No it wasn’t - the MG34 on the Lafette mount was a MMG.
HMG means something a bit different from what it did in WW1 - in WW1 the Vickers was an HMG, in WW2 it was a MMG.
hmm everwhere i see that a mg42 on a lafette pod is classified as a HMG. hmm, yes, the mg34 on the tripod is classied as a medium. i guess this is due to slower rate of fire.
No, they’re both medium - ROF has nothing to do with whether an MG is medium or heavy.
If it’s rifle caliber on a bipod it’s an LMG
If it’s rifle calibre on a tripod it’s an MMG
If it can be used as properly either of the above it’s a GPMG (they tried to do this with the BREN, but it was useless in the MMG role).
If it’s bigger than rifle calibre it’s an HMG
Some people will call it an HMG, but according to the US/UK definitions at the time of the 2nd world war, it’s not.
well, if you check on websites, they keep on saying that an mg42 on a tripod is a HMG. and so does my book “german military forces” by the “Us war department”
Aah, the dangers of terminolgy!!!
E.g. in WW1 the Vickers was classed (by the British Army) as an HMG, in WW2 it was an MMG.
If the '42 and it’s SF kit is defined as a HMG, does this make the Vickers a VHMG ?
Machineguns are rated on their firepower potential mate, not their actual weight.
Oh right.
Silly me, there I was thinking that they were classified according to their calibre and use…
That’s a shame, else it would make the M2 a FHMG !
What is the military definition of ‘firepower potential’ ?
There must be one otherwise they wouldn’t be able to classify or ‘rate’ them.
go google mg42 on lafette tripod, then tell me what its classified as. and I have reliable source material that says its a HMG. proof is on my side.
I see nothing classifying the 42 as HMG per se.
There are numerous pages with bumf of varying degrees of accuracy (unintentional pun,) from Wikipedia to paintball sites.
What was the reliable source material that you have ?
Remind me again of the military definition of ‘firepower potential’ please ?
Us war department says so.
what does an HMG have to do with Hitler invading Poland.
and where does Hosenfields Military experience lend weight to his argument, can we see referenced sources from both sides please - No I am not a MOD. But unless someone cuts in then “IDES” will delete the thread!!!
bearing in mind the US no longer has a war dept but a defence dept, are we not just arguing over context dependent terms?
Us war department says so.[/quote]
Strangely enough I don’t have your book, but could you please give me the ISBN so I can see what it says ?
I still find it extremely odd that the weapon changes type when used in different roles, don’t you ?
ISBN 0807120111
US war department
handbook on german military forces
its a very thick book, like a textbook