Best Machine Guns - America or the Nazis - VIDEO

Amsdorf

I thought you guys would appreciate this old Army movie.

I'm still trying to put my feelings about it into words, but it is apparent it was intended to bolster confidence in American machine guns in light of the overwhelming superiority of the German machine guns.

Here is the movie, see what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35R2WENXMl8

Slanteyedshootist

I have no experience firing full auto weapons. But better control and more hits rather than high rate of fire seems like a good idea. Mahalo for posting.

Amsdorf

Thanks, bro.

What the heck does "Mahalo" mean, anyway?

Buford

Google is our friend.

Amsdorf

Michakav

Amsdorf wrote: »

LOL..

Love the videos.

Quinian

that's pretty cool and holy crap that 42 fires fast

I've gotten to shoot the m249 and m240 both were tons of fun and I managed to qual expert with the m240.. not so much on the 249 it didn't like me lol

Slanteyedshootist

Amsdorf wrote: »

Thanks, bro.

What the heck does "Mahalo" mean, anyway?

That's Hawaiian for thank you. You can take the boy out of Hawaii but not the Hawaii out of the boy.

snake284

In Tagalog and most other Filipino Dialects it's Salamat (thank you), or Maraming Salamat (Thanks a lot), like Muchas Gracias.

Bigslug

Pros and cons to both.

John Browning was dead some years before the quick-change barrel became a practical reality. He was headed in that direction and would have got there eventually, but plug-n-play barrels didn't become a fixture until sometime later (as I recall, the MG34 was one of the earlier ones). OTOH, Browning's mechanisms themselves were pretty much unstoppable. For just sheer durability, the stamped and roller-locked MG42 is not in the same league.

Both of the German air-cooled belt-feds were lighter than the M1919 and gave the operator the advantage of the QCB. The MG42 was easier to produce than any other, though when pitted against the overwhelming output of American industry, it was still destined to be on the losing side.

The points the video makes about accuracy. . .probably more to bolster morale than anything. It IS after all, an area weapon. If you're going to fight static, WWI-style engagements where you can use rifle-caliber MG's in the role of artillery at a couple thousand yards, using maps, protractors, and the T&E tripod as your primary aiming devices, the watercooled M1917 would be the undisputed king. For the more mobile combat characteristic of WWII, it's probably a wash in the practical accuracy department.

The American military had the logistical might to keep a high-RPM gun like the MG42 fed, but the Germans really didn't - and it cost them. Kind of funny to think about - the allied and German armies might have both been better served with the other's machineguns.

The post-war Belgian MAG-58 (AKA the U.S. M240) learned a lot from both - take Browning's BAR, flip the guts upside-down so you can feed it from a belt instead of a magazine, give it a QCB, and keep the rate down to roughly that of the WWII American guns - - there's a reason half the world is using it today.

As for the SMG's - Oddly, I think the Germans were behind the Allies across the board. While the MP's were among the earliest stamped and welded guns, and production of the Thompson was stupid-expensive and time consuming for the kind of weapon it was, again, American mass-production won out. The Grease Gun and STEN were BETTER stamped and welded guns, and the Russians probably did SMG's better than anyone.

The Sturmgeweher was probably the shining German small arm of the war. . .for the little good it did them.

jbp-ohio

''Now that you know it's bark is worse than it's bite, you won't be afraid of it.''

Amsdorf

Bigslug wrote: »

Pros and cons to both.

John Browning was dead some years before the quick-change barrel became a practical reality. He was headed in that direction and would have got there eventually, but plug-n-play barrels didn't become a fixture until sometime later (as I recall, the MG34 was one of the earlier ones). OTOH, Browning's mechanisms themselves were pretty much unstoppable. For just sheer durability, the stamped and roller-locked MG42 is not in the same league.

Both of the German air-cooled belt-feds were lighter than the M1919 and gave the operator the advantage of the QCB. The MG42 was easier to produce than any other, though when pitted against the overwhelming output of American industry, it was still destined to be on the losing side.

The points the video makes about accuracy. . .probably more to bolster morale than anything. It IS after all, an area weapon. If you're going to fight static, WWI-style engagements where you can use rifle-caliber MG's in the role of artillery at a couple thousand yards, using maps, protractors, and the T&E tripod as your primary aiming devices, the watercooled M1917 would be the undisputed king. For the more mobile combat characteristic of WWII, it's probably a wash in the practical accuracy department.

The American military had the logistical might to keep a high-RPM gun like the MG42 fed, but the Germans really didn't - and it cost them. Kind of funny to think about - the allied and German armies might have both been better served with the other's machineguns.

The post-war Belgian MAG-58 (AKA the U.S. M240) learned a lot from both - take Browning's BAR, flip the guts upside-down so you can feed it from a belt instead of a magazine, give it a QCB, and keep the rate down to roughly that of the WWII American guns - - there's a reason half the world is using it today.

As for the SMG's - Oddly, I think the Germans were behind the Allies across the board. While the MP's were among the earliest stamped and welded guns, and production of the Thompson was stupid-expensive and time consuming for the kind of weapon it was, again, American mass-production won out. The Grease Gun and STEN were BETTER stamped and welded guns, and the Russians probably did SMG's better than anyone.

The Sturmgeweher was probably the shining German small arm of the war. . .for the little good it did them.

Thanks for that really helpful/thoughtful comment.

Buford

jbp-ohio wrote: »

''Now that you know it's bark is worse than it's bite, you won't be afraid of it.''

That was great.

:roll2::roll2::roll2::roll2::roll2::roll2:

Big Chief

Can you say propaganda film? Of course it was slightly skewed, no one would tell recruits the MG 42 was a buzz saw. It was terrifying according to WWII vets who faced it when they talked about them on the Hitler Channel.

Fired more ammo, true, but the idy was fire suppression, make'm keep their heads down and kill some while you are at it. Trained crews/Marksmen on both sides would be fearsome opponents to face. Most German weapons were/are very accurate. The MGs they made after the war were known to "Put them in the same hole" more or less while ours spread out somewhat. I think both sides could be debated here till the cows come home.

All great guns and I'm especially fond of anything in a .45 ACP vs 9 Sillymeter. I think one major drawback the Krauts faced was the lack of a good semi-auto rifle made in large quantities and standard issued to soldiers, like our Garand was and even the little M-1 Carbine to a lessor extent, hands down was better than a bolt action rifle in close combat.

We had the industrial base (as mentioned above) to keep'm coming and the smarter Goose Steppers figured that out when we entered the war they would eventually be overwhelmed.

Great guns and great videos, thanks.

Amsdorf

Thank you sir, for watching, and for your interesting and informative comment.

Big Chief

Amsdorf wrote: »

Thank you sir, for watching, and for your interesting and informative comment.

The Sherman tanks is a prime example of our industrial might. Not a good match for most German tanks, but plenty were made and they just kept coming. It was light/medium armored in comparison and the main gun was a low(er) velocity 75mm (?) they could knock out the Shermans out before they got close enough to effectively use their main guns. When they did, they couldn't do much damage in a frontal attacks, the rear and sides were less armored plated and more vulnerable.


Some improvements were made to the main gun and better ammunition as the war progressed, but a medium armored tank up against a heavily armored/better main gun will lose, usually. However, it had mobility/speed and was better able to maneuver in tight spaces than the heavy Tiger/King Tiger tanks.

Plus, the Germans had the high velocity 88-mm anti-aircraft gun (they adapted to ground warfare) which was devastating to any armored vehicle on the battlefield in that era.

There are pros and cons to just about every piece of miltary equipment ever fielded.

rapier5316

Other than Pakistan, how many other nations still produce the MG 42? My Izzy 1919 parts kit is a Saginaw Machine Tool/General motors WWII production.
some critics of M-60 call it not a close enough copy of the 42.
The 1919 is still in the set piece category where the 38/42 is already in the General Purpose cat. fit it with the bi-pod and a monkey sling and run with it firing. Even with the cobbled together A-6 stock, try that with a 1919.

Gene L

I've seen parts of this film before, on the History Channel. Clearly, the MG 42 was WAY superior to any gun we had, except the 50 caliber. As for smaller autos, not so. I think the M 3 grease gun was superior to the 9mm schmeiser (which wasn't a schemiser). Big problem with the M 3 and the Thompson was weight of the ammo.

The film was a propaganda film to boost morale when the troops faced fast-firing guns. In the end the Germans lost, but they didn't lose the machine gun wars.

As for controlability, not an issue. In fact, I'd guess that a faster-firing gun i smore accurate as there's less recoil time between rounds. The Germans used tripods whenever they could, whenever they could in a mobile war. So did we but we were generally on the attack. Generally putting out a lot of lead in preferable especially when the ammo supply is good. Our supply lines lengthened during the war, the German supply lines got shorter.

The barrel change on the 34 and 42 is an overwhelming advantage in about any situation. We copied, poorly, a lot of features of the MGs in the M 60, which was a pig, but a pig with a quick change barrel.

Antonio

In the book "US Infantry Weapons in Combat: Personal Experiences from World War II and Korea" by Mark Goodwin virtually all interviewed veterans state that Germans not only had more MGs than them, but also better-made and suitable for the kind of combat they were experiencing. Not enough to win a battle, but shows that those guys knew what they were doing.