MovieChat Forums > Cross of Iron (1977) Discussion > The German machine guns, the MG-42

The German machine guns, the MG-42

posted 15 years ago by I_hatenazis
19 replies | jump to latest

In the movie they showed the German's firing it at the Russian several times, my question to you is this, did the MG-42 really sound like that?

Whenever, I watch this movie I am struck at how different the battles sound as compared to the other 60's / 70's war movies. You can hear the T-34 gear's grinding, the explosions sound different, the the tripod based machine guns sounded really different. I heard that the MG-42's had an unusually high rate of fire but I'm curious if they really sounded like that or if they generated the sound in some other manner.

"I Hate Trolls"

[–] nickm2 15 years ago

Loved the MG42 scene at the begining when it broke the Russian attack just before Steiner was wounded by ???; My buds & I had always heard of the '42's vaunted rate of fire but to see it graphically knocking over a whole file of Russian soldiers like nine-pins was amazing;

But...in real life I think the sound was not the actual one--I would venture to say 'slower' than real life...IF you go onto YouTube you can find actual MG42s being fired on camera;

NM

[–] DoomTrooper 15 years ago

The MG42 has a cyclic rate of 1000 rounds per minute. I fired the MG4(The modern version of it) and needless to say it is a different sound than you'd expect.

If one good deed in all my life I did,
I do repent it from my very soul.
Aaron the Moor

[–] stikpusher 15 years ago

I qualified on the MG-3, the Bundeswehr varaint of the MG-42 chambered to 7.62mm NATO. Lets just just say the weapon has a very high rate of fire in comparison to the US M-60 MG. I have not seen the movie in manyyears so I can comment on the movie take on the sound, but in real life, it is very very rapid.

[–] Bry-2 14 years ago

Wasn't the MG-42 called "Hitler's zipper," from the sound it makes? So think of a zipper -- but a lot louder -- to get an idea of the sound.

Or just go on YouTube and search it.

Wikipedia's page has a nice bit about its various nicknames:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG-42#Service_history

--If they move, kill 'em!

[–] kewikle 14 years ago

The more popular nickname was "Hitler's buzzsaw".

Its average cyclic rate of fire was 1200 rpm, so fast that it sounded like a cloth being ripped...at supersonic loudness of course. Very intimidating.

And yeah, in spite of the ridiculous claims made by allied propaganda films, its bite was most definitely worse than its bark.

[–] Placiddragon 12 years ago

I qualified on the MG-3, the Bundeswehr varaint of the MG-42 chambered to 7.62mm NATO

I also qualified on the MG-3 in the army (Norwegian army) :)

Its 20 years ago, but if i recall, it had a fire rate of 17 - 22 rounds per second (this could be adjusted by shortening or lengthening the spring if i recall, but we obviously never tried that).

An absolutely magnificent weapon in terms of firepower, but its ammo consumption is also a problem. I served both as an MG-1 and as an MG-2 (MG-1 carries and fires the gun, the MG-2 carries ammo, a spare barrel, and directs fire and feeds it with ammo).

Normally, one would only have say.. the MG-1 had one belt in the gun (50 rounds), and the MG-2 carried an extra 200 - 250 rounds. Those 300 rounds vanishes very very quickly, hehe

But another important distinction is that there was never any "spray and pray" type of firing, it was always short controlled bursts at clear targets.

---
Let me show you the deep raw passion of unbridled sexual frenzy. But Lucy... im British

[–] bo_nidle 14 years ago

Definitely NOT authentic Mg42 sounds used in the film. As stated the MG42 had a very high rate of fire at 1200rpm.

However this high rate of fire came with a price: frequent barrel changes and a greed for ammo.

As for its effects on Allied troops morale? Well, I have an 86 year old uncle who was in the British 6th Airborne. He has told me that the thing that terrified him and his mates the most was the sound of the MG42. He still recalls it with dread even today.

[–] jloper 14 years ago

I've read in several places that the Browning .303-caliber machine guns that armed Spitfire and Hurricane fighters during the Battle of Britain had a cyclic rate of fire of 1,200 rounds per minute. I suppose that the Allies could have had faster firing machine guns if they'd wanted them.

[–] Locomotiva1 14 years ago

Rate of fire was, and is, a combination of engeneering decisions.

In airplane's guns, the target is in sight for few seconds: so it's important to pepper the target with as many bullet as possible in that little window of time.

On the other hand, an infantry weapon had othere requirements: weight, reliability, avoid overheating and change of the barrel in action as far as it's possible, and pure and simple compsumption of ammunition, as the people behind the gun could carry just a limited amount of it.
It's not just a "more bullets = more badassery" problem.

The US army M60 was deliberately designed with a slower rate of fire as a tactical requirement.

It's interesting to note that the post-war reincarnation of the MG-42, in 7,62x51mmNATO, were modified to slower the rate of fire from the absurd NAzi standards to a more manageable and feedable one.

[–] aetius_praetorian 14 years ago

The MG-42 was one of the best MG's in WWII. The U.S. Army M-60 (7.62mm) was actually based on the MG-42 design. And yes it had a high rate of fire. It's only flaw was overheating the barrel after extended firing (1000rds+) and jamming once it got too hot.

"Veritas Aequitas"

[–] cbee-1 14 years ago

Could the rate of fire on the MG42 be reduced with a setting on the gun?

[–] Locomotiva1 14 years ago

No, there is no way to select a rate of fire in the MG42.
As far as I know, only the BAR, the Browning Automatic Rifle M1918 (squad weapon of US infantry in WWII) had a lever/button to set a "low rate" or "high rate" of fire.
But I don't know if all models had that provision.

In the Italian Army, the MG42-59 - MG42 built after war in 7.62x51mm NATO - can have a "light bolt" for a higher rate of fire or a "heavy bolt" to slow it down from 600/700rpm (light bolt) to about 550rpm.
But you have to field strip the gun and physically replace the part, not just to flip a lever.

[–] guybaxendale 13 years ago

MG42 although a great piece of engineering is widely believed to be a poor weapon in practical terms.

Due to the incredibly high rate of fire the barrels wore out very quickly and the operators were burdened down by the enormous amounts of amunition they had to carry. As it turned out they simply couldnt produce amunition as fast as the MG42 could eat it up and spew it out.

[–] bjorn5 13 years ago

That's must be why it has been in use for 70 years, then...

[–] I_hatenazis 13 years ago

That's must be why it has been in use for 70 years, then...

Good one Bjorn :-)

It was very practical and built in large numbers and U.S. soldiers on Omaha beach certainly dreaded it. I believe that the German rationale for it's high rate of fire and eating ammunition was that in actual engagements a gunner would sometimes have a very small window of opportunity to shoot at a target before they scrambled for cover. This is why it was important to rain bullets on them as fast as possible.

It is true that the barrels overheated but they were designed w/quick release for rapid replacement. In modern times, of course, the mini-gun reverted back to the Gattling gun tech. of rotating barrels to maintain a high rate of fire and not overheat the barrels.

I wonder how long it took for the barrel to overheat and how the gunner knew that it was time to replace it?

[–] bjorn5 13 years ago

From what I remember from my army days, the barrel was changed (we used the FN MAG) when a box of ammo (5 x 50 round belts) had been used up. Also, an MG is best fired in short, controlled bursts, and not plugging away a full box without cease.

[–] I_hatenazis 13 years ago

If you don't mind saying, when did you serve in the army? By the way, thanks for your response that the lens cover may well have been simply slitted to keep the glare from giving the spotter away. That makes sense and helps me enjoy the scene more knowing that they did not make a silly mistake.

[–] bruchpilot 12 years ago

I feel the need to clarify some of the things here:
The MGs used in the movie were yugoslavian copies of the mg42 which fired around 500-600 rpm.
The MG3 of the german army (basically a MG42 converted to 7,62x51mm Nato) still fires at around 1200 rpm.
From my time in the german army (and me now looking up the regulation) it states clearly that after 150 rounds the barrel has to be changed.
This is absolutely not much of a problem as you always have at least 2 barrels, one is cooling off, while the other one is in the gun.
The barrel-change didn't take longer than say 2-3 seconds if properly trained.
If you train a bit with the MG3 it is possible to fire really short bursts (actually this is what we were trained to do). After some practice you could even fire single shots.
And yes if you fired in bursts you couldn't really differentiate between single shots. It sounded most like braaaaat. Look up some videos on youtube, there are a lot of the MG3 being fired.

However the MG42 had a firerate of about 1500 rpm. I would boldly state that controlling short bursts would also be possible, don't know about single shots.

[–] LeParas-1 11 years ago

Here you have the original sound of the MG42.

US Army Training movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35R2WENXMl8