|
Did the Germans ever use a heavy machine gun on the ground in WW2?
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
You’re going to have to define both heavy machine gun and on the ground
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
JcDent posted:There is no Bren in CoD MW. Lots of points: 1. Yes, improved reliability across the board, especially when you aren't worried as much about mass manufacturing stuff in wartime conditions 2. To go with 1, box magazines where the bullets are stacked up in multiple rows became more reliable, this means more compact high capacity magazines became more viable. 3. Disintegrating belts got invented, this means belts got lighter, and you can choose how much ammo to carry (including a lighter load if you want). And you don't have to deal with the expended ammo belt. 4. A lot of the LMG role gets taken over by assault rifles, so you want the guns to do something more different to justify their existence 5. Trench warfare became less doctrinally important, as did the concept of walking fire Despite all this the Bren was used until the late 1980s. quote:Why did the Soviets go with a disc mag instead of top down like Bren (and its ancestors)? Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It's a trade off of capacity vs size and reliability. Both the British and the Soviets had pan and top box magazines available. A significant point is that the soviets had the machine guns in their own group at the company level, whereas the british had multiple brens per platoon. DPs were primarily a squad-level machine gun just like the Bren. The Soviet company-level machine gun was the Maxim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:DPs were primarily a squad-level machine gun just like the Bren. The Soviet company-level machine gun was the Maxim. Hmm, okay. It still seems like the British leant more on the Bren than the Soviets did on the DP. For instance comparing https://www.battleorder.org/ussr-rifle-co-1944 to https://www.battleorder.org/uk-rifle-co-1944 shows a British section had 500 rounds per Bren while the Soviets had only 188 per DP-27.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
From the look of it, the Soviets made up the firepower gap somewhat with submachine guns. Subguns obviously aren't mg's, but iirc they were used in similar roles earlier in the war, due to lack of said mg's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Also, the Americans did develop one. The M1919A6 was a lightened version of the M1919A4 medium machine gun that added a shoulder stock and a bipod in place of the typical tripod. Interesting! How widely were they deployed? Did they finally get to some sort of 1/squad ratio? Fangz posted:shows a British section had 500 rounds per Bren while the Soviets had only 188 per DP-27. They had 6 DP's per platoon, at least going by this:  I hope the site is good because I'm bookmarking it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
I always wonder how accurate those notional TOEs are - guys are going to scavenge all kinds of poo poo that they prefer using, and it's not like they're going to give back a couple of DTs that happen to fall off the Studebaker somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Interesting! How widely were they deployed? Did they finally get to some sort of 1/squad ratio? Maaaybe in Airborne units? Otherwise no. (Though mechanized units had their M1917A1s and the USMC had three BARs per squad.) JcDent posted:They had 6 DP's per platoon, at least going by this: On paper, they had 6 DPs per platoon. Sometimes, a well-equipped battalion would have the alloted 6 DPs per platoon. However, while this organizational structure existed on paper it was uncommon and it was far more likely the platoon would have only 4 DPs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
Like I said, it's the difference in ammo loads that I think really underlines the importance to the British of the Bren.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Why did the Soviets go with a disc mag instead of top down like Bren (and its ancestors)? Bren is a typical capitalist invention, with the lowest in the hierarchy being shot first. Degtyarev represents ideal communism in how everyone starts on the same level and it is up to them how far they will go. In Kalashnikov the highest ranks are shot first and thus it stands for revolutionary socialism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Bren is a typical capitalist invention, with the lowest in the hierarchy being shot first. Degtyarev represents ideal communism in how everyone starts on the same level and it is up to them how far they will go. In Kalashnikov the highest ranks are shot first and thus it stands for revolutionary socialism. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I hope the site is good because I'm bookmarking it! The other thing I'd say about top-loading light machine guns is that if you load from the bottom then you can't generally use more than a 20 round magazine before you're unable to lie down with the gun on a bipod. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I always wonder how accurate those notional TOEs are - guys are going to scavenge all kinds of poo poo that they prefer using, and it's not like they're going to give back a couple of DTs that happen to fall off the Studebaker somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
this reminds me of the Lebanese civil war's various militia squads migrating to roughly: a LMG/MMG and a loader/ammo carrier with a rifle five to seven guys with RPGs a couple of other guys with rifles (incl squad leader) and rounds for the MG and RPGs the correct ratio was something like 3:1 guys with RPGs vs guys with rifles
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Did the Germans ever use a heavy machine gun on the ground in WW2? The MG 42 and MG 34 were general purpose machine guns meant to serve in all of these roles. The American definition of "heavy machine gun" today usually means something .50 caliber or above, but back then it more commonly meant a large emplaced machine gun that could put a lot of fire down. The Maxim and its descendants like the Vickers were classified as heavy machine guns despite being mostly .30 caliber because they were physically large and heavy. The MG 42 and MG 34 mounted on a tripod served in this role. If you mean high caliber guns, the Germans didn't make much use of .50 cals at all and usually went right from .30 caliber machine guns to 20mm autocannons. The MG 131 was 13mm, but that was an aircraft gun. Some 20mm anti-air guns could be tilted down to fire at ground troops, but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:From the look of it, the Soviets made up the firepower gap somewhat with submachine guns. Subguns obviously aren't mg's, but iirc they were used in similar roles earlier in the war, due to lack of said mg's. This was a thing picked from Finns in the Winter War, by the way. In November 1939 Red Army was still trusting a mix of rifles, automatic rifles and light machineguns at the rifle platoon level. The automatic rifles remained in TO&E for a while but were outphased when Germany invaded. Finnish infantry was, due to shortages, limited to two squads supported by a LMG and two squads supported by a SMG per rifle platoon. This was quickly supplemented by captured DP-27's so that come 1941, a Finnish rifle platoon had homogenous squads which all had a LMG and a SMG. So in the end, the war brought both militaries closer in the materiel used at the lowest level. Give war a chance! KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I always wonder how accurate those notional TOEs are - guys are going to scavenge all kinds of poo poo that they prefer using, and it's not like they're going to give back a couple of DTs that happen to fall off the Studebaker somewhere. So and so. They evolved over the war and most of the time the best you got was like 80% of nominal strength. But at the same time, the army instills divine fear into you to take care of the government property they have given to you. When the day comes when they check the condition of your Mosin-Nagant, showing a MP-40 won't do. By the time you have to slog through a marsh on foot and there are no trucks or horsecarts to leave extra hardware by, you are going to make some choices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Why did the Soviets go with a disc mag instead of top down like Bren (and its ancestors)? Ancestors like the Lewis gun? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Did the Germans ever use a heavy machine gun on the ground in WW2?  If anyone has definitive sources one way or the other on the MG131s in ground service please do share them. FrangibleCover fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:It's pretty good, apparently the distribution of disposable launchers in a Russian airborne unit is off but I've heard no other complaints. There was a complaint in 1944 from an officer on inspection that motor squads were carrying 4 brens because having a vehicle integral to the squad allowed them to carry plenty of ammo for the things. His complaint was very peacetime, that this was eroding marksmanship in the infantry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:There was a complaint in 1944 from an officer on inspection that motor squads were carrying 4 brens because having a vehicle integral to the squad allowed them to carry plenty of ammo for the things. His complaint was very peacetime, that this was eroding marksmanship in the infantry. I'm legitimately surprised no officers fought to have the Bren issued with a Breda Modello 30 attached magazine to decrease the chance of soldiers losing them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
JcDent posted:
Cool, what site is this? KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:the correct ratio was something like 3:1 guys with RPGs vs guys with rifles I feel like this is a rare time where reality and video games agree
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:this reminds me of the Lebanese civil war's various militia squads migrating to roughly: I'm surprised the ratio of RPGs to machine guns to normal rifles worked out that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I always wonder how accurate those notional TOEs are - guys are going to scavenge all kinds of poo poo that they prefer using, and it's not like they're going to give back a couple of DTs that happen to fall off the Studebaker somewhere. As said those TOEs are very much paper things, almost especially so with the Soviets whose command and organizational structure went through an ungodly amount of stress and often had to be downsized to make up for losses and lack of trained officers due to attrition (not to mention the issue with communications personnel and equipment). One thing I have read on a number of occasionas is that Guards units frequently had significantly more DPs per platoon (maybe double the amount) than normal infantry units, this seems to have been an allotment thing in origin and not just scrounging, kind of the same as Guards receiving double pay at all ranks (or at least all enlisted ranks, I think officers may have still received the normal pay) they were also alloted more and better equipment if possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:this reminds me of the Lebanese civil war's various militia squads migrating to roughly: So how did these engagements usually pan out? Just RPGs flying back and forth like roman candles during the 4th?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Why did the Soviets go with a disc mag instead of top down like Bren (and its ancestors)? The DP fires rimmed cartridges, it's harder to make magazine fed weapons that work reliably with them because the cartridge rims like to catch on each other and jam the magazine up, IIRC the Bren had issues with this and you had to be careful loading the magazines. The DP's pan magazines are extremely simple and basically have the rounds each loaded between gear teeth, as the magazine advances (using a large leaf spring in the center that is wound up) they just drop straight down into the feed area and are chambered by the gun. Probably not the sole reason they went with pan mags over a belt feed but it's Good Enough to get you a reliable LMG in the mid 1920s. C.M. Kruger fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Sep 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:this reminds me of the Lebanese civil war's various militia squads migrating to roughly: Why, though?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Gort posted:Why, though? Remember that whole discussion we had about light mortars? Well, imagine a weapon system with almost as much range, and good accuracy in direct fire instead with a lot more boom. If you're going to engage at near-standoff distances anyway, the RPG is by far the best weapon in the squad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
Gort posted:Why, though? i think a couple of factors: 1 - in urban combat you're going to set up a lot of MG positions with relatively deep fields of fire, but in more close in combat it's just as easy or better to blow up a wall or a fighting position using the liberal application of high explosives. RPGs are a militia's mortars or artillery or even air support in urban fighting in addition to the standard knock holes in things uses. 2- a lot of the fighting in beirut and environs kind of turned in to semi static urban fighting with fairly fragmented but somewhat defined front lines, so there was less emphasis on kicking in doors and clearing houses and more emphasis on blowing up the enemy's positions on the other side of the boulevard. RPGs are a lot better at this than rifles. 3 - a lot of ad-hoc "doctrine" evolved to indirect fire for RPGs (again kind of supplanting mortars) which was not an original intended use 4 - they were widely available 5 - i speculate it's probably easier to teach a guy to shoot a RPG-7 than a rifle if you're doing the learning by doing. it's not a highly accurate weapon so your average Abu Hajaar equivalent can be taught to pick it up, point it in the right direction, account for the backblast, and use the fairly simple sight. plus you can see what you did. if you give a guy a rifle and he doesn't know poo poo, he probably will never turn in to a good shot without a substantial amount of marksmanship training. i could be really wrong on this, though. Saint Celestine posted:So how did these engagements usually pan out? Just RPGs flying back and forth like roman candles during the 4th? pretty much, plus a good sprinkling of machine gun fire. also a fair amount of mortar work. the riflemen were mostly there to cover the RPG guys and the machine gun team, and to kick down doors and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 20:43
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:i think a couple of factors: rpgs aren't very effective at blowing up a prepared position or punching a large hole in a wall.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
they sure beat the gently caress out of a 5.45mm bullet though and it's not like your average Lebanese militia has too much better poo poo lying around circa 1980.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 21:21
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:they sure beat the gently caress out of a 5.45mm bullet though and it's not like your average Lebanese militia has too much better poo poo lying around circa 1980. yeah, my point is(and in the absence of other facts), they probably used them to suppress the poo poo out the guy on the receiving end. exploding rockets are pretty effective at making people keep their heads down. the taliban kept the brits pinned down in their patrol bases ca 2008 with rpg and small arms fire. likewise, the taliban opened the battle of wanat and kamdesh with rpgs and idf. wikipedia links to a book about the ira(IRA The Bombs and Bullets: A history of deadly ingenuity) that i'm not going to buy that cites their use against british army observation posts. So, idk. I could be wrong. But, relatively small anti-tank rockets dont tend to carry a lot of he or frag.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
vains posted:likewise, the taliban opened the battle of wanat and kamdesh with rpgs and idf. The tentacles of the Zionists may reach far, but to imagine that they are assisting the Taliban..!?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:They're fine for peacetime organisation and disintegrate immediately upon contact with the enemy as soldiers beg, borrow and steal whatever they think they need, which is usually more machine guns and more explosives. Two Brens per squad was usual for units that had been in contact for any length of time. In Afghanistan around 2008 kind of time the official British Army organisation on the books was eight guys, two grenade launchers and two squad automatic weapons. The usual patrol loadout on the ground was eight guys, two grenade launchers, two squad automatic weapons, two general purpose machine guns and two sharpshooter rifles. I assume the grenade launchers are the under barrel variety? What's the difference between a SAW and a general purpose MG? I just assumed that the former was the latter for all tactical intents and purposes
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
I remember reading that a GPMG fires full-size rifle cartridges while a SAW fires an intermediate cartridge. Of course, there are a million different definitions out there for what the hell things are, and the real reason is probably that SAW is just the  late 90s backronym way to say LMG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Of course, there are a million different definitions out there for what the hell things are, and the real reason is probably that SAW is just the Do you mean the 'Light Machine Gun, 5.56 mm, M249' ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:I assume the grenade launchers are the under barrel variety? What's the difference between a SAW and a general purpose MG? I just assumed that the former was the latter for all tactical intents and purposes The differences between the SAW and GPMG are contained within the names, the SAW is intended entirely for squads but the GPMG is general-purpose and can be mounted to a tripod as a sustained-fire weapon as part of platoon or company weapons team. Generally speaking a SAW will fire the same bullets as the squad's assault rifles, in this case 5.56mm NATO, and the GPMG will fire full-size rifle bullets, in this case 7.62mm NATO. Geisla is also right that these are nebulous definitions and you will always be able to find someone who will tell you you are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
vains posted:yeah, my point is(and in the absence of other facts), they probably used them to suppress the poo poo out the guy on the receiving end. exploding rockets are pretty effective at making people keep their heads down. There are fragmentation rockets for the RPG-7 today, and HEAT rounds aren't all that bad. People have been using HEAT rockets/grenades in an anti personnel role since forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
My (extremely suspect) understanding is that the SAW was intended to be easily fired from the shoulder like a rifle, as opposed to LMGs that were intended to be fired prone or propped on something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
WW2 Data We're on to part 3 of the German containers. Today's selection has a container that was used in three different configurations. One of which was modified for use with dive bombers. The containers sometimes carried flares, along with SD 2 bombs, but how did they operate? All that and more at the blog!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Randarkman posted:One thing I have read on a number of occasionas is that Guards units frequently had significantly more DPs per platoon (maybe double the amount) than normal infantry units, this seems to have been an allotment thing in origin and not just scrounging, kind of the same as Guards receiving double pay at all ranks (or at least all enlisted ranks, I think officers may have still received the normal pay) they were also alloted more and better equipment if possible. Guards units weren't given higher allotments of DPs on paper, and it seems that whether a unit got the full six DPs they had on paper had less to do with whether it was 'Guard' and more to do with random chance, circumstance, and how many losses it took. Quite a lot of Guards units were running around with meagre allotments of DPs, and I think non-Guard units would sometimes have the full six on-paper allotment of DPs. (I suspect that it might even, counter-intuitively, have been the Guards that frequently had the fewest DPs, since if the Guards did get more equipment, it would probably have been heavy support weapons, and the RKKA liked to pull riflemen from the rifle platoons to man those. This was done by switching to a 'reduced' TO&E, which called for only one DP per squad, and only three squads per platoon instead of four. In other words, a well-equipped Guards brigade would have had three DPs per platoon, while a less well-equipped brigade would have larger platoons with 4-6 DPs.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 00:04
|
|