MG34 vs. MG42 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series



Message

TAIL GUNNER -> MG34 vs. MG42 (6/13/2009 7:27:32 PM)

Currently in our beloved games, there is no distinction between these two.

The generic German 'Machinegun Platoon' has the same stats throughout the entire war in both EF and WF.

Curiously, in WF at least, the German 'Ski Machinegun Platoon' does have two distinct units, with the MG34 unit having less firepower as it should rightly so.

So in the next patch would it be possible to rectify this?
You could still use the same graphic for both....thus saving one of those valuable remaining graphic slots.

Hm, but now that I think about it...this would screw up all early war scenarios.
I guess you would have to keep the original, generic unit and add two new units called something like 'Machinegun Platoon (MG34)' and 'Machinegun Platoon (MG42)'.

ChadG



countblue -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/19/2009 11:52:34 PM)

Since nobody jams in IŽll give it a try.
If we compare the two guns we find only a two "game relevant" differences.
e.G.
1. Range 3000-3500m max for both
2. caliber was 7.92x57 also ident for both (this is the same caliber used in the K98 infantry rifle)
3. But the fire rate was pretty different. For the MG34 we get 800 shots/min but for the "incredible" MG 42 1500! shots/min. That means 25 shots per second!!!
A barrel would only last 3500 to 4000 shots, with the late war models (chromium) barrels going up to 8000 shots.
Because of its high firerate the MG 42 was of course a much greater threat to low flying airplanes than the MG34 and an "ammunition waster".

As sideinfo:
The MG 34 was supposed to be less reliable because it was a very "exakt" weapon. Dirt and low temperatures were not his friends.

Conclusio:
We should (could) have actually a different "firepower" VS soft targets for both guns in the game. ;-)

CB





1925frank -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/20/2009 12:10:40 AM)

Was the MG 34 comparable to the machine guns of other countries?  I can see where the MG 42 would have fire cost of 33 (three shots per turn) and fantastic soft attack numbers compared to machine guns.  The MG 34 does not appear in the same class.  What I don't know is if it was roughly in the same class as British, French, Soviet, or American machine guns or greatly superior to them as well.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/20/2009 12:37:25 AM)

Here is what they look like in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y-Rkj8f7vA

Mg 34 Stats:

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/MG34.html

Mg 42 Stats:

http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/m/g/MG42.html

And, in comparison;
M2 50 Cal Stats:

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/M2.html

I'd like to see the ranges for the Mgs 34 and 42 and will look for them later.

RR







TAIL GUNNER -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/20/2009 12:47:55 AM)

I think countblue has nailed it....thanks to you and MrRoadrunner for the additional info.

Like I said, the MG Ski Platoon has two distinct MG units. (It appears these were added in the Blitzkrieg update.)
Their MG34 unit has a range 1 soft attack of 12, while the MG42 has our standard 16.

I wonder if the original Talonsoft guys ever debated this?[:D]

ChadG



countblue -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/20/2009 2:44:03 PM)

You can find all exact weapon data (ranges etc) in the german wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42
In a comparision with other MGs of that era both guns stand out extremly well and the MG 34 is definetly part of the early successes of german infantry.
The english soviet Vickers, Maxim type was much older and therefore the specs are well below those two german guns.
Quote:
The main US heavy machine gun was the Browning .50-inch. Not only was the Browning used as a machine gun by infantry, it was also used as a standard anti-aircraft gun. It weighed 82lbs and was 65 inches in length. It had a rate of fire of 450 rpm.

CB




1925frank -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/20/2009 6:32:38 PM)

I thought I read somewhere that the .50 machinegun was not intended for soft attacks but for airplanes and armored cars and such.  The explanation I recall was that a .50 bullet was excessive for anti-personnel purposes.  If that's true, shouldn't it have a better hard attack value?  I think it's 2 just like every other machine gun.

From what I gather from above, the MG 34 was superior to other countries' machine guns but was, nevertheless, outclassed by the MG 42.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/20/2009 8:00:55 PM)

I'm not sure that all is spot on. But, it is what I have gathered, so far.

Mg 42 - Effective range 1000 m (further with heavy config tripod)
Mg34 - Effective range 2000m to 3000m **Max range 4700m

German Mg's in game terms:
Machinegun Platoon 16 12 10 8 6 4
2 vs hard

US 50 cal - Effective range 1800m **Max range 6800m

US Mg's in game terms:

Light Machinegun Platoon 10 8 6 4
2 vs hard
Heavy Machinegun Platoon 10 9 7 5 3
2 vs hard
.50-cal Machinegun Platoon 12 10 8 6 4
3 vs hard
1 vs hard at one hex
 
Yes, Frank the 50 cal was originally designed for armor piercing. Still can. [;)]

I think that Talonsoft should have debated the parameters of machine guns a lot more than they did?

RR



countblue -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/20/2009 8:13:22 PM)

From Wiki I get:

MG 34 Fighting distance with two leg 600m with Lafette: up to 1200 m
MG 42 Fighting distance with two leg  800 m with Lafette: 3000–3500 m



MrRoadrunner -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/20/2009 9:43:10 PM)

I did not get my figures from Wikipedia. [:)]

And, you data would call the Talonsoft fire tables that much more in to question?

RR



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/20/2009 10:30:43 PM)

quote:

I think that Talonsoft should have debated the parameters of machine guns a lot more than they did?


Yeah, ya think?[:'(]
There are early war, and late war types of various infantry.....except for MG units.

The German 'MG Platoon' unit would be considered a heavy MG used on a tripod, where the light (bipod) MGs are interspersed into the infantry squads. Okay, that makes sense....but.

Why are the American LMG sections a seperate unit?

Why are American light mortars a seperate unit, but Germans are not?

Shouldn't Allied MGs also increase in firepower as the war drags on?
I vaguely recall the American .30 cal was water cooled as they entered the war...and later air-cooled.

Ow, my head hurts![:o]

As a side note, I will be modding in both MG34 and MG42 units in my Normandy sub-mod.....as well as a 'Beute' MG unit. (captured MGs used by static positions)

Good discussion![image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/micons/m6.gif[/image]

ChadG



countblue -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/21/2009 5:53:58 PM)

From "Lexikon der Wehrmacht" I get this:

The MG 34 was deliverd to the troops on 24. January 1939, there was a  firerate selector for 600 and 1000 shots/min, later weapons had a fixed fire rate of 900 shots/min, the weight was 12.1 kilos, 1225mm overall length, barrel length 625 mm. Practical fire rate 300-400 shots/min. Range up to 3500 meters (as sMG-on tripod- indirect fire). The visor was limited to 2000m the effective range of this weapon.
There were two three legged laffettes (for sMG purpose), the weight of them was 6.75 kg and 34 kg for the large one. With the large one the MG could be operated "remotely". Experimental models 34S and 34/41 had fire rates of up to 1700 shots/min. At the beginning of the war approx 80.000 MG34 were in service.

The MG 42 was deliverd to the troops in 1941 at the end of 1941 1500 guns were in service.
It was 1230 mm overall length with the barrel beeing 530 mm long,weight 11.6kg with bipod , the tripod weighted 20.5 kg. Range with bipod 800m, with tripod 2200m.
Until the end of the war approx. 350.000 - 400.000 MG 42 were produced.

So the true "operating range" seems to be 2 km at max, 8 hexes in CS speak.

CB



MrRoadrunner -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/21/2009 7:13:50 PM)

There is a huge difference between how far a projectile will "fly" and how effective it is when it gets there. [>:]

I hope the Matrix crew does not extend the range of the Mg 34 or 42. At least without increasing the 50 cal to it's projectiles max "flight range". [X(]

RR



countblue -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/21/2009 8:51:41 PM)

Youre right of course and I see the current range for the german MGs as perfect. This 6 hexes are the effectiv fighting distance. 1500 m.
There "could" be a range difference (say 8 instead of 6) for MGs in bunkers assuming that they are on a tripod and therefore definetly be used as heavy MGs.
But this is definetly no priority in my point of view.

CB






TAIL GUNNER -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (6/21/2009 11:06:43 PM)

quote:

I hope the Matrix crew does not extend the range of the Mg 34 or 42.


Oh damn, I'll be first in line to raise holy heck if that happens....[:@]

In fact, I think that ranges for ALL direct-fire weapons at this scale should be considerably smaller....

but we'll save that discussion for another thread...[8D]



Busto963 -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (7/3/2009 6:15:10 PM)

My opinion is that the there is no effective difference in *game terms* between the MG34 and MG42. Don't get me wrong, the MG42/MG3 is a fantastic weapon and I think the Bundeswehr is crazy to retire it from service; but there is a point of diminishing returns in terms of higher rates of fire, not to mention other problems that that high ROF brings (burnt out barrels, massive ammunition wastage etc).

Correct employment of an MG calls for a 5-10 round burst based upon analysis of round-to-round dispersion (error) and reaction to a “pop up” target. What does firing 66% more rounds do for you if you could not do the job with the first 5-10? Can you point to any scientific data that shows an increase in hit probability that the higher RoF of an MG42 gives on a fleeting target compared to an MG34? There is a reason that modern infantry have re-introduced LMGs (now called SAWs) and machine guns like the FN MAG have backed away from higher RoF – and this includes the Germans with their *improved version* of the MG42 the MG3!

If anything, I think the German machinegun are overstated in terms of relative firepower.

After spending 21 months in Iraq, I can guarantee that a .50cal is a hugely underrated in game terms compared what that weapon will do in real life, and what kind of cover is required for protection against it. It has a relatively low RoF and is not an inherently super accurate weapon, but it is a beast in terms of terminal effectiveness. Basically, there are few non-commercial structures that a .50 caliber machine gun burst will not penetrate even with regular ball ammunition. There is also something to be said for having a water cooled machinegun in a static defensive position.

This reminds me very much of the recent debate in the U.S. military about the 5.56mm vs 6.8mm vs 6.5mm Grendel cartridge. After another yet another round of disparaging the “lowely 5.56mm” cartridge, SOCOM tested the 6.8mm and 6.5mm Grendel with surprising results at the range. When the cartridges were sent to combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan for a year in combat; the troops returned the verdict that there was “not much difference” between how the cartridges performed in the field. The reality is that much more to gain by focusing upon optics and aiming systems to get hits!



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (7/4/2009 1:30:53 PM)

Some good info there Busto963....really sounds like you know what you're talkin' about.


But I'm still gonna put both MGs in my mod..[:'(]


PS - thanks for your service.[&o]
ChadG



Busto963 -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (7/9/2009 9:57:06 PM)

ChadG

Thanks, but Please save the praise for the 17-25year old soldiers, sailors airmen and marines - they are the real heroes. Sadly, much of the incredible efforts, sacrifices and accomplishments the have made and are making goes unrecognized.

I am a retired vet and went to Iraq as a federal employee.



Busto963 -> RE: MG34 vs. MG42 (8/3/2009 5:10:08 PM)

At the risk of necroposting, I have some additional comments to add to the discussion of MG34 vs MG42.

I highly recommend the book “MG34-MG42 German Universal Machineguns” by Folke Myrvang. Mr Myrvang has done a very nice job researching the MG34 and MG42; he also has direct experience with the MG34F1 and F2 in the post WWII Norwegian Army and is a collector of MG34 and MG42 weapons.

- The overhead fire tables (indirect fire) for the MG34 and MG42 mounted on the Lafette 34 or 42 go out to 3300 meters.

- The MG34/41 or MG34S had a cyclic rate of fire of 1400 rpm!

- The “Butz” manuals ascribe the practical rate of fire for the le MG 34 (LMG) of 120-150 RPM.
- The “Butz” manuals ascribe the practical rate of fire for the le MG 42(LMG) of 150-180 RPM.
- The “Butz” manuals ascribe the practical rate of fire for the sMG 34 (HMG) of 300-350 RPM.
- The “Butz” manuals ascribe the practical rate of fire for the sMG 42 (HMG) of be 400-450 RPM.

- A six-man sMG 34 or 42 crew carried 2,150 rounds of ammunition by regulation (4-6 minutes of intensive firing). Actual ammunition loads of course varied.

- The weight of 2,150 rounds of ammunition was at least 150 lbs! [X(] A 100-round belt of 7.62 NATO linked ammunition weighs ~7 lbs: the WWII German 7.92x57mm cartridge was heavier than a 7.62 NATO cartidge.

- According to Mr Myrvang, the German High Command sent a letter dated 2 February 1944 to address problems with late-war troop machine gunner performance. “The letter stated that the number of machinegun breakdowns and malfunctions in the field had reached a level which could no longer be tolerated, and that the problem had to be addressed immediately. The problem was found to stem from a lack of education, which resulted in poor maintenance and consequent low grade of effectiveness. The mandated solution was a solid increase in the standard of machinegun education.” The Heer mandated every officer, NCO and soldier in combat formations receive remedial MG training!

Looking hard at the discussion; I am convinced that there is no practical difference in game terms between the MG34 and the MG42. The argument seems to hinge on the difference in rate of fire between the two weapons, but this really is not the issue in my opinion. Looking at the practical rates of fire (vice the cyclic), there is little difference between the MG34 and the MG42, especially given the constraints of the standard 50 round belt/drum for the LMG role, and the recommended barrel changing rates (every 150 rounds per MG 42 and every 250 rounds per MG34) for the HMG role. What made the MG34 and MG42 truly superior to allied weapons was their employment as heavy machineguns; and in this, the Lafette tripod mount, and MG Z series of optical sights were arguably as important components of the sMG as the MG34 and MG42 weapons.

The Germans also employed large numbers of the older MG08s, as well as the MG15 (Luftwaffe). Presumably, if the MG34/42 factors are accounted for, these other weapons will have to be addressed as well.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.234375