Why was the MG42 fire rate considered good?

I get in aircraft applications, weight of fire matters, but in an infantry application why is having a super high fire rate considered a good thing? Wouldn't you actually prefer a slower firing gun so you don't burn through ammo as fast?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It wasn't considered good to have such a high rate of fire, for exactly the reason that you specified in the OP. That said, the Germans are not known for making the clearest decisions regarding equipment during the period

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      a machine gunner who is trained from hitlers youth on on his mg has a different
      value as a gunner than a grunt with 3 weeks actual fire training

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    kill em before they can find cover

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Physical lag is real. it's what neverserveds who think snipers are a do-it-all unit instead of scouts with a side skill forget. It takes about a full second for a 7.62 bullet to fly out to 700 meters. That's a lotta time for the target to finish tripping into cover before he realizes you're shooting.

    If ammo was weightless you'd want as high a ROF as you could get, but since weight is the main constraint on infantry you have to settle, and 600rpm is the world-recognized good-enough ROF for machineguns - so good-enough, it's what everyone uses despite being the worst frequency of oscillations for ergonomics - 450-500 RPM is slow enough for the user to adjust each shot while 1200+ blurs them all together.

    Think about it like this: a 100 round belt is 6-7 pounds. It costs about 200 rounds per minute to suppress a enemy. A flanking attack could cost 5 minutes of time and need multiple positions suppressed. How many minutes can you afford for your infantry platoon to ruck into battle without making them completely exhausted before they get there?

    Most platoons are teteering on the edge of only being able to do one conventional attack before needing resupply.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hi Lloyd. And the bren was so accurate it was too accurate, right?

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    in infantry use it wasn't particularly well like over the 34
    ammo consumption was too rough and shooting without a lafette is kinda meh ngl

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It wasn't considered good by experts. It was considered scary by the guys getting shot at. The two are not the same thing and you should feel stupid for conflating the two.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The idea was that the MG only got a few seconds to kill the enemy before everyone ducked for cover. So high fire rate would maximize enemy casualties in those seconds.

    And for suppressive fire you can just tap the trigger.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this proved not worth the effort in practice and the only time 1000+ RPM is ever used is on aircraft to buzz targets on the ground, where the engagement time is literally fractions of a second
      but even then, its far from standard
      the minigun is only really used in gunships that are specially tasked with hitting ground targets or for high-value,low-weight missions like medevac
      standard door gun for helos are still a plain old M240 which tops out at 800 on its highest setting

      the most common MGs in the world, the FN MAG and the the PKM both fire less 800 RPM
      the M240B, the MAG thats used in infantry platoons, doesnt even have a setting for higher than 700 RPM
      the only GPMG with a rate of fire as high as the MG42 is the MG3, because its a re-chambered MG42, but even then most crews swap out its bolt for one that fires at a tamer 900 RPM

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        High ROF on door guns makes sense, the sight is pointless with how much lead compensation you need so having a beam of trackers you can point at things makes you a lot more accurate.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You also don't have to ruck the ammo yourself, so there's much less need to be ammo efficient.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't the army put out a training video roughly saying that the MG42 pissed through ammo so fast that German MG squads had to dedicate an MG crews worth of men to just carrying ammo?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes, it's on Youtube
      I think it's a British video, saying the MG34/42 requires essentially 25% more ammo bearers than the British Vickers, so it's really a good thing for the Allies, because they can field 5/4ths the machine-guns that the Germans can
      wartime propaganda nonsense

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you mean Lloyd talking out of his noguns arse? the MG42 was fired in short bursts.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          who is Lloyd?
          are you replying to the wrong post?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you failing to follow a conversation does not mean the other anon is replying to the wrong person

            lurk more, homosexual

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              kindly frick in the direction of Off
              thanks

              I though the "British video" was referring to a British youtuber with the name of Lloyd who likes to talk about stuff he knows little of, including machine guns.

              no, it was an official British propaganda piece from WW2, one of those British Pathé archive things
              should be easily found

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                surprising, anon gets salty for not knowing what what's being talked about

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >army training video
                >wAs It tHiS yOuTuBeR?!?!
                >no
                >REEEE UR MAD NOT ME
                I don't know Lloyd from Adam, but he sounds like he lives rent free in your brain.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                kid why are you this mad
                you didn't know who anon was talking about, fine, you tried placing the blame on the anon for your own lack of knowledge, now you're freaking out
                I don't get it

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you didn't know who anon was talking about
                maybe you should try to follow the conversation

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                frick if you're still this moronicly upset I dont know how to help you, I'm sorry

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not upset, just baffled

                anon asked about an army training video about the MG42
                I know which video that is, I've seen it
                I don't know who's Lloyd
                story, end of

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I though the "British video" was referring to a British youtuber with the name of Lloyd who likes to talk about stuff he knows little of, including machine guns.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but it's basically propaganda. Most of the time I see it here posters are laughing at it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it’s bark it worse then it’s bite
      >just time your movements when the machine gun is reloading
      >jerry ain’t so scary now is he

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yes, it's on Youtube
        I think it's a British video, saying the MG34/42 requires essentially 25% more ammo bearers than the British Vickers, so it's really a good thing for the Allies, because they can field 5/4ths the machine-guns that the Germans can
        wartime propaganda nonsense

        got a link? i only know that merikan video that was already linked.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          found it
          I misremembered, it's an American film not a British one

          7:20 roughly is where the bullshittery about ROF begins

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes but it's equally dumb horseshit to say when the alternative were 50kg water cooled ww1 machineguns.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its also propaganda. targets are moving in reality.
      in computergames you guaranteed dead when you come into mg42 fire. You have no chance to jump into cover.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        High ROF being useful outside of fast moving platforms is itself impractical
        Hence the only MG that has since been close to the MG42 is the MG3

        Most armies have no issues with 800rpm for hitting targets
        And actually prefer 600rpm to 800rpm in practice
        The 800rpm setting on the M240 is only used when the gun starts lagging behind and theres no time to clean it, so it wont actually fire at that rate
        The M240B is set to 600rpm and cant be adjusted at all

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, it was pure fricking propaganda.
      >MG42
      >you see those Germans carrying ammo aren't shooting at you
      >but the fricking ammo they brought is
      Yeah, WW2 warfighting wasn't the best.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't the answer to that question that Germany actually lowered the RPM in MG3?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They made it as light as possible including a very light bolt, the ROF is a side effect that was considered a good psychological effect.
    Seeing I haven't seen the US military release any videos about other MGs saying "it's shit guys, trust us" I think it worked.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    its a class of gun made to suppress infantry and its also the only machinegun from that war to still have name recognition for how scary it was to fight against so it worked. if fritz has to carry extra 20lb ammo so be it, he's fighting without body armor in his day so that's no big deal.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It’s a meme though

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      LOL it didn't work.
      It wasn't terrible but the mg34 was better.with it's slower rate of fire.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wasn't the high ROF requested due to the urban fighting on the eastern front and the need to fix the issue where a guy could theoretically pass between the bullets when a machine gunner would open fire on a guy crossing the street?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No it was for airplane use.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    After being on both ends of MG42/MG3 id say the ROF is good from a suppressive standpoint. One quick squirt with that thing and nobody is getting back up to try for another.

    In terms of ammo consumption thats a factor of your gun team, their mobility and the gunner's personality.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >doesn't understand morale
    Anon a truly great weapon doesn't need to injure or kill you to affect your will to fight, people who hate the A10 don't understand the effect that the BRRRRT had on friendlies and enemies.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Wouldn't you actually prefer a slower firing gun so you don't burn through ammo as fast?
    No where in the history of WW2 was there any indication of the Germans running low on ammo. They were running low on men & equipment/armor. Clearly, the Germans considered the rate of fire to be ideal versus what they had in WW1 & took the precaution in ensuring ammo shortages was not going to be an issue. It's a similar strategy to why the West uses 5.56 for logistical purposes - you can ship more ammo round-per-round in terms of weight versus something like 7.62. The Germans thought having a high rate of fire MG was worth the higher rate of ammo use. They weren't wrong either.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      actually, yes, they were short on ammo, even at the start. (they were short on lots of things.)

      but it's generally irrelevant at the tactical level; try telling the guys running into the MG42 nests that "they're actually short on ammo and kit so you're facing one MG at full chat instead of three"

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the rate of fire was fine with their doctrine
    noguns misunderstand "high rate of fire" as "you can just sweep a field or beach and rack up tons of kills"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fricking this, with a high RoF a single squeeze gets 2-5 rounds on target in a tight pattern, giving better chances to hit a fleeting infantryman. It's not a WW1 vickers gun firing an endless beaten zone somewhere out on no man's land

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The rate of fire was considered a drawback for ground operations. That's why the MG3 reduced it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the slightly reduced rate of fire of the MG3 vs. MG42 is a result of efforts to reduce bolt bounce, not a deliberate reduction of ROF.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        there is a heavier bolt specifically meant to limit fire-rate down to about 900rpm and its the de-facto standard because the 1200rpm of the original was recognized as excessive for little benefit

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it's to reduce bolt bounce.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Both the 1200rpm and 900rpm belts are modernized to avoid that
            But they use the heavier one out of preference because the high rof is not needed

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >the belt controls the rate of fire
              easy there, Lloyd

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Actually the Balt controls the rate of fire, not the Brit.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The same reason they put fricking sirens on bombers. Its was scary.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *