Question on FG42 Gunners

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (SplFrcsCWO) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:55:52 GMT

Actually, troops armed with the early models of the FG42 did carry an MP40 or K98. There were many reliability issues akin to the M-16's early use in Vietnam. The weapons were basically disposable. The barrels could not be replaced and they had a very low round count life. It didn't inspire confidence in the troops.

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (RogueJK) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:29:03 GMT

b c ries wrote:
Attempting to move under fire and find decent cover while burdened with excessive gear is like pimp'n, in that, it ain't easy.

Word.

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (b c ries) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:17:11 GMT

In most cases it is better to carry more ammunition than to carry an additional weapon.
Attempting to move under fire and find decent cover while burdened with excessive gear is like pimp'n, in that, it ain't easy.
This is just my opinion but I believe that most of the soldiers seen in wartime pictures carrying two or more weapons are helping a buddy who has to carry something heavy.
I know that while I was in the Army I often carried more than one weapon, and every...

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (v97) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:00:33 GMT

Monte Cassino wrote:

Actually, FG42 bandoliers were rare. They were heavy, clunky and the slapped around a lot when running. As a result, they were unpopular and discarded late in the war. Spare clips were either kept in their pockets, or in the case of Fall.Regt.6 in Normandy, placed in special flap-less rigger pockets sewed into the jump smock on each upper arm, in addition to the...

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (strumovik) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:00:52 GMT

From what I have understood, to answer the question no secound weapon, as it was an assualt rifle, but unfortunatly tactically due to the high cost of the weaopon, it was used in the squad support weaopon, it took the MP44 to change the infrantry tactics. Have a look at German Automatic Weapons of World War II, by Robert Bruce, for a good run down on all te main German automatic weapons.

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (Monte Cassino) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:40:13 GMT

Actually, FG42 bandoliers were rare. They were heavy, clunky and the slapped around a lot when running. As a result, they were unpopular and discarded late in the war. Spare clips were either kept in their pockets, or in the case of Fall.Regt.6 in Normandy, placed in special flap-less rigger pockets sewed into the jump smock on each upper arm, in addition to the pockets AND topped off with chargers from a standard 100 rd. KAR98 Bandoliers. I also read that FG42 clips were hard to come by...

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (arbomambo) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:32:33 GMT

Trouble is...most FJs who had the FG42 didn't wear the FG-42 bandoleer...it was very heavy, when filled...and since it was worn around the neck, fatigued the trooper much more quickly than the comparable BAR belt worn around the waist and supported by suspenders (M1936)...even the BAR guys found medic yokes and used those instead of the standard suspenders, to help distribute the weight better across the shoulders and back...
the FG-42 bandoleer's weight was supported by a cloth...

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (Das Soldat 001) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:05:49 GMT

Andre,
I'm also working on an FG42 gunner...carrying a sidearm (Luger, Walther, or somethign captured) was common among the Fallschirmjäger...a secondary weapon (K98, MP 40, etc....) could happen, but your best bet is with a pistol....one rifle and all of its ammo is heavy enough after a long day, two weapons would be worse. The FG42 would also be impractical for a light machine gun....with a rate-of-fire close to that of the MG42, a 20 or 30 round magazine won't last long. When...

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (froggyfelix) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:03:37 GMT

The FG42 is more an assault rifle like the Sturmgewehr, so no need of another weapon.

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (Monte Cassino) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:36:09 GMT

In the book "Dying for St. Lo." a vereran of Fallschirm.Aufklarung-Abteilung 12 during the Normandy fight recalls that:

"A sturmtrupp [consisted] of one NCO and ten other ranks armed with a light MG, 2 FG42, and another with a telescopic sight, a flamethrower, a Puppschen anti tank weapon ..."
The translation from the original French of the book was VERY POORLY EDITED, so it is hard to get an exact grasp on many of the facts, however. According to this...

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (pzrwest) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:40:59 GMT

I would suggest joining Axis History forum and research your question there. Alot of re-enactors are doing FJ and they are pretty picky when it comes to gear and equiptment and quite knowledgeable about it. You think some nitpick here at the figures well they are very picky there when it comes to uniforms gear and weapons when doing an impression what ever branch of service.

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (v97) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:08:57 GMT

RogueJK wrote:

To reload the FG-42 with a fresh magazine didn't take any longer than any other magazine fed weapon, like the MP40. And the FG-42 fired the same 8mm cartridge as the Kar98 and G43 rifles and MG34 and MG42 machine guns. As a result, ammunition was plentiful, but most Fallschirmjagers would carry enough loaded magazines already to make recharging magazines with loose...

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (arbomambo) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:56:24 GMT

Andre,
the FG-42 was more of an automatic rifle than a machine gun...think of it as an M-16 rather than an M-60...remember it was scoped on some models...so it was somewhat easier to handle than was the BAR. It was the rifleman's weapon...so it was unlikely he would carry anything other than a pistol as another weapon.
Remember, think 'rifle'...not 'squad automatic'...
Bruce

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (RogueJK) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:47:19 GMT

Keep in mind that the tactics of the day revolved around squads and platoons fighting battles. It isn't a video game where every man is for himself, and the one with the biggest magazine wins. Each weapon served a purpose in the squad, and the members of the group supported each other. Each man played a specific role in the team. As a result, there was generally no need to carry more than one main weapon. You buddies would usually cover you while you reloaded. Not to mention that most...

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (v97) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:17:20 GMT

Hi Bruce, I know the FG42 wasn't used like a MG but I always assume the FG42 rifleman would carry a second main weapon like an MP40 or K98 rifle. This comes to my second question Was FG42 Magazine ammo scarce? Was it more slow to reload a FG42? If for those problems was it possible for a FG42 rifleman to carry a second weapon?

Andre

Re: Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (arbomambo) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:00:55 GMT

It is my understanding that the FG-42 WAS the rifleman's weapon...it wasn't used like the squad MG...more of an automatic rifle...
more like a BAR man than an MG gunner...BAR guys didn't carry 'another' rifle as a rule...
Bruce

Question on FG42 Gunners

feeds@yuku.com (v97) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:54:53 GMT

Hi everyone Iam very curious on this subject. Did FG42 gunners carried a second weapon? I know most FJ's would carry a pistol for a sidearm but what about a second main weapon? I have only seen one pic of an FJ carrying both a FG42 and Kar98 rifle. I like to know any info if this was common in German fally fg42 gunners.

Andre