No MG34, instead a 'machine carbine'?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
I think a great deal of pre WW2 ideals and doctrine date bake to the trenches of WW1 and it took some time for these ideas to fade based on new wartime experience.

My understanding was that the Germans chose an accurate GPMG with a high rate of fire as they found in WW1 that enemy infantry would move form cover to cover when attacking (when without a creaping barrage) so the time available to shoot at them was limited. It therefore maked sense to get a GPMG that could put a lot of rounds in the air in a short space of time to make the most of the brief periods when the enemy was in the open. The rest of the squad would carry the ammunition for the GPMG. They would largely be armed with an accurate rifle capable of only firing a few rounds of aimed fire when the enemy showed himself. Again this was deemed satisfactory as the Germans felt this would be all the fire the rifleman would be able to get off in the time allowed.

The British experience in WW1 was largely attacking. They found they needed a relatively light weight LMG with a lower rate of fire to put down suppressive fire on enemy position as the infantry advanced before finishing off the enemy with genades and the bayonet. This led to the a Bren gun.

It was only when the Germans experienced fighting both offensive and defensively that they required a weapon that could do both so the assault rifle was born out of this experience. Certainly there where prototypes of these weapons available pre WW2 but would any military invest serious funds into an proved and possibly unneeded weaopon when all experience points to weaopons available and in production being the best solution to potential battlefield problems.

However getting assult rifles earlier is possible. Simply sell it as a heavy SMG which is alegidly how the German Generals sold it to Hitler. So the Germans invest in this instead of the MP40 and as the war goes on they simply increase production.
 
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.

Yet the Soviets and US after the war, stayed with MGs in the 600rpm range for infantry use. 1200 rifle class rounds is just too fast for ground use, and that's still too slow and too short ranged for AAA. The US went with 20mm gatling, and Soviets with multiple 23mm barrels, at 1000 rpm each.

Soviet could have used the 1800 rpm ShKas as a ground gun, but didn't
 
Yet the Soviets and US after the war, stayed with MGs in the 600rpm range for infantry use. 1200 rifle class rounds is just too fast for ground use, and that's still too slow and too short ranged for AAA. The US went with 20mm gatling, and Soviets with multiple 23mm barrels, at 1000 rpm each.

Soviet could have used the 1800 rpm ShKas as a ground gun, but didn't

As I said it was a matter of doctrine, Germans use the weapon offensively, they use the riflemen to provide cover to let the MG get into a killing position the Western armies used the MG to suppress the enemy whilst the riflemen got into an attacking position. They are both valid tactics but the choice of weapon is reflective of those tactical outlooks. Just as the US refused to add Z scope optics to their machineguns unlike the Wehrmacht and later Bundeswehr for example which allows german gunners to stay much lower to the ground than their US or British equivalents is a tactical choice.
 

Toraach

Banned
Yet the Soviets and US after the war, stayed with MGs in the 600rpm range for infantry use. 1200 rifle class rounds is just too fast for ground use, and that's still too slow and too short ranged for AAA. The US went with 20mm gatling, and Soviets with multiple 23mm barrels, at 1000 rpm each.

Soviet could have used the 1800 rpm ShKas as a ground gun, but didn't
How to say. You focused too much in one technical issue, not a general picture what mg34/42 were.
But back to rate of fire. Mg34 had lower rate of fire than later weapon. And mg42 were under diffrent names and with lover rof used after the war.
The most important is that both those weapons were relativly cheap, easy to make and light, and very versality. Much better than Vicker/Bren combination for the Brits or Browning M1919/BAR for Americans. Or whatever the Soviets had. Especially the Mg42 was cheap and easy to make. It was THE MOST important. Also we need to remember the machine gun and the assault rifle/selective fire rifle were diffrent guns for diffrent roles. Ideally it was to have them both in the army. But for Germans it was more important to have a briliant machine gun, instead of assault riffle.
Wiking you wrote about german failed attempts to put the semi auto rifle in the line. You see in other countries were similar problems. In France, in the US, in the Soviet Empire, Brits totally lagged behind. Even in the US, M1 Garand was a rotten compromise, because bone headed generals wanted a fully powered gun, instead of more modern Pedersen, never mind pathetic feeding system in Garand. And to be honest Americans were really close to having a real first assault rifle/semiauto carbine. I mean if M1 Carbine got a nice slightly more powerful cartrige with pointed nose, instead of this funny little thing he got. I think that americans would prefer to have mg34 like weapon and springfield rifles, instead of BARs and M1919.
 
The most important is that both those weapons were relativly cheap, easy to make and light, and very versality. Much better than Vicker/Bren combination for the Brits or Browning M1919/BAR for Americans. Or whatever the Soviets had. Especially the Mg42 was cheap and easy to make. It was THE MOST important.

What the Germans should have done, was to have made a stamped version of the MG-15, used by the Luftwaffe before the MG-34 was in use. It was open bolt operationonly, and lighter.
640px-Munster_MG15_%28dark1%29.jpg
Ground version, less aircraft sight and bag, but missing the bipod
  • Rate of fire: 1000 (possibly up to 1050) rpm
  • Length : 1,078 millimetres (42.4 in) (without attachments)
  • Barrel length: 600 millimetres (24 in)
  • Weight unloaded with gunsight and cartridge bag: 8.1 kg (18 lb)
  • Weight loaded with gunsight and cartridge bag: 12.4 kg (27 lb)
  • 75-round magazine unloaded: 2.27 kg (5.0 lb)
  • 75-round magazine loaded: 4.24 kg (9.3 lb)
Even with the 1000rpm RoF, the 75 round saddle drum could be emptied in 4.5 seconds.
 
Returning to the OP ...
I am imaging a semi-automatic carbine firing 7.92 X 33 mm Kurtz ammo. Externally it would resemble an SKS or American M1 Carbeeen. Tactically, this mythical carbine would bridge the gap between MP40 SMG and Mauser K98. As with modern armies, carbines would replace pistols and SMGs as the Personal Defence Weapons. The design would be flexible enough to adapt stocks, magazines, etc. for different roles and production bottlenecks.

Most WW2 combatants experimented with semi-automatic rifles - during the 1930s - but few succeeded. Only the USA succeeded in manufacturing millions of M1 Garand rifles. Russian production of Tokarev rifles was a distant second.

Tactical usage of MGs was not rigidly defined by German doctrine. First, German junior officers were encouraged to be flexible, adapting in response to new enemy tactics. For example, defending against Russian human-wave tactics required more fully-automatic weapons. Secondly - late war - shortages forced German soldiers to fight with whichever weapon they could get their hands on.

As for modern FG42 replicas ..... I have fired a modern, German-made replica of an FG42 chambered in 7.92 mm
Mauser full-bore ammo.
SMG in Texas also build FG 42 (second pattern) replicas chambered in 7.62 mm NATO ammo.
 

Deleted member 1487

What the Germans should have done, was to have made a stamped version of the MG-15, used by the Luftwaffe before the MG-34 was in use. It was open bolt operationonly, and lighter.
640px-Munster_MG15_%28dark1%29.jpg
Ground version, less aircraft sight and bag, but missing the bipod
  • Rate of fire: 1000 (possibly up to 1050) rpm
  • Length : 1,078 millimetres (42.4 in) (without attachments)
  • Barrel length: 600 millimetres (24 in)
  • Weight unloaded with gunsight and cartridge bag: 8.1 kg (18 lb)
  • Weight loaded with gunsight and cartridge bag: 12.4 kg (27 lb)
  • 75-round magazine unloaded: 2.27 kg (5.0 lb)
  • 75-round magazine loaded: 4.24 kg (9.3 lb)
Even with the 1000rpm RoF, the 75 round saddle drum could be emptied in 4.5 seconds.
The MG15 was basically the MG30, the MG13's replacement.
 
Please tell me that poster understand that just because a machine gun can fire 1000 RPM doesn't mean they empty the magazine in a minute and then go running for resupply? No one fights like!

Why not build assault rifle instead of SMG MP-40?
 
Last edited:
Please tell me that poster understand that just because a machine gun can fire 1000 RPM doesn't mean they empty the magazine in a minute and then go running for resupply? No one fights like!

Why not build assault rifle instead of SMG MP-40?

Because nobody was looking for assault Rifles then.

Squads are limited by how much ammo they hump along. It's easier to do controlled bursts with 600 rpm than a 1200 rpm buzzsaw, with each cartridge weighing .93 ounce, it adds up. High rpm weapons are fine for fixed emplacements or vehicles, not leg infantry

US Squad got far more use from just one guy with five pounds of Motorola HT
Portable_radio_SCR536.png

Than a whole German squad carrying bags full of 5 pound saddle drums for the MG-42
 

Deleted member 1487

Because nobody was looking for assault Rifles then.

Squads are limited by how much ammo they hump along. It's easier to do controlled bursts with 600 rpm than a 1200 rpm buzzsaw, with each cartridge weighing .93 ounce, it adds up. High rpm weapons are fine for fixed emplacements or vehicles, not leg infantry

US Squad got far more use from just one guy with five pounds of Motorola HT

Than a whole German squad carrying bags full of 5 pound saddle drums for the MG-42
The Vollmer M35 was trialed by the Germans in 1935 and it met the definition as an assault rifle.
Otherwise I agree with you about fire rates and the MG13 had a better magazine capacity than the ZB26 or Bren. Plus at that rate of fire barrel heat up and need for swap out is significant delayed, while it is possible to be more accurate and keep ammo going for longer.

Also in terms of radiomen it was simply the US that had that feature; the Germans got extreme use out of their mortars and radiomen. MGs and snipers helped pin down enemy forces while the explosives did the majority of the killing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSL
I always envisioned a good squad leader directing LMG - as the best approach.

I can't see the experiences of USARMY late in the war to be relevant to prewar or early war situation.
 
I always envisioned a good squad leader directing LMG - as the best approach.

I can't see the experiences of USARMY late in the war to be relevant to prewar or early war situation.
The US Army looked into the HT in 1940, before they were in the War, after the maneuvers. Existing radios were too heavy, and required morse, and trained operators to use.

Enter the SCR-536. Voice and push to talk with simple plug in crystal tuning, with about one mile range. Anyone could use it.

Any Platoon could talk to other Platoons, or the CO, and on their portable SCR-300A, they could talk to nearby Tanks or Divisional

Communication was more than just calling down bucketloads of 60,81,106mm Mortar fire or 3",105,155 or 240mm actual artillery on unsuspecting Axis forces.

It's being in contact, the best force multiplier there is, and you don't need to waste troops on messengers or runners, and it's at the speed of radiowaves.

Compared to that, small arms are a minor thing.
 
Yet the Soviets and US after the war, stayed with MGs in the 600rpm range for infantry use. 1200 rifle class rounds is just too fast for ground use, and that's still too slow and too short ranged for AAA. The US went with 20mm gatling, and Soviets with multiple 23mm barrels, at 1000 rpm each.

Soviet could have used the 1800 rpm ShKas as a ground gun, but didn't

What has modern AAA Gatling guns & Quads - got to do with a prewar/early war discussion about rifle vs SMG vs semi automatic rifle?
 
What has modern AAA Gatling guns & Quads - got to do with a prewar/early war discussion about rifle vs SMG vs semi automatic rifle?
Because by 1940, everyone knew that a single rifle caliber MG, was insufficient for AA use.

Even 12.7 HMC wasn't enough. Nor a single slow 20mm, as the USN found against the IJN

Gatlings and muliple cannon were used to get an effective AA caliber at a decent rate of fire

So claiming a single rifle caliber MG, even at 1200rpm, just isn't enough to justify for leg infantry.

The Wehrmacht would have done just as well by putting AA sights on rifles, like the Japanese did, for all the good an MG-42 with a bipod would do against a P-47 or Typhoon
 
what ever dude!

I'm sure the primary concern of rifle/machine gun designer in the 1930s Wehrmacht was AAA fire:frown:
 

Toraach

Banned
I do not undrestand why are so stubborn against Mg34. It was the best gun of that time. Originally conviced as the gpmg not some rotten compromise or old piece of junk which was getting lighter or added new features by years. Also it was belt feeded primarly. Also I do not understand why your opinnion is that getting mg34 excluded getting a self reppeting rifle.
 
I do not undrestand why are so stubborn against Mg34. It was the best gun of that time. Originally conviced as the gpmg not some rotten compromise or old piece of junk which was getting lighter or added new features by years. Also it was belt feeded primarly. Also I do not understand why your opinnion is that getting mg34 excluded getting a self reppeting rifle.

Mg 34 was the first true general purpose machine gun to see mass use. It served as both light and fmedium MG for infantry, a vehicle mounted MG for panzer and as a light AA gun. But it had some flaws. Which are due to very nature of the jack of all trades role it was designed for. The AA requirement meant a high rate of fire which means high ammo expenditure and rapid overhearing of they barrel. This led to infantry squads basically requiring rest of the squad to help try and keep the mg34, and later mg42 supplied so they could keep firing.
Additionally the gun was very complex and not that easy to mass produce.
Which meant as Germany was rearming and they focused on getting as many "universal" machine guns they could get they had to make production choices which meant... Well infantry are mostly getting kar98k as standard rifle. They didn't have enough designers or production lines to design and mass produce a semi auto rifle. Which to be fair was rather unneeded at least early in since infantry could rely on the MG 34 to give them enough fire power to handle most opposing forces easily. Later on well there's a reason the Gewher 41&43 and later stg44 were produced.
 

Deleted member 1487

Returning to the OP ...
I am imaging a semi-automatic carbine firing 7.92 X 33 mm Kurtz ammo. Externally it would resemble an SKS or American M1 Carbeeen. Tactically, this mythical carbine would bridge the gap between MP40 SMG and Mauser K98. As with modern armies, carbines would replace pistols and SMGs as the Personal Defence Weapons. The design would be flexible enough to adapt stocks, magazines, etc. for different roles and production bottlenecks.
They wanted a select fire weapon, not just a semi-auto, SKS style carbine. So more like the M2 Carbine (or original M1 prototype with full auto ability). Such a weapon would replace the SMG and most of the K98ks.

Also the only reason 'most nations failed' to produce semi-auto rifles pre-WW1 was doctrine and production concerns leading up to the war. Both the US and USSR succeeded due to entering the war in 1941, so having time to work out the designs and build enough of them.

Mg 34 was the first true general purpose machine gun to see mass use. It served as both light and fmedium MG for infantry, a vehicle mounted MG for panzer and as a light AA gun. But it had some flaws. Which are due to very nature of the jack of all trades role it was designed for. The AA requirement meant a high rate of fire which means high ammo expenditure and rapid overhearing of they barrel. This led to infantry squads basically requiring rest of the squad to help try and keep the mg34, and later mg42 supplied so they could keep firing.
Additionally the gun was very complex and not that easy to mass produce.
Which meant as Germany was rearming and they focused on getting as many "universal" machine guns they could get they had to make production choices which meant... Well infantry are mostly getting kar98k as standard rifle. They didn't have enough designers or production lines to design and mass produce a semi auto rifle. Which to be fair was rather unneeded at least early in since infantry could rely on the MG 34 to give them enough fire power to handle most opposing forces easily. Later on well there's a reason the Gewher 41&43 and later stg44 were produced.
On the offensive the MG34 and later 42 were too heavy to be the base of fire reliably due to the weight of the weapon and ammo; the Germans were able to make it work, but they recognized what a huge problem it was, which is why they had an endless push for what became the STG44 since the end of WW1 actually.

I do not undrestand why are so stubborn against Mg34. It was the best gun of that time. Originally conviced as the gpmg not some rotten compromise or old piece of junk which was getting lighter or added new features by years. Also it was belt feeded primarly. Also I do not understand why your opinnion is that getting mg34 excluded getting a self reppeting rifle.
The Germans, who had and used the weapon throughout the war, recognized it's shortcomings and ultimately decided to relegate it to a supporting role even further in the rear and replace much of it's early war infantry role with assault rifles. I'm just suggesting the Germans do so pre-war rather than later war.

What the Germans should have done, was to have made a stamped version of the MG-15, used by the Luftwaffe before the MG-34 was in use. It was open bolt operationonly, and lighter.
But the MG15 was already simplified, open bolt operation only.
It's loaded weight was equal to the empty weight on the MG30

Because it was a Luftwaffe weapon, meant to be air cooled by the cold air of 10,000 or more feet. It was not designed to hold up to ground combat situations, but was shoehorned into that role.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top