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

[Akalonor]

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

[Shadowmetroid]

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

[Akalonor]

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.

[Newbie.]

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

[Akalonor]

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

[Werwolf]

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

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. 
Post Merge: August 06, 2010, 03:56:32 PMIn 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.

[Skykid93]

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

[Subutai]

Dont overheat like youre MG would. 

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.

[Akalonor]

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

[Seeme]

Yea, the bren was pretty good.

[EasyWay91]

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.

[Akalonor]

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.

[Werwolf]

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).

[Seeme]

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

[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

LOL  ... 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...