What's so great about the MG42 "Hitler's buzzsaw"?
It was a superb killing machine it offered reliability, durability, simplicity and ease of operation, and is most notable for its ability to produce a stunning volume of suppressive fire. It had one of the highest average rates of fire of any single-barreled man-portable machine gun: between 1,200 and 1,500 rpm. There were other automatic weapon designs with similar firepower, such as the French Darne, the Hungarian-Gebauer single-barreled tank MGs, the Russian 7.62mm ShKAS aircraft gun and the British Vickers K machine gun. However, the MG 42's belt-feed and quick-change barrel system allowed for more prolonged firing in comparison to these weapons and its reliability meant that it rarely jammed and could be used by inexperienced machine gunners.
Did rapid fire machine guns like the MG 34 and MG 42 have a place during WW2.?
Better question. Why is it that NO army today adheres to the idea of using rifle-caliber infantry machine guns with such ridiculously high rates of fire such as those of the MG42 - including those that use modern MG42 clones? The German MG1, MG2 and MG3 fire at about 1,000 rpm instead of the 1,200 rpm of the MG42. The Italian MG42/59 fires at 900rpm as does the Yugoslav M53. The most widely used GPMG's today are the FN MAG and the PK. The MAG has an adjustable firing rate between 650-1,000 rpm but you rarely see them cranked up. The PK has a nominal ROF of around 700 rpm. Some of those are still high rates mind you, but not as high. The tactical thinking behind a ROF of 1,200 rpm was that the gunner would have only fractions of a second to engage advancing enemy troops before they went to ground. Thus it would be advantageous to get as much lead downrange in that time as possible. Whether this actually resulted in more enemy casualties is to my mind doubtful - unless the gunner was lucky enough to shoot straight down an enemy column! Another factor in this could also be the lack of automatic weapons among the German infantry. Remember, the rest of the infantry had bolt-action Mauser's. The high ROF did have practical limitations too. The MG42 manual indicated the maximum single burst that could be fired safely was 250 rounds (1 ammunition box) at which point the barrel would have to be changed. Practical sustained rate of fire was 300-350 rpm which is certainly no better than some allied machine guns. Ammunition expenditure could of course be prodigious - not overwhelming for a crew-served weapon in the MG Company but a serious problem for a squad-level support weapon. Just from watching old film footage I can't imagine the MG42 was terribly accurate fired from the bipod. Quite unlike the Bren which some soldiers criticized as too accurate.
Why isn't the mg 42/mg 3 in service with the u.s. military?
the mg 42 (or mg3 correct me if i'm wrong about any of this) puts down amazing firepower with good accuracy it is just as reliable as the m60s and m240 style weapons only its lighter, faster, easy to produce , and puts down the similar round as them as well. i understand the m249 saw has an 5.56 round like our m4 and m16 so they can share ammo but for a multipurpose machine gun, the mg 42 is the best 7.62 style machine gun in the world i don't quite understand why its not in service with our military? can somebody please explain why?
Did the MG34 have any advantages over the MG42?
MG34 was designed & largely manufactured in a pre-war age, where quality and tolerances could be as high as traditionally possible. This was it's weak point when the problems of actual wartime manufacturing and use reared their heads, both excellent guns with broadly similar performance but the finely finished 34 was no match for the 42 in resisting dirt, ease of production, and sheer simplicity of operation. Fitting in vehicles makes enormous sense when you have a large stockpile of fine and perfectly 'modern' guns being superseded in the infantry by a new type. Less dirt inside a vehicle to hinder things & fine machined being in ,keeping with the design/manufacturing ethos of German armor. If I recall the barrel on the 34 also have to be changed by withdrawing to the rear. Awkward in the field but handy in a vehicle and on top of the vehicle, and the 42's method might prove cumbersome while working in a confined space.The MG34 is slightly lighter and work well in confined space. The Mg34 had a slower rate of fire but in a way this is a good thing. The Mg42 you have to reload every eight seconds due to it’s high rate of fire. Mg34 you have to reload every 12–15 seconds. This help save bullets. Plus there was a lot of different versions of the Mg34. Some parts on the mg42 was base on the Mg34. So yeah there some advantages over the 42.
Is MG-42 the best machine gun of WWII?
It was used at all three levels, and more. With a drum magazine and bipod it could be used in the light support weapon role (although soldiers just quickly took to loading them without the drums). Mounted on a heavy tripod with a sizeable crew, it was used in a sustained fire role. It could also be mounted on vehicles and aircraft, being very versatile. It fired twice as quickly as the standard British and American machineguns of the era, had a good effective range of 1km (more on a tripod), was simple, reliable, rugged and could keep firing a devastating barrage of rounds until the barrel needed to be replaced (which could be done quickly). The Americans had the Browning Automatic Rifle at the squad level (a magazine fed weapon). The M1917 Browning machinegun was used in defensive roles, and at battalion level (a bulky watercooled gun). The M1919 .30 cal machinegun was basically the M1917 with a lighter air-cooled barrel - this was used extensively and the closest things the Americans had to the MG42, but it was still outclassed by far. The next level up was the M2 .50 cal, which had some advantages over the MG42 and is still used to this day. The MG42 is still a popular weapon, chambered for 7.62mm NATO and designated the MG1 or MG3. Its success led to a number of foreign companies borrowing design features and sometimes even blatantly copying the MG42. Both the M60 and the FN MAG family of weapons have features borrowed from the MG42.
What is the best lmg and heavy mg ever made and why are they the best {only anser if your you really know}?
historians say its the mg 42 seeing as all machine guns are now based on it, Plus it was not matched by any machinge gun during WWII. Personally i would have to say the best light machine gun is probably the SAW 249 and all of its variances seeing as it is the most widly used LMG in the western world. Seeing as the M60 has been phased out. The downside of the SAW is that is not ideal for use in sandbox conditions. The sand and dust get into the breach when the bolt is locked and ready to fire. This usually causes the first round not to ignite and it is why a SAW gunner cannot enter a room first in a house clearing. Also the SAW was designed for laying down cover fire for troops to move under basically for fighting in a eastern europe type of environment not urban combat.