Different German machine gun philosophy for WW2

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
....... It would also have to ditch the quick change barrel and adopt a long stroke gas piston like the ZB26. .......
—————————————————————————

How are quick-change barrels and gas pistons mutually exclusive?
Bren (British version of ZB26) and most later LMGs and GPMGs have both.
 
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 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.

OTL the German Squads load carrying equipment only had dedicated pounches etc for the actual MG team - the rest of the squad did not have an equivilent of the Bren gun chest pouches

So perhaps they just carried boxes of belts?

As for limited ammo - Bren gun was about 30 -100 RPM depending on situation so with mags downloaded to 28 rounds - thats 2-4 mags a minute - the Barrel was supposed to be changed after 300 rounds or so which is 3 - 10 minutes of firing

The Section carried a total of 24 Magazines + each of the riflemen carried 2 or 3 x 50 round bandioliers of ammo in addition to the 2 plus magazines they carried - this was mainly intended to refill the empty magazines - which a trained Infantryman could do inside of a minute - so ammo was about 24 x 28 rounds = 672 plus another 1000 rounds or more - so meaning that if several member sof the units are refill mags the weapon could be kept continuously firing for 15-20 minutes or more till the unit run out of ammo.

The later L4 7.62 NATO Bren had a better heavier barrel and was intended to supliment the L7 GPMG (FN MAG/M240) rather than provide the same levels of firepower so it did not have a second barrel
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
The FG42 dropped the manganese steel after the initial model with the 60 degree pistol grip and gained weight for the main production model:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FG_42#Deployment
After approximately 2,000 FG 42s had been produced by Krieghoff, supplies of the manganese steel from which the receivers were forged were diverted to other needs; this meant a redesign was required to use stamped sheet metal in its place. Field reports were also requesting minor improvements, such as: relocating the bipod from the front of the handguard to the muzzle to reduce shot dispersion; changing the pistol grip angle to near vertical; enlarging the handguard and changing the stock from stamped steel to wood to minimize overheating. These changes, particularly the pistol grip change and the bipod relocation, are clearly visible on late-model FG 42s. Both models also had a simple flip-out spike bayonet under the barrel hidden by the bipod. In the later version the bayonet was shortened from around 10 inches (250 mm) to around 6 inches (150 mm).

Chroming barrels was something all sides were doing in WW2, but even the non-chromed barrels of the MG42 could handle several hundred rounds before needing to be switched out and that was at a very high rate of fire, which shortened the time between changeouts more than the same number of rounds from a low rate of fire weapon. Supposedly the Bren gunners didn't bother changing barrels, because the weapon didn't heat up quickly enough to make it necessary due to having a 500 rpm ROF.

Having two automatic rifles instead of one belt fed weapon adds nothing? Having a weapon that could keep up with the advance and allow for mutually supporting fire teams doesn't change a thing? In terms of cost the machined MG34 was not cheap and had to be replaced with the MG42; even that was due to be replaced by the MG45 that was much simplified and lighter, but the war ended before it could be produced. Having a light stamped steel automatic rifle would be a lot less expensive. The ZB26 for instance was cheaper to make than the MG34 and IIRC even the MG42.

The switch from the ZB machine guns to the MG34 was a choice made so that there was a supply of MG34s for vehicle defensive gun mounts, as the MG42 couldn't fit in those, while the MG34 production in Germany was getting switched to MG42. The ZB series was phased out because they wanted to standardize production, not because it was a poor weapon or appreciably worse than anything else fielded.

The GPMG/Universal MG was more a function of Germany's production staff deciding to try and boost production by having a single model to make, but they screwed that up by having a design that was effectively only made by machined parts by master craftsmen, which led to it being replaced by the largely stamped MG42. In the interwar period the design was fine given how small the German army was and how long it needed to make equipment last. For scaleable production in wartime when weapon life might be considerably shorter it was a flawed choice to ended up being replaced.

Leaving aside the WW1 experience argument, let's say for the sake of argument Germany realizes it could use a cheap stamped metal autorifle like the French did in WW1 and manage just fine with the modernized Dreyse MG as a HMG for company and battalion use. If we really need a POD let's say the BAR makes it to the battlefield in WW1 and makes enough of an impression that the Germans opt to copy the concept and improve on it.
 

Deleted member 1487

—————————————————————————

How are quick-change barrels and gas pistons mutually exclusive?
Bren (British version of ZB26) and most later LMGs and GPMGs have both.
They aren't but it makes the weapon lighter to have a fixed barrel (in the sense that it could only be removed by an armorer with special equipment) and of course saves weight by not having to carry extras. The Bren was apparently slow firing enough that it rarely had to switch out barrels in squad level use.
Having multiple extra barrels was another burden the German LMG teams had thanks to the ROF of their weapon.

OTL the German Squads load carrying equipment only had dedicated pounches etc for the actual MG team - the rest of the squad did not have an equivilent of the Bren gun chest pouches

So perhaps they just carried boxes of belts?

As for limited ammo - Bren gun was about 30 -100 RPM depending on situation so with mags downloaded to 28 rounds - thats 2-4 mags a minute - the Barrel was supposed to be changed after 300 rounds or so which is 3 - 10 minutes of firing

The Section carried a total of 24 Magazines + each of the riflemen carried 2 or 3 x 50 round bandioliers of ammo in addition to the 2 plus magazines they carried - this was mainly intended to refill the empty magazines - which a trained Infantryman could do inside of a minute - so ammo was about 24 x 28 rounds = 672 plus another 1000 rounds or more - so meaning that if several member sof the units are refill mags the weapon could be kept continuously firing for 15-20 minutes or more till the unit run out of ammo.

The later L4 7.62 NATO Bren had a better heavier barrel and was intended to supliment the L7 GPMG (FN MAG/M240) rather than provide the same levels of firepower so it did not have a second barrel
Apparently WW2 Brens when they got the chromed barrels didn't have to switch out in squad use, as most of the time the Bren wasn't firing for 10 minutes straight. The number of bullets between change out was only for continuous firing without break. For a relatively low ROF weapon like the Bren (500rpm) and the fact that it wasn't generally fired continuously without break for 7-10 minutes at a time there was less of a need to bother with the extra barrels. Honestly I wonder if the Bren wasn't the superior weapon all things considered at very least for squad use compared to the MG34 or 42.
 
It's rare to read anything critical of German infantry doctrine in ww2.

The belt fed GPMG's especially the MG-42 allowed excellent suppressing fire both offensively and defensively, and gave German infantry squads/platoons considerable staying power. The body count of Russians and Anglo/American's trying to root them out of even improvised defensive works speaks volumes to the effectiveness of those weapons
 

Deleted member 1487

It's rare to read anything critical of German infantry doctrine in ww2.

The belt fed GPMG's especially the MG-42 allowed excellent suppressing fire both offensively and defensively, and gave German infantry squads/platoons considerable staying power. The body count of Russians and Anglo/American's trying to root them out of even improvised defensive works speaks volumes to the effectiveness of those weapons
Yet the Germans themselves were even dissatisfied with the squad abilities of the MG42 and ended up replacing it with the StG44 in their ideal planned squad (not that anything ever really reached planned TOE by mid-1944), relegating the belt fed MG to a platoon support weapon much like the modern US infantry doctrine. As a defensive weapon it was quite good, though there is considerable debate about the efficacy of the high ROF; modern weapons ended up with a significantly slower ROF to conserve ammo and limit the time between barrel switchouts. As to Allied casualty rates...that might also be a function of other supporting weapons like mortars, which supposedly per American accounts they were quite good at, and poor Allied tactics for the attack. At least until they got experience countering them. That and the defense is usually a pretty big advantage especially when dug in with a belt fed weapon.
The book "Sturmgewehr!" has a fair bit of info about the German weapons/tactical doctrine for them during the course of the war and dissatisfaction with the MG as a squad weapon (an issue which continual crops up with heavy belt fed battle rifle cartridge MGs in all armies in modern history), which is what prompted me to ask this question.
 
LMGs are best in the attack while heavy, water-cooled MMGs and HMGs are best in defence.
Germany adopted the Maxim/Spandau MG 08/15 during WW1 as a way to improve mobility without “re-inventing the wheel.”

At the end of WW1, Germany “enjoyed” the luxury of having her arms industry completely dis-mangled.
Cum the 1930s, German was able to chose between re-tooling to resuming production of WW1 pattern weapons or introduce completely new designs. They invented GPMG to overlap the LMG and MMG roles.
 
They aren't but it makes the weapon lighter to have a fixed barrel (in the sense that it could only be removed by an armorer with special equipment) and of course saves weight by not having to carry extras. The Bren was apparently slow firing enough that it rarely had to switch out barrels in squad level use.
Having multiple extra barrels was another burden the German LMG teams had thanks to the ROF of their weapon.


Apparently WW2 Brens when they got the chromed barrels didn't have to switch out in squad use, as most of the time the Bren wasn't firing for 10 minutes straight. The number of bullets between change out was only for continuous firing without break. For a relatively low ROF weapon like the Bren (500rpm) and the fact that it wasn't generally fired continuously without break for 7-10 minutes at a time there was less of a need to bother with the extra barrels. Honestly I wonder if the Bren wasn't the superior weapon all things considered at very least for squad use compared to the MG34 or 42.

Are you going all Lindybeige on us LOL

Like I said I know that the post war 7.62 NATO conversions had Chromed Barrels but I am not sure when the earlier .303 Brens did if at all - will look later

Mind you it was a robust LMG and I would not be suprised if it like the L7 Gimpy would not just keep firing till it glowed and in practice Sections ditched the extra barrel and extra kit for the gun with the unit transport?
 

Deleted member 1487

LMGs are best in the attack while heavy, water-cooled MMGs and HMGs are best in defence.
Germany adopted the Maxim/Spandau MG 08/15 during WW1 as a way to improve mobility without “re-inventing the wheel.”

At the end of WW1, Germany “enjoyed” the luxury of having her arms industry completely dis-mangled.
Cum the 1930s, German was able to chose between re-tooling to resuming production of WW1 pattern weapons or introduce completely new designs. They invented GPMG to overlap the LMG and MMG roles.
Sure, which I'm suggesting a counterfactual to. The GPMG was to simplify production by focusing on one model, which has since been somewhat discarded as a concept.

Are you going all Lindybeige on us LOL
Its worth having the discussion, though I think the Bren was probably too heavy and expensive for the role compared to something like the MG42...though the MG42 has it's own flaws.
 
Its worth having the discussion, though I think the Bren was probably too heavy and expensive for the role compared to something like the MG42...though the MG42 has it's own flaws.

Buy cheap buy twice ;)

The weight is one of the reasons it is so reliable - the Magazines were hefty things but indestructible compared to its peers - however it was made using the then British methods of the day - ie the receiver was machined - perhaps a robust stamping might have saved weight as well as cost?

The Chrome lined barrels were introduced during the war but I have been unable to determine when...I'll keep looking - I suspect that it was when the Mark 2 came into production

I am of the opinion that the result of any single battle fought during WW2 would not have changed had the MG42s been changed for BRENs and vice versa - they are both very good weapons

So a metal stamped CZ30 - with a shorter (fixed?) Chrome lined barrel might with a 30 round magazine of 7.92 Mauser come in at 8...8.5 kilos and be significantly cheaper than the Bren?

I do like the FJ42 but it was made out of unobtainium by the Dwarfs under the mountain using a captive dragon to smelt the metal which was then quenched in a pool of refined fairy tears - but if prepared to pay the cost all it would take is a Kahn style factory with lots of single use machine tools.....oh this is the Germans we are talking about!
 

Deleted member 1487

Buy cheap buy twice ;)
Does that apply to the MG42? Cheaper and lighter than it's predecessor.

The weight is one of the reasons it is so reliable - the Magazines were hefty things but indestructible compared to its peers - however it was made using the then British methods of the day - ie the receiver was machined - perhaps a robust stamping might have saved weight as well as cost?
Not sure that was strictly necessary and it made them heavier and more expensive if lost than something that is less robust and more stamped. Plus as you say it was machined, which means more skilled labor. I'd imagine given that stamping technology was pretty well known in western Europe at the time that it was doable if an army wasn't so set on something that was indestructible.

The Chrome lined barrels were introduced during the war but I have been unable to determine when...I'll keep looking - I suspect that it was when the Mark 2 came into production
From what I've been able to find it was introduced in the 1920s and was actually in service with some countries pre-war, including Japan. The first reference I can find of the British doing it was in 1944.

I am of the opinion that the result of any single battle fought during WW2 would not have changed had the MG42s been changed for BRENs and vice versa - they are both very good weapons
Probably not directly, though a number of tactical situations could add up to perhaps change some things.

So a metal stamped CZ30 - with a shorter (fixed?) Chrome lined barrel might with a 30 round magazine of 7.92 Mauser come in at 8...8.5 kilos and be significantly cheaper than the Bren?
You'd have to redesign the CZ30 if it were to be stamped. If you use an MG42 shorter barrel you might even get it lower than 8 kilos, though if you're already redesigning it and using the side magazine you can make it considerably lighter due to it being shorter, as the magazine can be fitted over the grip. That's now they got the FG42 to about 1 meter in length.

I do like the FJ42 but it was made out of unobtainium by the Dwarfs under the mountain using a captive dragon to smelt the metal which was then quenched in a pool of refined fairy tears - but if prepared to pay the cost all it would take is a Kahn style factory with lots of single use machine tools.....oh this is the Germans we are talking about!
Um...what? The refined version of the FG42 was made with stamped parts and was heavier than the alloyed steel original version. Since the MG42 used stamping, I don't see why the FG42-style LMG I'm proposing would be any more expensive or difficult to implement.
 
Just had a rethink on the gun to use

How about using the MG 81 as a basis

This was a development of the MG 34 for Air use

The starting weight is 6.5 Kilos

Add a robuust bipod and a stock with a heavier chrome lined fixed barrel - reduce the ROF to say 800 RPM - and you could have your 8ish KG belt fed SAW

OTL many kitbashed MG 81s where used in the ground roll late war anyway!
 

Deleted member 1487

Just had a rethink on the gun to use

How about using the MG 81 as a basis

This was a development of the MG 34 for Air use

The starting weight is 6.5 Kilos

Add a robuust bipod and a stock with a heavier chrome lined fixed barrel - reduce the ROF to say 800 RPM - and you could have your 8ish KG belt fed SAW

OTL many kitbashed MG 81s where used in the ground roll late war anyway!
Certainly of the OTL options that wouldn't be a terrible one, though I'd like to get that ROF to something more like 500 rpm for controllability, to save ammo, and avoid heat buildup. Any idea how expensive the MG81 was to make?
Ultimately you'd probably need a roller delayed recoil system to make it simple, inexpensive to make, and light enough to get to what I'm looking for, but the MG45 didn't come about too late. I suppose we could talk about a what if in which the system was developed pre-war, which would make something in the 9 kg range very achievable and even simpler to make than the MG42, while firing rate reduction would enable an even lighter weapon, as it wouldn't need to be so robust as to handle up to 1200rpm.
 
Certainly of the OTL options that wouldn't be a terrible one, though I'd like to get that ROF to something more like 500 rpm for controllability, to save ammo, and avoid heat buildup. Any idea how expensive the MG81 was to make?
Ultimately you'd probably need a roller delayed recoil system to make it simple, inexpensive to make, and light enough to get to what I'm looking for, but the MG45 didn't come about too late. I suppose we could talk about a what if in which the system was developed pre-war, which would make something in the 9 kg range very achievable and even simpler to make than the MG42, while firing rate reduction would enable an even lighter weapon, as it wouldn't need to be so robust as to handle up to 1200rpm.

"Development focus was to reduce production cost and time and to optimize the machine gun for use in aircraft. Developed in 1938/1939, it was in production from 1940 to 1945."

So I take from that that it was cheaper and easier to make than the MG34!

Actual cost no idea!

Lower ROF is certainly doable

Keep the MG34 at Company/Battalion and as principle AFV MG with the MG81'G' LMG at Squad/Platoon level?
 

Deleted member 1487

"Development focus was to reduce production cost and time and to optimize the machine gun for use in aircraft. Developed in 1938/1939, it was in production from 1940 to 1945."

So I take from that that it was cheaper and easier to make than the MG34!

Actual cost no idea!

Lower ROF is certainly doable

Keep the MG34 at Company/Battalion and as principle AFV MG with the MG81'G' LMG at Squad/Platoon level?
The MG81 wasn't really suitable without a ton of modification for ground operations. As noted it was optimized for aircraft operations, so it had a really chopped down barrel (about 18 inches), which meant it had a fireball muzzle flash that put the FG42 to shame. Plus the 1400 rpm minimum could only really be tamed with a longer bolt travel, plus heavier bolt and spring, which increases weight and recoil. An infantry MG81 would overheat really rapidly otherwise and would have to be heavily upweighted to have a buttstock and other necessary features. Seems like it was about 8kg empty with the buttstock and other features. Still had the super high ROF.
http://www.oocities.org/augusta/8172/panzerfaust5.htm

So while on the right track in terms of weight, it was in completely the opposite direction in terms of rate of fire and potential susceptibility to mud and such.
 
FG-42 had a good amount of Lewis Gun DNA in it, so why not just go off the Mk.III, fitted with a simple bipod and sling. Mk.III and M1918 had a muzzle brake
____900864.jpg
1LEWIS-026343_8.jpg
 
I'm pretty sure the Germans didn't have the license to it.
US Patent Law was 17 years in those days, and was from 1911, so should be in the clear to make a copy
Seems the Czechs adapted and lightened it in 8mm Mauser...but it was 10.2kg.
Not light, but not that heavy, either. The Mk.III above I believe were lighter in weight, as well, since they weren't conversions from ground guns
 

Deleted member 1487

US Patent Law was 17 years in those days, and was from 1911, so should be in the clear to make a copy
Interesting.
Not light, but not that heavy, either. The Mk.III above I believe were lighter in weight, as well, since they weren't conversions from ground guns
Twice as heavy as the FG42 and at least 1-2kg heavier than the ZB26
 

longsword14

Banned
Get a Lewis Gun, which shouldn't be that hard. OTL Lewis went to Europe to get buyers, so get it German attention and have the strange pan removed.
Othias at C&Rsenal mentions that the Belgians modified the original pan to what was used in the war. To make the feed system eve better, have the Germans replace the pan with a belt.

A lighter belt fed Lewis gun would be the best WWI MG. It can be modernised for post WW1 use.
 
Top