When I served in the Royal Norwegian Army in the 90s, we found an abandoned MG42 tripod in a Nazi bunker at an airfield. The gunsmith restored it and we used it with our MG3 on the range.
Nice. Also used it in the 90s but never from a tripod, that was saved for the 12,7 mm (BMG). Just prone and standing from the hip. Some of the bigger vikings could fire off hand, from the shoulder, and score good hits. Was fun times.
Some MG3 are actually converted MG42. My brother in law works in the German army and said some MG3s have the 42 crossed out and a number three stamped behind it.
I had one of those during basic training. To be more prehise, the shell is the same. Bolt, recoil enhancer, barrel, recoil spring and AA optic are changed though in those as well.
@@glashoppah not anymore... Browning had dropped their standards yeaaaaaars ago. Their shotguns just aren't made with the same care anymore. It's also part of the reason why CZ (a czech manufacturer) was able to buy a large amount of stock in the company. You'll notice some design changes in the newer browning pistols and you can blame or thank CZ for that. We also don't really use much of browning's weapons anymore. I think only 1 unit is issues 1911's and it's more a ceremonial thing than anything. the M2 is Browning's equivalent to the MG42. This is THE ONLY BROWNING WEAPON STILL IN SERVICE. The 1911 isn't considered a service weapon even though that one unit gets them (and even then, it's a modernized version of the 1911 that some would say barely resembles the original)
@@BtheLee11 Nearly every modern pistol is derived from Browning's design. Most are mechanically indistinguishable from the 1911. So I stand by my statement. The M2 fires an antiaircracft round. It's in a different class of weapon than the MG42.
Former swiss army MG51 gunner here. Would have switched that thing for an MG3 or MG42 any day. Weight was 16.5 kg empty and around 18 kg with the 50 round drum magazine. The handguard was made of cast iron instead of stamped metal like the MG42. Carried that damn thing long and far. ROF was around 1000. We had reusable belts, and I think it was the same with the MG42. So the amount of tracers depended on what you'd load into the belt. Depending on the exercise we'd also use no tracers. Once, during a demonstration for some brass and politicians, I had to fire either pure tracers or 1 to 1 tracers which created so much smoke in the air that I could barely see the target after half of the belt. During my most intense exercise, I emptied 7 belts in total (=1400 rounds) in a short period of time. To the end both barrels, which I had changed multiple times, were laying in the grass hissing as they were so hot you couldn't even touch them with the protective glove made of very thick, sturdy leather and we had to bring in a spare barrel from another MG position.
Well, Switzerland basically looked at the MG42 and said, "That's cool. But we can manufacture it to a higher standard and durability!" So they *machined* the bits that were stamped. 😂
You forgot to comment on the detail that really made the MG42 famous. The impact on bodies. The mutilations caused by the weapon's high rate of fire spread panic throughout all the allied armies. It was enough to hear the peculiar sound of their volleys for the soldiers to lose the desire to leave their shelters. In the American army the situation was such that a program was created to try to neutralize this psychological effect, including spreading the word that the weapon was bad. But of course, the corpses showed everything. That's why this MG42 panic was hidden until the end of the war and afterwards.
I used the MG3 (or MG 62) as it was called in the Danish armed forces (always depicting the year the weapon went into use in Denmark regardless of type). And we used it on lighter patrol ships as late as a year ago, now still having some in service, but mostly swapping them for new weapons to replace them as this is written. And all of us who have used them also had to know how to use them on land (making us sort of a marine infantry capable crew). The MG 62 was, and still is, despite others wanting to claim that it's not anymore, the best machine saw ever produced. It was in fact so good that you could prevent a tank from firing accurately though not doing any damage to it or the crew whatsoever, if you knew what to shoot at and how. No. It wouldn't damage the gun in any way and make it impossible to fire the gun. But you could lay fire on the visual slots of the gunner and commander. And though it couldn't harm them, it takes an inhuman strength to look through a prism that is being hammered by bullits without instinctively ducking away, and then scratching the surface outside so that the prism would need to be fixed later. Some of the more modern aiming devices on todays Abrams and leopard 2's and such would actually be more prone to damage, not rendering the tank a total loss or unable to defend itself, but in need of moving back and having it replaced with a spare before moving out front again. The drawback of this is that you can only do it mounted in the tripod and with an expert triggerman on the trigger and with the back end of the MG 62 not latched onto the tripod, but only the front end. I've tried it several times during sailing because the light patrol ships are moving in all 3 directions and so is the target that is in the water at varying distances. And because of this, putting accurate fire on the target require a very steady hand and a well advanced ability to predict the movement of both the ship and the target so that you will know when to fire and when to wait a second or two. Yet I have managed to actually destroy the target so firmly that the chains were shot to pieces and ended up a loss on the buttom of the sea. And we are talking a target the size of a 25 liter barrel anchored with a chain and an anchor in the other end of the chain. So it's not easy to actually hit it and destroy it several hundred yards out when both the ship and the target is bopping around in the waves. And that's how I learned to adapt this to land and tanks and go for the viewing prisms and optical sights on tanks. The ONLY way. I have actually tried live firing on those on a moving tank and busting the drivers prism and in lack of the actual optical sight the mounting for it because the tank was drivable, but slated for scrapping. Sounds like I'm bragging to be a virtual Rambo type with a machine gun, but I'm actually far from it. I wouldn't even try to use any kind of machine gun the way he is. It's just a waste of ammo any way you put it and even one round hitting the intended target firing like that would be a miracle in and of itself. The only reason that I can do something like this is because I have the weapon and the associated tools to help me, and some 40+ years of experience firing those damned things (I'm 63 at present and have served continuously since the age of 18 in the regular navy and the naval Home Guard and army Home guard when living far from a naval base, and is to this day on my 46th active year and still counting). If I didn't have that long experience, I wouldn't have been able to be as accurate as that in a longshot. Give me a rifle, and I'm moderately proficient, but the MG 62 is and always has been my primary weapon. Without it and my long experience, I would be just another mediocre guy wearing a uniform at best. With it, I have at least learned one thing and how to do it at slightly better rates than the average.
@@Jens-Viper-Nobel I started my army time as a MG/62 gunner in 1978 (after a short time as rifleman) but later moved to heavier stuff (artillery 🙂 ) but will never forget the times with the LMG. I recall that in the tripod you could fire singleshots and accurately enough to consistenly hit a man sized target at 1000 meter (after a ranging shot or two). Could feel a bit heavy on a foot patrol but it was all awarded when you could let loose a few belts in a fire assault 😁
There's a wonderful cartoon by Bill Mauldin, showing his two usual GIs, Willie and Joe. One lying flat on the ground, his hands holding his helmet tightly onto his head, and staring angrily at his buddy, who's sitting next to him and has just opened his jacket. The caption is: "Ever notice th' funny noise these zippers make, Joe?"
Maybe because today it pales in comparison to the effect produced by the M134. Perhaps because people today are aware of things like napalm, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons.
Because of how indistinguishable the fire rate sounded, Germans often deployed a two gun bait and switch. There would be one gun using tracer rounds. They would fire high and give the illusion that there was a gap the attackers could move in safely. Meanwhile there was a second gun ready to fire at the proper firing arc with the tracer rounds pulled out of the belt. Troops would crawl into the second gun's fire.
The water cooling of the MG08 (and in fact, ALL of the early water cooles machine guns) ist depicted quite inaccurately here. The water is not regularly changed or actively cycled through a radiator. It's much simpler than that: It just boils. The shroud is filled with water, that takes some of the thermal energy of the gun to heat up, but when it reaches its boiling point, it just boils. Boiling water takes much more energy than heating it. You can easyly observe it yourself: Just put a pot of water on a stove and turn it on. It takes a few minutes for the water to boil, but it takes hours for all the water to evaporate. For a heavy machine gun operator, it's so much easyer to just boil a few liters of water away and refill it every few thousand rounds than to have to maintain an intricate cooling system, that will inevitably break in any kind of battle.
If i remember correctly I believe that it was also hazardous because your creating a closed system that was pressurized. If you ever taken off the radiator cup off a hot car you know the danger. There’s too many dangers to name
You forgot one key aspect. All that steam has to go somewhere so the Maxims and Browning's had valves that would either vent the excess or as they later just added. channeled the steam into a condenser thus allowing it to turn back into water. This reduce the location of the gunner and improved the amount of time the gun could be fired.
My brother went through the U.S. Army Special Forces qual course in 1977. As a weapons sergeant back then he had to familiarize with about everthing this side of matchlocks. He once told me that the amazing thing about the MG42 was it’s accuracy at such a high cyclic rate. I figured it would be spray and pray due to vibration from the high rate of fire. He said that for its cyclic rate it was miraculously smooth and accurate.
As in any other automatic weapon accuracy decreases with each round in the salvo, but the MG42/3 put so many rounds downrange that you probably would hit something anyway and terrify everybody with the rest. In the bipod you could consistently put 2 round salvos in a head sized target at 1-200 meter. In the tripod you could fire single shots and at 1000 meters hit with a ranging shot or two easily hit a man sized target. I served in the late 1970s as a gunner on the MG3.
@@steffenb.jrgensen2014 I understand. Number of rounds per salvo and accuracy are usually inversely proportional in anything utilizing a single barrel system. For that matter I would think that even multi-barreled rotary system will eventually heat up in sustained fire and accuracy will degrade. All that is merely an exercise in physics. I think in the real world opinion concerning the psychological effects would definitely hold true!
yeah, I thought Browning's Belgian/FN Herstal Maxim Mod 1908 was originally used in the first world war by all participants involved in that "royal rumble".
The FG42 is also the WWII German machine gun that inspired other designs like the US M60, FN Minimi, and HK MG4 and MG5. The only gun I know of using the MG42's roller locked recoil mechanism (that isn't a direct copy of the MG42) is the Czech vz. 52 pistol.
@@BetterThanLifeProd The MP43/Stg44 was the first "assault rifle", translated from "Sturmgewehr", which was a propaganda term invented because the 7.92x33 cartridge was less powerful than the 7.92x57 used in the K98k Mauser and FG42. One of the requirements for the FG42 was open bolt operation so it could be used as a machine gun, or closed bolt for semi-auto in a normal rifle role. It ended up being a better machine gun than battle rifle. US development of what eventually became the M60 started with the T44 that was literally an FG42 with MG42 feed mechanism grafted onto the side.
During a visit to an Air Force hospital, I got to meet a gentleman who like me was waiting an inordinate time in a crowded waiting room. He was wearing an Army Ordnance Corp emblem on his hat. When I noted the emblem, he said I was the first person who knew what it was since he'd retired over 30 years before. I told him that I was retired from AF Combat Arms or Small Arms as it was originally called when entered the career field. Most newer AF people thought my old Red Hat with SAMTU (Small Arms Training and Maintenance Unit) was also stood for something else. We started talking guns (both our specialties). Turns out he had spent some time at Aberdeen Proving Grounds (Maryland) in the weapons testing programs as a young NCO. Somehow in our discussions of machine guns, the M60 came up. My question was why the Army didn't use a variant of the MG-42 instead of the mediocre M60 design with all it's weird little flaws (and it had several glaring flaws). He said because the powers in charge wanted an American gun with an American design built in an American factory. But they stole bits and pieces of other designs (including the top cover and feed tray from the MG-42). He said one of the excuses (by a certain Senior Ordnance boss) was the MG-42 didn't work in 30-06 (badly reworked using captured German MG-42s in 8mm (7.92x57mm)). Plus, the 30-06 (7.62x63mm) was an overpowered round for the gun which caused issues with the gas system. So why spend the money to redesign and test it for failure in 7.62x51mm NATO (a round more friendly to the MG-42 design). He said that pathetic excuse even got some head shaking from Ordnance people. Some strange politics at the Senior level. Most of the Officers (not senior) and most of the NCO's thought the MG-42 was a great machine gun with proven combat characteristics, already designed for mass production, and would be readily purchased by the other service branches and many allies as they also respected the gun. But the powers in charge said "No" and that was history.
Hm. At least from what i can compare on wikipedia with the energies 7.92 seems of equal power if not a tiny bit stronger. And the 42 had no gas system, so 30-06 even if they would have had hotter loads would not have done anything to it's gas system. But al the other stuff i can fully believe. And to the last part: those people would turn out correct. Germany just startet replacing their old guns with a new model (But the old ones did their service for a long time) And Austria uses it's MG74 still. (After the war Beretta and Steyr worked together on a derivate. In 7.62 Nato, with a rubber shoulder piece instead of a wooden one, and with a heavier bolt to reduce the rpm to around 750-800 rpms. And an additional foldable "winter trigger". But the fun thing is, the only 2 things that change the rpms are the rear part of the bolt and the recoil spring. Easy to change both.)
Of course it was political. Can you imagine NATO countries using the AK-47 during the cold war, the symbol of communism? Yes, Finland did, but that's about it
@@Jotgut Finland wasn't really in a position to be picky. And if you use the same weapon as the enemy, you can use ammo and spare parts liberated from their supplies! The Finnish are a very pragmatic people.
MG-42 is primarily recoil operated thus it is quite hard to mess with the gas system. Yes, recoil operated guns used if desired gases to increase recoil impulse to increase reliability or rate of fire but it was extra, not operating system. Same - 30-06 is not that much different in terms of power to 7,92 Mauser. But size of the round may be different thus simple small changes to original design might not be enough for proper mechanical operations during firing.
As a former austrian soldier, I was also trained on the MG3. Really nice handling but it only shot with about 600 rounds per minute. But our instructor told us that it was very easy to change the rate of fire to over a thousand and that the MG could easily handle it. It was manly capped to preserve ammunition 😅
@@clockworkvanhellsing372 yeah, uhm, the bolt comes from rheinmetall and has only the standard weight for 7,62. there is however a spring that you can change to set the fire rate but you would have to adjust more like the rückstoßverstärker. and im not saying you are wrong: if you use a lighter bolt it will fire faster in general. im just asking myself where you would get a lighter bolt if only 1 type of bolt is produced. i mean: unless you want to go back to 7,92 ammo and change the barrel, the whole gas setup, the bolt... and that bolt weights much more btw so how does that make sense?
@@oddctioumThere actually are two weights of bolt. The standard one is 650g which allows for an ROF of 1000-1200 RPM. But there was an optional heavy bolt at 950g combined with a modified buffer design that would reduce the ROF to 800-950 RPM. The heavier bolt was introduced with the MG1A2, which predates the final MG3 variant. Most countries opted for just one or the other, the Germans pretty much stuck with the standard bolt but the Italians went with the heavy bolt, for example.
That is really strange, because I served in the German Air force (ground defense) in the 80s and our MG3's had all firing rates of 1200 per Min (20 rounds per sec.) Are you not mixing it up with the G3. That has a firing rate of 600 rounds per Min (10 per sec)
One of the more interesting facts about it is that right after the war, no one actually knew how to make them again. The Germans destroyed all the blueprints and technical data sheets for the gun, so West Germany had to reverse engineer existing MG42s to re-document tolerances, measurements, weights, etc., which took a considerable amount of time and lots of testing. It took them several months just to get the bolt weight and buffer spring rate correct, which is why the MG1 and MG2 came first, and there was a slight gap in time before the MG3 was adopted.
My dad did his mandatory military service with the Bundeswehr in the late 1970s. He hated it. However, when on leave during a weekend, his father found a certificate laying on the floor in his room, which stated that he was the best MG-3 gunner in his entire battalion. This included being the fastest at (dis)assembling the gun and you had to fire five three-shot bursts, which many gunners weren't able to due to the high cycle rate. My grandfather himself saw action in WWII as a radioman in an infantry unit. His last engagement was in a village close to Münster called "Ostbevern". He said during this engagement their platoons MG-42 gunner was killed in action. This engagement started when, just like in the movies, they took their positions in the village center when an Allied Willy's Jeep suddenly appeared on the intersection. They all just looked at each other and the Willy's turned around and disappeared. Next, a Sherman tank appeared and their MG-42 gunner opened fire on the tank. Everyone, including the MG-42 gunner knew how ineffective this was, but due to the adrenaline and the excitement these young soldiers threw everything they had at the Allies. They knocked out multiple Shermans, but lost most of their platoon in the process. My grandfather later said that their platoon commander had a mental breakdown and instead of trying to evade the allies, he decided to fight it out. My grandfather himself was wounded by Sherman tank shrapnel to the leg and was then taken prisoner by what he believed to be Canadians. He was 17 years old when this happened.
My Uncle Bud said there were 2 sounds you'll never forget. A Panzer 4 moving at you, and an MG42 a mile away. You knew where your outfit was by where the German were shooting. In France during a fire fight in the winter woods, Buddy said they went from 1 shot standard rifle shots, to hearing 10 MG42s. When they called back for artilary, they were told, to just hold your ground, you'll be fine. He said they rained down bullets on us all night. They knew exactly where we were. lol! 3 day later, a MG42 group surrendered to them, by playing "We're going to hang out the washing on the Siegfried Line" A popular English war song. All 3 men had relative who lived in the US, and they asked my Uncle if he could get them, to them. My Uncle did. Uncle asked them why they sprayed the bullets over them that night. A German Solider who had lived in Chicago, told my Uncle. "We knew you were Americans. You had fires going all night. We're not Monsters, you are men just like us. Why kill all of you? This war is almost over. I might like your sister, or you might like mine. We could be family some day. You're a sheep who believed a lie, now you'll have to deal with the liers who gotten all our friends killed."
When Saving Private Ryan came out, I took my Great Uncle to see it. A 3rd Army WW II veteran, he fought from North Africa to Sicily all the way through to watching the Russian rain down artillery fire on Berlin. When the scene where the ramp comes down and the MG42 opens up, my Uncle leans over and say "That's exactly what they sound like." Gave me chills. I was sitting next to a guy who knew what is like to be on the wrong end.
@@dragineeztoo61 Yeah, same happened with my Uncle Bud. He was in a Ranger outfit, and was in a Sherman Tank delivering it to the beach in the 5th wave. His landing craft hit a underwater spiked pole, and they told hi to be ready to drive off when the front opened. He said the front dropped, and incomes the bullets killing everyone in front of the tank. (Not how the practices went in Scotland, he said) With the aircraft motor running, he said he couldn't hear anything, untill a Naval gunner stuck a pistol in his ear, and screamed DRIVE THIS FUCKER OFF MY BOAT! He said my first kills in war were the guys who weren't dead right in front of me. He drove forwards, and tipped over into the Atlantic Ocean the tank fell thru 40 feet of water, before stabbing it gun into the sand on the bottom. He looked up to what he called a jigsaw puzzle of dead bodies above. When he realized he was weighed down by all his gear he stripped down, and finally got to the surface. He said he used the dead bodies of friends, to get to shore. Where another Master Gunnery Sargent asked him where his tank was? Bud was a MSYGS1st Class, for 4 years. Taken away 2 days after the fall of Berlin. The wildest part of Uncle Bud's story about Normandy, was during a incredible German mortar barrage he was hiding behind a Giant X tank trap on the beach. And he heard someone calling his name, George! He turned around to see a guy, Danny Carr, whom he had went all thru school with from 1st to 8th grade. "Hey George! What are YOU doing here?" Bud: "Trust me this wasn't my idea!" Carr: "Wasn't this supposed to be a cake walk?' Buddy: "If I never see cake again, it'll be too soon!" Bud threw Danny an extra chocolate bar he had pulled for the oceanm, cause he knew Danny loved chocolates. Danny asked what he owed him, and Unc said a nickel. Danny said, I'm broke, can I pay you when I see you? Bud said, you Shanty Irish are always broke, but I let you slide this time. They both laughed like little kids. After the war Bud got a knock on the door, and it was Danny. I might be Shanty Irish you Kraut fuck, but I always eventually pay my tab, and handed Buddy a nickel. First they laughed, then they counted all their dead friends from their neighborhood, and then they cried. Then they went and got drunk and almost robbed by 6 black teenagers with guns. I asked Bud what happened, and Danny leaned over Uncle Bud's shoulder, and said, Well kid, we showed the Germans more mercy then we showed those 6 N words. The news said their Grand mothers couldn't identify what we left on the side walk. Bud was a simple machinist for the next 45 years. Danny owned a few gas stations in North Philly. Just regular guys.
During my time serving as a conscript in the Danish Army (light recon unit), my personal weapon was an M/62, or its international name MG3. Was quite envious of all my section-mates that used light assault rifles when having to march, but omg that buzzsaw sound was heavenly...
@@johntrimpe2032 7.62 NATO. Even though we were a light recon unit, we were very heavily armed: 12 men, split into 4 Mercedes GD 4x4 vehicles, each with a driver, a gunner and a commander, so they could operate separately. Each gunner had a LMG M/62 as their personal weapon, and 2 of the drivers had Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless rifles in addition to their assault rifles. Conscription in that unit was, compared to the rest we served with, both much harder and much more free: We didn't have any officers, only 2 conscript sergeants, so morning checks in the barracks were somewhat more chill than for the rest, but whenever we had exercise we were up a couple of hours before dawn and didn't return to basecamp until after midnight.
The Australian army operated the Leopard 1 for a long time. The few tanks we had with their 2 mounted guns were the only place you would find the MG3. It was a privilege to use and the envy of 99% of the Army. 🤘
In Brutal Doom - Hell on Earth campaign, the super secret Wolfenstein level has one of these _really_ hidden in it. You have to jump from a series of rafters to shoot a switch & then run to where it is. If you’re too slow, it closes & locks forever. It's ridiculously powerful. So powerful that even cheat codes don't allow you to get it or give you ammo for it. You get a fixed 600 rounds for it & when they're gone, they're gone. You can only get ammo from backpacks & that's only a few rounds. But it shreds whatever it hits. Pretty amazing.
I shot my grandfather's MG42 in 1995 when I was 12 years old. He hid his at the end of the war and sold it shortly before his death in 2015. The last time I shot an MG42 was in 2020 and it hasn't lost any of its violence since I shot it 15 years ago. An amazing piece of technology.
My Dad's friend Vic at his class 3 and had a MG 42 that he captured off a plane that he shot down in france. Only got to shoot it one time we only had 500 rounds of ammo show theoretically that was less than 30 seconds of ammo I got to shoot one belt of 50 rounds and my dad and Vic shot up the other four it was tough to get a burst that was less than 10 rounds
That's another thing that the creator didn't mention: it's so small you can easily hide it in a boot or under your shirt! Anyway... war trophies... always become heirlooms.
Simon…the primary reason the MG34 was kept in production until the end of the war, even after being replaced by the MG42, was because it could be adapted to feed from other side and the MG42 fed from the left side only. LH feed only was not practical in tanks and other armored vehicles where extra space does not exist and LH feed got in the way. So production of the MG34 continued on to equip German AFV’s with any surplus production going to the army.
Also, the MG34 was the choice for hull-mounted MGs, as the barrel change mechanism was different from that of the MG42. Instead of being pulled from the side (MG42), it was pulled straight back.
The fast rate of fire was chosen in order to make sure the enemy stayed suppresed, accuracy wasn't the nr 1 priority. But yeah later on after WW2 we learned the rate of fire of an MG wasn't needed to be as high as the MG42, lower rate of fire is also easier for logistics since the MG42 used so much ammo in a short period of time.
Machine gun aren't made for precision or high accuracy... Rommel knew it... Hey would've never say something that fool either. Burning's ammo doesn't bring morale up... Criss
Can you imagine hearing the noise from them and knowing you're going at a dug in company with them on the Eastern Front. This weapon makes the Russian death toll more explainable than any tank or plane.
@@musicilike69 Nope nope nope!!! The reasons the Soviets/Russians had such an insanely high death toll had NOTHING to do with wonder weapons; it was their military doctrine and we see it today in Ukraine. Send in more meat, eventually they'll run out of ammunition.
@@musicilike69the Russian death toll had many factors and isn't due to the MG42 alone, stalins not running or get shot by your own people, lack of weapons to return fire, 1 rifle per 2 people in certain situations( not everywhere In the military) not everything they had worked as it should (they had some great equipment during this time I'm not saying that). And then yes because the Germans had some great weapons at the time, I would think there was several reasons why the Russians death toll was so high.
@@matthewwebster3143 Indeed, doctrine and "lack of care" in the high ranks was the biggest factor, after that come thing slike some very good german tactics, weapons and stuff. By no means were the russian soldiers stupid or not brave or so, or the germans overpowered or just "better" at everything. In short words: Its complicated.
Thank you! Beside my G3 the MG3 was my standard weapon in service. With my constitution back then, I was able to carry my stuff, this nice gun and some ammunition. I was able to shot bursts of 1-3 bullets with her. With a good pipe, you can throw down targets at 800 meters and above. Long ago 🙂
I served as an armourer in the Italian army for my national service in 1982. My company of combat engineers used the Beretta MG42/59 a variant of the MG 42. Our mg's rate-of-fire was reduced to 600 rpm from the original 1,200 rpm by way of increasing the bolt's weight and thereby slowing it down. This was done as a peace-time expedient towards saving barrel burnout and therefore lowering military expenditures. Returning the machine to it's OEM functionality would simply be swapping out the heavier bolt with the original one. So yes, you can slow it's rate of fire.
I have both shot and been shot at by the MG42 ! and i can confirm that it is a fantastic weapon in defense , being capable of stopping an attack with weight of fire alone ! Not so fantastic if you are on the receiving end and are watching your cover rapidly disintigrating in front of your very wide eyes ! I was a volunteer in the yugoslave civil war for the croats back in the early ninties , and i used the MG42 in the bunkers on the front line .... they really were left overs from WW2 with the wermacht eagle engraved on the slide cover ! . The 7.9 mm round was very good and powerful , the metal non disintigrating link ammo belt not so much unless you kept it clean and lightly oiled .... the rate of fire is legendary , and can be improved by unscrewing the flash hider and taking the gas cup out .... this made it so high only small bursts were advisable unless you had several spare barrels and not to bothered about accuracy !! ..... It could be carried on patrol with a bipod but considering the size , weight , awkwardness and ammo consumption we would carry the RPK etc instead ... All in all though this was one of the best weapons i have ever used , and is definatley on my ' must have , list should things go south in the world .....
The MG42's firing rate was 1,500 rounds per minute. The current version, the MG 3, is throttled and has a firing rate of around 1250 rounds per minute... 😎 I can still remember my basic training in the Air Force, where the task at the shooting range was to fire as many bursts as possible with 15 rounds in the belt with an MG3. I had a very sensitive trigger finger and came up with 7... 😃
@@Lurch-Bot This is what we've been told when we were trained on the MG3: Due to heavier parts (among several others) the RPM sunk to 1200 when compared to its "predecessor". The latter could be opened up to allow 1800RPM.
they don't care, his workers pull many articles about a subject and they quote bits and pieces with no real toil towards being accurate or putting asterisks in where more info is needed or could be expanded upon, these are video's of convenient subjects for mindless auto-play people of the channel to watch and funnel in advert monies to them to do it more.
@@StatusNull Wasn't directing the comment to the people who make the video, it was specifically for people reading the comments that want to find more information. You can't expect a single video to pull all relevant sources and discuss them of even just show clips unless you want hours long videos. These aren't C&Rsenal deep dive videos.
@@cameronlittle7298 that is true, but it would have been hard to maneuver in the xenomorph nest on LV-426. Vasquez was a beast, but I doubt she could have handled Ma Deuce as a squad level weapon.
The MG 08 was so widespread on the frontlines that the more specific designation 08/15 made it into the everyday German vocabulary. It has become a common phrase to describe mundane, often mass-manufactured objects. Especially in workshops and such people often call basic articles 0815. Most people are no longer aware of the military origin but the phrase is still part of modern German vocabulary.
Yepp, "Null Acht Fünfzehn" / "Ought Eight Fifteen" is a common term for no-flares, no-bells-and-whistles stuff in German. Until recently I also didn't know its military origins.
Some of them aren't even a copy and are straight up MG42s retrofitted to be MG3 lol, also it's been in use in tens of countries not just Germany. They are slowly being replaced by MG5 tho in bundeswehr
@@Elatenl I just finished my voluntary service in the German army, and one of my older superiors told me that he once had a MG3 where the swastika was just scratched out
it's also been said by troops on the receiving end to sound like a long length of cloth tearing because the rate of auto fire was so ridiculously high.
6:04 It's General Purpose because it can be reconfigured for every single use case the German military has. Light machine gun Heavy defensive gun Tank gun AA gun It came in a box of bits that could be swapped out for different mounts (door gun, tank pintle, coaxial gun) different handling grips, stocks, no stock, sights, no sights. Clever but expensive.
@@jwhite146Not really, at least for German MGs a somewhat higher then half firerate was kept ... still in use MG3 firerate was only lowered to 800-950 rounds/min, MG4 was around 890 and the current MG5 made it optional per switch 640/720/800 ... we like a bit more metal in the air with our GPMG I guess
@@garychurch9237 Yes, the MG34 was the "universal machine gun" which could be configured to any role without necessity a separate factory line. I don't think the MG42 was nearly as adaptable.
There is an entertaining US Army film from the period trying to convince soldiers not to fear the MG42 because its high rate of fire made it inaccurate.
Also known as the propaganda saying "Its bark is worse than its bite." Apparently few, if any, american soldiers with any combat experience believed it. But hey, anything to keep up the morale.
@@KarateLars they didn’t believe it. There were entire strategies devised by US officers on the field to specifically identify potential mg positions and how to assault them without being cut down. As much as I like the MG42 any machine gun was capable of killing an entire platoon if it had enough ammunition and was in a good position. The MG42 isn’t really special in that regard most machine guns were purpose built to do so. The utility of the MG42s (or any MG used by the Germans) and their overall effectiveness was severely decreased by the tactics devised by the US Military. Ironically while the MG is in high praise it accounts for very little of US casualties. The vast majority (70%) were to artillery. Machine guns that aren’t in the spotlight the browning 30cal actually had a far higher performance and percentage of casualties caused in the pacific than the MG42 in Europe.
The pedigree of the MG 42 is like that of the M2 Heavy Machine gun, you could even put the AK 47 in that grouping. They are all solid platforms still in use today. All of these systems are testaments to those who developed them. Still in use today, with minor tweaking ,and with no one looking to replace them. All of these systems are testaments to those who developed them.
Keep it on the books that over 1,000,000 M2 .50 's were made in the WW 2 era alone , and conversion kits also common to make several versions of it, to keep it relevant to various needs. It has a riveted box receiver of 1919 vintage design and is in no way a modern gun, with all the baggage of a loved antique. Solid platform?, sure, but also impossible to be rid of all those fuckers as there are so many out there still..
Had to learn to fire 2-3 shot bursts with the MG3 which is based on the MG42. Crazy good weapon for it´s time. We have still used it´s updated version in 2006.
Haven't fired the MG3 but have fired the M60 and FN MAG (aka "Gimpy") - apologies to my American friends but the FN is so far superior to that thing they were lumbered with. As to the MG3, a mate who has fired it loved it - but hated the idea of having to carry the ammo that the thing ate so voraciously.....even with everyone in the section carrying extra ammo, you could never keep it fed.
I operated a child of the MG42, the M60 in the 80s. The rapid rate of fire of the MG42 means you run out of bullets real quick also making it difficult to control. The quick change barrel was superior to the M60s but the M60 had disintegrating belt links which i appreciated.
German soldiers back then and also today were trained to be able to squeeze single shots out of the MG42 (or in the Bundeswehr the MG3). It is a bit tricky but with some practice absolutely doable. I did it myself when i was in the Bundeswehr. Also we were trained to put out 5 shot burst and also were they back then. This "spray a belt through it" is more like "movie stuff" or "in special situations" so to speak. So the "run out of bullets" thing isn't really a thing at all (or at leats not as most people think of it). I never changed the barrel of an M60 but i found it quite frustrating on the MG3. I mean, sure you definetly get what the mechanism does and how it works and all that but i always had trouble with it in stressfull situations, it gets stuck relatively easy.
@@polarstorm5986 I remember our goal was to get it down to 3-round bursts. And it was absolutely capable of using disintegrating belts. When I had my final march in basic training, there was an instructor - who apparently had the task of scaring all the groups alone and forcing us into the undergrowth - who had put together an 8-meter belt just because he could. Changing barrels wasn´t that hard, but it was annoying ´cause you only got two barrels and they couldn't cool down as quickly as you could heat them up again. Also you only got that one pesky cloth as hand protection per gun which almost was a guarantee for the 2nd gunner to get some scaldet fingertips if he didn´t wear his gloves even in summer.
I have even seen reports of 2000 /rpm possible . But the reason it wasn't produced/used was that the environment/conditions it was to be used in would have had to be perfect. No dirt/mud and no freezing or heat.
I thought there was something wrong with my ears. I could distinctly hear the individual bullets fired in the example in the beginning. Nothing like a buzzsaw at all.
Please let me edit the audio, Simon. I’m an audio engineer and I will do it for free. These vocals are way too harsh. The highs are way too present and your “S” and “T”s are overpowering. I am going to keep commenting and die on this hill until the audio is fixed because I care about the quality of your content and want it to be as good as possible.
@@SirNobleIZH majority of people agree with op. Your phone's accessibility settings have EQ profiles that fill your need for this without Simon having to murder the audio for everyone else
Very good video, but you missed one quite important bit. At least I don't remember hearing it. There are 2 main reasons, why they kept producing the MG34: A: It's quite a process to completely retool a factory to make something so different, so it would have been madness to fully switch during all out war time. B: The barrel-swap mechanism on the two guns works quite differently. On the MG34 you twist the barrel shroud from the receiver and pull the barrel out straight, while you pivot the barrel out to the side on the MG42. In order to mount the MG42 in any german tank you would have to completely redesign that part of the gun, so they just stuck to the MG34 (which also was a bit more reliable, which is very important for a tank (a very expensive piece of kit with 4-6 trained men in it) beeing swarmed by infantry).
Yeah TY. I forget to mention that cool feature ; change barrels fast from the REAR of the gun , by shaking the hot barrel out to clang, and sizzel on the floor of any PanzerWagen in use, including the armored cars and halftracks.
@@EdmansTube2008 Perfection was achieved in barrel change ,other designs can only copy, but none match it. * To clarify -the MG -34 had the rear barrel swap, the body of the gun would pivot to the side, allowing the barrel to drop free, thee MG-42 had the barrel pop out the side, of the barrel shroud within 5 seconds as well. MG 42 was fine for ground use barrel swap, while the MG-34 was tailored perfect for AFV use.
Swedish AK-4 or German G-3 got the same mechanism, roller-delayed-blow-back. Extremely violent extraction of the spent cartriges under high pressure, thus needing small channels or straight rifling in the cartidge housing of the barrel, to get some pressure-reliefe, by contolled gas-leakage, making the gun fouling itself. Good anyway. The empty Cartriges still glow dull red shortly after extraction. Possibly saving the barrel from some excess heating by bringing some of the heat with them. One of the main drawbacks of a G3-rifle / AK-4, aside from its weight, is that it throws empty half glowing cartriges into the face of your mate to the right, if not a Swedish case-collector is used. Swedish AK-4 or G-3 also uses a special buffer located into the stock, to prolong the life of the weapon by dampening the mechanism flying back to the shoulder stock. It also makes them way nicer to shoot with.
The G3 is a wonderful weapon for ranged battle though. That heavy 7.62*51 doesn't care much if you try to hide behind a car or a wall, might as well be a beach towel 😂
@@espenevo7.62 NATO doesn't fare particularly well against cinderblocks. In order to achieve lethal penetration, you'd need multiple rounds on the same target just like 5.56.
The MG42 was the platform used in Aliens for the support weapon carried by Vasquez and Drake. The armourer for the film literally bolted them to steady cam mounts and added some extra frame work to alter the look slightly.
I have also served in a german infantry batallion. What they told us is the only part which has been changed in the MG3 to the former MG42 was the sealing, to lower the fire rate. I also heard from a friend which served in another unit at the time, that they had MG3 which seemlingly have been converted - He said " u could see that the swastika was scratched out". What I also found out is that we could actually call it a failed constrution. The MG34 and MG42 were both designed to compensate the lower number of soldiers on a battlefield by a higher fire rate. But turned out that u actually need more soldiers to operate it. It was mentioned in the video here, that u actually needed 1 Gunner + up to 3 ammo carriers, while in comparion the british or US MG's needed 0 to 1 additional.
Every fifth round in a belt is a tracer...The MG42 fired so fast the tracers made up a solid line instead of being individualy seen bullets...Also the rate of fire of the MG42 was closer to 1500 rpm while the MG3 is 1000-1200 rpm depending on the bolt you put in...
@@klauskainzinger9978 What spring are you referring to? I think you are referring to a thing often called "NATO Break".. this is not a break it helps the weapon function properly. I don't remember what exactly would need to be done, but a aggressive modification of this part could push the rpm over the 2000(?), but would come at the cost of reliability and safety basically hoping the weapon doesn't rip it self apart or get the jam of the century.
@@Snowball10025 Have you ever taken a MG3/MG42 appart? Obviously not, otherwise you would have noticed a very long and powerfull spring inside the loading aeria. It pushes the locking bolt and is the main part for the loading speed. I served in the German Air Force and have fired and dimassembled the MG3 numerous times.
This thing fired 1,200 to 1,500 rounds per minute of 8mm Mauser. That is 20-25 rounds per second of a full power cartridge. It's also very interesting to note that it is one of the only recoil operated roller locked (not roller delayed) firearms.
I was an American infantryman stationed in Germany and I qualified for a Schützenschnur in silver using the German Army's modern version called the MG3. Having experience with my army's M60, which I could fire off a single round if I wanted to, there was no way to do it with the MG3. As soon as you squeeze the trigger, at least 3 rounds are downrange. In my opinion, the M60 was a superior weapon in the hands on an experienced soldier. It had a maximum effective range of 1100 meters and brother, if you aimed at it, you hit it.
Idk, I've fired the M2, that thing is a beast. It's for taking the enemies out that are behind the enemy you're aiming at. As well as vehicles, lightly armored vehicles, airplanes, etc.
One of the reasons why the MG34 was still made after the MG42 was introduced was that it was used in various armored vehicles and flexible mounts in bombers - instead of redesigning the mounts for the MG42, they just kept producing the MG34.
I doubt my ears are super-human and😮 I can hear the individual rounds fired. You have to go to an electric, or hydraulic, powered Gatling Gun like a Mini Gun or the GAU-8 in the A-10 "Warthog" to get to the point where you can't hear individual shots. The MG-42 fired TOO FAST for a GP/ Medium Machine gun. It sounded terrifying but in functionality it needed slowed down for infantry use. Virtually every one of its decendents had a slower rate of fire.
My Grandfather used the MG 42 when he was in the German infantry in World War II. He said it was truly an amazing creation - or words to that effect. It absolutely mowed everything down within an instant.
I had both the 34 and the 42 some years back. The 34 was a beautifully made weapon, the 42 was more utilitarian looking. I wouldn't have wanted to be on the receiving end of either one. Finally sold them due to my back issues when it came to transporting them. With ammunition prices now, only the very well heeled can afford to shoot them. I really wish I had kept the 34.
Maybe I missed it in the video, but the MG42 rate of fire was not purely about volume of lead down range, but volume of lead at the time the fire is opened. The Germans had studied WW1, the Spanish civil war and obviously their own experience in early WW2, and figured that once a machine gun starts shooting, the targets will go to ground. Hence the fire is most effective for less than a second, and to make the machine gun more effective required the volume of fire in that initial second to be increased.
I'd put the Browning M2 above the MG42. We've made millions of them, and put them on absolutely everything, from jeeps to tanks to aircraft to warships, and we never ran out of ammunition for them. It had a lower ROF than the MG42, but it hit far harder, was capable of shredding infantry and destroying lightly-armored vehicles. We still use it, even though it's design is well over 100 years old. A testament to it's design, simplicity and effectiveness.
In the early days of the Bundeswehr overhauled WW2 -MG42 were used (MG42/59). The MG3, my unit used in the late 80ies were produced in the early 70ies.
Party pooper here. Actions distinguish a gun. The M60 and the FN were gas operated, not roller delayed blowback actions. Moreover, The FN uses the old Browning BAR toggle action, but turned upside down. There are say 1/2 dozen machine gun actions…roller delayed, short recoil, long recoil, gas, direct blowback…. and there is likely a similar number of trigger actions, and feed actions. The designer chooses which he thinks best and integrates. The 34/42’s contribution was its straight line stock, stamped construction (already in use with sub machine guns), feed, mobility, and quick change barrel. An impressive list. Now days Roller delayed is on the outs because it depends on consistent ammo quality. Firing 1200rpm isn’t that great an advantage. Doctrine is fire a burst of three rounds, pause, another burst…. But if I were holding off the Russian hordes, 1200rpm is comforting. Ammo is heavy and keeping the MG42 fed..need a 6x6 truck. Browning 1911 and M2 have withstood time’s test, and worthy of their own vid.
not correct, you are confusing the MG42/MG3 with the HK G3, the MG42 works as a rollerlocked gaspiston blowback. Mauser sued the HK developers for patent infringement and lost, precisely because the G3 is a roller delayed blowback system and does not have a gas piston like Mauser. but you have probably never completely dismantled an MG42/3, then you would know that the MG cannot fire at all without the "recoil booster" and "tube sleeve"....! We MG gunners have often been "extra drilled" by testing how quickly you can get the boosters out and back in again without burning your fingers or getting them jammed.
@@axelk4921 Thanks for your comment. You are correct I have never seen an MG 34/42. I am, however, correct guns are distinguished by their actions. Thus the 34/42 is a roller locked action….. ALL automatics could be said to be ultimately gas operated. Cheers.
I was an MG42 Gunner... Oh Boy, that MG42 kick some ass. Did not jam if you just did some cleaning now and then. Worst part was to carry all the bullets also, it spit them out fast, you really quick ran out of AMO.
@@thepax2621 I think everyone had smaller magazines for the most part. Except for people with the large drums, and drums have reliability issues in WWII. Everyone wanted a thompson with it's drum but that's a $200 gun back then when others were $20 to produce.
@@thepax2621 The BAR was a "Squad Automatic Weapon" and was integrated into the fire team. A US Fireteam with the 3 M-1 Garands and a BAR gave the US more firepower than contemporaries. For supressive fire the US had the M1919 and M2. And they handed out the M2 like popcorn.
@@BetterThanLifeProd Then why use it as a "counter argument" to the MG13's magazine? The MG13 was a "General Purpose Machine Gun". Not several different machine guns, fullfilling different roles. A 25 round magazine is therefore inadequate for its role. So your objection, frankly, just doesn't make sense
Fun fact: In southern Germany, we have a quote : An object can sometimes be called "0815" which means something like okayish its reliable, but it could be (much) better! It's because of this ww1 machine gun. Its stucks in the collective Memory of each Country (Germany)! 😂
Given how much better the German equipment was compared to the allies for much of the war, and the fairly universal opinion that their tactics and command and control was far superior for the first half, it goes to demonstrate just how valuable strength in numbers is as it was essentially the only advantage the allies had for roughly the first half of the war and the disparity only increased as the war progressed. Once the allies had "mastered" combat tactics and industrial machine improved both in volume and quality, the axis was doomed to failure.
The germans were leading in horse drawn infantry throughout the war. You really think the MG42 is better than the M2, that would even scare 70 ton german tanks away.
I would have to agree,: Allied numbers took German armed forces out, and by firepower with more than double artillery on Soviet and Western fronts than they could muster. It really was over when they failed to take Britain.
9:45 thats not entirely true, it did suffer from bolt bounce and german higher ups were aware although since the germans used steel cartridge casings (which could withstand additional pressures) it was never really a huge issue.
According to the US War Department in 1945, for a 1944 styled Infantry Division, a rifle company included a heavy MG section with 2 HMGs. At the battalion level, the 1944 infantry battalion would have a heavy weapons company attached which included a HMG platoon equipped with 6 HMGs. Also an 81-mm mortar platoon and a 120-mm mortar platoon. A Volks Grenadier infantry battalion would have a heavy weapons company that included 2 MG platoons, each with 4 HMGs. There was no heavy MG section in a VG company, they were instead equipped with sub-MGs. In an army armored Panzer Grenadier battalion, the heavy weapons company did not sport any heavy MGs, rather just a howitzer platoon (self-propelled) and a mortar platoon. However, each PG company did include a heavy weapons platoon that did have 4 HMGs. In an army infantry Panzer Grenadier battalion, again no HMGs in the heavy weapons company, but each PG company did have a MG platoon that sported 4 HMGs. SS Panzer Grenadiers aren't broken down to the company or platoon level, but each battalion does appear to have 12 HMGs within it, presumably that's 3 battalions each with a MG platoon having 4 HMGs the same way the regular infantry unit was structured, but I'm just guessing at that point. And so on, there are so many unit types in the German military, each one with slightly different organizational structures, and those TOEs changing constantly as the war progresses, so it is indeed nigh impossible to pin down with much reliability exactly what's going on. You need a specific moment in time, with a specific type of unit, before you can even start to make a determination, and even then, the best available data may not be as granular as you might hope for. And of course, regardless of what's in a TOE, what's actually available in practice will vary widely.
@@Idahoguy10157 Amen! Let’s not forget that old John was a helluva pistol designer as well. How many of you have owned or fired a Colt 1911 or the many pistols that are everything from evolutions of this design to direct copies. How many of you have ever fired a Belgian Browning High Power in 9mm parabellum? John was THE MAN!
@@Idahoguy10157 amen. And who would want a Walther? I know, 007 carried a PPK, but that doesn’t mean that it and the P38 were not junk. P38’s enjoyed some popularity with post war American thugs, for a bit. My uncle had one in his “thuggish” days.
The Roller delayed blowback action was designed to prevent Bolt bounce. Once fitted with roller delayed actions, they no longer experienced bolt bounce eliminating the problem. Early models were not fitted with roller delay actions until after addressing the bolt bounce issue.
@@Bobafett-lc2vx I get your drift and I agree. All Hitler did was give people who lost a war and were suffering an economic collapse bread, circuses, and scapegoats. The ME-262 is just an example of what happened when Hitler meddled with designers. Hitler only designed a genocide and a disaster.
If they were decent strategists, the Germans wouldn't have gotten themselves into a situation where they would be overwhelmed by numbers. Strategy over tactics, always.
Some MG 42 were even set to put out 2000 rounds/min, and were used in anti aircraft setups. Of course that did stress the barrels even more. The Bren and american mgs are gas operated and therefore significantly different to the german ones., even if some details are similar. In general it can be said, that other machine guns were not slower because they were unable to fire faster, it was a deliberate decision to keep them in the 600 - 800 rpm rate, because of heat problems, but also because of the amount of ammo needed (and has to be carried). Thats the problem with mini guns also, with a 3000 rpm fire rate - it needs to much ammo to be carried with it. Not everybody is build like Arnold Schwarzenegger... :)
@@kirkstinson7316Don't think so. The FG 42 was an automatic rifle not a machine gun. The MG42 was the inspiration for the M60. I know I humped an M60 for 8 months. Belt fed, air cooled, bipod with optional tripod and quick change barrels. From a former Ranger.
In 1993 I was instructing new NCOs in explosive demolition, mine-explosive devices and practical exercises in demolition and blasting when the armorers came to the training ground (an old abandoned quarry) with a bunch of M53s and a big box of recoil springs. They tested each one and, by replacing the springs, set the rate of fire to 800-900 rounds per minute. Apparently, there was no need for a higher speed, and the number of available spare/replacement barrels for the machine gun was limited, so they lasted longer with a lower rate of fire.
My neighbor told me yesterday he used the old MG42 with an other spring so that it shot less ammo, in the 70's Bundeswehr. The thing looked really old, he said.
The MG 34 was actually a vastly superior machine gun in every regard, it has been found that, whilst that 1200 rpm may be threatening for a soldier to receive, the actual effect in practice is not much more than that of a gun firing around 850 rpm, so you were effectively spending more ammunition and getting shorter firing time for a more ominous sound.
The high rate of fire had its drawbacks: soldiers had to carry a lot of ammo with them, and the dispersion was considerably wider than that of slower guns.
German soldier here: There is a popular belief that our MG3's are partially converted MG42's - that is technically incorrect even tho there is some truth to it. In reality, the machinery used to stamp the sheet metal into the chassis' for the early production runs of MG1's was still basically unchanged, and things like model markings were often still those from the MG42 - so that afterwards they overstamped and/or crossed out those false model markings with MG1, MG2 and MG3 respectively. - this was much cheaper and faster than changing the sheet metal stamps for a fledgling Army that was supposed to oppose the Warsaw pact ASAP... This created the myth among Bundeswehr soldiers, that the guns were actually just converted MG42's - when in reality Germany had been thoroughly disarmed after the war and the MG42's were like 99% in allied hands. Now some of these first production chassis' are still in circulation to this day. - What is true however is that the early Bundesgrenzschutz (Armed Border Patrol, originally made up of former Wehrmacht soldiers) in 1951 was hastily equipped with such seized MG42's and K98's by the Allies, likely contributing to the myth, as many former border patrolmen went to join the new Bundeswehr a few years later.
Do you really believe they collected every MG42, but let the machines to produce the MG42 behind and intact for over 10 years? Or even used the dies with the eagle for another 15 years? Even if they would have used the original tools, its a lot cheaper to remove the eagle from the die, than to X-out the eagle on millions of guns for decades by hand. The MG3 with the eagle are just upgraded MG2. Rheinmetal had to reverse engineer the MG42 and start at zero to produce the MG1
And yet I firmly believe that the impact, as a concept, of FG-42 is historically highly underrated, compared to MGs and STGs (btw I served in the italian army, back in the 80s, and we were still using MG42s, just in case...)
I knew a guy that found a fully stocked sealed bunker near Bitburg. According to him there was a full compliment of weapons complete with tens of thousands of rounds. He used to pull the lead, melt and recast bullets, reload them into modern brass and use them on his local range.
12:00: The tank that is in the background is a "Ferdinand" resp. a rebuild as "Elefant" (because of the MG in the front). As Ferdinand they fought on the eastern front, these rebuilds were mainly in Italy. I do not know there were any in Normandy on D-Day. So the image is probably from Italy 1944. I say that because of the Ferdinand just 90 were built, after the Battle of Kursk in autumn 1944 just 50 remained. So this is a rather rare picture - rares than images of the 350,000 MG-42
“A mean bit of kit.”! Love this guy. I was born and raised in the states. My dad was Romani and my stepmom immigrated from Austria. Their were 5 languages spoken in my home as a child and I am telling you the average yank will not know what the hell he is saying! Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves!
When I served in the Royal Norwegian Army in the 90s, we found an abandoned MG42 tripod in a Nazi bunker at an airfield. The gunsmith restored it and we used it with our MG3 on the range.
Excellent story!
Nice. Also used it in the 90s but never from a tripod, that was saved for the 12,7 mm (BMG). Just prone and standing from the hip. Some of the bigger vikings could fire off hand, from the shoulder, and score good hits. Was fun times.
That's amazing
Do u guys still use that tripod? I hope it goes to a museum
Det er drit kult! Hvilken bunker var det dere fant den på? Vært på Bunker oppe i Molde og Oscarsborg og vil gjerne dra til flere slike steder i Norge
Some MG3 are actually converted MG42. My brother in law works in the German army and said some MG3s have the 42 crossed out and a number three stamped behind it.
Some yes some not.
I had one of those during basic training.
To be more prehise, the shell is the same. Bolt, recoil enhancer, barrel, recoil spring and AA optic are changed though in those as well.
MG42 which were converted to nato rounds were called MG2.
@@josipbroztito3672 iirc initially yes, but that was the MG1/MG2 distinction Later there were some further modifications, making them all into MG3.
@@85Pando Thank you for the information.
The fact that a modernized version is still in service today speaks to the effectiveness of the design.
Like pretty much all of Browning's designs.
@@glashoppah not anymore... Browning had dropped their standards yeaaaaaars ago. Their shotguns just aren't made with the same care anymore. It's also part of the reason why CZ (a czech manufacturer) was able to buy a large amount of stock in the company. You'll notice some design changes in the newer browning pistols and you can blame or thank CZ for that. We also don't really use much of browning's weapons anymore. I think only 1 unit is issues 1911's and it's more a ceremonial thing than anything. the M2 is Browning's equivalent to the MG42. This is THE ONLY BROWNING WEAPON STILL IN SERVICE. The 1911 isn't considered a service weapon even though that one unit gets them (and even then, it's a modernized version of the 1911 that some would say barely resembles the original)
Not modernized, its a convertion from 7.92 Mauser to 7.62 Nato, the weapon itself is the same.
@@BtheLee11 Nearly every modern pistol is derived from Browning's design. Most are mechanically indistinguishable from the 1911. So I stand by my statement. The M2 fires an antiaircracft round. It's in a different class of weapon than the MG42.
@@BtheLee11they were referring to John Browning, not the company
Former swiss army MG51 gunner here. Would have switched that thing for an MG3 or MG42 any day. Weight was 16.5 kg empty and around 18 kg with the 50 round drum magazine. The handguard was made of cast iron instead of stamped metal like the MG42. Carried that damn thing long and far. ROF was around 1000. We had reusable belts, and I think it was the same with the MG42. So the amount of tracers depended on what you'd load into the belt. Depending on the exercise we'd also use no tracers. Once, during a demonstration for some brass and politicians, I had to fire either pure tracers or 1 to 1 tracers which created so much smoke in the air that I could barely see the target after half of the belt. During my most intense exercise, I emptied 7 belts in total (=1400 rounds) in a short period of time. To the end both barrels, which I had changed multiple times, were laying in the grass hissing as they were so hot you couldn't even touch them with the protective glove made of very thick, sturdy leather and we had to bring in a spare barrel from another MG position.
Well, Switzerland basically looked at the MG42 and said, "That's cool. But we can manufacture it to a higher standard and durability!" So they *machined* the bits that were stamped. 😂
The MG 51 was > 10 x as expensive as the MG3 due to its manufacturing.
@@holgernarrog962 Sounds like the most swiss engineering choice ever. "Should we make it a bit more affordable?" "For whom, exactly? Definitely not."
@@tapiolautavaara9532 For the soldiers that had to carry it and the taxpayer.
Damn!! and I thought the Mag 58 was heavy enough😖
You forgot to comment on the detail that really made the MG42 famous. The impact on bodies. The mutilations caused by the weapon's high rate of fire spread panic throughout all the allied armies. It was enough to hear the peculiar sound of their volleys for the soldiers to lose the desire to leave their shelters. In the American army the situation was such that a program was created to try to neutralize this psychological effect, including spreading the word that the weapon was bad. But of course, the corpses showed everything. That's why this MG42 panic was hidden until the end of the war and afterwards.
When they caught the N az i firing it, he probably had a bad day
I used the MG3 (or MG 62) as it was called in the Danish armed forces (always depicting the year the weapon went into use in Denmark regardless of type). And we used it on lighter patrol ships as late as a year ago, now still having some in service, but mostly swapping them for new weapons to replace them as this is written. And all of us who have used them also had to know how to use them on land (making us sort of a marine infantry capable crew).
The MG 62 was, and still is, despite others wanting to claim that it's not anymore, the best machine saw ever produced. It was in fact so good that you could prevent a tank from firing accurately though not doing any damage to it or the crew whatsoever, if you knew what to shoot at and how. No. It wouldn't damage the gun in any way and make it impossible to fire the gun. But you could lay fire on the visual slots of the gunner and commander. And though it couldn't harm them, it takes an inhuman strength to look through a prism that is being hammered by bullits without instinctively ducking away, and then scratching the surface outside so that the prism would need to be fixed later. Some of the more modern aiming devices on todays Abrams and leopard 2's and such would actually be more prone to damage, not rendering the tank a total loss or unable to defend itself, but in need of moving back and having it replaced with a spare before moving out front again.
The drawback of this is that you can only do it mounted in the tripod and with an expert triggerman on the trigger and with the back end of the MG 62 not latched onto the tripod, but only the front end.
I've tried it several times during sailing because the light patrol ships are moving in all 3 directions and so is the target that is in the water at varying distances. And because of this, putting accurate fire on the target require a very steady hand and a well advanced ability to predict the movement of both the ship and the target so that you will know when to fire and when to wait a second or two. Yet I have managed to actually destroy the target so firmly that the chains were shot to pieces and ended up a loss on the buttom of the sea. And we are talking a target the size of a 25 liter barrel anchored with a chain and an anchor in the other end of the chain. So it's not easy to actually hit it and destroy it several hundred yards out when both the ship and the target is bopping around in the waves. And that's how I learned to adapt this to land and tanks and go for the viewing prisms and optical sights on tanks. The ONLY way. I have actually tried live firing on those on a moving tank and busting the drivers prism and in lack of the actual optical sight the mounting for it because the tank was drivable, but slated for scrapping.
Sounds like I'm bragging to be a virtual Rambo type with a machine gun, but I'm actually far from it. I wouldn't even try to use any kind of machine gun the way he is. It's just a waste of ammo any way you put it and even one round hitting the intended target firing like that would be a miracle in and of itself. The only reason that I can do something like this is because I have the weapon and the associated tools to help me, and some 40+ years of experience firing those damned things (I'm 63 at present and have served continuously since the age of 18 in the regular navy and the naval Home Guard and army Home guard when living far from a naval base, and is to this day on my 46th active year and still counting). If I didn't have that long experience, I wouldn't have been able to be as accurate as that in a longshot. Give me a rifle, and I'm moderately proficient, but the MG 62 is and always has been my primary weapon. Without it and my long experience, I would be just another mediocre guy wearing a uniform at best. With it, I have at least learned one thing and how to do it at slightly better rates than the average.
@@Jens-Viper-Nobel I started my army time as a MG/62 gunner in 1978 (after a short time as rifleman) but later moved to heavier stuff (artillery 🙂 ) but will never forget the times with the LMG. I recall that in the tripod you could fire singleshots and accurately enough to consistenly hit a man sized target at 1000 meter (after a ranging shot or two). Could feel a bit heavy on a foot patrol but it was all awarded when you could let loose a few belts in a fire assault 😁
There's a wonderful cartoon by Bill Mauldin, showing his two usual GIs, Willie and Joe. One lying flat on the ground, his hands holding his helmet tightly onto his head, and staring angrily at his buddy, who's sitting next to him and has just opened his jacket. The caption is:
"Ever notice th' funny noise these zippers make, Joe?"
Maybe because today it pales in comparison to the effect produced by the M134. Perhaps because people today are aware of things like napalm, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons.
Because of how indistinguishable the fire rate sounded, Germans often deployed a two gun bait and switch. There would be one gun using tracer rounds. They would fire high and give the illusion that there was a gap the attackers could move in safely. Meanwhile there was a second gun ready to fire at the proper firing arc with the tracer rounds pulled out of the belt. Troops would crawl into the second gun's fire.
Interesting, Thank You.👍
german mgs usually used tracer rounds for AA purposes. seems like a bending of the "rules" but a nice trap
to be honest, this tactic would be effective regardless of what weapon system is used. interesting none the less.
Now that's smart !
No they didn't. People, don't believe random youtube comments lol. Give me a single source for your claim
The water cooling of the MG08 (and in fact, ALL of the early water cooles machine guns) ist depicted quite inaccurately here. The water is not regularly changed or actively cycled through a radiator. It's much simpler than that: It just boils. The shroud is filled with water, that takes some of the thermal energy of the gun to heat up, but when it reaches its boiling point, it just boils. Boiling water takes much more energy than heating it. You can easyly observe it yourself: Just put a pot of water on a stove and turn it on. It takes a few minutes for the water to boil, but it takes hours for all the water to evaporate.
For a heavy machine gun operator, it's so much easyer to just boil a few liters of water away and refill it every few thousand rounds than to have to maintain an intricate cooling system, that will inevitably break in any kind of battle.
Or pee in it
Good point
But that thing chopped down a hell of a lot of troops though
If i remember correctly I believe that it was also hazardous because your creating a closed system that was pressurized.
If you ever taken off the radiator cup off a hot car you know the danger. There’s too many dangers to name
You forgot one key aspect. All that steam has to go somewhere so the Maxims and Browning's had valves that would either vent the excess or as they later just added. channeled the steam into a condenser thus allowing it to turn back into water. This reduce the location of the gunner and improved the amount of time the gun could be fired.
@@Noone-jn3jp Seems like you could solve that with leaving the cap off and avoiding the pressure buildup
My brother went through the U.S. Army Special Forces qual course in 1977. As a weapons sergeant back then he had to familiarize with about everthing this side of matchlocks. He once told me that the amazing thing about the MG42 was it’s accuracy at such a high cyclic rate. I figured it would be spray and pray due to vibration from the high rate of fire. He said that for its cyclic rate it was miraculously smooth and accurate.
As in any other automatic weapon accuracy decreases with each round in the salvo, but the MG42/3 put so many rounds downrange that you probably would hit something anyway and terrify everybody with the rest. In the bipod you could consistently put 2 round salvos in a head sized target at 1-200 meter. In the tripod you could fire single shots and at 1000 meters hit with a ranging shot or two easily hit a man sized target. I served in the late 1970s as a gunner on the MG3.
@@steffenb.jrgensen2014 I understand. Number of rounds per salvo and accuracy are usually inversely proportional in anything utilizing a single barrel system. For that matter I would think that even multi-barreled rotary system will eventually heat up in sustained fire and accuracy will degrade.
All that is merely an exercise in physics. I think in the real world opinion concerning the psychological effects would definitely hold true!
@@steffenb.jrgensen2014 I meant to say “your opinion concerning psychological effects would hold true.”
Thank you.
FG-42 was not a WWI weapon as stated in the video (15:46) . It was developed in WWII for use by Fallschirmjäger units.
@@420BulletSponge Yes. It was closer to the MP/Stg 44 than an MG3.
yeah, I thought Browning's Belgian/FN Herstal Maxim Mod 1908 was originally used in the first world war by all participants involved in that "royal rumble".
The FG42 is also the WWII German machine gun that inspired other designs like the US M60, FN Minimi, and HK MG4 and MG5. The only gun I know of using the MG42's roller locked recoil mechanism (that isn't a direct copy of the MG42) is the Czech vz. 52 pistol.
@@timewave02012 The FG42 is (arguably, the first) an Assault Rifle, not a machine gun.
@@BetterThanLifeProd The MP43/Stg44 was the first "assault rifle", translated from "Sturmgewehr", which was a propaganda term invented because the 7.92x33 cartridge was less powerful than the 7.92x57 used in the K98k Mauser and FG42. One of the requirements for the FG42 was open bolt operation so it could be used as a machine gun, or closed bolt for semi-auto in a normal rifle role. It ended up being a better machine gun than battle rifle. US development of what eventually became the M60 started with the T44 that was literally an FG42 with MG42 feed mechanism grafted onto the side.
During a visit to an Air Force hospital, I got to meet a gentleman who like me was waiting an inordinate time in a crowded waiting room. He was wearing an Army Ordnance Corp emblem on his hat. When I noted the emblem, he said I was the first person who knew what it was since he'd retired over 30 years before. I told him that I was retired from AF Combat Arms or Small Arms as it was originally called when entered the career field. Most newer AF people thought my old Red Hat with SAMTU (Small Arms Training and Maintenance Unit) was also stood for something else. We started talking guns (both our specialties). Turns out he had spent some time at Aberdeen Proving Grounds (Maryland) in the weapons testing programs as a young NCO. Somehow in our discussions of machine guns, the M60 came up. My question was why the Army didn't use a variant of the MG-42 instead of the mediocre M60 design with all it's weird little flaws (and it had several glaring flaws). He said because the powers in charge wanted an American gun with an American design built in an American factory. But they stole bits and pieces of other designs (including the top cover and feed tray from the MG-42). He said one of the excuses (by a certain Senior Ordnance boss) was the MG-42 didn't work in 30-06 (badly reworked using captured German MG-42s in 8mm (7.92x57mm)). Plus, the 30-06 (7.62x63mm) was an overpowered round for the gun which caused issues with the gas system. So why spend the money to redesign and test it for failure in 7.62x51mm NATO (a round more friendly to the MG-42 design). He said that pathetic excuse even got some head shaking from Ordnance people. Some strange politics at the Senior level. Most of the Officers (not senior) and most of the NCO's thought the MG-42 was a great machine gun with proven combat characteristics, already designed for mass production, and would be readily purchased by the other service branches and many allies as they also respected the gun. But the powers in charge said "No" and that was history.
Financial decisions creep into everything.
Hm. At least from what i can compare on wikipedia with the energies 7.92 seems of equal power if not a tiny bit stronger.
And the 42 had no gas system, so 30-06 even if they would have had hotter loads would not have done anything to it's gas system.
But al the other stuff i can fully believe.
And to the last part: those people would turn out correct.
Germany just startet replacing their old guns with a new model (But the old ones did their service for a long time)
And Austria uses it's MG74 still. (After the war Beretta and Steyr worked together on a derivate. In 7.62 Nato, with a rubber shoulder piece instead of a wooden one, and with a heavier bolt to reduce the rpm to around 750-800 rpms. And an additional foldable "winter trigger". But the fun thing is, the only 2 things that change the rpms are the rear part of the bolt and the recoil spring. Easy to change both.)
Of course it was political. Can you imagine NATO countries using the AK-47 during the cold war, the symbol of communism? Yes, Finland did, but that's about it
@@Jotgut Finland wasn't really in a position to be picky. And if you use the same weapon as the enemy, you can use ammo and spare parts liberated from their supplies! The Finnish are a very pragmatic people.
MG-42 is primarily recoil operated thus it is quite hard to mess with the gas system. Yes, recoil operated guns used if desired gases to increase recoil impulse to increase reliability or rate of fire but it was extra, not operating system. Same - 30-06 is not that much different in terms of power to 7,92 Mauser. But size of the round may be different thus simple small changes to original design might not be enough for proper mechanical operations during firing.
As a conscript of the Bundeswehr , in the year 2k, I have used the MG3.
That thing is awesum!
As a former austrian soldier, I was also trained on the MG3. Really nice handling but it only shot with about 600 rounds per minute. But our instructor told us that it was very easy to change the rate of fire to over a thousand and that the MG could easily handle it. It was manly capped to preserve ammunition 😅
Bolt weight makes the dofference, use a lighter one and the rate goes up.
@@clockworkvanhellsing372 yeah, uhm, the bolt comes from rheinmetall and has only the standard weight for 7,62. there is however a spring that you can change to set the fire rate but you would have to adjust more like the rückstoßverstärker.
and im not saying you are wrong: if you use a lighter bolt it will fire faster in general. im just asking myself where you would get a lighter bolt if only 1 type of bolt is produced.
i mean: unless you want to go back to 7,92 ammo and change the barrel, the whole gas setup, the bolt... and that bolt weights much more btw so how does that make sense?
It was 1200 to 1300 had to tune it down
@@oddctioumThere actually are two weights of bolt. The standard one is 650g which allows for an ROF of 1000-1200 RPM. But there was an optional heavy bolt at 950g combined with a modified buffer design that would reduce the ROF to 800-950 RPM. The heavier bolt was introduced with the MG1A2, which predates the final MG3 variant. Most countries opted for just one or the other, the Germans pretty much stuck with the standard bolt but the Italians went with the heavy bolt, for example.
That is really strange, because I served in the German Air force (ground defense) in the 80s and our MG3's had all firing rates of 1200 per Min (20 rounds per sec.) Are you not mixing it up with the G3. That has a firing rate of 600 rounds per Min (10 per sec)
One of the more interesting facts about it is that right after the war, no one actually knew how to make them again. The Germans destroyed all the blueprints and technical data sheets for the gun, so West Germany had to reverse engineer existing MG42s to re-document tolerances, measurements, weights, etc., which took a considerable amount of time and lots of testing. It took them several months just to get the bolt weight and buffer spring rate correct, which is why the MG1 and MG2 came first, and there was a slight gap in time before the MG3 was adopted.
My dad did his mandatory military service with the Bundeswehr in the late 1970s. He hated it. However, when on leave during a weekend, his father found a certificate laying on the floor in his room, which stated that he was the best MG-3 gunner in his entire battalion. This included being the fastest at (dis)assembling the gun and you had to fire five three-shot bursts, which many gunners weren't able to due to the high cycle rate.
My grandfather himself saw action in WWII as a radioman in an infantry unit. His last engagement was in a village close to Münster called "Ostbevern". He said during this engagement their platoons MG-42 gunner was killed in action. This engagement started when, just like in the movies, they took their positions in the village center when an Allied Willy's Jeep suddenly appeared on the intersection. They all just looked at each other and the Willy's turned around and disappeared. Next, a Sherman tank appeared and their MG-42 gunner opened fire on the tank. Everyone, including the MG-42 gunner knew how ineffective this was, but due to the adrenaline and the excitement these young soldiers threw everything they had at the Allies. They knocked out multiple Shermans, but lost most of their platoon in the process. My grandfather later said that their platoon commander had a mental breakdown and instead of trying to evade the allies, he decided to fight it out. My grandfather himself was wounded by Sherman tank shrapnel to the leg and was then taken prisoner by what he believed to be Canadians. He was 17 years old when this happened.
My Uncle Bud said there were 2 sounds you'll never forget.
A Panzer 4 moving at you, and an MG42 a mile away.
You knew where your outfit was by where the German were shooting.
In France during a fire fight in the winter woods, Buddy said they went
from 1 shot standard rifle shots, to hearing 10 MG42s.
When they called back for artilary, they were told, to just hold your ground,
you'll be fine. He said they rained down bullets on us all night.
They knew exactly where we were. lol!
3 day later, a MG42 group surrendered to them, by playing
"We're going to hang out the washing on the Siegfried Line"
A popular English war song.
All 3 men had relative who lived in the US, and they asked my Uncle
if he could get them, to them. My Uncle did.
Uncle asked them why they sprayed the bullets over them that night.
A German Solider who had lived in Chicago, told my Uncle.
"We knew you were Americans. You had fires going all night.
We're not Monsters, you are men just like us. Why kill all of you?
This war is almost over. I might like your sister, or you might like mine.
We could be family some day.
You're a sheep who believed a lie, now you'll have to deal with the liers
who gotten all our friends killed."
When Saving Private Ryan came out, I took my Great Uncle to see it. A 3rd Army WW II veteran, he fought from North Africa to Sicily all the way through to watching the Russian rain down artillery fire on Berlin. When the scene where the ramp comes down and the MG42 opens up, my Uncle leans over and say "That's exactly what they sound like." Gave me chills. I was sitting next to a guy who knew what is like to be on the wrong end.
Jokes on them: the US guys were on Alabama and liked to keep their sisters for themselves.
@@dragineeztoo61
Yeah, same happened with my Uncle Bud.
He was in a Ranger outfit, and was in a Sherman Tank delivering it to the beach in the 5th wave. His landing craft hit a underwater spiked pole, and they told hi to be ready to drive off when the front opened.
He said the front dropped, and incomes the bullets killing everyone in front of the tank.
(Not how the practices went in Scotland, he said) With the aircraft motor running, he said he couldn't hear anything, untill a Naval gunner stuck a pistol in his ear, and screamed DRIVE THIS FUCKER OFF MY BOAT! He said my first kills in war were the guys who weren't dead right in front of me. He drove forwards, and tipped over into the Atlantic Ocean the tank fell thru 40 feet of water, before stabbing it gun into the sand on the bottom. He looked up to what he called a jigsaw puzzle of dead bodies above. When he realized he was weighed down by all his gear he stripped down, and finally got to the surface. He said he used the dead bodies of friends, to get to shore.
Where another Master Gunnery Sargent asked him where his tank was? Bud was a MSYGS1st Class, for 4 years. Taken away 2 days after the fall of Berlin.
The wildest part of Uncle Bud's story about Normandy, was during a incredible German mortar barrage he was hiding behind a Giant X tank trap on the beach.
And he heard someone calling his name, George! He turned around to see a guy, Danny Carr, whom he had went all thru school with from 1st to 8th grade. "Hey George! What are YOU doing here?"
Bud: "Trust me this wasn't my idea!"
Carr: "Wasn't this supposed to be a cake walk?'
Buddy: "If I never see cake again, it'll be too soon!"
Bud threw Danny an extra chocolate bar he had pulled for the oceanm, cause he knew Danny loved chocolates. Danny asked what he owed him, and Unc said a nickel. Danny said, I'm broke, can I pay you when I see you?
Bud said, you Shanty Irish are always broke, but I let you slide this time. They both laughed like little kids.
After the war Bud got a knock on the door, and it was Danny. I might be Shanty Irish you Kraut fuck, but I always eventually pay my tab, and handed Buddy a nickel.
First they laughed, then they counted all their dead friends from their neighborhood, and then they cried.
Then they went and got drunk and almost robbed by 6 black teenagers with guns.
I asked Bud what happened, and Danny leaned over Uncle Bud's shoulder, and said, Well kid, we showed the Germans more mercy then we showed those 6 N words. The news said their Grand mothers couldn't identify what we left on the side walk.
Bud was a simple machinist for the next 45 years. Danny owned a few gas stations in North Philly. Just regular guys.
@@dragineeztoo61 The first MG that opened up on the US at Omaha Beach was a Browning Medium, firing 7.92mm x 57 rounds, captured from the Polish.
During my time serving as a conscript in the Danish Army (light recon unit), my personal weapon was an M/62, or its international name MG3. Was quite envious of all my section-mates that used light assault rifles when having to march, but omg that buzzsaw sound was heavenly...
what caliber was it in? the OG 8mm Mauser, or 7.62 NATO?
I was in the danish airforce back in '87, we had them too. Great fun to shoot, but a nightmare to carry and clean! :-) 7.62 Nato, btw.
@@johntrimpe2032 7.62 NATO. Even though we were a light recon unit, we were very heavily armed: 12 men, split into 4 Mercedes GD 4x4 vehicles, each with a driver, a gunner and a commander, so they could operate separately. Each gunner had a LMG M/62 as their personal weapon, and 2 of the drivers had Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless rifles in addition to their assault rifles.
Conscription in that unit was, compared to the rest we served with, both much harder and much more free: We didn't have any officers, only 2 conscript sergeants, so morning checks in the barracks were somewhat more chill than for the rest, but whenever we had exercise we were up a couple of hours before dawn and didn't return to basecamp until after midnight.
The Australian army operated the Leopard 1 for a long time. The few tanks we had with their 2 mounted guns were the only place you would find the MG3. It was a privilege to use and the envy of 99% of the Army. 🤘
the danish LMG M/62 is/was NOT a MG3.
The danish guns where MG42/59s produced before the MG3 was put into production.
In Brutal Doom - Hell on Earth campaign, the super secret Wolfenstein level has one of these _really_ hidden in it. You have to jump from a series of rafters to shoot a switch & then run to where it is. If you’re too slow, it closes & locks forever.
It's ridiculously powerful. So powerful that even cheat codes don't allow you to get it or give you ammo for it. You get a fixed 600 rounds for it & when they're gone, they're gone. You can only get ammo from backpacks & that's only a few rounds. But it shreds whatever it hits. Pretty amazing.
Seriously? I've played doom since the 90's and I don't remember seeing it. I'll have to look that up.
1:35 historical background
6:54 design
10:28 how it was used
14:59 legacy
Ty
I shot my grandfather's MG42 in 1995 when I was 12 years old. He hid his at the end of the war and sold it shortly before his death in 2015. The last time I shot an MG42 was in 2020 and it hasn't lost any of its violence since I shot it 15 years ago. An amazing piece of technology.
My Dad's friend Vic at his class 3 and had a MG 42 that he captured off a plane that he shot down in france. Only got to shoot it one time we only had 500 rounds of ammo show theoretically that was less than 30 seconds of ammo I got to shoot one belt of 50 rounds and my dad and Vic shot up the other four it was tough to get a burst that was less than 10 rounds
That's another thing that the creator didn't mention: it's so small you can easily hide it in a boot or under your shirt!
Anyway... war trophies... always become heirlooms.
Simon…the primary reason the MG34 was kept in production until the end of the war, even after being replaced by the MG42, was because it could be adapted to feed from other side and the MG42 fed from the left side only. LH feed only was not practical in tanks and other armored vehicles where extra space does not exist and LH feed got in the way. So production of the MG34 continued on to equip German AFV’s with any surplus production going to the army.
Also, the MG34 was the choice for hull-mounted MGs, as the barrel change mechanism was different from that of the MG42. Instead of being pulled from the side (MG42), it was pulled straight back.
@@bjornh4664yeah, the 34’s receiver would rotate out of the way.
Rommel said it was too fast for optimal accurate fire but the sound was fantastic for the morale of the German soldiers, so on balance it was good.
The fast rate of fire was chosen in order to make sure the enemy stayed suppresed, accuracy wasn't the nr 1 priority. But yeah later on after WW2 we learned the rate of fire of an MG wasn't needed to be as high as the MG42, lower rate of fire is also easier for logistics since the MG42 used so much ammo in a short period of time.
@@kit888 it was the infantry's GAU-8
@@Elatenl Also the German MG doctrine is different, focusing more on bursts than continuous fire.
Machine gun aren't made for precision or high accuracy...
Rommel knew it...
Hey would've never say something that fool either.
Burning's ammo doesn't bring morale up...
Criss
let's shoot 1200 bullets per second into the same spot. what would be the point? use a rifle
The gun every soldier on D-Day had ingrained in their nightmares
Can you imagine hearing the noise from them and knowing you're going at a dug in company with them on the Eastern Front. This weapon makes the Russian death toll more explainable than any tank or plane.
@@musicilike69 Nope nope nope!!! The reasons the Soviets/Russians had such an insanely high death toll had NOTHING to do with wonder weapons; it was their military doctrine and we see it today in Ukraine. Send in more meat, eventually they'll run out of ammunition.
@@musicilike69the Russian death toll had many factors and isn't due to the MG42 alone, stalins not running or get shot by your own people, lack of weapons to return fire, 1 rifle per 2 people in certain situations( not everywhere In the military) not everything they had worked as it should (they had some great equipment during this time I'm not saying that). And then yes because the Germans had some great weapons at the time, I would think there was several reasons why the Russians death toll was so high.
@@matthewwebster3143 Indeed, doctrine and "lack of care" in the high ranks was the biggest factor, after that come thing slike some very good german tactics, weapons and stuff. By no means were the russian soldiers stupid or not brave or so, or the germans overpowered or just "better" at everything. In short words: Its complicated.
Has they lived to see what the world they ushered in they would have switched sides.
Thank you! Beside my G3 the MG3 was my standard weapon in service. With my constitution back then, I was able to carry my stuff, this nice gun and some ammunition. I was able to shot bursts of 1-3 bullets with her. With a good pipe, you can throw down targets at 800 meters and above. Long ago 🙂
I served as an armourer in the Italian army for my national service in 1982. My company of combat engineers used the Beretta MG42/59 a variant of the MG 42. Our mg's rate-of-fire was reduced to 600 rpm from the original 1,200 rpm by way of increasing the bolt's weight and thereby slowing it down. This was done as a peace-time expedient towards saving barrel burnout and therefore lowering military expenditures. Returning the machine to it's OEM functionality would simply be swapping out the heavier bolt with the original one. So yes, you can slow it's rate of fire.
I have both shot and been shot at by the MG42 ! and i can confirm that it is a fantastic weapon in defense , being capable of stopping an attack with weight of fire alone ! Not so fantastic if you are on the receiving end and are watching your cover rapidly disintigrating in front of your very wide eyes ! I was a volunteer in the yugoslave civil war for the croats back in the early ninties , and i used the MG42 in the bunkers on the front line .... they really were left overs from WW2 with the wermacht eagle engraved on the slide cover ! . The 7.9 mm round was very good and powerful , the metal non disintigrating link ammo belt not so much unless you kept it clean and lightly oiled .... the rate of fire is legendary , and can be improved by unscrewing the flash hider and taking the gas cup out .... this made it so high only small bursts were advisable unless you had several spare barrels and not to bothered about accuracy !! ..... It could be carried on patrol with a bipod but considering the size , weight , awkwardness and ammo consumption we would carry the RPK etc instead ... All in all though this was one of the best weapons i have ever used , and is definatley on my ' must have , list should things go south in the world .....
The MG42's firing rate was 1,500 rounds per minute.
The current version, the MG 3, is throttled and has a firing rate of around 1250 rounds per minute... 😎
I can still remember my basic training in the Air Force, where the task at the shooting range was to fire as many bursts as possible with 15 rounds in the belt with an MG3.
I had a very sensitive trigger finger and came up with 7... 😃
yeah, that'a the common bullshit myths that are spread in the bundeswehr. the rate of fire of both the mg42 and the mg3 is 1200 rounds per minute.
It was actually variable by changing bolt and spring. Some sources claim they could fire at up to 1800 RPM. It could also be as low as 900 RPM.
@@Lurch-Bot This is what we've been told when we were trained on the MG3: Due to heavier parts (among several others) the RPM sunk to 1200
when compared to its "predecessor". The latter could be opened up to allow 1800RPM.
As always, with any firearms video, you should check out the Forgotten Weapons videos about the history of this firearm.
they don't care, his workers pull many articles about a subject and they quote bits and pieces with no real toil towards being accurate or putting asterisks in where more info is needed or could be expanded upon, these are video's of convenient subjects for mindless auto-play people of the channel to watch and funnel in advert monies to them to do it more.
@@StatusNull Wasn't directing the comment to the people who make the video, it was specifically for people reading the comments that want to find more information. You can't expect a single video to pull all relevant sources and discuss them of even just show clips unless you want hours long videos. These aren't C&Rsenal deep dive videos.
I doubt the MG42 will be a forgotten weapon anytime soon though. ;)
Gun Jesus is the Truth
MG42 kicking ass from WW2 in 1942 to Aliens in 2179.
The M2 browning has been doing a lot longer
@@cameronlittle7298 that is true, but it would have been hard to maneuver in the xenomorph nest on LV-426. Vasquez was a beast, but I doubt she could have handled Ma Deuce as a squad level weapon.
@@benmclean2291 Ah, the good ol’ days on LV-426! I remember them well!
The MG 08 was so widespread on the frontlines that the more specific designation 08/15 made it into the everyday German vocabulary. It has become a common phrase to describe mundane, often mass-manufactured objects. Especially in workshops and such people often call basic articles 0815.
Most people are no longer aware of the military origin but the phrase is still part of modern German vocabulary.
Yepp, "Null Acht Fünfzehn" / "Ought Eight Fifteen" is a common term for no-flares, no-bells-and-whistles stuff in German. Until recently I also didn't know its military origins.
It's such a perfect MG that even today the German armed forces use the MG3, which is an exact copy of the MG42 save for a change in bullet caliber.
And adding an anti bounce bolt plus slowing the rate of fire a bit
Some of them aren't even a copy and are straight up MG42s retrofitted to be MG3 lol, also it's been in use in tens of countries not just Germany. They are slowly being replaced by MG5 tho in bundeswehr
It's actually being phased out now for a .223 squirrel gun
@@Elatenl I just finished my voluntary service in the German army, and one of my older superiors told me that he once had a MG3 where the swastika was just scratched out
@@philagethechef The MG5 is it´s proper replacement,which is also 7.62x51
The MG4 was intended as an addition in the infantrys weapons mix
it's also been said by troops on the receiving end to sound like a long length of cloth tearing because the rate of auto fire was so ridiculously high.
6:04 It's General Purpose because it can be reconfigured for every single use case the German military has.
Light machine gun
Heavy defensive gun
Tank gun
AA gun
It came in a box of bits that could be swapped out for different mounts (door gun, tank pintle, coaxial gun) different handling grips, stocks, no stock, sights, no sights.
Clever but expensive.
It is great as long you were not the one carrying the ammo for it. All of today weapons are set to fire at half that rate.
In WW2 it was not adaptable as a coax and I have read this was the main reason the more expensive MG34 was kept in production.
@@jwhite146Not really, at least for German MGs a somewhat higher then half firerate was kept ... still in use MG3 firerate was only lowered to 800-950 rounds/min, MG4 was around 890 and the current MG5 made it optional per switch 640/720/800 ... we like a bit more metal in the air with our GPMG I guess
@@diedampfbrasse98wie hieß es in der ZdV +/- 150 Schuss pro Minute, das reicht locker aus, man braucht die Sense heut zu Tage nicht mehr. Horido
@@garychurch9237
Yes, the MG34 was the "universal machine gun" which could be configured to any role without necessity a separate factory line.
I don't think the MG42 was nearly as adaptable.
There is an entertaining US Army film from the period trying to convince soldiers not to fear the MG42 because its high rate of fire made it inaccurate.
Also known as the propaganda saying "Its bark is worse than its bite." Apparently few, if any, american soldiers with any combat experience believed it. But hey, anything to keep up the morale.
@@KarateLars they didn’t believe it. There were entire strategies devised by US officers on the field to specifically identify potential mg positions and how to assault them without being cut down. As much as I like the MG42 any machine gun was capable of killing an entire platoon if it had enough ammunition and was in a good position. The MG42 isn’t really special in that regard most machine guns were purpose built to do so. The utility of the MG42s (or any MG used by the Germans) and their overall effectiveness was severely decreased by the tactics devised by the US Military. Ironically while the MG is in high praise it accounts for very little of US casualties. The vast majority (70%) were to artillery. Machine guns that aren’t in the spotlight the browning 30cal actually had a far higher performance and percentage of casualties caused in the pacific than the MG42 in Europe.
It's my favorite firearm ever. I saw one at a museum one time.
The pedigree of the MG 42 is like that of the M2 Heavy Machine gun, you could even put the AK 47 in that grouping. They are all solid platforms still in use today. All of these systems are testaments to those who developed them. Still in use today, with minor tweaking ,and with no one looking to replace them. All of these systems are testaments to those who developed them.
M2 is similar to the Browning 1919? They were developed around the same time yes?
Keep it on the books that over 1,000,000 M2 .50 's were made in the WW 2 era alone , and conversion kits also common to make several versions of it, to keep it relevant to various needs. It has a riveted box receiver of 1919 vintage design and is in no way a modern gun, with all the baggage of a loved antique. Solid platform?, sure, but also impossible to be rid of all those fuckers as there are so many out there still..
Not the AK-47 but the M1 garand+STG-44 since the AK-47 is basically just a M1 garand but following the idea the STG-44 began.
@@MrWackyfunster if you are saying they all owe some credit to Hyram Maxim, I must agree.
Had to learn to fire 2-3 shot bursts with the MG3 which is based on the MG42. Crazy good weapon for it´s time. We have still used it´s updated version in 2006.
The MG42 was used as the base platform for making the Smartgun seen in the movie "Aliens" (the big machine gun used by Vasquez & Drake).
The FN MAG is doctrinally similar to the MG42, but, mechanically, it is a BAR turned upside down to accommodate a belt feed.
Haven't fired the MG3 but have fired the M60 and FN MAG (aka "Gimpy") - apologies to my American friends but the FN is so far superior to that thing they were lumbered with. As to the MG3, a mate who has fired it loved it - but hated the idea of having to carry the ammo that the thing ate so voraciously.....even with everyone in the section carrying extra ammo, you could never keep it fed.
I operated a child of the MG42, the M60 in the 80s. The rapid rate of fire of the MG42 means you run out of bullets real quick also making it difficult to control. The quick change barrel was superior to the M60s but the M60 had disintegrating belt links which i appreciated.
German soldiers back then and also today were trained to be able to squeeze single shots out of the MG42 (or in the Bundeswehr the MG3). It is a bit tricky but with some practice absolutely doable. I did it myself when i was in the Bundeswehr. Also we were trained to put out 5 shot burst and also were they back then. This "spray a belt through it" is more like "movie stuff" or "in special situations" so to speak. So the "run out of bullets" thing isn't really a thing at all (or at leats not as most people think of it). I never changed the barrel of an M60 but i found it quite frustrating on the MG3. I mean, sure you definetly get what the mechanism does and how it works and all that but i always had trouble with it in stressfull situations, it gets stuck relatively easy.
@@polarstorm5986 I remember our goal was to get it down to 3-round bursts.
And it was absolutely capable of using disintegrating belts. When I had my final march in basic training, there was an instructor - who apparently had the task of scaring all the groups alone and forcing us into the undergrowth - who had put together an 8-meter belt just because he could.
Changing barrels wasn´t that hard, but it was annoying ´cause you only got two barrels and they couldn't cool down as quickly as you could heat them up again. Also you only got that one pesky cloth as hand protection per gun which almost was a guarantee for the 2nd gunner to get some scaldet fingertips if he didn´t wear his gloves even in summer.
@@fipsvonfipsenstein6704 Exactly the "cloth" was a bad joke indeed.
the mg3 can also take us belts
it can take german non desintigrating and US ones without any problem
my favorite buzzsaw powered by 7.92x57mm Mauser
The Germans had to limit the rate of fire to 1200/rpm. The MG42 initially had at rate of fire closer to 1500rpm.
I have even seen reports of 2000 /rpm possible . But the reason it wasn't produced/used was that the environment/conditions it was to be used in would have had to be perfect. No dirt/mud and no freezing or heat.
I thought there was something wrong with my ears. I could distinctly hear the individual bullets fired in the example in the beginning. Nothing like a buzzsaw at all.
@@foo219 all weapons sound different when you're at the receiving end
MG-45/ MG-42/V Basically upgraded MG-42 can fire 1350-2000 RPM
@@foo219gotta remember, these newer models are capped. So as to save ammo
Please let me edit the audio, Simon. I’m an audio engineer and I will do it for free. These vocals are way too harsh. The highs are way too present and your “S” and “T”s are overpowering. I am going to keep commenting and die on this hill until the audio is fixed because I care about the quality of your content and want it to be as good as possible.
@@SirNobleIZH majority of people agree with op. Your phone's accessibility settings have EQ profiles that fill your need for this without Simon having to murder the audio for everyone else
@@Rockiestmage i understand. Thanks
I've never noticed before surely it's just this upload
You're a what?
Bar? B A R
Very good video, but you missed one quite important bit. At least I don't remember hearing it.
There are 2 main reasons, why they kept producing the MG34:
A: It's quite a process to completely retool a factory to make something so different, so it would have been madness to fully switch during all out war time.
B: The barrel-swap mechanism on the two guns works quite differently. On the MG34 you twist the barrel shroud from the receiver and pull the barrel out straight, while you pivot the barrel out to the side on the MG42. In order to mount the MG42 in any german tank you would have to completely redesign that part of the gun, so they just stuck to the MG34 (which also was a bit more reliable, which is very important for a tank (a very expensive piece of kit with 4-6 trained men in it) beeing swarmed by infantry).
Yeah TY. I forget to mention that cool feature ; change barrels fast from the REAR of the gun , by shaking the hot barrel out to clang, and sizzel on the floor of any PanzerWagen in use, including the armored cars and halftracks.
@@robertsolomielke5134 well, better like that than no MG at all :3
@@EdmansTube2008 Perfection was achieved in barrel change ,other designs can only copy, but none match it.
* To clarify -the MG -34 had the rear barrel swap, the body of the gun would pivot to the side, allowing the barrel to drop free, thee MG-42 had the barrel pop out the side, of the barrel shroud within 5 seconds as well.
MG 42 was fine for ground use barrel swap, while the MG-34 was tailored perfect for AFV use.
Swedish AK-4 or German G-3 got the same mechanism, roller-delayed-blow-back.
Extremely violent extraction of the spent cartriges under high pressure, thus needing small channels or straight rifling in the cartidge housing of the barrel, to get some pressure-reliefe, by contolled gas-leakage, making the gun fouling itself. Good anyway.
The empty Cartriges still glow dull red shortly after extraction. Possibly saving the barrel from some excess heating by bringing some of the heat with them.
One of the main drawbacks of a G3-rifle / AK-4, aside from its weight, is that it throws empty half glowing cartriges into the face of your mate to the right, if not a Swedish case-collector is used.
Swedish AK-4 or G-3 also uses a special buffer located into the stock, to prolong the life of the weapon by dampening the mechanism flying back to the shoulder stock.
It also makes them way nicer to shoot with.
Thats false. The Rheinmetall bolt is a locking bolt, the HK bolt is not. Two different style of functions looking similar only.
Roller-locked and roller-delayed are not the same thing.
The G3 is a wonderful weapon for ranged battle though. That heavy 7.62*51 doesn't care much if you try to hide behind a car or a wall, might as well be a beach towel 😂
@@espenevo7.62 NATO doesn't fare particularly well against cinderblocks. In order to achieve lethal penetration, you'd need multiple rounds on the same target just like 5.56.
The MG42 was the platform used in Aliens for the support weapon carried by Vasquez and Drake. The armourer for the film literally bolted them to steady cam mounts and added some extra frame work to alter the look slightly.
Thank for stirring my memory, I recall noticing that when I saw the film in the theater on original release.
I have also served in a german infantry batallion. What they told us is the only part which has been changed in the MG3 to the former MG42 was the sealing, to lower the fire rate. I also heard from a friend which served in another unit at the time, that they had MG3 which seemlingly have been converted - He said " u could see that the swastika was scratched out".
What I also found out is that we could actually call it a failed constrution. The MG34 and MG42 were both designed to compensate the lower number of soldiers on a battlefield by a higher fire rate. But turned out that u actually need more soldiers to operate it. It was mentioned in the video here, that u actually needed 1 Gunner + up to 3 ammo carriers, while in comparion the british or US MG's needed 0 to 1 additional.
Every fifth round in a belt is a tracer...The MG42 fired so fast the tracers made up a solid line instead of being individualy seen bullets...Also the rate of fire of the MG42 was closer to 1500 rpm while the MG3 is 1000-1200 rpm depending on the bolt you put in...
RoF (~1000-1800) depend what variation you use.
Not the Bolt, but the spring was the important part for the higher rate of fire.
@@klauskainzinger9978 No, it's the bolt. The spring is always the same.
@@klauskainzinger9978 What spring are you referring to? I think you are referring to a thing often called "NATO Break".. this is not a break it helps the weapon function properly. I don't remember what exactly would need to be done, but a aggressive modification of this part could push the rpm over the 2000(?), but would come at the cost of reliability and safety basically hoping the weapon doesn't rip it self apart or get the jam of the century.
@@Snowball10025 Have you ever taken a MG3/MG42 appart? Obviously not, otherwise you would have noticed a very long and powerfull spring inside the loading aeria. It pushes the locking bolt and is the main part for the loading speed. I served in the German Air Force and have fired and dimassembled the MG3 numerous times.
This thing fired 1,200 to 1,500 rounds per minute of 8mm Mauser. That is 20-25 rounds per second of a full power cartridge. It's also very interesting to note that it is one of the only recoil operated roller locked (not roller delayed) firearms.
It was one of my favorite weapons back in the days of Call of Duty, World at War.
It's in Call of Duty Mobile now
I was an American infantryman stationed in Germany and I qualified for a Schützenschnur in silver using the German Army's modern version called the MG3. Having experience with my army's M60, which I could fire off a single round if I wanted to, there was no way to do it with the MG3. As soon as you squeeze the trigger, at least 3 rounds are downrange. In my opinion, the M60 was a superior weapon in the hands on an experienced soldier. It had a maximum effective range of 1100 meters and brother, if you aimed at it, you hit it.
Wasted a lot of ammo.
Greatest machine gun ever made! The only one that comes close is the M2.
Idk, I've fired the M2, that thing is a beast. It's for taking the enemies out that are behind the enemy you're aiming at. As well as vehicles, lightly armored vehicles, airplanes, etc.
@@renaissanceredneck3695MG42=best take cover, M2= screw your cover.
Ma-Deuce is more Lt artillery. A little bit of a hassle setting the head space, but when she fires everyone listens. Cheers from a former Ranger
M240 is a nice reliable weapon. Personal preference was the M60. The SAW is alright although it never really impressed me.
Pkm
those shorts😭 3:05
You got it wrong here 5:58 it never ended serviced and continued production until 1945
Yea I was like wtf 🤣
One of the reasons why the MG34 was still made after the MG42 was introduced was that it was used in various armored vehicles and flexible mounts in bombers - instead of redesigning the mounts for the MG42, they just kept producing the MG34.
I doubt my ears are super-human and😮 I can hear the individual rounds fired.
You have to go to an electric, or hydraulic, powered Gatling Gun like a Mini Gun or the GAU-8 in the A-10 "Warthog" to get to the point where you can't hear individual shots.
The MG-42 fired TOO FAST for a GP/ Medium Machine gun. It sounded terrifying but in functionality it needed slowed down for infantry use.
Virtually every one of its decendents had a slower rate of fire.
My Grandfather used the MG 42 when he was in the German infantry in World War II. He said it was truly an amazing creation - or words to that effect. It absolutely mowed everything down within an instant.
I had both the 34 and the 42 some years back. The 34 was a beautifully made weapon, the 42 was more utilitarian looking. I wouldn't have wanted to be on the receiving end of either one. Finally sold them due to my back issues when it came to transporting them. With ammunition prices now, only the very well heeled can afford to shoot them. I really wish I had kept the 34.
Im quite happy with my transferable 34!
Maybe I missed it in the video, but the MG42 rate of fire was not purely about volume of lead down range, but volume of lead at the time the fire is opened.
The Germans had studied WW1, the Spanish civil war and obviously their own experience in early WW2, and figured that once a machine gun starts shooting, the targets will go to ground. Hence the fire is most effective for less than a second, and to make the machine gun more effective required the volume of fire in that initial second to be increased.
Never been this early to a video before!
Same!
I'd put the Browning M2 above the MG42. We've made millions of them, and put them on absolutely everything, from jeeps to tanks to aircraft to warships, and we never ran out of ammunition for them. It had a lower ROF than the MG42, but it hit far harder, was capable of shredding infantry and destroying lightly-armored vehicles. We still use it, even though it's design is well over 100 years old. A testament to it's design, simplicity and effectiveness.
A friend of mine being in the Bundeswehr said that some mg3 were just renamed and you could see where they honed the swastika off the metal!
In the early days of the Bundeswehr overhauled WW2 -MG42 were used (MG42/59). The MG3, my unit used in the late 80ies were produced in the early 70ies.
Not sure, but the De-Nazification process was swift in post war Germany.
1:40 - Chapter 1 - Historical background
7:00 - Chapter 2 - Design
10:35 - Chapter 3 - How it was used
15:05 - Chapter 4 - Legacy
Party pooper here. Actions distinguish a gun. The M60 and the FN were gas operated, not roller delayed blowback actions. Moreover, The FN uses the old Browning BAR toggle action, but turned upside down.
There are say 1/2 dozen machine gun actions…roller delayed, short recoil, long recoil, gas, direct blowback…. and there is likely a similar number of trigger actions, and feed actions. The designer chooses which he thinks best and integrates.
The 34/42’s contribution was its straight line stock, stamped construction (already in use with sub machine guns), feed, mobility, and quick change barrel. An impressive list. Now days Roller delayed is on the outs because it depends on consistent ammo quality.
Firing 1200rpm isn’t that great an advantage. Doctrine is fire a burst of three rounds, pause, another burst…. But if I were holding off the Russian hordes, 1200rpm is comforting. Ammo is heavy and keeping the MG42 fed..need a 6x6 truck.
Browning 1911 and M2 have withstood time’s test, and worthy of their own vid.
You now that the MG3 is still in use with the bundeswehr and if you din't watch the video it's basicly a MG42
Ammo consistency isnt an issue today, gas systems just run the cheapest crap easy with gas settings tuned so gas systems stay popular
not correct, you are confusing the MG42/MG3 with the HK G3, the MG42 works as a rollerlocked gaspiston blowback. Mauser sued the HK developers for patent infringement and lost, precisely because the G3 is a roller delayed blowback system and does not have a gas piston like Mauser. but you have probably never completely dismantled an MG42/3, then you would know that the MG cannot fire at all without the "recoil booster" and "tube sleeve"....! We MG gunners have often been "extra drilled" by testing how quickly you can get the boosters out and back in again without burning your fingers or getting them jammed.
@@axelk4921 now you're just nitpicking
@@axelk4921 Thanks for your comment. You are correct I have never seen an MG 34/42.
I am, however, correct guns are distinguished by their actions. Thus the 34/42 is a roller locked action….. ALL automatics could be said to be ultimately gas operated.
Cheers.
I was an MG42 Gunner... Oh Boy, that MG42 kick some ass.
Did not jam if you just did some cleaning now and then.
Worst part was to carry all the bullets also, it spit them out fast, you really quick ran out of AMO.
A "25 round" magazine on the MG 13... That sounds less then stellar 😅
The BAR had a 20 round magazine.
@@BetterThanLifeProd So... sustained fire or covering fire was considered "overrated" by the US in WW2? 🤔
@@thepax2621 I think everyone had smaller magazines for the most part. Except for people with the large drums, and drums have reliability issues in WWII. Everyone wanted a thompson with it's drum but that's a $200 gun back then when others were $20 to produce.
@@thepax2621 The BAR was a "Squad Automatic Weapon" and was integrated into the fire team. A US Fireteam with the 3 M-1 Garands and a BAR gave the US more firepower than contemporaries. For supressive fire the US had the M1919 and M2. And they handed out the M2 like popcorn.
@@BetterThanLifeProd Then why use it as a "counter argument" to the MG13's magazine?
The MG13 was a "General Purpose Machine Gun".
Not several different machine guns, fullfilling different roles.
A 25 round magazine is therefore inadequate for its role.
So your objection, frankly, just doesn't make sense
Fun fact: In southern Germany, we have a quote : An object can sometimes be called "0815" which means something like okayish its reliable, but it could be (much) better! It's because of this ww1 machine gun. Its stucks in the collective Memory of each Country (Germany)! 😂
When the enemy gets an advantage in war, its not only your right, but responsibility to copy it.
Given how much better the German equipment was compared to the allies for much of the war, and the fairly universal opinion that their tactics and command and control was far superior for the first half, it goes to demonstrate just how valuable strength in numbers is as it was essentially the only advantage the allies had for roughly the first half of the war and the disparity only increased as the war progressed. Once the allies had "mastered" combat tactics and industrial machine improved both in volume and quality, the axis was doomed to failure.
Wehraboo alert
The germans were leading in horse drawn infantry throughout the war. You really think the MG42 is better than the M2, that would even scare 70 ton german tanks away.
I would have to agree,: Allied numbers took German armed forces out, and by firepower with more than double artillery on Soviet and Western fronts than they could muster. It really was over when they failed to take Britain.
9:45 thats not entirely true, it did suffer from bolt bounce and german higher ups were aware although since the germans used steel cartridge casings (which could withstand additional pressures) it was never really a huge issue.
The "buzzsaw"
According to the US War Department in 1945, for a 1944 styled Infantry Division, a rifle company included a heavy MG section with 2 HMGs. At the battalion level, the 1944 infantry battalion would have a heavy weapons company attached which included a HMG platoon equipped with 6 HMGs. Also an 81-mm mortar platoon and a 120-mm mortar platoon.
A Volks Grenadier infantry battalion would have a heavy weapons company that included 2 MG platoons, each with 4 HMGs. There was no heavy MG section in a VG company, they were instead equipped with sub-MGs.
In an army armored Panzer Grenadier battalion, the heavy weapons company did not sport any heavy MGs, rather just a howitzer platoon (self-propelled) and a mortar platoon. However, each PG company did include a heavy weapons platoon that did have 4 HMGs.
In an army infantry Panzer Grenadier battalion, again no HMGs in the heavy weapons company, but each PG company did have a MG platoon that sported 4 HMGs.
SS Panzer Grenadiers aren't broken down to the company or platoon level, but each battalion does appear to have 12 HMGs within it, presumably that's 3 battalions each with a MG platoon having 4 HMGs the same way the regular infantry unit was structured, but I'm just guessing at that point.
And so on, there are so many unit types in the German military, each one with slightly different organizational structures, and those TOEs changing constantly as the war progresses, so it is indeed nigh impossible to pin down with much reliability exactly what's going on. You need a specific moment in time, with a specific type of unit, before you can even start to make a determination, and even then, the best available data may not be as granular as you might hope for. And of course, regardless of what's in a TOE, what's actually available in practice will vary widely.
John Browning’s machine guns are still in use. Do a video on him!
There are many, look deeper.
@@Idahoguy10157 Amen! Let’s not forget that old John was a helluva pistol designer as well. How many of you have owned or fired a Colt 1911 or the many pistols that are everything from evolutions of this design to direct copies. How many of you have ever fired a Belgian Browning High Power in 9mm parabellum? John was THE MAN!
@@willardswelding7243 …everyone copied browning pistol designs. Why reinvent the wheel? Beretta and Walther excluded
@@Idahoguy10157 amen. And who would want a Walther? I know, 007 carried a PPK, but that doesn’t mean that it and the P38 were not junk. P38’s enjoyed some popularity with post war American thugs, for a bit. My uncle had one in his “thuggish” days.
@@willardswelding7243 … The P38 remained in military and police for decades. Mostly in Europe. The offspring on the P38 is the Beretta 92 series.
13:02 "Miscellaneous Gubbins" only the British.
FG 42 was World War II not World War. I I'm guessing it was a typo or a misspeak
The Roller delayed blowback action was designed to prevent Bolt bounce. Once fitted with roller delayed actions, they no longer experienced bolt bounce eliminating the problem. Early models were not fitted with roller delay actions until after addressing the bolt bounce issue.
Isn't it about to keep dangerous pressure in the barrel for longer period of time?
@@LaserTractor short answer yes, but also keeps the bolt from bouncing out of battery during detonation.
Thumbnail: “Everyone copied Hitler’s machine gun.”
Me: “ *Hitler made a machine gun?…* ”
@@Bobafett-lc2vx I get your drift and I agree. All Hitler did was give people who lost a war and were suffering an economic collapse bread, circuses, and scapegoats. The ME-262 is just an example of what happened when Hitler meddled with designers. Hitler only designed a genocide and a disaster.
always nice to see the cost of machine and stamping being included and the necessary skill that is tied into machining.
The Germans were the best, they were just overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
I've heard that before, from a WW 2 British armored man, Sir Wilfred of the RTR..
If they were decent strategists, the Germans wouldn't have gotten themselves into a situation where they would be overwhelmed by numbers. Strategy over tactics, always.
Very nice! I was looking for this video a few weeks ago and now you finally made it :D
First
Some MG 42 were even set to put out 2000 rounds/min, and were used in anti aircraft setups. Of course that did stress the barrels even more.
The Bren and american mgs are gas operated and therefore significantly different to the german ones., even if some details are similar.
In general it can be said, that other machine guns were not slower because they were unable to fire faster, it was a deliberate decision to keep them in the 600 - 800 rpm rate, because of heat problems, but also because of the amount of ammo needed (and has to be carried). Thats the problem with mini guns also, with a 3000 rpm fire rate - it needs to much ammo to be carried with it. Not everybody is build like Arnold Schwarzenegger... :)
The MG42 the begot the M60
Wrong. The FG42 is the M60s father
@@kirkstinson7316 Sorry to be the one to tell you....that is exactly what I said.
Reading comprehension is a good thing.
Lmao "the begot" talk about reading comprehension and then drop that little nugget 😂 proof read my friend And you said MG not FG
@@kirkstinson7316Don't think so. The FG 42 was an automatic rifle not a machine gun. The MG42 was the inspiration for the M60. I know I humped an M60 for 8 months. Belt fed, air cooled, bipod with optional tripod and quick change barrels. From a former Ranger.
What I said was complexly correct. Deal with it snowflake.
He walked into the basement with the horror movie from the night before playing in his head.
In 1993 I was instructing new NCOs in explosive demolition, mine-explosive devices and practical exercises in demolition and blasting when the armorers came to the training ground (an old abandoned quarry) with a bunch of M53s and a big box of recoil springs. They tested each one and, by replacing the springs, set the rate of fire to 800-900 rounds per minute. Apparently, there was no need for a higher speed, and the number of available spare/replacement barrels for the machine gun was limited, so they lasted longer with a lower rate of fire.
My neighbor told me yesterday he used the old MG42 with an other spring so that it shot less ammo, in the 70's Bundeswehr. The thing looked really old, he said.
The MG 34 was actually a vastly superior machine gun in every regard, it has been found that, whilst that 1200 rpm may be threatening for a soldier to receive, the actual effect in practice is not much more than that of a gun firing around 850 rpm, so you were effectively spending more ammunition and getting shorter firing time for a more ominous sound.
only real advantage the mg42 had was that it's better for mass production.
I caught my squirrel rustling through my gym bag.
you are doing a wonderful service Jake, thank you
The high rate of fire had its drawbacks: soldiers had to carry a lot of ammo with them, and the dispersion was considerably wider than that of slower guns.
German soldier here: There is a popular belief that our MG3's are partially converted MG42's - that is technically incorrect even tho there is some truth to it. In reality, the machinery used to stamp the sheet metal into the chassis' for the early production runs of MG1's was still basically unchanged, and things like model markings were often still those from the MG42 - so that afterwards they overstamped and/or crossed out those false model markings with MG1, MG2 and MG3 respectively. - this was much cheaper and faster than changing the sheet metal stamps for a fledgling Army that was supposed to oppose the Warsaw pact ASAP... This created the myth among Bundeswehr soldiers, that the guns were actually just converted MG42's - when in reality Germany had been thoroughly disarmed after the war and the MG42's were like 99% in allied hands. Now some of these first production chassis' are still in circulation to this day. - What is true however is that the early Bundesgrenzschutz (Armed Border Patrol, originally made up of former Wehrmacht soldiers) in 1951 was hastily equipped with such seized MG42's and K98's by the Allies, likely contributing to the myth, as many former border patrolmen went to join the new Bundeswehr a few years later.
Do you really believe they collected every MG42, but let the machines to produce the MG42 behind and intact for over 10 years? Or even used the dies with the eagle for another 15 years?
Even if they would have used the original tools, its a lot cheaper to remove the eagle from the die, than to X-out the eagle on millions of guns for decades by hand.
The MG3 with the eagle are just upgraded MG2.
Rheinmetal had to reverse engineer the MG42 and start at zero to produce the MG1
And yet I firmly believe that the impact, as a concept, of FG-42 is historically highly underrated, compared to MGs and STGs (btw I served in the italian army, back in the 80s, and we were still using MG42s, just in case...)
there's modern footage of a fully untouched MG42 firing rapidly, it's horrifying.
The reach of these weapons extends far through space and time. If I'm not mistaken, an MG34 was Chewbaccas long gun of choice
I knew a guy that found a fully stocked sealed bunker near Bitburg. According to him there was a full compliment of weapons complete with tens of thousands of rounds. He used to pull the lead, melt and recast bullets, reload them into modern brass and use them on his local range.
12:00: The tank that is in the background is a "Ferdinand" resp. a rebuild as "Elefant" (because of the MG in the front). As Ferdinand they fought on the eastern front, these rebuilds were mainly in Italy. I do not know there were any in Normandy on D-Day.
So the image is probably from Italy 1944.
I say that because of the Ferdinand just 90 were built, after the Battle of Kursk in autumn 1944 just 50 remained.
So this is a rather rare picture - rares than images of the 350,000 MG-42
Note: the 1200 RPM is the lower end cadence. Modern MG-3s, which are modified MG-42s, have that. However the 42 could fire up to 1500 RPM.
“A mean bit of kit.”! Love this guy. I was born and raised in the states. My dad was Romani and my stepmom immigrated from Austria. Their were 5 languages spoken in my home as a child and I am telling you the average yank will not know what the hell he is saying! Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves!
M56 Smart Gun used by Colonial Marines in Aliens was also a great tribute to this machine gun.
"Let's Rock !!!..."
I love you Vasquez.....BOOM
In the Norwegian home guard we replaced the MG3 THIS YEAR. We now switched over to the FN minimi 7,62.
Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events, not of words. Trust movement.