US military adopts MG3 in 1957?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if the US military realized the problems with the M60 machine gun and adopted the MG3/the modified 42 as their standard MG before Vietnam became an issue? How much of a difference would this make to the tactical conduct of the Vietnam war? As I understand it the MG3 was the same weight as the M60, but much more reliable and a highly proven design, while the M60 had a number of issues in the climate of Vietnam. Even after a number of modifications post-war it was replaced by the M240 due to the M60's reliability issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun#Design_flaws
Would the MG3 have held up well in the climate conditions and been a more effective base of fire?
 
None, M60 worked well in vietnam. It's reputation came after as the guns were worn out by the 80s. Issues with the M60 wasn't really with reliability but rather with some rather stupid nudging issues more related to quality of life for the troops like the grip and trigger group being held with one pin etc. In the long run it won't make a difference in vietnam,.

 
Last edited:
None, M60 worked well in vietnam. It's reputation came after as the guns were worn out by the 80s. ...[/MEDIA]

I served in the USMC in the 1970s-90s. The M60 (which I never heard refered as the "Pig". 'The sixty' was the usual vernacular in my experience) was regarded as not the best possible and more prone to malfunction that is Browning predecessors, and the alternative NATO weapons we were exposed to/trained with. In the 1980s we acquired the new A3 version with the altered barrel/gas piston arrignment & vertical pistol grip. So, "worn out" was not a issue then. I dont recall worn out being a problem in the 1970s. The weapons I had hands on time were either post 1960s construction or had never been used in Viet Nam.
 
Almost none Americas problem wasn't equipment but lack of political will. Give them almost any weapons short of sci-fi and you won't change much unless you change American willingness to keep fighting the war.
 

Deleted member 1487

I served in the USMC in the 1970s-90s. The M60 (which I never heard refered as the "Pig". 'The sixty' was the usual vernacular in my experience) was regarded as not the best possible and more prone to malfunction that is Browning predecessors, and the alternative NATO weapons we were exposed to/trained with. In the 1980s we acquired the new A3 version with the altered barrel/gas piston arrignment & vertical pistol grip. So, "worn out" was not a issue then. I dont recall worn out being a problem in the 1970s. The weapons I had hands on time were either post 1960s construction or had never been used in Viet Nam.
So would the MG3 have been an improvement based on your experience?

Almost none Americas problem wasn't equipment but lack of political will. Give them almost any weapons short of sci-fi and you won't change much unless you change American willingness to keep fighting the war.
Obviously a different MG isn't going to fix the problems with the Vietnam war, but I am curious on the tactical side how it might have changed the conduct of US squads, platoons, and companies to have a reliable, fast firing, proven weapon system like the MG3.
 
I served in the USMC in the 1970s-90s. The M60 (which I never heard refered as the "Pig". 'The sixty' was the usual vernacular in my experience) was regarded as not the best possible and more prone to malfunction that is Browning predecessors, and the alternative NATO weapons we were exposed to/trained with. In the 1980s we acquired the new A3 version with the altered barrel/gas piston arrignment & vertical pistol grip. So, "worn out" was not a issue then. I dont recall worn out being a problem in the 1970s. The weapons I had hands on time were either post 1960s construction or had never been used in Viet Nam.

Was the malfunction ratios compared to the BAR and M1919 actually documented or was it just the usual nostalgia goggles like with the M14?

And as a former user of the MG-3 (Norwegian army infantry) it is not a wunderwaffe in terms of reliability. Its is also a lot heavier than the M60. To my knowledge it hasn't seen major deployments to places such as Vietnam so reliability there hasn't really been proven.
 

Deleted member 1487

Was the malfunction ratios compared to the BAR and M1919 actually documented or was it just the usual nostalgia goggles like with the M14?

And as a former user of the MG-3 (Norwegian army infantry) it is not a wunderwaffe in terms of reliability. Its is also a lot heavier than the M60. To my knowledge it hasn't seen major deployments to places such as Vietnam so reliability there hasn't really been proven.
You sure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_MG_3
Weight 10.5 kg (23.15 lb)
27.5 kg (61 lb) (mounted on tripod)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun
Weight 10.5 kg (23.15 lb)

In U.S. Marine Corps service, concerns about the M60's reliability, weight, and the high round counts of many M60s in service prompted the adoption of the M60E3 to replace most original M60s in infantry units. The M60E3 was five pounds lighter than the original M60. It included a forward pistol grip and had the bipod mounted to the receiver rather than the barrel. The weapon still was not durable and its performance was reduced.[10]
 
  • Like
Reactions: wtw
So would the MG3 have been an improvement based on your experience?
...

The various connectors & threaded bits needed to be designed not to shake or fall off. Having the barrel & piston/bipod as a single unit was point less & the A3 arraignment should have been the design from the start. The feed tray could have been a bit more robust too.


Was the malfunction ratios compared to the BAR and M1919 actually documented or was it just the usual nostalgia goggles like with the M14? ...

We were still training with the M14 along side the M16 in the mid 1970s. FSSG units still carried them as their standard weapon. Was not a lot of nostalgia connected to something still training with. There were assorted studies, field trials, lab tests, AARs collected on all the USMC weapons. Some had bad protocols & were worthless, others were good stuff. Bottom line was the M60 had some issues and purchasing the A3 was a welcomed effort to get around that.

Chatted a minute with one of my peers from the era. His take on the 'worn out' question was a little different. His understanding was not all the M60s used in Viet Nam were left there for the ARVN Or RVN Marines. Some unspecified quantity did return to the 1st Marine Division In California & 3rd Marine Division in Okinawa.
 
I served in the USMC in the 1970s-90s. The M60 (which I never heard refered as the "Pig". 'The sixty' was the usual vernacular in my experience) was regarded as not the best possible and more prone to malfunction that is Browning predecessors, and the alternative NATO weapons we were exposed to/trained with. In the 1980s we acquired the new A3 version with the altered barrel/gas piston arrignment & vertical pistol grip. So, "worn out" was not a issue then. I dont recall worn out being a problem in the 1970s. The weapons I had hands on time were either post 1960s construction or had never been used in Viet Nam.

FWIW the M60 was referred to as the "Pig" by the time I started my service in the USMC in 2000. It was called that to separate it out from the 240, since we had both in the armory in the time. By the time we went to Iraq for OIF I the 60s were gone.
 

Deleted member 1487

The various connectors & threaded bits needed to be designed not to shake or fall off. Having the barrel & piston/bipod as a single unit was point less & the A3 arraignment should have been the design from the start. The feed tray could have been a bit more robust too.
So yes with caveats? The early MG3s would have had a problem. Was that a problem with the MG42 as well or just an issue with the conversion to NATO standard? I'd imagine the barrel/bipod issue would be resolved quickly with a request for a change. Any thoughts on how it might impact the way US infantry fought in Vietnam?
 
So yes with caveats? The early MG3s would have had a problem. Was that a problem with the MG42 as well or just an issue with the conversion to NATO standard? I'd imagine the barrel/bipod issue would be resolved quickly with a request for a change. Any thoughts on how it might impact the way US infantry fought in Vietnam?

The problems with the M60 were allowed to linger on a couple decades. Why I can't say. Maybe much larger weapons issues had the attention.

The impact on the grunts would be less weight for the MG team were the spare barrel just a barrel, vs the piston combination. Maybe they'd carry more ammo, more water, but more of something useful is about guaranteed.

My most vivd memory is carrying one wearing chemical protective coveralls & M17 gas mask for 12 hours on a tidewater Virginia summer day.
 
Look, the US didn't like the MG42 in WW2, they actually(badly) built a copy for testing (god knows why there were enough captured MG42's to play with) and the US Army ordnance department botched that too. The weapon was acutally described in US test reports as deficient. They then managed to create a complete dogs dinner by throwing FG42, MG42 and gods knows what into a cement mixer and ended up with the M60. A weapon which would jam if you put the gas piston in the wrong way round (although the piston would fit either way).

US ordnance managed to screw up almost every weapon developed post war to some degree or other.
 
None, M60 worked well in vietnam.
Oh really?
Look, the US didn't like the MG42 in WW2, they actually(badly) built a copy for testing (god knows why there were enough captured MG42's to play with) and the US Army ordnance department botched that too. The weapon was acutally described in US test reports as deficient. They then managed to create a complete dogs dinner by throwing FG42, MG42 and gods knows what into a cement mixer and ended up with the M60. A weapon which would jam if you put the gas piston in the wrong way round (although the piston would fit either way).

US ordnance managed to screw up almost every weapon developed post war to some degree or other.
 
hey then managed to create a complete dogs dinner by throwing FG42, MG42 and gods knows what into a cement mixer and ended up with the M60

Lewis Gun, that was filtered into the FG42.
Barrel change, that was fairly original. And Originality isn't always good, when excellent designs are in public domain
 
Question should be why we did not adopt FN MAG in 1950's when our primary allies were doing so. It is now our primary GPMG. Reason of course was the same for not adopting MG42, NIH
 
Look, the US didn't like the MG42 in WW2, they actually(badly) built a copy for testing (god knows why there were enough captured MG42's to play with) and the US Army ordnance department botched that too. The weapon was acutally described in US test reports as deficient. They then managed to create a complete dogs dinner by throwing FG42, MG42 and gods knows what into a cement mixer and ended up with the M60. A weapon which would jam if you put the gas piston in the wrong way round (although the piston would fit either way).

US ordnance managed to screw up almost every weapon developed post war to some degree or other.
The US T24 project failed because the MG34 clones made by the Saginaw Steering Gear division of General Motors weren't properly resized for the slightly longer .30-06 cartridge. Like the T44 automatic rifle project the end of WW2 terminated interest.
 
Top