No MG34, instead a 'machine carbine'?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

So an interesting What If came up on the Forgotten Weapons channel Q&A a day or two ago:
Given that the Germans started to move away from the LMG as a squad weapon as WW2 went on, removing part of the point of a GPMG in favor of the assault rifle, what if instead of investing in a GPMG pre-war they instead invested in Vollmer's M35 and later a SAW version of that weapon? ITTL the Germans would keep the MG13 and equip their infantry with the 'machine carbine', so that by the start of WW2 the Vollmer M35 (in intermediate 7.92 to avoid the cost of recalibering) is the primary infantry weapon instead of the K98k. They would keep the MG13 as a platoon/company/battalion weapon, but basically have squads equipped with only an assault rifle and a K98k for rifle grenades or perhaps marksman work. How does this impact infantry tactics going forward and ideas about light machine guns?

For the sake of argument let's assume the M35 uses a reliable gas tap rather than muzzle gas trap system like how the Garand evolved. Let's also say that due to it being a priority project in the 1930s it is developed more quickly than the OTL M35 and is no more expensive than the K98k (the OTL STG44 was cheaper than the K98k even in 1944 as proof that it was feasible).
 

Toraach

Banned
But what is wrong with a brilliant GPMG like Mg34 and later mg24? They should still be developed, because they have much more uses than just being a squad level weapon. To be honest they still were better in that than the Bren Gun. the Bren weights nearly the same as MG42.

So you want to equip germans with an assault rifle sooner than in the OTL. But I don't see in this cause any problems with giving them a modern GPMG in this case. It was still more important weapon than a main service rifle.

I wonder what if a situation like the system later developed by the Soviets. The assault rifle AK, and the light machine gun RPK, which was just heavier AK, and even they had a machine gun with a full power cartridge the PKM.
 

Deleted member 1487

But what is wrong with a brilliant GPMG like Mg34 and later mg24? They should still be developed, because they have much more uses than just being a squad level weapon. To be honest they still were better in that than the Bren Gun. the Bren weights nearly the same as MG42.

For the Germans it was the weight and cost. The MG13 isn't that much heavier, nor that much more complex. The GPMG was supposed to make up for the fact that the Germans didn't have anything better than a bolt action rifle, but found that the MG was very difficult to keep up with the pace of advance and if it went down for any reason the squad was badly impaired in it's ability to fight. As a platoon weapon the MG13 was fine as an LMG and one whose weight would be less of a disadvantage due to not needing to keep up with the infantry squads.

So you want to equip germans with an assault rifle sooner than in the OTL. But I don't see in this cause any problems with giving them a modern GPMG in this case. It was still more important weapon than a main service rifle.
Since they went exactly that way later anyway, having squads only equipped with StG44s and leaving the LMG as a special weapon at the platoon level, why waste a development program developing an overly heavy LMG when you already have a 'good enough' one in 1930? As it was the cost of doing an assault rifle program was prohibitive given that they were doing the expensive GPMG program.

I wonder what if a situation like the system later developed by the Soviets. The assault rifle AK, and the light machine gun RPK, which was just heavier AK, and even they had a machine gun with a full power cartridge the PKM.
Exactly my interest as well; the German GPMG influenced everyone to some degree, but what if it didn't exist?
 
Since they went exactly that way later anyway, having squads only equipped with StG44s and leaving the LMG as a special weapon at the platoon level, why waste a development program developing an overly heavy LMG when you already have a 'good enough' one in 1930? As it was the cost of doing an assault rifle program was prohibitive given that they were doing the expensive GPMG program.

Is that true that they took MGs out of the squad; were these Volkstrum units? I was under the impression some German units had two MG42 per squad late in the war. Even today the Bundeswehr still use the MG3 at the squad level. Assault rifles just do not generate sustained firepower like a true machine gun. It’s a nice backup to the machine gun. Soviet tactics emphasized using mortars to take out German MG positions. But with the introduction of StG44 the German squad still retained good firepower once the MG went down. But I wont chose to start the fight without a squad MG.

Also there’s no way the Vollmer carbine could be as cheap as the Mauser rifle. It was not a low cost stamped gun like the StG44.
 
For the Germans it was the....cost.
Also there’s no way the Vollmer carbine could be as cheap as the Mauser rifle.
Going for an automatic rifle is far more expensive than OTL with only one expensive gun per squad or larger formation, so Germany simply runs out of cash?

It would be interesting to see the cost of, 98K, MP40, MG34 etc early on and again with later weapons for comparison.
 

Deleted member 1487

Is that true that they took MGs out of the squad; were these Volkstrum units? I was under the impression some German units had two MG42 per squad late in the war. Even today the Bundeswehr still use the MG3 at the squad level. Assault rifles just do not generate sustained firepower like a true machine gun. It’s a nice backup to the machine gun. Soviet tactics emphasized using mortars to take out German MG positions. But with the introduction of StG44 the German squad still retained good firepower once the MG went down. But I wont chose to start the fight without a squad MG.
No, they had all STG platoons and it wasn't a Volkssturm or Volksgrenadier situation either. It was a late war innovation they couldn't spread out due to lack of ammo and Hitler refusing to approve of the adoption of the weapon until 1944.
This book has the details of what they wanted to do organizationally among many other things:
https://www.amazon.com/Sturmgewehr/...F8&qid=1506526363&sr=8-3&keywords=sturmgewehr

Any 2nd MG per squad situation was not an authorize adaptation AFAIK, rather something that was picked up off the books by a squad. Many didn't even have the MG they were authorized to later in the war and only 6 men due to shortages.

The Bundeswehr is dumping the MG3 at squad level; turns out their limited combat experience since the end of WW2 finally caught up to where everyone else is at with the fire team idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_MG4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_MG5

The Germans found that the StG 44 only squad generated more fire than the MG34+MP40+K98k squad and didn't have a focus of firepower that could be taken down, which meant it was harder to disable the assault rifle only squad. While it is true that a true MG can keep up sustained fire in a way that an assault rifle cannot, it really only can pull that off by being very heavy, both the weapon and ammo relative to intermediate caliber weapons, which meant it frequently couldn't keep up with the rest of the squad and support it. In WW2 especially that was a huge problem, as something like the PKM didn't exist, nor did a lighter SAW like the M249. Even the magazine fed ZB26/30 was as heavy as the Bren (the Bren being a bit heavier). WW2 assault rifles though had the benefit of lack of competition, which meant that they retained a decisive firepower advantage over everything fielded by everyone else, which was not comparable, either and SMG, even the high quality 7.62x25mm Tokarev based weapons, nor a semi-(or full) auto full powered round rifle.

The Germans did find that on the defensive a real LMG was need, which is why they kept the MGs in a weapons squad in the platoon that would support assault rifle squads from a distance, so they didn't have to keep up on foot. The platoon leader would direct longer range supporting fire from scoped riflemen, rifle grenadiers, and LMGs out to 600m or so while the assault rifle squads would fight at 300m or less. That isn't so different from the modern US army platoon which has two MMGs under the platoon leader and intermediate caliber squads fighting at closer range.

Also there’s no way the Vollmer carbine could be as cheap as the Mauser rifle. It was not a low cost stamped gun like the StG44.
The StG44 is cheaper than the K98k, I'm only arguing for the Vollmer being as cheap as the K98k due to being lighter, using a lighter round, and being overall smaller.

Going for an automatic rifle is far more expensive than OTL with only one expensive gun per squad or larger formation, so Germany simply runs out of cash?

It would be interesting to see the cost of, 98K, MP40, MG34 etc early on and again with later weapons for comparison.
The Vollmer was not an automatic rifle, it was an assault rifle with an intermediate caliber round, just one slightly more powerful than 7.92 Kurz. It's mass production cost would have been closer to an AK-47 given that the Soviets didn't use stamped technology to make it initially (that came later with the AKM once they figured out how to make a working model with their substandard stamping technology).

Here is a rough cost guide for WW2 small arms:
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/a-rough-guide-of-the-costs-of-guns-during-wwii.html

The MG42 was 1/3rd the cost of the BAR!
 

Toraach

Banned
For cost of 2WW weapons it is difficult to compare. There were diffrent currencies, economic systems, using of slave labour in the case of Germany and the Soviet Empire. So prices listed in money aren't that important. More important is how much time, resources and what machine process were used to making those riffles.

For the Germans it was the weight and cost. The MG13 isn't that much heavier, nor that much more complex. The GPMG was supposed to make up for the fact that the Germans didn't have anything better than a bolt action rifle, but found that the MG was very difficult to keep up with the pace of advance and if it went down for any reason the squad was badly impaired in it's ability to fight. As a platoon weapon the MG13 was fine as an LMG and one whose weight would be less of a disadvantage due to not needing to keep up with the infantry squads.


Since they went exactly that way later anyway, having squads only equipped with StG44s and leaving the LMG as a special weapon at the platoon level, why waste a development program developing an overly heavy LMG when you already have a 'good enough' one in 1930? As it was the cost of doing an assault rifle program was prohibitive given that they were doing the expensive GPMG program.


Exactly my interest as well; the German GPMG influenced everyone to some degree, but what if it didn't exist?
The GPMG is much more than just a squad level weapon. Germans fielded it for roles for which had been used numerous constructions, and they used just one cheap, handy (as a mg) gun. That certainly would be better to equil all soldiers with assault rifles, but no one was able to do that in years before 2WW. From various reasons, one of them was mentality. But my point is that they still need the GPMG.

But if the Bren Gun went down, the british squad was also badly impaired in its abbility :)
 

Deleted member 1487

The GPMG is much more than just a squad level weapon. Germans fielded it for roles for which had been used numerous constructions, and they used just one cheap, handy (as a mg) gun. That certainly would be better to equil all soldiers with assault rifles, but no one was able to do that in years before 2WW. From various reasons, one of them was mentality. But my point is that they still need the GPMG.

But if the Bren Gun went down, the british squad was also badly impaired in its abbility :)
I am aware of the role of GPMGs :)
They already had designs that were relatively inexpensive and handy for MMGs and HMGs, plus legacy production of them.
The Germans did have the ability to either focus on a new MG system or rifle system and they thought MGs would be less expensive, so focused on that and kept the bolt action rifles. The US was able to do it, so it wasn't impossible, though a German select fire rifle likely wouldn't cover everyone by 1939 (just like with the MG system), but it would be a lot cheaper per unit than the MG and would also replace most if not all MPs, which means more resources for the 'machine carbine'. I'd imagine that the majority of the army would have them by May 1940 and then they'd be pretty standard by June 1941.
 
But what is wrong with a brilliant GPMG like Mg34 and later mg24? They should still be developed, because they have much more uses than just being a squad level weapon. To be honest they still were better in that than the Bren Gun. the Bren weights nearly the same as MG42.

Cost, and ammo consumption, esp with the MG-42.

Squads main job was hauling ammo along. High RoF is great for AAA use, but for suppression- doing that with a full power cartridge is wasteful, as most will seek cover just as much with a slow Woodpecker like the Hotchkiss derived gun as with the -42 buzzsaw.
 

Deleted member 1487

Cost, and ammo consumption, esp with the MG-42.

Squads main job was hauling ammo along. High RoF is great for AAA use, but for suppression- doing that with a full power cartridge is wasteful, as most will seek cover just as much with a slow Woodpecker like the Hotchkiss derived gun as with the -42 buzzsaw.
What is the estimate? Something like 20,000 rounds of small arms ammo per casualty in WW2?
 
What has changed since BALKOSKI' 1989 " Beyond the BEACH" and "fire superiority", etc . Mg-42 was everything and dominated the battlefield. Anything less than this spelt disaster.
 
What has changed since BALKOSKI' 1989 " Beyond the BEACH" and "fire superiority", etc . Mg-42 was everything and dominated the battlefield. Anything less than this spelt disaster.

Most were fed with 75 round Saddle Drums. each round weight .93 ounce each.

at 1200rpm, you burn thru it fast, and replenishment is coming on a horse drawn cart.
 
This strikes me as very stupid. mg-34/42 worked better and in more roles than pretty much any other rifle cartridge MG of the war. Its base configuration is the base of every full power cartridge MG used today and still sees surprisingly widespread service. There is nothing comparable at the time that can do its job. The fact that the concept still dominates to this very day is proof enough of that.

As for the STG-44 etc, ammo production was the main issue and remained so throughout the war. Everything used 8mm mauser, not so much kurz and therefore the capacity for the latter was always woefully deficient as setting up new tooling was expensive.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

This strikes me as very stupid. mg-34/42 worked better and in more roles than pretty much any other rifle cartridge MG of the war. Its base configuration is the base of every full power cartridge MG used today and still sees surprisingly widespread service. There is nothing comparable at the time that can do its job. The fact that the concept still dominates to this very day is proof enough of that.

As for the STG-44 etc, ammo production was the main issue and remained so throughout the war. Everything used 8mm mauser, not so much kurz and therefore the capacity for the latter was always woefully deficient as setting up new tooling was expensive.
The MG13 did a lot of what the MG34/42 did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_13
Just at 600rpm.
 
The MG13 did a lot of what the MG34/42 did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_13
Just at 600rpm.

No quick change barrel, heavier, more expensive, magazine fed and a lot longer and less ergonomic (who though a tube stock on an MG was a good idea!). It was a decidedly inferior option. The rate of fire of the MG-34/42 also made them suitable for a lot more roles such as vehicle MGs, AA MGs and so forth and the germans rightly recognized this. Belt fed especially was a vastly superior feature compared to the standard 25 round infantry mags. the drum mags being for AA work as they are decidedly impractical for infantry work.
 
Last edited:
The Germans wanted a high rate of fire, they considered the MG primarily as a killing weapon not a suppressive weapon. A high rate of fire allows the gunner to take advantage of fleeting opportunity targets by packing as many rounds as possible into as small a period as possible. This was the fundamental difference in doctrine between the Wehrmacht and the US/Commonwealth/Allied forces.
 
I am aware of the role of GPMGs :)
They already had designs that were relatively inexpensive and handy for MMGs and HMGs, plus legacy production of them.
The Germans did have the ability to either focus on a new MG system or rifle system and they thought MGs would be less expensive, so focused on that and kept the bolt action rifles. The US was able to do it, so it wasn't impossible, though a German select fire rifle likely wouldn't cover everyone by 1939 (just like with the MG system), but it would be a lot cheaper per unit than the MG and would also replace most if not all MPs, which means more resources for the 'machine carbine'. I'd imagine that the majority of the army would have them by May 1940 and then they'd be pretty standard by June 1941.

Except the Germans kept working on semi-automatic rifle designs throughout the war. They finally fielded a pretty good rifle in the G43/G44 and added the StG43/44 to the mix.
 
Yeah the german lack of semi automatic rifles certainly wasn't for lack of effort, they just did not land on anything they found acceptable until a fair bit into the war. Pretending it was a case of no semi autos because they made some fantastic MGs simply isn't true.
 

Deleted member 1487

No quick change barrel, heavier, more expensive, magazine fed and a lot longer and less ergonomic (who though a tube stock on an MG was a good idea!). It was a decidedly inferior option. The rate of fire of the MG-34/42 also made them suitable for a lot more roles such as vehicle MGs, AA MGs and so forth and the germans rightly recognized this. Belt fed especially was a vastly superior feature compared to the standard 25 round infantry mags. the drum mags being for AA work as they are decidedly impractical for infantry work.
The MG13 did have a barrel change feature:
https://www.ima-usa.com/products/or...13-display-gun-dated-1938?variant=42309748357
The MG 13 did have a relatively rapid barrel change feature, which permitted sustained firing over longer periods of time, but it was a little more involved and time consuming than the MG 34 and BREN.
But due to having half the rate of fire the time between barrel changes is substantially delayed.

The MG13 was used as a vehicle weapon. Rate of fire had little to do with it given the use of lower rate of fire Allied MGs.

Also I never said the MG13 was as good as the MG42, just that the effort to develop it would be better spent on other endeavors.

Yeah the german lack of semi automatic rifles certainly wasn't for lack of effort, they just did not land on anything they found acceptable until a fair bit into the war. Pretending it was a case of no semi autos because they made some fantastic MGs simply isn't true.
According to Sturmgewehr! it was due to choice and the ignoring of existing options to focus resources on developing the MG34. The German army did like the Vollmer, they just didn't choose to put resources behind it and when it was ready based on private funding to make it work, the war was too close and the project was cancelled, but not before influencing other designs, which hit institutional roadblocks too.

Except the Germans kept working on semi-automatic rifle designs throughout the war. They finally fielded a pretty good rifle in the G43/G44 and added the StG43/44 to the mix.
Sure, they just didn't adopt any until the war already started, despite having several good options pre-war. They did eventually trial the G41, which turned out to be garbage, then ripped off the SVT-40 and had a similarly mediocre gun, still ignoring the other superior options like the Vollmer that was already designed, then going on to effectively recreate the same weapon in full powered 7.92 in the FG-42. A serious issue they had was ignoring what was on the table for other potentially better options and just badly reinventing the wheel.
 
The FG42 was a Luftwaffe weapon intended for their paratroops and its selection was largely the result of lessons learned in Crete, the FG42 is considered to be a very good weapon indeed and the modern semi-auto only reproductions show what an effective weapon it is. The Germans played around with a number of semi-automatic designs before settling on the G43.


https://www.forgottenweapons.com/walther-g41-and-g43-in-the-2-gun-action-challenge-match/

The modern FG42 reproductions are based on the second model and handle somewhat better in either 8mm Mauser and 7.62x51 NATO.

I am amazed Vickers got to play with a FG42, one went for just under $300,000 at auction last year.
 
Last edited:
Top