Modeling Heavy weapons teams in WW2

gunbunny · Post by **gunbunny** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:13 am

All right everyone,

So I have a company of Germans painted up, 4 stands and a HQ for each platoon, and a company stand. I can model the 5cm mortars (my understanding they were direct fire support), but for machine gun support how do you model the difference between HMG and MMG?

I have a pack of the individual heavy weapons (hence the 5cm mortar) which has a tripod mounted machine gun but my eyes are just not good enough to tell if it is a 42 or a 34. If its a 42 where is the 34 or the opposite? Does anyone distinguish between the two and if so how do you model them to show a difference? Any help would be appreciated and I promise to post pictures when this dilemma is solved.

-Gunbunny

dougeagle · Post by **dougeagle** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:17 am

Not sure if there is a difference between the 2 guns at this scale. But in real life size, to tell the difference was in appearance. The MG34 had a round barrel cover while the MG42 has a box style cover. Rate of fire was also different too.
Unless you're not picky about what type the mini actually is, you can use it for both types.

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:34 am

The MG 34 or 42 on tripod were MMG. They were the LMG with an heavier barrel mpunted on tripod,.

The MG's on tripod are usually called heavy MG but they are actually MMG (rifle caliber) or HMG (around .50 caliber). In this sense the Germans had no HMG while the US had both types

Cav Dog · Post by **Cav Dog** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:48 pm

One possible convention is to designate a tripod mounted MG with two crewmembers a MMG and add a third crew member such as a prone spotter to designate it as a HMG.

L to R:

LMG - bipod with squad
MMG - tripod two crewmembers
HMG - tripod three crewmembers

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:03 am

You may show thaem with two or three fiogres but they remain MMG. Only the US army had HMG (the Browning .50).

It is mainly a question of wording. If you look at the GHQ descriptiomn the MG on tripod are called heavy (or simply MG) because this is the usual term being in "heavy duty.

But if you look at TO&E all the nations have (correctly) MMG only and the HMG is called .50 and is included only in US TO&E.

Cav Dog · Post by **Cav Dog** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:24 am

All the major European powers except the Germans had HMG if caliber is the criteria. The Soviets had the DShK38 on a wheeled mount that was 12.7mm, the UK forces had the Vickers Mk 3, 4 & 5 which were all 12.7mm. The Germans on the other hand used the same basic weapon, either the 7.92mm MG 34 or 42 but the role was more defined by where it fit into the TO&E. The weapons used in the rifle squads came with both a bipod and a tripod and the mission would determine which was used, but the basic load was pretty limited. There was a heavy barrel version of the MG 34/42 available designed for sustained fire which you would more typically but not always find in the weapons platoons and MG companies where there was more ammo available, at least in theory.

So at the end of the day if your rules differentiate between LMG, MMG and HMG it could be that they are taking other things into account other than cartridge size.. The rules could be modeling sustained fire capability, type of mount and/or ammo supply

I blame any and all confusion on Squad Leader!

gunbunny · Post by **gunbunny** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:35 am

Cav Dog, TAMMY and Dougeagle,

Thanks for the replies, I was aware that the differences between the "HMG" and "MMG" for the Germans namely fell on the barrel used and the length of sustained fire. Note that I put them in quotes for the reasons that TAMMY gave about the calibers, since although I already knew that they used the same ammo I was being block headed and not registering this fact. Without the this forum as a reference I would spend days researching a detail that was knocking around your heads all along.

I'm thinking of using what I will now name the "cav dog" option and base a ammo carrying soldier along with the machine gun crew to simulate a sustained fire/barrel difference.

Respectfully,
Gun Bunny

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:48 am

CavDog

I disagree on part of your statement.
Only US and Russian (as you say) fielded infantry heavy machine guns. The US ones were on tripod (or jeeps) at weapons company level while thr Russian were at battalion level.

The British .50 Vickers were used only on tanks (Mk II) or AA on ships (Mk.III) snd were not for infantry use

The Gernan squad had no tripod for their LMG (or LMG's if armoured), onlÃ²y bipod

The tripod was used only with the heavy barrled version of MG 34 or 42.

The rule that differentiate between MMG and HMG do it on caliber not on the tactical use of the weapon. Just to have a ready refernce give a look to GHQ free TO&E. Practically all the MG for weapons platoon or companies are MMG.

We usuallyu talk of light (on bipod) ;or heavy (on tripod ) MG but if you use the short form they are LMG, MMG (rifle csaliber), HMG (12,7 to 14,.5mm)

Cav Dog · Post by **Cav Dog** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:52 am

Interestingly enough, the weapons companies in US infantry battalions in WWII were equipped with eight heavy machine guns which were M1917A1 water cooled 30 cal machine guns. The weapons platoons in the rifle companies initially had two light machine guns which were M1919A4 air cooled 30 cal light machine guns on tripods, that were later replaced by the M1919A6 which was basically the same weapon but with a stock and a bipod. I have never seen any reference in WWII US military nomenclature for anything called a medium machine gun.

Draw your own conclusions.

Donald M. Scheef · Post by **Donald M. Scheef** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:20 pm

I would suggest that some of the difficulty in this discussion is due to trying to force differing tactical doctrines and available hardware of various nations into a rigid three-tier system of "light-," "medium-," and "heavy-" machine guns. Some may restrict heavy machine guns to the larger caliber weapons (US .50 cal Browning, Soviet DShK38, etc.) while others may include rifle-caliber weapons in a sustained-fire role (heavy-barrel MG34 & MG42, water-cooled .30 cal Browning, etc.).

If the rules specify the difference, then go by the rules. If not, then so long as there is agreement between the players, go with what works for you.

Don S.

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:24 am

Donald M. Scheef wrote:I would suggest that some of the difficulty in this discussion is due to trying to force differing tactical doctrines and available hardware of various nations into a rigid three-tier system

Added to that is the dimension of time. Even within a given nation's doctrine, the nature of weapons characterization usually changes in time.

Prior to WW2 the transport systems of almost every army in the world was based on muscle-power. Even in the most advanced forces, motorized units were few and far between.

When you are using muscle power, it is critical to know how transportable a given weapon is.

So in almost every army in the world, a heavy machine gun was a machine gun that was heavy. The classification had nothing to do with the caliber, or the tactical doctrine. It had to do with the weight of the gun (and it's accompanying necessities, like tripod and water).

A US Army M1917 was the same caliber as the M1919 machine gun. And it had the same rate of fire (cyclic rate, though not sustained rate). But the M1917 was classified as a heavy machine gun. Why? Because it weighed over 100 pounds! IT WAS HEAVY. And that meant a whole lot in terms of the realistic possibilities that the weapon represented. Because a team of 5 men had to be assigned to carry it, with more for the ammunition. But an M1919 weighed only 31 pounds (in the A4 version). It could be taken into action by two men (plus ammo carriers).

Even though they were both the same caliber, any officer anywhere in the command chain needed to know what gun he was dealing with, and could NOT treat them as equivelant weapons, because one required 2 1/2 times more of his most precious resource (muscle power) to use.

It is only in the post-war era, where we have the luxury of assuming a vehicle to carry the gun to the battle area, that we can use the words "heavy" or "medium" or "light" to refer to tactical doctrines or calibers.

And so, in this era, we start to see classifications that are in fact more tactically-driven than weight driven. So the "light machine gun" and the "medium machine gun" more often get classified as "squad automatic weapons" or "general purpose machine guns" or "sustained-fire machine guns". In this vernacular, a "heavy machine gun" is more clearly a gun with a higher-powered cartridge.

If the rules specify the difference, then go by the rules. If not, then so long as there is agreement between the players, go with what works for you.

I have seen this come up as a point of conflict in interpreting wargame rules.

I had this discussion with the team at ODGW in their most recent update to the Mein Panzer rules. They listed weapons according to their original classifications without regard to current presumptions of classifications. I watched (and suffered through) several occasions where gamers were convinced that a weapon noted in the rules as an HMG must be of greater caliber or power than guns noted in the rules as MMGs.

In my own experience it is entirely too easy for a gamer to see that his US infantry weapons platoon has 1 x M1917 HMG, and with no knowledge of what an M1917 is, to argue that this means he gets a .50 caliber machine gun. The same applied to French Hotchkiss HMGs (which might be 8mm or 13mm, depending on the model), or Vickers MGs, or Breda MGs. Gamers who did not know the specifics of the model number were prone to arguing over what the weapon was.

I was tired of explaining to gamers that it was historically accurate (and reasonable) for rifle-caliber MGs to be classified as "heavy". So I urged the ODGW team to list not only the classification, but the caliber of the gun. That simple addition greatly reduces the confusion at game time.

Cav Dog · Post by **Cav Dog** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:55 am

Tammy,

I completely get the point you are trying to make regarding classifying machine guns as light if it is rifle caliber and bipod mounted, medium if it is rifle caliber and tripod mounted and heavy if it is .50, .51, 12.7mm or 14.5 mm, if the rules you are using require you to differentiate them based on firepower, accuracy, range, ammo supply and ability of a squad to carry them. It makes perfect sense from a gaming standpoint.

But the military units we are modeling made no such distinctions based on type of mount or caliber and a couple of points need to be clarified:

The US had the M2 "Ma Duece .50 cal heavy machine gun in the rifle and weapons companies. But each company had exactly one and it was there for air defense by doctrine, not for use as an infantry support weapon the way the M1917s and M1919s were. Yes, it came with a tripod and could be used for ground defense and I'm certain it was, but per earlier posters, it and its ammo were way too heavy to use it effectively as an infantry support weapon. That is why the Russians mounted their 12.7mm on wheels, the UK forces kept them on vehicles and the Germans didn't bother with them at all.
Speaking of tripods, it appears the MG 34/42 did come with a tripod at the rifle squad level. Dr Stephen Bull in his book World War Two Infantry Tactics, Squad and Platoon describes the German rifle squad as being composed of an NCO Squad Leader, a light machine gun section composed of the gunner, an assistant gunner and an ammo bearer, and six other rifleman whose duties included carrying extra ammo and the tripod for the machine gun.

So there you have it. Happy gaming!

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:45 pm

Cav Dog

the categories L, M, HMG by caliber and bipod/tripod are modern ones and are used by most nations.

During World War II the classification (in English) were only LMG (usually squad weapons on bipod like Bren, Breda 30, Mac 24/29) and HMG (support weapons on tripod).
The BAR should be an LMG and LMG, HMG and .50 should be HMG.

Note that other nations used different classifications. Italy and France, for example, called the bipod automatic rifle (fucile mitragliatore and fusil mitrailleuse), the MG on tripod were simply MG (rifle caliber) (mitragliatrice or mitrailleuse), while "heavy" (pesante or lourde) was applied to large caliber MG only.

Germans were the only one to have truly LMG (leichte) and HMG (schwere). They were the only one to use the same weapons inboth roles, just adding a tripod.

I think that if ypou want to keep the LMG/HMG definitions you need to reclassify the American weapons in this way: the BAR is an LMG, all the other as HMG.to stay with the usual understanding of these classes.

I knew that the use of the .50 on tripod in ground support was not usual due to the weight of the system (about 150 lbs) besides the poor stability of the tripod.

About the tripod ifor the MG34 or 42 in the infantry squad, I have to say that Dr. Bull (Osprey Elite on World War II infantry tactics, page 23) is wrong. Besides what all other sources says, the infantry squad (Grupe) had two reasons not to carry the tripod. Their tactical role and its weight. The tactical role required a light and mobile weapon (the MG 42 was 11,5kg) and the tripod alone weighted 20,5 Kg. Too much to be easily carried by a fast moving infatryman..

I

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:45 pm

Cav Dog

the categories L, M, HMG by caliber and bipod/tripod are modern ones and are used by most nations.

During World War II the classification (in English) were only LMG (usually squad weapons on bipod like Bren, Breda 30, Mac 24/29) and HMG (support weapons on tripod).
The BAR should be an LMG and LMG, HMG and .50 should be HMG.

Note that other nations used different classifications. Italy and France, for example, called the bipod automatic rifle (fucile mitragliatore and fusil mitrailleuse), the MG on tripod were simply MG (rifle caliber) (mitragliatrice or mitrailleuse), while "heavy" (pesante or lourde) was applied to large caliber MG only.

Germans were the only one to have truly LMG (leichte) and HMG (schwere). They were the only one to use the same weapons inboth roles, just adding a tripod.

I think that if ypou want to keep the LMG/HMG definitions you need to reclassify the American weapons in this way: the BAR is an LMG, all the other as HMG.to stay with the usual understanding of these classes.

I knew that the use of the .50 on tripod in ground support was not usual due to the weight of the system (about 150 lbs) besides the poor stability of the tripod.

About the tripod ifor the MG34 or 42 in the infantry squad, I have to say that Dr. Bull (Osprey Elite on World War II infantry tactics, page 23) is wrong. Besides what all other sources says, the infantry squad (Grupe) had two reasons not to carry the tripod. Their tactical role and its weight. The tactical role required a light and mobile weapon (the MG 42 was 11,5kg) and the tripod alone weighted 20,5 Kg. Too much to be easily carried by a fast moving infatryman..

I

Cav Dog · Post by **Cav Dog** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:33 am

Tammy,

About the tripod ifor the MG34 or 42 in the infantry squad, I have to say that Dr. Bull (Osprey Elite on World War II infantry tactics, page 23) is wrong. Besides what all other sources says, the infantry squad (Grupe) had two reasons not to carry the tripod. Their tactical role and its weight. The tactical role required a light and mobile weapon (the MG 42 was 11,5kg) and the tripod alone weighted 20,5 Kg. Too much to be easily carried by a fast moving infatryman..

I'll let you and Dr Bull slug it out but your stats for the tripod seem to be incorrect. The total weight of the MG 34 and tripod is 42 lbs or slightly more than 19 kg. according to the War Department Handbook on German Miltary Forces. The tripod could easily be carried by the squad. Pending any authoritative resource to the contrary, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.