No MG34, instead a 'machine carbine'?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

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.
Part of the issue with this view is that it doesn't factor in the Germans' own offensive experience in 1917-18 in the West/Italy, nor their experience in the Balkans and Eastern Front where they were attacking in very mobile conditions.
German MG doctrine in WW2 was on the basis of compensating for the lack of self-leading rifles for the infantry, so that the MG HAD to do all the heavy lifting for the squad. It was a compromise choice because during rearmament it was an 'either-or' due to resources and MGs were thought to be cheaper. The high rate of fire thing is true, but ultimately an inferior approach due to the resulting ammo consumption and barrel heat up issues; the finest GPMG in the world today is the Soviet designed PKM which has only 600rpm, is much lighter than the MG42 and very controllable to the point that it can be operated by one man standing and firing from the shoulder, which is impossible for the MG42. Not only that, but even Wehrmacht veterans writing post-war when about requirements going forward for a future German army demanded an MG half the weight of the MG42 with a more controllable rate of fire, which the Bundeswehr seems to have ignored.
 
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.

But since it operated from saddle drums and not belts as a free swinging defensive gun, unlikely to overheat in any case. But could have used a quick change barrel, of course on the ground

It was slightly lighter than the Soviet PK GPMG, and heavier than the later version of that gun, the PKM, that both used 100 round belts, but had a 650 rpm rate, than the MG15 and 1050rpm

US Army used Brownings with minor differences between ground and air, so why not the Heer, with a decision in 1933 that the MG15 could be the basis for both?
 

Deleted member 1487

But since it operated from saddle drums and not belts as a free swinging defensive gun, unlikely to overheat in any case. But could have used a quick change barrel, of course on the ground

It was slightly lighter than the Soviet PK GPMG, and heavier than the later version of that gun, the PKM, that both used 100 round belts, but had a 650 rpm rate, than the MG15 and 1050rpm

US Army used Brownings with minor differences between ground and air, so why not the Heer, with a decision in 1933 that the MG15 could be the basis for both?
The MG13 was already made robust for ground operations, which having larger capacity magazines. I haven't heard much about the MG15 holding up in ground service, as it seems to have been more used for defensive work. The PKM though is much easier to control in bursts than the MG15 and won't overheat as quickly.

The Germans already had variations of the Dreyse MG (MG13, just aircooled), plus tons of left over MG08s and modern variants, just like the US used the Browning for MMG and HMG roles.

Regardless though, the Germans had options that didn't require the MG34 and could have meant investment in a pre-war assault rifle instead in 7.92 kurz.
 
The PK series is one of the best modern LMG/GPMG in the world. It is lighter than almost any Western counterpart and is much more durable.
 
All of this has me wondering why Germany did not adopt a semiauto rifle before going to war?
 

Deleted member 1487

The Germans along with a lot of other militaries thought boring a hole into a barrel to tap gas to operate the mechanism would lead to excessive bore erosion and fouling. It doesn't of course and every current military rifle uses some sort of gas system.
 
During my USMC time we did expect to suppress and dominate with assualt rifles to 500 meters and beyond. But, our training was very different from most infantry of the era. Even at that we depended on the MMG & LMG to get effects in the 400 to 1200 meter zone. We tried for over two decades to execute our tactics with limited MMG support, six per company, & the consensus was the assualt rifles could not substitute for a robust lmg presence. In the 1980s there was a return to multiple high volume rifle caliber weapons in the platoon/squad. Aside we also increased the number of grenade projectors in the company/squad as well.
 

Deleted member 1487

During my USMC time we did expect to suppress and dominate with assualt rifles to 500 meters and beyond. But, our training was very different from most infantry of the era. Even at that we depended on the MMG & LMG to get effects in the 400 to 1200 meter zone. We tried for over two decades to execute our tactics with limited MMG support, six per company, & the consensus was the assualt rifles could not substitute for a robust lmg presence. In the 1980s there was a return to multiple high volume rifle caliber weapons in the platoon/squad. Aside we also increased the number of grenade projectors in the company/squad as well.
And now the USMC is back to the automatic rifle idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

The Germans in WW2 did plan on using LMGs/MMGs to suppress at 400-1000m and using the assault rifle at shorter range. The difference in the WW2 context is that no one else had a select fire assault rifle type weapon to compete with it, which gave the assault rifle equipped squad a decisive advantage at the time until everyone else caught up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wtw
The M27 is well above the assualt rifle class by current standards. It's also much debated. One argument is the strongest proponents have the least combat experience. My take is the experience of the combat veteran reflects here. The longer and denser fire fights the veteran was in the more favor to a LMG. A third faction favors both weapons in various configurations. There's many pros & cons with that too.
 
.... The Germans in WW2 did plan on using LMGs/MMGs to suppress at 400-1000m and using the assault rifle at shorter range. The difference in the WW2 context is that no one else had a select fire assault rifle type weapon to compete with it, which gave the assault rifle equipped squad a decisive advantage at the time until everyone else caught up.

Had two cousins in the German army. Neither saw a 'assault rifle' in his 5-6 years at war in infantry regiments.
 

Deleted member 1487

The M27 is well above the assualt rifle class by current standards. It's also much debated. One argument is the strongest proponents have the least combat experience. My take is the experience of the combat veteran reflects here. The longer and denser fire fights the veteran was in the more favor to a LMG. A third faction favors both weapons in various configurations. There's many pros & cons with that too.
Is it? It is shorter than the M16 and the only advantage in terms of construction is the switch to the short stroke gas piston and free floating barrel, though this adds weight. It is certainly more stout than the M4 Carbine, but nothing special compared to say the G36, which was it's ancestor.
Certainly though the M27 is debatable, but the Corps has reasons for adopting it and limiting use of the M249 at the squad level. Likely the reason is assumptions around the length and density of firefights they're planning on (as you cited), plus the weight savings vs. the M249.

The issue though with talking about that vs. WW2 realities is the weight of the ammo and weapon of a belt fed intermediate caliber weapon (or in this case a SCHV one) vs. something like the MG34; the M249 is a fraction of the weight of the MG34 while the ammo is 1/3rd the weight, while the M249 can be operated by one man, while the MG34 would be very tough to run without at least a 2nd man. As you mentioned in the past about using the M60, remember that was at least 2kg lighter than the MG34, plus of course the ammo was about 10% lighter than the full powered 7.92. That and modern armies generally aren't facing bolt action rifles or even just semi-auto rifles with magazine fed LMGs/full power cartridge autorifles as their opposition.

Had two cousins in the German army. Neither saw a 'assault rifle' in his 5-6 years at war in infantry regiments.
You mean in WW2? Considering how few STGs there were per man and how late production of it and the ammo got going that isn't surprising.
If you mean post-WW2, then yeah the G3 wasn't an assault rifle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wtw
what ever dude!

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

Infantry rifles shot down few airplanes, but the process was good for infantry morale.
As a British 8th Army veteran told me: “The worst thing is being shelled for days without being able to shoot back.”
 
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.


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.


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.

.
yes to carbine in place of SMG & K98....but since much of the infantry role was defensive , the LMG was ideal.

The main offensive power of the Wehrmacht resided in the Panzerwaffe supported by mobile artillery or failing that STUKA DB.
 
———————————————————————————-

Infantry rifles shot down few airplanes, but the process was good for infantry morale.
As a British 8th Army veteran told me: “The worst thing is being shelled for days without being able to shoot back.”


That sounds like a desirable characteristic -but not an essential one.
 
Issue was mg34 wasn't a LMG. It was a general purpose machine gun. Which means it had to cover basically cover EVERY role a MG has to do, which includes light AA role. Now remove that and simplify weapon as much as possible (basically MG 42 it but with much lower rate of fire say 6-700 rounds a minute.
Then you can focus on upgrading rest of infantry weapons. Issue is mp38&40 production never got to point it could be adopted beyond one or two for a squad. Replacing kar 98k with a self loader period is costly and difficult
A select fire weapon is even harder. Stg44 in the end would have been ideal for bulk of infantry, backed up with a good LMG, and odd full power rifle for snipers and such. Issue is the road to that is difficult. I can't see them really getting to it without having to experience most of OTL first. Now maybe they could introduce it in 44 or even 43 and in larger numbers but that requires more R&D late 30s early 40s to get that.
 

Deleted member 1487

yes to carbine in place of SMG & K98....but since much of the infantry role was defensive , the LMG was ideal.

The main offensive power of the Wehrmacht resided in the Panzerwaffe supported by mobile artillery or failing that STUKA DB.
How do you figure that? Tactically infantry participated on the offensive all the time, while the German foot infantry divisions were just as often participating in the strategic/operational offensive that mobile divisions did. Plus motorized infantry also needed an assault weapon themselves to do their job more efficiently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vollmer_M35

Says , prototype was 4000RM which was the cost of a truck!!!! Perhaps mass-production could drop this by 10 fold...still? Anyone know how much to develop MP-38/40?
Handmade prototype weapons usual are very expensive, especially when development costs are wrapped up in the price.
 
How do you figure that? Tactically infantry participated on the offensive all the time, while the German foot infantry divisions were just as often participating in the strategic/operational offensive that mobile divisions did. Plus motorized infantry also needed an assault weapon themselves to do their job more efficiently..


The statements are as applicable as....

"The Germans in WW2 did plan on using LMGs/MMGs to suppress at 400-1000m and using the assault rifle at shorter range. The difference in the WW2 context is that no one else had a select fire assault rifle type weapon to compete with it, which gave the assault rifle equipped squad a decisive advantage at the time until everyone else caught up."

That was 1944/45 when they had battle experience with the AR units..... how was it decisive ? A particular battle ?

I'm not saying you wrong , just never seen who decisive it was....
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

The statements are as applicable as....



That was 1944/45 when they had battle experience with the AR units..... how was it decisive ? A particular battle ?

I'm not saying you wrong , just never seen who decisive it was....
Multiple combat reports from units equipped with ARs that were even able achieve firepower dominance over larger US units despite their semi-autorifles.
 
Top