riflemen and a 4 man LMG team with 1 LMG, 1 rifle and 3 pistols - this might be due to a lack of MG34s where the heavier older MGs were still being used?

So with 13 men Squads - it might be possible to absorb an additional 12 or so Magazines and extra ammo and have the squad acting as 2 x 6 man fire teams with the SL acting independently?

Post Poland we might still see the unit reduced to 10 men with 2 x 5 man teams each with an LMG (Historically 1 SL, 6 Riflemen and a 3 man LMG section led by the ASL)

SL = Squad Leader
ASL Assistant Squad Leader
The German squad IOTL carried extra belts of ammo for the MG, here they'd just carry magazines in pouches. They'd probably only need two men to run the auto-rifle/LMG I'm proposing. Also due to the low rate of fire they'd probably wouldn't need an extra barrel, supposedly the Bren didn't despite the QC ability due to the limited amount of ammo that was carried and the ROF.

The way you're describing the set up sounds right, though after Poland I'm not sure they'd reduce the squad that much. Probably by 1941 though, maybe with 11 men per squad. The SL would act to either lead one team or focus on coordinating the teams, each with their own ASL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well not much more modern unless you use the expensive manganese steel from the FG42, or chrome lining as the RPK. You are basically talking about a value engineered Colt Monitor.

It really adds nothing. As Derwint said everyones WW2 kit derives from WW1 experience. There is nothing in Germanies ww1 experience calling for an automatic rifle and certainly no economic reason to develop a second MG series. When they come around to rearmament a tripod MG with a bipod version is a cheap logical extension ( in terms of manufacturing plant and ease of supply) which fits in well with German experience and doctrine from WW1. As it is the Germans are always struggling to have enough MG to issue and switched production from ZBZ to MG43 during the war so they pretty much did not see the need.
 
Top