Talk:MG 42

Roller Delayed blowback / Roller locked short recoil

Hello, the MG42 used Roller Locked Short Recoil, which supposedly later 'inspired' Roller Delayed Blowback.

However, the two are mechanicaly distinct, as is sort of mentioned, but occasionally the Locked Recoil system links to a page on Delayed blowback, contradicting itself.

I've only heard about both mechanisms today so I'm not going to muck anything about in case I've misunderstood the whole shebang!

Minor Edit?

Since when is rewriting the entire article a "minor edit"? Pizza Puzzle

Spandau

I recall reading Battle and War comics from the UK as a kid where these guns (or possibly the MG34) were known as Spandau. Is this factualy acurate? Htaccess 06:13, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

well theres the Spandau Prison in Germany where Rudolf Hess served a life sentence. thats the only connection I can think of Vroman 00:16, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This [1] is the "Spandau" machine gun. Sorry for the poor picture, it's not a popular weapon. RCMS 19:20, 31 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the MG08 sometimes referred to as the Spandau? If I remember right (which I probably don't...), some of them had it stamped on the fusee-spring cover, depending on where they were manufactured, leading to Allied forces mistakenly assuming that was the name of the gun. No, I don't have a citation handy! Chris 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandau Machine gun.

One of my "friends" had one of these with a brass polish water jacket mounted on a heavy tripod (he's deceased and I no longer know the location of his collection).

Digitallymade (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)Since the 1950s I have NEVER heard of an MG34 or MG42 referred to as a Spandau.

I have. Which is why I've just duckduckgoed the MG 42.

But what I'm reading makes me think it isn't factually correct. But there must be some folks out there calling it such, cuz I didn't make it up myself. 212.178.80.134 (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

MG42 and MG 42 article merge

There is another article on the exact same gun at MG 42, with a space in between MG and 42. I dont have time right now, so if anyone interested, perhaps integrate them? --ArcticFrog 15:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

Gee, just delete the other article and throw out the information that's not in this one.

--ArcticFrog 02:49, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

I checked the other one. All the information there is contained in the current one. You can check the history of that page and double-check if you like. Oberiko 23:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MG34 jamming

I have read that the MG34 jammed because it was made so well, as in too precise, which made it jam when dust got into it and that this was a main reason for the production of a new gun with more play in the parts. Is this tidbit worth working into the article? Also: didn't anyone critisize the gun for wastefullness of bullets? It must have taken a truckload of bandaleers to keep the thing going. Just my two cents worth... --ArcticFrog 19:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

The article mentions that the MG42 was considerably more reliable. The high rate of fire of the weapon isn't something that can really be critisizied as there are at least as many arguements which support it. Oberiko 23:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The MG34 had close tolerances, this made it susceptible to fouling which led it to jamming. The MG42 used stamped parts and welded joints which made construction faster and cheaper (the MG34 used more conventional milled parts which required lots of man-hours to build). Tolerances were not as precise as the MG34, made it less sensitive to dirt and fouling. Of course, the loose tolerance made it less accurate than the MG34, but at 1200 rounds/min who cares? :D --Pelladon 05:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The main reason for close tolerances of weapons designed 1920's and 30' was fear of gas warfare, as some battlegases (chlorine?) were highly corrosive and jammed "loose" weapons, so countermeasure to that was to made weapons "gastight". --81.197.218.62 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to add a few points...I was watching the History channel and a German alpine WWII vet was interviewed. He said they had to limit fire to 1 second bursts to conserve ammo and that it wasn't easy to control (the aim on) the machine gun. You had to fire in a prone position, the MG42 had too much kick. But he liked the gun a lot.:D And folks, stop using dust as a reason for jamming, it's dirt and powder fouling that causes jams (and overheated metal) —Pelladon 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I no they relpaced it becaue it was too much to produce, but with germans they like to make a few good things rather then alot of cheap stuff(Esskater11 22:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

didn’t the americans use these in the vietnam war? Merin.v Milibuff(ww2 o5) (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Three points

1. "The US Army created training videos". Huh ?

I have changed 'videos' to 'films' - I don't think there were any videos around in the 1940s !

2. "The operating crew consists of three persons".

Have changed 'persons' to 'men' - It might be politically correct to write 'persons', but I don't think there were many female MG42 gunners in WWll !

3. "As it is recoil-operated, if there is no cartridge in the chamber, the weapon must be manually charged with the side-mounted charging handle before it can fire".

I have altered this sentence because it gives (to me at least), the impression that the weapon fires from a closed bolt. Something which personal experience and the sentence in the "Operation" section of the article both refute.

84.130.75.24 16:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentence currently implies that the next cartridge is removed from the belt on the bolt's rearwards stroke, but my understanding is that it's actually pushed forwards out of the belt on the forwards stroke. Anybody want to clarify this, or should I have a go at rewording it? Chris 20:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume that nobody objects, so I've changed the wording of that paragraph. Chris 18:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture request

Can anyone find a croos section picture of the weapon? That would be nice. 64.31.188.26 22:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Gerneral Purpose Machine Gun

We really need to make it clear that the MG 42 was a General Purpose Machine Gun. 209.221.73.5 11:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Squalla - why did you delete the "Popular Culture" entry? Fernando K 17:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that mentioning every recent film or tv show that has had an MG42 in it to be a waste of time. It is maybe just too popular of an item from history.

I did think that the Brazilian soldiers and their "Lurdinha" song to be interesting and probably worth having in the article somewhere, but only if it can be cited to a verifiable source. —Asatruer 03:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture references do not belong to firearms-related articles — they do not add anything to the article itself and tend to become lists of indiscriminate trivia. Most editors of firearms-related articles are coming to an agreement that these should be avoided. On the other hand, the "Lurdinha" song is probably worth mentioning, as long as in the main article itself (such as under the Spandau reference). I agree with Asatruer, however, that a verifiable source should be provided. —Squalla 15:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK guys I found an article about the MG42 being nicknamed Lurdinha, but it is in Portuguese: http://www.grandesguerras.com.br/artigos/text01.php?art_id=18 I could not find anything about the song in the net. I was told this by a veteran P47 pilot. The brass had a official song composed (Canção do Expedicionário), but the dogface plain Brazilian soldier enjoyed their own MG song. I have seen a Brazilian TV documentary as well that played the tune. (Fernando K 22:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

According to this reference, the MG34 was nicknamed "Lurdinha", not the MG42. It should be ok to add it to the MG34 article.
—Squalla 04:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it but if you take a look on the pictures, they show a MG42 instead; I believe the author could not tell the difference between the two. Fernando K 04:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's true, the picture shows an MG42. Though the rest of the text and the link at the bottom of the page only mentions and shows pictures of the MG34, so I guess it's up to somebody with better references to verify. —Squalla 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a link to a Brazilian radio where you can dowload the song free http://jovempan.uol.com.br/jpamnew/destaques/memoria/index.php?pagina=131

Click on the article that mentions lurdinha - you will need RealPlayer. I believe I read your mother language is Portuguese, so you will be able to understand it. ;) As for references, well, in my home town there is a MG42 in a local Brazilian Expeditionary Force museum with a tag mentioning it to be the "Lurdinha". As for the name, my personal theory is that some French liason officer (or even an American officer, speaking in French, better known to Brazilian officers of the time) referred to the MG42 as a "lourde" (heavy) machinegun. Fernando K 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to keep the pop cultrure section. make it into a complety differnt page. ive seen many ar5ticals where this has worked out wll(Esskater11 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually, those pages were deleted. Everyone one of them except one that redirects to the main page.--LWF 02:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Replaced the template with the recently standarised Infobox: Template:Infobox (and added image) created by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry task force. Deon Steyn 11:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the image the wrong way around? I thought that the MG42 only fed from the left... Chris 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I flipped the image (giving it the wrong filename in the process!) but I see that the original's up for deletion because of possible copyright violation, so in the end I left it alone. Upon further inspection it's definitely reversed, though. Chris 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

30-06 too powerful?

Is it really true that an American 30-06 version was aborted because the cartridge was too powerful for the design? I find that surprising since the 30-06 and 7.92 were of roughly equivalent power, and the design was subsequently converted to 7.62 NATO without any issues. Chris 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not true. WWII-era German 7.92mm is even a tad more powerful than contemporary US M2 ball. As far as I know the problem was the length of the .30-06 cartridge and the prototypes dimensions not being altered accordingly.84.152.72.36 08:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The 7.92 x 57m Mauser cartridge used a .323" bullet weighing 154 grains fired at 2880 feet per second. The US .30-06 (Ball Cartridge .30, Model 1906) had a 150 grain .308" diameter bullet fired at 2700 fps. The 7.92 had 17% greater energy. The MG42 was captured by US forces and sent to Aberdeen Proving Ground to see if it could be adapted for USA production. The engineers made an almost exact copy except for the barrel being chambered in .30-06 caliber. When it was fired, the cartridge would not eject due to it's being almost 1/4" longer than the 7.92 x 57mm cartridge length.Digitallymade (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

MG42 or MG34?

Hi! i need some expert eyes here. is the machine gun featured in these screenshot a MG42 or a MG34 (or an US-built machinegun)?

• screen 1
• screen 2

These pictures are from the Algerian War, 1960s. I have to watch the doc again to determine wether they are used by the regular French army or by the Algerian guerrillas. I personally think this is a MG42 used by a French paratrooper or infantryman, thanks for any help. Shame On You 15:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muzzle looks like a 42, but with that image quality I wouldn't bet money on it. Plumbob78 00:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

the first pic is a MG34, the MG34 has a leaner barrel, the second one is 100% a MG42, you can see the front sight and it looks beefier. --RaDeus 10:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can I make a heading that mentions a list of movies, books, comics, video games, etc. where the MG42 appears, and what should I call it?

Since the MG42 appears in so many places, you'd best call it "deleted". --Carnildo 03:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For fouture uses dnt make those for any weapon unless its reallllly noticable such as the PPK as it was bonds gun(ForeverDEAD 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Rate of fire

Hi, Im German and when you take a look at the german article of the MG42 , you can see that the rate of fire is not only 1500 rounds/minute, moreover the MG42 could reach a firerate of 3000 rounds/minute. But this was in WW2 impossible because the barrel became more and more less quality. Today with a Titanium barrel this rate would be possible. If you think this is something that should be mentioned, you could add this ;) [ the article is anyway short ] Greetz from Cologne,GER :)

This 3000 rounds per minute entry over there is highly questionable and was added by an IP without stating a source. Chances are good it's BS overlooked by the regular editors. --Denniss 11:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I just check my books, there is a reference to the MG 42(V)/MG45 with 2,400 rpm, but that is as high as it goes.Markus Becker02 17:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Smith book, Small Arms of the World lists the rate of fire at 1100-1200. From memory I recall that the MG42 was supplied with two different weights of bolt assemblies. The heavy bolt was used for infantry and yielded a rate of fire of 900 rpm. The Light bolt was to be used for Anti-Aircraft service and gave a rate of fire of about 1200 rpm. In video I have of blank firing MG42s the rate of fire is about 1000 rpm. At about the 1200 rpm rate, individual shots can no longer be distinguished. Digitallymade (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Crediting Edward Stecke

I know that several sources imply that the MG42 locking system was derived from Edward Stecke's patent. However, the closer look at Stecke's US Patent shows that it used rounded levers, not rollers. Moreover, it was a delayed-blowback system, not a locked system. If we are to count rounded levers as rollers, there were earlier German patents and designs that incorporated rounded levers and a locked breech. You can see some of these in the Collector Grade Publications book [b]Full Circle[/b]. D.E. Watters 01:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Again referencing "Small Arms of the World" page 442. "MG42 was developed by Dr. Grunow of Grossfuss in Dobeln reportedly from a Polish design seized by the Germans in 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitallymade (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Make

Who (which manufacturer) produces this weapon?? --201.141.145.218 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It says in the first paragraph under "History". --Carnildo (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mauser, Maget, Steyr-Daimler-Puch, Gustloff all made these guns (same as the MG34 for the most part).Digitallymade (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Cult?!

Hi, I am german, and I must tell you, that I think, that this article sounds quite terrible. The english article (in comparism to the german one) sounds like this weapon has somehow a perverted cult. I have been to the German Army ("Bundeswehr"), and I know that our soldier-friends from America often ask the german soldiers to "play" with the MG3 (which is based on the MG42), because it such an impressive weapon - I cannot understand this cult. I cannot understand how such a brutal weapon can cause so much cult. The article should discuss more of the cruelty of this weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.180.18.131 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a machine that performs well. You are mentally challenged if you believe an inanimate mass of steel is "cruel". Koalorka (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Cruel and Brutal are human traits. A machine does what it is told to do. The MG42 is a particularly effective machine. Liken it to your "Ipod" or your BMW. Both are well constructed and engineered and function as described. Most weapons of that time were not so much these things. The Germans, of all people, have a love of efficiency, durability, simplicity, and utility... all of these terms beautifully describe the MG42. We don't have sex with the weapon, we admire its engineering. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

People who study arms and armaments world wide often reflect admiration for superior designs. Such is the case of the appreciation accorded to the MG34 and MG42 by students of war and history. Many German weapons systems were far better designed and more effective than the Allied weapons. The MG42, in particular, was a feared weapon. It was highly respected to the extent that the US ARMY tried to copy it (but failed). The same is true of the BMW RS750 motorcycle. The US Army wanted that motorcycle, Harley-Davidson motorcycles in use at the time would overheat and break down quickly in desert warfare. Harley-Davidson and Indian both made RS750 type motorcycles with the Harley-Davidson being a near exact copy (it was the BEST design from HD until they recently adopted a Porsche designed engine). The USA also worked with Germany after the war to produce a modern tank design (MBT70) which was used as a basis for some of the features of the current M1. The MG42 is now made as the MG3 and is still an excellent design. The appreciation of excellence in design relates to many products, not only firearms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitallymade (talk • contribs) 13:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Argentine heavy machine gun variant?

I found this some time ago and it looks nothing other than an MG42 but chambered in a heavier calibre.

• Image
• Image
• Source 1
• Source 2

Yadayadayaday 02:00AM, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting find. Now what? Koalorka (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Its possibly a scaled up weapon as mentioned but also reminds me of the original Besa machine gun of czech origin. The handlebar grips are very much like the Austro Hungarian Schwarzlose m/1907. As it was found on an Argentine website, it could be from a German engineer from Mauser who fled to Argentina after WW2.

Yadayadayaday 15:41PM, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The weapon is a Czechoslovak ZB-50 machine gun of 7.92x57mm calibre, possibly an Argentine copy. Yadayadayaday 01:57AM, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"The sentence "Equipped with a quick-change barrel, the MG 34 could fire for much longer periods of time than conventional weapons like the Browning Automatic Rifle or Bren, " is misleading.

the BAR lacked a quick change barrel, The 34 and 42 NEEDED one, and the Bren also had a quick change barrel, a more effective one than either German MG, I've used the Bren in action on fixed lines fire, and it can fire for a very long time if given a few spare barrels, the number 2 on the gun didn't need an asbestos glove for the change, either. 

I suggest a change to "Equipped with a quick-change barrel, the MG 34 (and the MG42) could fire for much longer periods of time than automatic rifles weapons without a barrel change such as the Browning Automatic Rifle and the French Chatelrault LMG. The barrel change on both the MG34 and 42 required an insulated glove." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbo in Oz (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Service/Wars

The MG 42 was not only used by axis forces in WW2, as it was also used by Portuguese paratroopers in the Portuguese Colonial War until 1968. I'm a Portuguese Army Paratrooper Instructor and we still use that weapon.

I added that information, but my edition was undo-ed.

References: Colonial War - Portuguese Armament

"7.92" vs. 8

For all information you ever wanted to know, plus more, about this subject - see Talk:8×57mm_IS#German_military_designation.3F.

• "7.92x57mm Mauser" is just wrong.
• In Europe, Russia and Chile, the CIP is authoritative for cartridge nomenclature. In North America, it is the SAAMI. Both talk about 8x57 IS. As a compromise, en.wikipedia included a "mm": 8x57mm IS.
• To alter an accepted nomenclature by two(!) standardisation bodies (standardisation is one of CIP's tasks, and SAAMI is quasi industrial standard in the USA) is WP:OR.
• To sum it up: In the Wehrmacht, Reichswehr and other German armed forces, it was either "Patrone 7.9mm" (w/o brass length) OR in civil use 8x57 I(nfantry)S(pitzer). "7.9x57 IS" is mixing different nomenclatures. "7.92x57" may come from the BESA machine gun by Great Britain, or it may just be an error, or both. In both cases, the BESA is a rather exotic weapon chambered for the cartridge, as opposed to millions of Karabiner 98k, military, hunting and sporting rifles.

Last time, there were endless edit wars against User:MFIreland. I hope now factual arguments will be heared and the reverts are not trolling. --Hornsignal (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:DCB Shooting MG42 Roller system.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DCB Shooting MG42 Roller system.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

ROF: M53 vs MG42

The article currently says "...the M53 a nearly exact copy of the German MG 42. The only major difference is a slower rate of fire." and lists as source the G3 Defence Magazine August 2010. That magazine surely speaks about the MG42 and about the Sarac, but only very roughly and I can't find the hint to the ROF. Am I just too dumb to see the obvious, or are those guys at the tank.net forum right who quote the present wiki article but eventually conclude that the wiki must be wrong and the ROF must have been the same for both weapons? --Otets (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

T24?

Looking at the official US Army documents on the T24 (available here https://www.forgottenweapons.com/light-machine-guns/us-t24-machine-gun-mg42/) the whole T24 section looks frankly to have nothing at all to do with reality. The existing section claims the weapon was entirely unchanged except for a 30.06 barrel, which is untrue (the entire action had been redesigned with the 30.06 in mind, and improvised sights for testing purposes, different stock etc), the weapon fired more than the twice the existing text claims (in the neighborhood of 1500+ rounds), and there's a bunch of unsourced statements about stamped weapons in there too.

The T24 was rejected for being unreliable having a high rate of failure to extract, but it was because the design was greatly immature and had many untested changes, not because somehow American weapons designers were just too dumb to build an entire gun and not measure the hole the casing had to leave out of. The additional commentary on stamped weapons and the 7.92 mauser's performance is also entirely irrelevant to the T24's development and failure to reach production.

I edited the entry earlier and cited the actual Army report on the weapon's peformance and it reverted to the same entirely incorrect passage as before. Could someone explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.28.103 (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The treaty of Versailles says literally nothing about water-cooled machine guns

I'm not a regular user of wikipedia, so I'm sure I've made some formatting errors with this post. That being said, you can check the offered source - it does not say what it has been claimed to say. Additionally, Citino's Path to Blitzkrieg goes into some depth about German use of MG08s and MG08/15s in the interwar period. 2602:306:3327:6C90:6D2D:CB2A:D5F9:1154 (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the 1950s there has been a statement made that the Treaty of Versailles forbade Germany from making heavy water cooled machine guns. Whether this is true or not, it has been a common statement and was mentioned as a cause of WWII. But... it doesn't matter. Germany was already moving toward a maneuver style of warfare prior to WWII. The MG-08 (The Spandau heavy water cooled machinegun) was rebuilt into the MG13 (an air cooled man portable machinegun) in 1930 (at the direct order of Adolph Hitler.Digitallymade (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Section called Development

As far as the Treaty of Versailles banning heavy machine guns, this is irrelevant. The fact is that the German military recognized that the heavy machine guns were not going to be as effective in the next type of war where maneuver was going to be of a premium. The development of the guns that lead to the MG34 started around 1910, clearly before WWI started. The design began in an effort to find a more effective anti-aircraft machinegun.

The need for an effective anti-aircraft gun with a high rate of fire has been misrepresented as the goal and result of design ever since. The MG34 and MG42 were multiple purpose machine guns. They had different configurations. Rate of fire was controlled by using different bolts of different weights. So while the MG42 is often listed as achieving up to 1200 rpm, that was in anti-aircraft configuration only.

Two bolts for MG42 type guns. Heavy on the right.

In infantry use an ideal cyclic rate for a heavy machine gun is from 650 to 750 rpm (the 750 being the original rate of fire for the AR15, for example). The Heavy Maxim (also known as Spandau) machine guns was 650 rpm. The heavy bolt in the MG42 provided a rate of fire that was far lower than the 1200 rpm so often quoted (which is for anti-aircraft use). The rate of fire was likely from 750 to 900 rpm. I had known this decades ago, but I can't find the source right now.

I have video I took of an MG42 with a blank firing adapter which was firing at around 800 to 900 rpm at Reading PA some years ago.

Digitallymade (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It is empirically obvious

That the Versailles treaty did not stop German machinegun development. It's also obvious since the development of the MG13 was prior to WWI that the treaty was NOT the reason for the development of the GPMG concept which was embodied in the MG34/MG42.Digitallymade (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Rate of Fire / Effective Rates of Fire sections

The general point that cyclic RoF is tactically irrelevant in most circumstances and misleading as to the practical weight of fire delivered by an MG is well taken and so I hesitate to delete these sections entirely but they clearly need better sourcing and a proper summary style as well as the elision of speculative unsourced claims such as "Confusion over this undoubtedly comes from the Gast Gun and the MG81 aircraft gun." (Note that the latter does have a citation but it's a random website not an RS, and the source does not mention the Gast or MG81 guns.) I am also highly dubious about the claim that infantry MG42s were generally provided with modified recoil springs that reduced their cyclic rate to a more reasonable 800 rpm. There are so very very many contemporary sources remarking on the "buzzsaw," "linoleum ripper" effect of the MG42, poorly trained troops running through all their ammunition in a very short time, etc. It is just not at all plausible that this all is a postwar mistake based on people reading books at home and somehow confusing highly obscure aircraft weapons (basically modelers' trivia) with the ubiquitous standard German infantry MG that millions of allied soldiers faced first-hand. TiC ^(talk) 00:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@TitaniumCarbide: as you mention, the MG42 was (in)famous for its report, which was distinctive because of the gun's high cyclic rate of fire. So some mention of that is definitely due. Beyond that, we should just link to Rate of fire#Measurement, which by the way could use a bit of expansion. I agree that the poorly-researched bits and the irrelevant stuff like comparison to the MAC-10 doesn't need to be retained. VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the poor way it is structured, the suggestion that cyclical rate of fire is irrelevant is itself erroneous. The person who wrote it had apparently discovered that in combat a gunner doesn't just hold the trigger down for minutes at a time because of practical limitations on ammunition and heat dispersion. They didn't, however, get beyond this elementary realization to the point where they understood why the MG42's higher rate of fire is advantageous.

Put simply, a higher rate of fire does increase the chance of hitting a target, because of the way machine guns are used. Against a "point target" like a single enemy soldier a machine gun is fired in bursts, typically: aim, depress and release the trigger as quickly as possible, adjust aim, fire another burst, adjust/cease fire/aim on new target. For something like a Vickers machine gun firing at 500RPM a burst is probably about 3 rounds; for an MG42 firing at 1000RPM obviously holding the trigger for the same duration puts twice as many rounds down range. This actually does substantially increase the chance of hitting your target; scatter 6 rounds in a circular area as opposed to 3 rounds as it were. The nature of firearms is such that simply firing a longer burst is not equivalent to a higher rate of fire. At least some armies teach gunners to deliberately scatter their burst by moving the muzzle fractionally up and to one side as they fire; this of course spreads the fire over a somewhat larger area, increasing the chance of hitting the target, and more rounds in that burst means a higher chance of hitting a target. This also applies when used against "area targets" rather than point targets, as against say an enemy unit in the open, where the fire is swept across the enemy. As the fire tracks across them the higher the RoF the greater the density of the fire in that sweep, the greater the chances of hits.

As further evidence of this, the M240 (FN MAG derivative) is referenced as a current example of practical rate of fire, and it has a cyclical rate of fire of 1000 RPM. The complementary M249 (FN Minimi derivative) has a rate of fire up to 1100RPM. These two designs current dominate the medium and light machine gun market. If a rate of fire around 1000 RPM was not an advantage the question is why FN designed the weapons with such high rates of fire, and why so many countries adopted them, while medium and light machine guns with rates of fire below 700RPM are now atypical. 124.170.17.54 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I found the section writing style rambling and it does not read well. There is a claim that the MG-42 came with six barrels. Never ever heard of more than three. There is also a similar claim for the MG-34. I've seen Norwegian MG-34 MGs chambered in 7.62x63 and they came with three barrels. I seem to recall images with the assistant gunner carrying two spare barrels.

The idea that there were six barrels might stem from the Germans having squads with two machine guns towards the end of the war. Souce : . There is a British TV personality (economist) which name I don't recall which also claims that the MG-42 came with six barrels. His claims seems to have spread in the UK.

I find that the rambling style in general in the article have diminished the quality of the article. I would be tempted to roll back the article to a previous version. Tarjei99 (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• The section is poorly written and even worse verified; I have removed it. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Someone must have put it back; I've taken it out again. It reads like an essay. It's enough to say that e.g. "although the MG 42 could fire at 1,200 rounds per minute German tactical doctrine mandated short, controlled bursts, limiting the effective rate of fire to 154 rpm". If this was a book about the MG 42 there would be space for a digression on the pros and cons of a high rate of fire, with historical examples, but this is an encyclopaedia. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MG 42. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121231208/http://www.zastava-arms.rs/cms/index.php?id=145 to http://www.zastava-arms.rs/cms/index.php?id=145
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060409195838/http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg33-e.htm to http://www.world.guns.ru/machine/mg33-e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Used during Syrian Civil War

@Drassow:: why "it's certainly an MG42 and not an MG3" in the video "To deal with NATO's airborne bombardment and its distance from the region from the leader of the Badr martyrs" – via www.youtube.com. ? I have some difficulties to distinguish MG-3 and MG-42 without examining the barrel's end.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Le Petit Chat:: The best way to explain it is with an image, with the reference image from Quora

File:MG Evidence in Syria.jpg

Take note of how the silhouette isn't bulbous, but has a cylindrical shape. This points to the gun being an MG42 and not an MG3. Drassow (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say it's look rather like an MG3: see the end of the barrel. It may also be an Iranian-made MG1A3. So, without a reliable source, this fact should be removed.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Drassow: To avoid edit war I will discuss here :

1. The origin of this video is unknown. The logo is the one of a FSA group while the text mentionned Badr and opposition to the US (rather shi'ite).
2. This video is not a source : "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This prevents editors from engaging in original research. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content. If the material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia." WP:VIDEOLINK
3. I still doubt it is a German-made MG 42.

--Le Petit Chat (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Le Petit Chat:
1. The origin in of the 16th division of the FSA in Aleppo, or more specifically the Badr Martyrs Brigade. See: 23rd Division (Syrian rebel group) The origin is fairly obvious if you spent two minutes looking into it.
2. As per the page: "A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." It is not being interpreted, a descriptive statement is being made: An MG42 is being used. Evidence has been given in the talk section and is able to be verified, which fulfills the requirements to keep it listed as a valid reference.
3. The image I gave already explained why it is an MG42 and not an MG3. The silhouette makes it impossible to be an MG3, and the MG1A3 you mentioned has the same bulbous silouette near the end of the barrel, it cannot be that either. Drassow (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you please recap - what is the source that states the MG42 is in use by the FSA? VQuakr (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: This video: "To deal with NATO's airborne bombardment and its distance from the region from the leader of the Badr martyrs" – via www.youtube.com.

Also notable is that Peshmerga militias have used MG42s in the civil war as well, but since there is little coverage on the group, only photographic evidence exists. Should objectively true information be ignored because an article hasn't been written about it? Drassow (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I see a video of people firing automatic weapons in the air. This isn't a source for much of anything, and using it as a source for what sort of weapons they are firing would violate our policy on original research. The answer to your last question is yes - our relevant policy notes: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. So a viewpoint that hasn't been given any weight in published sources shouldn't be mentioned in the article, and if weapons analysis hasn't been published we are not permitted to do the original research of that analysis ourselves, either. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because I think you are misidentifying MG1s or MG3s.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright then, hold the same logic and blank the page for List of military equipment used by Syrian opposition forces then. As I already stated beforehand, in WP: VIDEOLINK it states, "A primary source may only be used to make statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." The source is primary and supports the statement: an MG42 is being used. Therefore, the source is valid. It is not a viewpoint, it is objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drassow (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You think identification of a firearm isn't specialist knowledge? I suspect you would find little support for that viewpoint. If you have concerns about the sourcing on another article, you should discuss on the talk page of that article. An example of a primary source for this sort of information would be a press release by an organization saying "we use the MG 42". Your analysis of a youtube clip isn't a source at all. VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"You think identification of a firearm isn't specialist knowledge?" it's really not, at least not in this case, just a quick comparison of two silhouettes which I already outlined earlier in the talk page. "a press release by an organization saying "we use the MG 42"" Yeah lemme just get ahold of the insurgent group encircled in Syria to get their press release. I'm willing to bet money that every man pictured in the video is dead. As I've already said, it isn't an analysis, just a statement of fact. Watching a video of a pickup truck going down the road and saying "that is a Ford" isn't an analysis, it's a statement of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drassow (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It could also be an Iranian-made MG1A3. Did you check it ?--Le Petit Chat (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did, as stated at 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC). The iranian one has a near identical bulbous shape on the barrel as the MG3. You can see it clearly in this tweet.Drassow (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

In your Ford analogy, I would say this is more a discussion about whether the truck is a '97 or '98 F-150. And yes, we'd need a source for that. Examples of original research that are acceptable per policy are "2+2=4" or "1940 AD was earlier than 1980 AD". Again, we are nothing like that in this case. This really isn't an ambiguous case at all: if the statement isn't attributable to a reliable, published source, then it will not be in the article. That is our policy. If you dislike the policy, consider requesting it be changed. VQuakr (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's explanations on the differences between MG42 and MG3s. as seen in the diagrams and images, an MG3 has a bulb shape near the barrel, the MG42 has a cylinder. This was already covered and explained beforehand. The differences are visible and based on references explaining and showing the differences the gun model has no ambiguity. You're just trying to remove it to be petty at this point.Drassow (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those sources mentions Syria. This is such an obvious WP:NOR violation that pursuing dispute resolution is a waste of your time, but if you feel the need, the methods available to you are listed at WP:DISPUTE. Edit warring is not one of those alternatives. VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

References