Ostheer - MG42

All these IRL arguments aside:

But infantry running into their hard counters and winning is bullshit.

+1

Regardless of IRL - that's the problem.

Nope.

Just nope.

Too ammo hungry, too encumbering, ran too hot. Not in any way the best. Best =/= most dakka in a video game, but hey, video game reality ignoring contexts always make the over engineered inefficient German stuff look OH EM GEE GEWD, so no doubt that's enough for you, right?

Mg42 IRL wasn't some sort of godly gift, but this makes zero difference to the game anyway.

It'a a single 240mp infantry support weapon. Realize this, stop trying to use it as some sort of enemy at the gates ruskie lawnmower of REICH SUPERIORITY JA, climb off your wehr-a-boo throne and play the game.

I should not even get into these sort of arguments, but thats BS. MG34/42 were pretty much without parallel in their day and have set the conceptual standard for GPMGs. This applies both from a production/enduser standpoint.

This thread again
http://grumpyrules.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/still-dont-care.jpg

All these IRL arguments aside:

But infantry running into their hard counters and winning is bullshit.

+1

Regardless of IRL - that's the problem.

Thought experiment.

Tank Destroyers are hard counters to tanks unless flanked, much like MG's, yes?

Is it a problem that my 7 PzIV's can drive at the face of an SU-85 and kill it?

No?

Why is it a problem that a vastly superior infantry force can kill a single MG then.

Don't try and start crying about 'BUT THEMS BLOBS 2 CHEAP 4 ME. NO SKILLZ'. Just having an Mg-42 is also completely skill devoid. Want to out-skill a blob? Use spotting units, layer your MG's and other units to catch and obliterate the blob. Job done.

I should not even get into these sort of arguments, but thats BS. MG34/42 were pretty much without parallel in their day and have set the conceptual standard for GPMGs. This applies both from a production/enduser standpoint.

It's a great technical achievement, as a lot of german stuff was.

It is not a very good infantry machine gun. It is a good stationary point defense weapon. The notion it is responsible for all machine guns after it is nonsensical bunk. It, like all WWII weapons, was assessed post war and desirable aspects identified. You'll note, for example, that only the dumbass Americans tried to make an infantry machine gun with 1200+ RPM after WWII, and nobody else considered it a good idea. One of many aspects that the MG42 did not do well.

Im ok with MG42, but they should slighty faster suppress infantry.

I want carpet bombing due to historical accuracy, my God how many times we gonna discuss this MG42?

No matter how much brachiaraidos tries to defend his precious blob,when rifls can walk over grens head on even with mg support-then mg42 is useless coz its not doing its job.Even usf players know its not much of a big deal to walk in and roll over.Frontal grenade while suppressed,just 2 squads frontally using poor traverse to advantage,or lol smoke.Most rifle players send up one squad to keep mg42 busy which takes a while to suppress,not insta like maxim while rest then move in -grenadiers can't stop them-too low dps.Far too long reposition,by that time largely over or mass retreat.He knows nothing will happen to first squad coz no dmg.
There's always smoke or suppressed grenade.
With bars don't even bother a-move dps take out gunner easy.

Everyone crying about mg42 and American blobs, but forgetting about OKW and shitty obers that snipes all allied mgs like 50 cal. OKW blobs are more harder to counter than American or soviet.

I want carpet bombing due to historical accuracy, my God how many times we gonna discuss this MG42?

Until its fixed,until ost does't have to hide from rifles.
Or alternatively i could ask why usf players whining about OKW blob,imo its perfectly balanced.Don't expect to stop so many squads of investment.

Everyone crying about mg42 and American blobs, but forgetting about OKW and shitty obers that snipes all allied mgs like 50 cal. OKW blobs are more harder to counter than American or soviet.

And OKW means less than nothing for ost players.Its like saying ostheer is competitive because OKW has good blob.

And OKW means less than nothing for ost players.Its like saying ostheer is competitive because OKW has good blob.

I mean we need to think not about only ost, we need to think about all factions. You want to solve problem only for ost, but forgetting that usf have problems with blobs too.

I wouldn´t mind some kind of buff to mg42 if it came with a price increase as well. Maybe 300mp and increase its range and suppression, but decrease its firing angle at the same time so you can´t just have two of them guarding half the map.
If we really wanted to do something wild, we could switch grenadier rifle grenade and riflemen grenade around, so riflemen would have something to combat new longer range mg42 better and grenadiers would get hand grenades to help thwart the allied squads bumrushing their mgs. This might be bad for soviets though.

[...]


It's a great technical achievement, as a lot of german stuff was.

It is not a very good infantry machine gun. It is a good stationary point defense weapon. The notion it is responsible for all machine guns after it is nonsensical bunk. It, like all WWII weapons, was assessed post war and desirable aspects identified. You'll note, for example, that only the dumbass Americans tried to make an infantry machine gun with 1200+ RPM after WWII, and nobody else considered it a good idea. One of many aspects that the MG42 did not do well.

Eh...first of all, I did not say or imply that "it is responsible for all machine guns afterwards". There was no such notion. Of course it did pioneer the GPMG concept, I dont see how that can be disputed. Secondly, you are all wrong. Again, look at the contemporaries. BAR (questionable if one can even call it a machine gun, matter of terminology I would reckon), ZB 26 and derivatives (ie. Bren), DP, FM 24 etc..
None of these has any substantial advantage over the MG42, all of them are severely lacking when considering the total package. All of them have had comparatively lesser impact on successive firearms design.

Dumbass Bundeswehr and a whole host of other militaries still fire well in excess of a 1000 rpm. Just saying. ROF is as much as matter of doctrinal/tactical preference as anything. There were of course complaints about the MG34/42 from the endusers, ROF was never among them, and the Germans had extensive access to all the listed alternatives and in fact used them in certain formations as part of TOE.

Eh...first of all, I did not say or imply that "it is responsible for all machine guns afterwards". There was no such notion. Of course it did pioneer the GPMG concept, I dont see how that can be disputed. Secondly, you are all wrong. Again, look at the contemporaries. BAR (questionable if one can even call it a machine gun, matter of terminology I would reckon), ZB 26 and derivatives (ie. Bren), DP, FM 24 etc..
None of these has any substantial advantage over the MG42, all of them are severely lacking when considering the total package. All of them have had comparatively lesser impact on successive firearms design.

Dumbass Bundeswehr and a whole host of other militaries still fire well in excess of a 1000 rpm. Just saying. ROF is as much as matter of doctrinal/tactical preference as anything. There were of course complaints about the MG34/42 from the endusers, ROF was never among them, and the Germans had extensive access to all the listed alternatives and in fact used them in certain formations as part of TOE.

ROF has a massive impact on the utility of any GPMG

Say, for example, if I wanted to try and tote around an M134, so I can be cool like the Terminator. On the one hand, I have a huge RPM. Ignoring the weight of the gun entirely, for a moment. Firing the thing for 5 seconds chews through the best part of 3kg of 7.62mm ammunition.

Every time I get a five second burst, I lighten my pack by 3kg. Do you know how much total gear the average solider carries in your local army? Have a little fun and figure out, if carrying nothing but ammo, how long he gets from that MG.

Excessive rate of fire in a GPMG makes it a massive investment for the squad overall. Your gunner has to carry a crap load of ammo, everyone else probably has to be carrying some ammo, and your demands on the logistics are encumbered by the weight of shot you're responsible for.

More than that, what purpose does the 600rpm it has over most contemporary GPMG's serve? In aircraft, the massive RoF is to try and catch planes in very, very small attack windows. When you're on the ground, what practical benefit is there to putting 180 rounds into an area verses 100? Suppressive fire from 400rpm up is enough to cause people to duck for cover.

High cyclic rate also means regular barrel replacements, which means carrying more barrels, and quicker wear on the parts responsible for cycling your ammunition. It's a long series of small to medium problems that make the MG42 far from the best choice of GPMG.

The absurd RoF also means aiming it is a pain, with instructions to begin aiming at the knees of a target been state standard and a pretty clear representation of how hard the gun was to control.

The necessity of belt feeding firing at all means that the MG-42 is almost useless in offensive operations; whilst this served Germany's purposes in the war very well (and their military doctrine at the time), it's a big problem for any other army and when considering the weapon in general. Ammo belts often require untangling after moving, are cumbersome to reload and more problematic still to carry around.

In assaults, machine gunners need to re-position and re-aim their guns quickly, taking advantage of breaks in enemy fire and running with the riflemen. The above, and the awkward center of gravity for the MG42, make it an awkward weapon at best and a liability at worst when not on the constant defensive.

As far as its 'contemporaries'; the BAR was produced two decades and a half before it, the Bren I would argue to be a better GPMG (if a less refined design).

What it all boils down to is that the MG 42 can be said to be a better heavy machine gun than the Bren of the BAR, which is sensible, because neither of the other two are meant to be heavy machine guns. The Mg3, it's natural successor, is a heavy machine gun for good reason, and almost nobody tries to use it as a GPMG with good cause.

An addendum: It has occurred to me that I never checked if the MG3 was actually regarded as a GPMG or Heavy MG, apparently I was incorrect in that much. Regardless, it sucks, and most people only get them because they came on German tanks

ROF has a massive impact on the utility of any GPMG

Say, for example, if I wanted to try and tote around an M134, so I can be cool like the Terminator. On the one hand, I have a huge RPM. Ignoring the weight of the gun entirely, for a moment. Firing the thing for 5 seconds chews through the best part of 3kg of 7.62mm ammunition.

Every time I get a five second burst, I lighten my pack by 3kg. Do you know how much total gear the average solider carries in your local army? Have a little fun and figure out, if carrying nothing but ammo, how long he gets from that MG.

Excessive rate of fire in a GPMG makes it a massive investment for the squad overall. Your gunner has to carry a crap load of ammo, everyone else probably has to be carrying some ammo, and your demands on the logistics are encumbered by the weight of shot you're responsible for.

More than that, what purpose does the 600rpm it has over most contemporary GPMG's serve? In aircraft, the massive RoF is to try and catch planes in very, very small attack windows. When you're on the ground, what practical benefit is there to putting 180 rounds into an area verses 100? Suppressive fire from 400rpm up is enough to cause people to duck for cover.

High cyclic rate also means regular barrel replacements, which means carrying more barrels, and quicker wear on the parts responsible for cycling your ammunition. It's a long series of small to medium problems that make the MG42 far from the best choice of GPMG.

The absurd RoF also means aiming it is a pain, with instructions to begin aiming at the knees of a target been state standard and a pretty clear representation of how hard the gun was to control.

The necessity of belt feeding firing at all means that the MG-42 is almost useless in offensive operations; whilst this served Germany's purposes in the war very well (and their military doctrine at the time), it's a big problem for any other army and when considering the weapon in general. Ammo belts often require untangling after moving, are cumbersome to reload and more problematic still to carry around.

In assaults, machine gunners need to re-position and re-aim their guns quickly, taking advantage of breaks in enemy fire and running with the riflemen. The above, and the awkward center of gravity for the MG42, make it an awkward weapon at best and a liability at worse when not on the constant defensive.

As far as its 'contemporaries'; the BAR was produced two decades and a half before it, the Bren I would argue to be a better GPMG (if a less refined design).

What it all boils down to is that the MG 42 can be said to be a better heavy machine gun than the Bren of the BAR, which is sensible, because neither of the other two are meant to be heavy machine guns. The Mg3, it's natural successor, is a heavy machine gun for good reason, and almost nobody tries to use it as a GPMG with good cause.

Where do I start. Maybe from the end: The MG3 is used as a GPMG by militaries the world over. Where do you get the converse idea from if I may ask? Perhaps we have different underlying definitions here? I know its Wikipedia, but allow me to link this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_machine_gun
Belt feeding: That was no necessity, still isn't. 50 and 75 round drums were regularly issued if greater mobility was required, they still are. Its not like ie. a Bren Gun can be fired more conveniently from the shoulder than an MG 42, or is in fact much lighter.

Barrel change: Takes fumbling, hastily trained and scared shitless conscripts 5 seconds, 3 seconds is doable.

ROF, and the purposes it serves: Well, maximising lethality in brief windows of time. The perception in the German military (a justified perception I might add) was that a competent adversary would not expose himself walking line abreast in a leisurely pace à la Somme 1916 where Vickers/Maxim etc indeed had their advantages. If an opponent was actually showing himself or a hostile position positively had to be suppressed, putting lead downrange quickly was imperative. 1200 RPM was deemed controllable by a solid gunner and it is. Yes, this added lethality comes at a price, but again, this price was gladly paid by its users. If more sustained fire/plunging fire etc. was required, there was always the tripod.

As for weight, I am well aware of just how much the average Soldier carries. Then again, you get bang for your buck.

Also, start aiming at the knees, in what military would that be? I might dig out the WW2 Dienstvorschrift here, in the Bundeswehr you aim center mass/belt line...

Anyways, the real weaknesses of the design are its higher maintenance and manufacturing requirements vs more modern designs, ie. the PKM or MAG. Contrary to popular perceptions, shoddy tolerances will not do, but thats another story.

I mean we need to think not about only ost, we need to think about all factions. You want to solve problem only for ost, but forgetting that usf have problems with blobs too.

Changing ost will not affect usf vs okw.FOr that change those.

Seriously.

You complain that two 320mp squads split up enough to require lengthy traverse kill your single 240mp unit.

Are you dumb, or just dumb?

Not to even speak about smoke. My GOD, the hard counter to static weapon teams is doing its job? SHOCK AND HORROR

Not enough,thats the things -if they were on 2 extreme sides of arc -ok.One in middle other extreme side,middle gets suppressed.but other has enough time to get out easy due to bad traverse and bad suppression.Who is dumb here?

Truly shock and horror.Right now WHAT doesn't hard counter popcornsprayer42?
Everything - shocks, all enemy machine guns,even zis with barrage,enemy sniper,mortars,m3,conspam with urrah and molotov,riflespam with nade/1919,m20,aa halftrack,armor,para blobs.

Looks like half of enemy roster counters mg42....you still screaming for HARD counters..they not hard enough for you?What does mg42 counter - lets see nothing except 2-3 clumped up squads charging frontally at it at centre of its arc coz user was too noob to use shift move from directions or just lolsmoke.Am i dumb or are you?

guys lets try to not call eachother names

invised post 31 back on topic. (thanks for report.)

/back on topic.

It still blows me away people haven't figured out the defensive .50 cal is the fighting position one and the offensive .50 cal is the tripod carried one.

Also please reduce the set up time and tear down time for the MG34, please and thank you.