This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
MG 42 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello, the MG42 used Roller Locked Short Recoil, which supposedly later 'inspired' Roller Delayed Blowback.
However, the two are mechanicaly distinct, as is sort of mentioned, but occasionally the Locked Recoil system links to a page on Delayed blowback, contradicting itself.
I've only heard about both mechanisms today so I'm not going to muck anything about in case I've misunderstood the whole shebang!
Since when is rewriting the entire article a "minor edit"? Pizza Puzzle
I recall reading Battle and War comics from the UK as a kid where these guns (or possibly the MG34) were known as Spandau. Is this factualy acurate? Htaccess 06:13, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
well theres the Spandau Prison in Germany where Rudolf Hess served a life sentence. thats the only connection I can think of Vroman 00:16, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This [1] is the "Spandau" machine gun. Sorry for the poor picture, it's not a popular weapon. RCMS 19:20, 31 Jan 2006 (UTC)
There is another article on the exact same gun at MG 42, with a space in between MG and 42. I dont have time right now, so if anyone interested, perhaps integrate them? -- ArcticFrog 15:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog
Gee, just delete the other article and throw out the information that's not in this one.
-- ArcticFrog 02:49, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog
I have read that the MG34 jammed because it was made so well, as in too precise, which made it jam when dust got into it and that this was a main reason for the production of a new gun with more play in the parts. Is this tidbit worth working into the article? Also: didn't anyone critisize the gun for wastefullness of bullets? It must have taken a truckload of bandaleers to keep the thing going. Just my two cents worth... -- ArcticFrog 19:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog
The main reason for close tolerances of weapons designed 1920's and 30' was fear of gas warfare, as some battlegases (chlorine?) were highly corrosive and jammed "loose" weapons, so countermeasure to that was to made weapons "gastight". -- 81.197.218.62 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I no they relpaced it becaue it was too much to produce, but with germans they like to make a few good things rather then alot of cheap stuff( Esskater11 22:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
didn’t the americans use these in the vietnam war? Merin.v Milibuff(ww2 o5) ( talk) 17:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
1. "The US Army created training videos". Huh ?
2. "The operating crew consists of three persons".
3. "As it is recoil-operated, if there is no cartridge in the chamber, the weapon must be manually charged with the side-mounted charging handle before it can fire".
Can anyone find a croos section picture of the weapon? That would be nice. 64.31.188.26 22:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
We really need to make it clear that the MG 42 was a General Purpose Machine Gun. 209.221.73.5 11:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Squalla - why did you delete the "Popular Culture" entry? Fernando K 17:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
OK guys I found an article about the MG42 being nicknamed Lurdinha, but it is in Portuguese: http://www.grandesguerras.com.br/artigos/text01.php?art_id=18 I could not find anything about the song in the net. I was told this by a veteran P47 pilot. The brass had a official song composed (Canção do Expedicionário), but the dogface plain Brazilian soldier enjoyed their own MG song. I have seen a Brazilian TV documentary as well that played the tune. ( Fernando K 22:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
Click on the article that mentions lurdinha - you will need RealPlayer. I believe I read your mother language is Portuguese, so you will be able to understand it. ;) As for references, well, in my home town there is a MG42 in a local Brazilian Expeditionary Force museum with a tag mentioning it to be the "Lurdinha". As for the name, my personal theory is that some French liason officer (or even an American officer, speaking in French, better known to Brazilian officers of the time) referred to the MG42 as a "lourde" (heavy) machinegun. Fernando K 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If you really want to keep the pop cultrure section. make it into a complety differnt page. ive seen many ar5ticals where this has worked out wll( Esskater11 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
Actually, those pages were deleted. Everyone one of them except one that redirects to the main page.-- LWF 02:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Replaced the template with the recently standarised Infobox: Template:Infobox (and added image) created by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry task force. Deon Steyn 11:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it really true that an American 30-06 version was aborted because the cartridge was too powerful for the design? I find that surprising since the 30-06 and 7.92 were of roughly equivalent power, and the design was subsequently converted to 7.62 NATO without any issues. Chris 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi! i need some expert eyes here. is the machine gun featured in these screenshot a MG42 or a MG34 (or an US-built machinegun)?
These pictures are from the Algerian War, 1960s. I have to watch the doc again to determine wether they are used by the regular French army or by the Algerian guerrillas. I personally think this is a MG42 used by a French paratrooper or infantryman, thanks for any help. Shame On You 15:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
the first pic is a MG34, the MG34 has a leaner barrel, the second one is 100% a MG42, you can see the front sight and it looks beefier. -- RaDeus 10:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Can I make a heading that mentions a list of movies, books, comics, video games, etc. where the MG42 appears, and what should I call it?
For fouture uses dnt make those for any weapon unless its reallllly noticable such as the PPK as it was bonds gun( ForeverDEAD 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC))
Hi, Im German and when you take a look at the german article of the MG42 , you can see that the rate of fire is not only 1500 rounds/minute, moreover the MG42 could reach a firerate of 3000 rounds/minute. But this was in WW2 impossible because the barrel became more and more less quality. Today with a Titanium barrel this rate would be possible. If you think this is something that should be mentioned, you could add this ;) [ the article is anyway short ] Greetz from Cologne,GER :)
I know that several sources imply that the MG42 locking system was derived from Edward Stecke's patent. However, the closer look at Stecke's US Patent shows that it used rounded levers, not rollers. Moreover, it was a delayed-blowback system, not a locked system. If we are to count rounded levers as rollers, there were earlier German patents and designs that incorporated rounded levers and a locked breech. You can see some of these in the Collector Grade Publications book [b]Full Circle[/b]. D.E. Watters 01:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Who (which manufacturer) produces this weapon?? -- 201.141.145.218 ( talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am german, and I must tell you, that I think, that this article sounds quite terrible. The english article (in comparism to the german one) sounds like this weapon has somehow a perverted cult. I have been to the German Army ("Bundeswehr"), and I know that our soldier-friends from America often ask the german soldiers to "play" with the MG3 (which is based on the MG42), because it such an impressive weapon - I cannot understand this cult. I cannot understand how such a brutal weapon can cause so much cult. The article should discuss more of the cruelty of this weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.180.18.131 ( talk) 13:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I found this some time ago and it looks nothing other than an MG42 but chambered in a heavier calibre.
Yadayadayaday 02:00AM, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Its possibly a scaled up weapon as mentioned but also reminds me of the original Besa machine gun of czech origin. The handlebar grips are very much like the Austro Hungarian Schwarzlose m/1907. As it was found on an Argentine website, it could be from a German engineer from Mauser who fled to Argentina after WW2.
Yadayadayaday 15:41PM, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The weapon is a Czechoslovak ZB-50 machine gun of 7.92x57mm calibre, possibly an Argentine copy. Yadayadayaday 01:57AM, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
"The sentence "Equipped with a quick-change barrel, the MG 34 could fire for much longer periods of time than conventional weapons like the Browning Automatic Rifle or Bren, " is misleading.
the BAR lacked a quick change barrel, The 34 and 42 NEEDED one, and the Bren also had a quick change barrel, a more effective one than either German MG, I've used the Bren in action on fixed lines fire, and it can fire for a very long time if given a few spare barrels, the number 2 on the gun didn't need an asbestos glove for the change, either.
I suggest a change to "Equipped with a quick-change barrel, the MG 34 (and the MG42) could fire for much longer periods of time than automatic rifles weapons without a barrel change such as the Browning Automatic Rifle and the French Chatelrault LMG. The barrel change on both the MG34 and 42 required an insulated glove." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbo in Oz ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The MG 42 was not only used by axis forces in WW2, as it was also used by Portuguese paratroopers in the Portuguese Colonial War until 1968. I'm a Portuguese Army Paratrooper Instructor and we still use that weapon.
I added that information, but my edition was undo-ed.
References: Colonial War - Portuguese Armament
For all information you ever wanted to know, plus more, about this subject - see Talk:8×57mm_IS#German_military_designation.3F.
Last time, there were endless edit wars against User:MFIreland. I hope now factual arguments will be heared and the reverts are not trolling. -- Hornsignal ( talk) 13:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:DCB Shooting MG42 Roller system.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
The article currently says "...the M53 a nearly exact copy of the German MG 42. The only major difference is a slower rate of fire." and lists as source the G3 Defence Magazine August 2010. That magazine surely speaks about the MG42 and about the Sarac, but only very roughly and I can't find the hint to the ROF. Am I just too dumb to see the obvious, or are those guys at the tank.net forum right who quote the present wiki article but eventually conclude that the wiki must be wrong and the ROF must have been the same for both weapons? -- Otets ( talk) 10:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the official US Army documents on the T24 (available here https://www.forgottenweapons.com/light-machine-guns/us-t24-machine-gun-mg42/) the whole T24 section looks frankly to have nothing at all to do with reality. The existing section claims the weapon was entirely unchanged except for a 30.06 barrel, which is untrue (the entire action had been redesigned with the 30.06 in mind, and improvised sights for testing purposes, different stock etc), the weapon fired more than the twice the existing text claims (in the neighborhood of 1500+ rounds), and there's a bunch of unsourced statements about stamped weapons in there too.
The T24 was rejected for being unreliable having a high rate of failure to extract, but it was because the design was greatly immature and had many untested changes, not because somehow American weapons designers were just too dumb to build an entire gun and not measure the hole the casing had to leave out of. The additional commentary on stamped weapons and the 7.92 mauser's performance is also entirely irrelevant to the T24's development and failure to reach production.
I edited the entry earlier and cited the actual Army report on the weapon's peformance and it reverted to the same entirely incorrect passage as before. Could someone explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.28.103 ( talk) 00:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a regular user of wikipedia, so I'm sure I've made some formatting errors with this post. That being said, you can check the offered source - it does not say what it has been claimed to say. Additionally, Citino's Path to Blitzkrieg goes into some depth about German use of MG08s and MG08/15s in the interwar period. 2602:306:3327:6C90:6D2D:CB2A:D5F9:1154 ( talk) 00:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
As far as the Treaty of Versailles banning heavy machine guns, this is irrelevant. The fact is that the German military recognized that the heavy machine guns were not going to be as effective in the next type of war where maneuver was going to be of a premium. The development of the guns that lead to the MG34 started around 1910, clearly before WWI started. The design began in an effort to find a more effective anti-aircraft machinegun.
The need for an effective anti-aircraft gun with a high rate of fire has been misrepresented as the goal and result of design ever since. The MG34 and MG42 were multiple purpose machine guns. They had different configurations. Rate of fire was controlled by using different bolts of different weights. So while the MG42 is often listed as achieving up to 1200 rpm, that was in anti-aircraft configuration only.
Two bolts for MG42 type guns. Heavy on the right.
In infantry use an ideal cyclic rate for a heavy machine gun is from 650 to 750 rpm (the 750 being the original rate of fire for the AR15, for example). The Heavy Maxim (also known as Spandau) machine guns was 650 rpm. The heavy bolt in the MG42 provided a rate of fire that was far lower than the 1200 rpm so often quoted (which is for anti-aircraft use). The rate of fire was likely from 750 to 900 rpm. I had known this decades ago, but I can't find the source right now.
I have video I took of an MG42 with a blank firing adapter which was firing at around 800 to 900 rpm at Reading PA some years ago.
Digitallymade ( talk) 16:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That the Versailles treaty did not stop German machinegun development. It's also obvious since the development of the MG13 was prior to WWI that the treaty was NOT the reason for the development of the GPMG concept which was embodied in the MG34/MG42. Digitallymade ( talk) 17:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The general point that cyclic RoF is tactically irrelevant in most circumstances and misleading as to the practical weight of fire delivered by an MG is well taken and so I hesitate to delete these sections entirely but they clearly need better sourcing and a proper summary style as well as the elision of speculative unsourced claims such as "Confusion over this undoubtedly comes from the Gast Gun and the MG81 aircraft gun." (Note that the latter does have a citation but it's a random website not an RS, and the source does not mention the Gast or MG81 guns.) I am also highly dubious about the claim that infantry MG42s were generally provided with modified recoil springs that reduced their cyclic rate to a more reasonable 800 rpm. There are so very very many contemporary sources remarking on the "buzzsaw," "linoleum ripper" effect of the MG42, poorly trained troops running through all their ammunition in a very short time, etc. It is just not at all plausible that this all is a postwar mistake based on people reading books at home and somehow confusing highly obscure aircraft weapons (basically modelers' trivia) with the ubiquitous standard German infantry MG that millions of allied soldiers faced first-hand. TiC ( talk) 00:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@ TitaniumCarbide: as you mention, the MG42 was (in)famous for its report, which was distinctive because of the gun's high cyclic rate of fire. So some mention of that is definitely due. Beyond that, we should just link to Rate of fire#Measurement, which by the way could use a bit of expansion. I agree that the poorly-researched bits and the irrelevant stuff like comparison to the MAC-10 doesn't need to be retained. VQuakr ( talk) 01:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Aside from the poor way it is structured, the suggestion that cyclical rate of fire is irrelevant is itself erroneous. The person who wrote it had apparently discovered that in combat a gunner doesn't just hold the trigger down for minutes at a time because of practical limitations on ammunition and heat dispersion. They didn't, however, get beyond this elementary realization to the point where they understood why the MG42's higher rate of fire is advantageous.
Put simply, a higher rate of fire does increase the chance of hitting a target, because of the way machine guns are used. Against a "point target" like a single enemy soldier a machine gun is fired in bursts, typically: aim, depress and release the trigger as quickly as possible, adjust aim, fire another burst, adjust/cease fire/aim on new target. For something like a Vickers machine gun firing at 500RPM a burst is probably about 3 rounds; for an MG42 firing at 1000RPM obviously holding the trigger for the same duration puts twice as many rounds down range. This actually does substantially increase the chance of hitting your target; scatter 6 rounds in a circular area as opposed to 3 rounds as it were. The nature of firearms is such that simply firing a longer burst is not equivalent to a higher rate of fire. At least some armies teach gunners to deliberately scatter their burst by moving the muzzle fractionally up and to one side as they fire; this of course spreads the fire over a somewhat larger area, increasing the chance of hitting the target, and more rounds in that burst means a higher chance of hitting a target. This also applies when used against "area targets" rather than point targets, as against say an enemy unit in the open, where the fire is swept across the enemy. As the fire tracks across them the higher the RoF the greater the density of the fire in that sweep, the greater the chances of hits.
As further evidence of this, the M240 (FN MAG derivative) is referenced as a current example of practical rate of fire, and it has a cyclical rate of fire of 1000 RPM. The complementary M249 (FN Minimi derivative) has a rate of fire up to 1100RPM. These two designs current dominate the medium and light machine gun market. If a rate of fire around 1000 RPM was not an advantage the question is why FN designed the weapons with such high rates of fire, and why so many countries adopted them, while medium and light machine guns with rates of fire below 700RPM are now atypical. 124.170.17.54 ( talk) 23:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I found the section writing style rambling and it does not read well. There is a claim that the MG-42 came with six barrels. Never ever heard of more than three. There is also a similar claim for the MG-34. I've seen Norwegian MG-34 MGs chambered in 7.62x63 and they came with three barrels. I seem to recall images with the assistant gunner carrying two spare barrels.
The idea that there were six barrels might stem from the Germans having squads with two machine guns towards the end of the war. Souce : [1]. There is a British TV personality (economist) which name I don't recall which also claims that the MG-42 came with six barrels. His claims seems to have spread in the UK.
I find that the rambling style in general in the article have diminished the quality of the article. I would be tempted to roll back the article to a previous version. Tarjei99 ( talk) 10:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MG 42. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Drassow:: why "it's certainly an MG42 and not an MG3" in the video "To deal with NATO's airborne bombardment and its distance from the region from the leader of the Badr martyrs" – via www.youtube.com. ? I have some difficulties to distinguish MG-3 and MG-42 without examining the barrel's end.-- Le Petit Chat ( talk) 20:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Le Petit Chat:: The best way to explain it is with an image, with the reference image from Quora [1]
Take note of how the silhouette isn't bulbous, but has a cylindrical shape. This points to the gun being an MG42 and not an MG3. Drassow ( talk) 13:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@
Le Petit Chat:
1. The origin in of the 16th division of the FSA in Aleppo, or more specifically the Badr Martyrs Brigade. See:
23rd Division (Syrian rebel group) The origin is fairly obvious if you spent two minutes looking into it.
2. As per the page: "A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." It is not being interpreted, a descriptive statement is being made: An MG42 is being used. Evidence has been given in the talk section and is able to be verified, which fulfills the requirements to keep it listed as a valid reference.
3. The image I gave already explained why it is an MG42 and not an MG3. The silhouette makes it impossible to be an MG3, and the MG1A3 you mentioned has the same bulbous silouette near the end of the barrel, it cannot be that either.
Drassow (
talk) 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
References