Base weapon is an M53 yes, seen by the markings and the front spidersight attachtment missing.
What i am wonder is, is this gun made with MG42 parts due to lack of yugoslavian markings as this wasn't an uncommon thing to do right after the war!
And i am fairly sure the MG42 and M53 used the same sights, only diffrences was a slower rate of fire (from 1200 to 900 afaik) and the M53 has no spidersight attachtment point
The best Militaria forum in France is here : http://deutsch-militaria.forumactif.us/
You're right about the differences between the two guns. Where the MG 42 has a cutout in the barrel jacket for the AA sight attachment, the M53 does not. It was considered extraneous and pointless, given the advancements in aircraft technology post-WWII. The buttstock was also slightly different, with a coat of black paint. It is not uncommon for unscrupulous people to remove the paint from Yugo buttstocks to try and pass them off as WWII German production.
Apart from the above differences, and the decrease in rate of fire, the two guns are virtually identical from a mechanical and aesthetic standpoint. They don't have the pedigree of the MG 42, but they're still interesting from a historical point of view.
B.B.
The gun would have been made with all Yugo parts. At some point later it's been refurbished by the Yugos along side other M53s and Mg42sby JustAGuy1250
They had WW2 German and Yugo made replacement parts to use, so you see Mg42s today with Yugo parts (how many Mg42s today have Yugo stocks?) and M53s with German parts, same with the lafettes.
Jonathan.
I do not mean this in an insulting way, but that is an absolute load of rubbish. I do have experience with machine guns, so I am in a position to comment. The high rate of fire in guns like the Mg42 is unsustainable due to the heat generated, it is not like you see in war films where they fire belt after belt, a military trained machine gunner is taught to fire in short bursts. And unlike a water cooled mg, the barrel of air cooled mg's has to be changed every 250 rds or so because of the heat generated. Accuracy also suffers if you try to fire long bursts. In 1916 on the first day of the battle of the Somme, there were approximately 62,000 British casualties, and of those, 19,000 were dead. Most were killed or injured by the German Maxim Mg08 machine gun that fired at the rather sedate rate of around 400rpm... which is fairly lower than the quoted rpm. There are many factors which affect the quoted rate of fire, such as condition of return spring, fowling, and lack of lubrication through continuous use. The Bren machine gun was arguably the finest light machine gun ever produced, and it was a much better weapon than the Mg42. Although it only fired at about 550rpm, it was more than adequate for the task it was meant for. I know that the Mg42 was greatly feared by the allies because of its high rate of fire, but it was no better a killing machine than any other mg of the time.
Cheers,
Steve
I would have said the 42's high rate of fire was much more of a hindrance than an advantage. Not only does it chew through ammunition incredibly quickly, requiring frequent reloads, but the need to carry multiple spare barrels to circumvent the overheating issue meant the crew were carrying more weight on top of the gun, the ammunition, possibly a lafette tripod, etc. It also wore out barrels completely at a rate not experienced by other machine guns, along with bolts and recoil springs. The lafette mount had a spare bolt box attached to it for that very reason.
It had an undeniable psychological effect, and there were field reports of men quite literally being cut in half by the volume of fire, but at the end of the day there's a reason every postwar copy of the 42 dialed back the rate of fire. It's simply extraneous. Personally, I think the MG 34 was the superior design of the pair. More expensive and time-consuming to produce, and a fair bit weightier than the 42, but with a more sensible rate of fire and much more robust.
B.B.
Well, i dont want to be rude either but i litteraly got that info from Ian Mccollum aka the god of weapons, he has fired every weapon that exists and has reviewd the most rare weapons in the world such as the prototype STG-44, FG-42, whatever else, he has held it and review it.
regardless, that is not the point of this topic so lets forget this and get back ontopic
Thanks Steve, I was trying to frame a response to that point without sounding like a "grumpy old man"
It speaks for itself that every modern army now follows a similar doctrine regarding the subject of rates of fire whether in the light or SF role.
I too have experience of the L4A1 (Bren re-chambered for 7.62 x 51) and L7A2 GPMG (licence built British version of the FN MAG) in the real world as well as a couple of other bits of kit here and there. What I know is what I experienced and not what I heard from a "God" of anything. I know the damage caused to the machinery by excessive rates of fire as well as the degradation of accuracy and deterioration of the quality of the beaten zone.
The attritional rates of ammunition usage are untenable but more important to "Tom" is the sheer weight of ready ammunition when, on top of his own ready ammunition he has to carry at least another 100 - 200 rds to service the gun and this is without Star Wars fantasy rates of turning live rounds into empty cases.
A good Gun Controller (No3 in the team and nominally a NCO) will site the gun in the light role in an enfilade, supporting (to other sections) position so as to fire at an oblique angle to fast moving attackers thus avoiding them presenting as point targets.
A skilled gunner will apply bursts of 3 - 5 rounds adjusting his point of aim in-between. When greater accuracy is the main criterion he will drop to 2 - 3 rds.
This is very effective. If you don't think so just consider the lessons of Op Corporate concerning carrying weight and accuracy of machine gun fire.
These days the 1500 RPM thing is the realm of video games I am afraid!
Sorry for the rant but we are about debate and information exchange here are'nt we? It just seems that if someone makes a misleading statement that too should be discussed to the benefit of others who might perpetuate the mis-information.
Anyway, back to the point of authenticity of the MG42 at the top of the thread. Anybody have a definitive answer?
Regards
Mark
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares more about than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature with no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks