Best Machine-GUn of WW2? (As a GPMG)

What was THE best Machinegun of WW2? You Deciede here! The Factors...

Accuacy
Suppression
Rate-Of-Fire
Cartidge
Ease of use
Reload time
Reliablitty
Size
Wieght
Effective Range

Vote nows!

Newbie. wrote:
What was THE best Machinegun of WW2? You Deciede here! The Factors...

Accuacy
Suppression
Rate-Of-Fire
Cartidge
Ease of use
Reload time
Reliablitty
Size
Wieght
Effective Range

Vote nows!

Another factor...who is the Machine gunner  ;D

I think with no doubts the best is MG42:

Rate of fire: 1200/1300 bullet at minute
Range of fire: 1.094 mts
Weight: 11.6 kgs (BAR weight 14.05 kgs  :o)
Cartridge belt: 75 or 100
High speed of bullet: 710 mt/sec (2329 ft/s)

Cheaper to produce.

Defect: the barrel overheats easily

MG42 easily. Not necessarily for the gun itself (which was excellent) but also for the tactics that the Germans developed for it.

Cal 0.5.
It was everywhere where allies were, it could replace both 20mm guns and 0.3 or 0.303 MGs on aircrafts.
Germans were scared of penetration power that 12,7mm bullet had. You couldnt hide from its bullets in a brick house and if you got hit...

Close tie between MG42 and M2 Browning, both are still used today with almost no modifications. 60-70 years of service.

I don't think LMG's like the BAR would count as general purpose machine guns... But anyway It would be a hard choice between the M2, M1919, and MG42 for a medium to heavy machine gun. The MG42 was easy to produce, fast, and reasonably powerful. I have heard that German soldiers complaining about the ammo consumption of  the weapon, which was 1200+ a minute. The M1919 was very well balanced, and was used by USMC legend Tony Stein, who saved his comrades, took on Japanese fortifications on Iwo Jima with his ANM2 Browning, which was a variant of the M1919 made for aircraft, was lighter and fired up to 1200+, all by himself. The .50cal was just a beast, I remember hearing about it killing an Iraqi fighter more than a mile away, by a US soldier firing it with a mounted scope. It was actually created as an AT weapon for dealing with the early WW1 tanks, but was never completed in time. I might sound like I'm totally a redneck gun lover, but I'm actually very liberal, don't own any guns and would never want to, I just love history, and weapons are well a part of it. Thanks for the poll anyways.

the LMG 42 is by far the best , there is no arguement ( so shut up Paciat ! (jk) )

.50 cal for sure , great penetration and excellent design

Akalonor wrote:
the LMG 42 is by far the best , there is no arguement ( so shut up Paciat ! (jk) )

Dont overheat like youre MG would.  ;D

Guess i'm the only one who liks the extremely ease of production, ease of use, accurate, and Powerfull Bren? :P

Newbie. wrote:
Guess i'm the only one who liks the extremely ease of production, ease of use, accurate, and Powerfull Bren? :P

But thats a redesigned ZB vz. 26.
A lot of armies used it too. Good design.

I voted for .50 cal. It was and still is a beast, though MG42 and its newer rechambered version for standart NATO amunition the MG3 is a very good and reliable machine gun too. But the M2HB simply wins in my opinion...if nothing else it uses 12.7mm rounds and i certainly wouldnt want to stand in its way, even behind a concrete wall.

Paciat wrote:

Akalonor wrote:
the LMG 42 is by far the best , there is no arguement ( so shut up Paciat ! (jk) )

Dont overheat like youre MG would.  ;D

Better suppression than yours :P

lol. i thing this poll should be "What is better? M2HB or MG42?"

Paciat wrote:

Akalonor wrote:
the LMG 42 is by far the best , there is no arguement ( so shut up Paciat ! (jk) )

Dont overheat like youre MG would.  ;D

That's why MG34 and MG42 allows you to change the barrel pretty fast. Don't know about a possibility for that on other mgs.

the other MG doesnt fire fast enough to need it :P whats the rpm for a non combat situation , last I remember it was 500.

50cal, of course! Still in use by ~91 countries, It is tried and true.  ;)

what its used for though is not squad combat, its used in emplacements and mounted on vehicles , as a General purpose Mg for anti infantry the MG42 is better.

In a static defence role, .50 cal just OWNS everything.

but the question is as a GPMG , not a Static MG.

Paciat wrote:

Newbie. wrote:
Guess i'm the only one who liks the extremely ease of production, ease of use, accurate, and Powerfull Bren? :P

But thats a redesigned ZB vz. 26.
A lot of armies used it too. Good design.

...including the Waffen-SS, who were known to favor large numbers of Polish rifles and Czech automatic weapons due to supply problems.  ;D

---

Post Merge: [time]1281102992[/time]

---

In the GPMG/LMG role, the MG42 wins, hands-down. The excellent combination of accuracy, range, interchangeability, interoperability, portability, flexibility in multiple roles, ease of use, simplicity of design and incredible suppression rate made it a machine-gun which was way ahead of its time---and which definitely set the standard for every MG which came after it (FN Mag, M60, MG3, SiG 710 series, etc.).

In the anti-materiel, static-defense, and vehicle-mounted roles, the Browning M2HB 50.cal is superior to everything else. It combines power with excellent range, enough to stop thin-skinned vehicles at a considerable distance. However, it failed as a GPMG because it was (and still is) too heavy and bulky. It's more of an HMG.

Last edited August 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM by Werwolf

Well, I would have said M2HB, but since the poll is "As a GPMG" I've gotta say MG42, I live in Denmark and we still use them :)

Paciat wrote:
Dont overheat like youre MG would.  ;D

M2 Browning can easily overheat, and it's not as easy to change the overheated barell as on the MG42.

In any case - the poll was about which was the best GPMG. And in that case, he MG42 is easily the best one, together with the MG34. A very flexible weapon thhat can easily be carried by a single man and used in all kinds of combat situation.

The M2 Browning is a very good weapon, dont get me wrong, but much more "specialized" for certain tasks and therefore not as good as a GPMG as the MG42.

I have to disagree that the MG34 was second , it was too fragile for combat situations , Itd say the Bren is second , MG34 third

Yea, the bren was pretty good.

I gotta say the MG42 is an excellent weapon, but the ammo consumption caused many problems. Rate of fire isn't everything you know. The MG42's accuracy is pretty good if you fire it in bursts( like any other machine gun), and if you do whats the big idea of having a high rate of fire for. That's why the Americans made the M60 because they thought 1200+ rpm was just downright overkill. I gotta give it to the Browning M1919, reliable like any other machine gun of its era. Powerful, firing the 30-06, which has similar performance to the 7.92x57mm Mauser round. It has a longer effective range than the MG42, and can be used by a single person with a sling or bi-pod, did you watch the Pacific or read about Tony Stein on Iwo Jima? It weighed just a little bit more than the MG42 because it used more machined parts rather than stamped parts which I heard gives you more reliability, not sure about this. Doesn't fire fast enough to need barrel changes often. The M1919 also just looks awesome. Everyone has there own opinion, and I respect all of them, but I just wanted to present mine.

Did you look into it much , the 1919 does infact need a barrel change , not as often as the 42 but still , also the Mg 42 was a squad weapon , the 1919 was meant to be mounted , not carried by a single person , using the Pacific as a source isnt that credible either , but I respect your ways even though I disagree.

He was referring to the ANM2 "Stinger", which was an M1919 modification used by the USMC in Iwo Jima. However, the total number of units which were produced and subsequently used in battle were only 5-6 (including Tony Stein's) --- so these were pretty isolated cases. The M1919 was designed and used as a crew-served company or battalion-level support weapon, and not as a squad LMG or GPMG. The fact that the M1919's handle was designed to be gripped while in a prone, dug-in or mounted static-defence position illustrates its role as being primarily defensive in nature. It wasn't as effective in the assault role, since it was considered too cumbersome to lug around (unless it was mounted on a vehicle, such as a jeep). Also, the prevalence of machined parts made it extremely difficult to clean and maintain, not to mention the fact that it also required a greater amount of resources and man-hours to produce. I should know, since I actually own one.  ;)

By the time WW2 started, it was already considered obsolete, since it was originally a water-cooled MG converted to use an air-cooled system. When it was decided try to lighten the gun and make it an air-cooled gun, its design as a "gun that fires from the closed bolt" created a potentially dangerous situation. If the gun was very hot from prolonged firing, the cartridge ready to be fired could be resting in a red hot barrel, causing the propellant in the round to "cook off": firing from the intense heat without any warning.

Its use could be illustrated as such:

"The M1919 required at least a two-man machine gun team. But in practice, four men were normally involved: the gunner (who fired the gun and when advancing carried the tripod and box of ammo), the assistant gunner (who helped feed the gun and carried the gun, and box of spare parts and tools), and two ammunition carriers. The original idea was to allow the gun to be more easily packed for transport, and featured a light barrel and bipod when first introduced as the M1919A1. Unfortunately, it quickly became clear that the gun was too heavy to be easily moved, while at the same time too light for sustained fire." (Garrison, Gene, Unless Victory Comes, NAI Press (2004), ISBN 9780451222244, 1932033300, p.8 )

Therefore, the M1919, like the M2HB was NOT a GPMG.  :)

BTW, the designers of the M60---in looking for a possible successor to replace the BAR and the M1919---got it all wrong. The reduced firing rate was more the result of the gas-operated, open bolt design (combined from both the FG42 and MG42---two entirely different weapon systems) than anything else. A higher rate of fire would have necessitated a higher amount of barrel changes and might also have lead to faster equipment deterioration. The M60's a difficult monster with a very fragile leaf-spring clip, an awkward safety mechanism, and was prone to jamming in the field--along with other malfunctions. Nowadays, it is being supplemented in the US Military by the M240 and M249 SAW (based on the FN Mag and FN Minimi, which are just two of the more reliable and better-designed descendants of the MG42).

Last edited August 17, 2010 at 1:53 AM by Werwolf

Always got to prove us forum people wrong with your fancy pancy facts...

Just kidding, its a forum and when theirs a forum theirs probably someone wrong and theirs got to be someone to correct it ;)

Seeme wrote:
Always got to prove us forum people wrong with your fancy pancy facts...

Just kidding, its a forum and when theirs a forum theirs probably someone wrong and theirs got to be someone to correct it ;)

LOL  ;D ... No worries, I just thought that the whole comparison was a bit unfair, since technically only one weapon (MG42) really qualified as a GPMG, while all the others were either HMGs, Medium-MGs (M1919) or LMGs. Perhaps we should remove the "GPMG" emphasis altogether...

Last edited August 17, 2010 at 9:05 AM by Werwolf

Hurray! .50 Cal!

If you do that than the arguement has no guidlines .

As shown above...

I'd say MG42, no doubt.
It's design is still used in modern Mg's, and it had overall advantages.
although the massive fire rate may have been just a little too much.

6 for US M2HB , 25 for MG42...... Victory !

I think we know whats won then..

Newbie. wrote:
I think we know whats won then..

The most produced WWII MG today is of course the best.
M2 is used so widelly becouse it was chosen by men that know more about guns than anyone on this forum.

Which happens to be you :)

Paciat wrote:

Newbie. wrote:
I think we know whats won then..

The most produced WWII MG today is of course the best.

I have a problem with that statement ,  just because somehthing is the most produced doesnt mean it was the best.

Actually is sorta is.

he's right for about 50%, if a gun is produced in large numbers, it is the best gun a country uses at that moment.
However, the US tried to make a copy of the MG42 themselves, which failed due to a failed design.

They tried to make it a super version, and failed/.

loatty wrote:
he's right for about 50%, if a gun is produced in large numbers, it is the best gun a country uses at that moment.
However, the US tried to make a copy of the MG42 themselves, which failed due to a failed design.

Because they tried combining key components from what they thought were the best available German weapons. The mashed-up design which eventually became the M60 was an EPIC FAIL on their part. At least the Soviets got it right with the StG44 >> AK47... the Americans were still using technically the same WW2 firearms in Korea and Vietnam (early Vietnam war). Ironically, the antique MG42s and DshKs used by the NVA and VC outperformed the Americans' M60s, M1919s and Stoner 63 LMGs in the field.

Werwolf wrote:

loatty wrote:
he's right for about 50%, if a gun is produced in large numbers, it is the best gun a country uses at that moment.
However, the US tried to make a copy of the MG42 themselves, which failed due to a failed design.

Because they tried combining key components from what they thought were the best available German weapons. The mashed-up design which eventually became the M60 was an EPIC FAIL on their part. At least the Soviets got it right with the StG44 >> AK47... the Americans were still using technically the same WW2 firearms in Korea and Vietnam (early Vietnam war). Ironically, the antique MG42s and DshKs used by the NVA and VC outperformed the Americans' M60s, M1919s and Stoner 63 LMGs in the field.

Didn't the M60 actually become rather (or at least somewhat) reliable when they made the E3 version right before it was replaced by the M240?

Yea, rather very useful.

Skykid93 wrote:

Werwolf wrote:

loatty wrote:
he's right for about 50%, if a gun is produced in large numbers, it is the best gun a country uses at that moment.
However, the US tried to make a copy of the MG42 themselves, which failed due to a failed design.

Because they tried combining key components from what they thought were the best available German weapons. The mashed-up design which eventually became the M60 was an EPIC FAIL on their part. At least the Soviets got it right with the StG44 >> AK47... the Americans were still using technically the same WW2 firearms in Korea and Vietnam (early Vietnam war). Ironically, the antique MG42s and DshKs used by the NVA and VC outperformed the Americans' M60s, M1919s and Stoner 63 LMGs in the field.

Didn't the M60 actually become rather (or at least somewhat) reliable when they made the E3 version right before it was replaced by the M240?

The M60E3 was an improvement, however the M240 performed better in the field. Honestly, the E3 variant was long overdue IMO.

heh, i'd perfer a FN Mimmini to a M240 or M60E3 Anyday.

The M60 wasn't only based on the MG42, it's design was also heavily influenced by the FG42, which is among the most advanced designs of the Second World War.
Unfortunately, the weapon wasn't produced in large quantities, and isn't among the commonly known weapons of its time.

It was late war, late 1944

Wasn't the FG42 produced for the invasion of Crete when Germany declared war on Greece? That was early in the war.