Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?

[narwan]

The FG42 was thought up after Crete. German paratroops would need a weapon with decent firepower they could drop with ON THEIR PERSON and immediately be able to go to combat to without having to go to weapon canisters first to retrieve weapons. MG34's and MG42's were to heavy to jump with. So they thought up the FG42. I was intended as an infantrymens personal weapon, replacing the standard rifles, that COULD be used as a 'stand-in' LMG too. It was not primairily designed or intended as a SAW or LMG. It wasn't very good as a LMG however. It's low weight proved to be it's biggest drawback. That's because the designers kept the full 7,92mm cartridge for the weapon. That resulted in a recoil that made the weapon very difficult to handle and control when in full auto mode, it had a very strong tendency to kick upwards. That made it very hard to keep the sustained fire on a target that one would need from an LMG. The BAR, being a lot heavier, didn't suffer nearly as much kick as the weight helped keep the weapon down. Although having drawbacks of its own, the BAR was much better suited for the LMG role.

Further, even though use as an LMG was part of the INTENDED design, there is little evidence to suggest it was actually used as such. Two reasons, first it was much better as an automatic rifle, ie firing aimed single shots in rapid succesion. The extreme muzzle flash and extremely loud noise when firing also were less of a drawback when used as a rifle. As an LMG it would be used more from a 'fixed' position and the flash and noise would make it easily identifiable by the enemy, especially when firing on auto.
Most important however was that the Luftwaffe needn't have bothered with coming up with a weapon parattroops could jump with since another outcome of Crete was Hitlers decision that there would be no more paratroop attacks. Many of the later paratroop units didn't even receive jump training anymore. So without combat drops being on the agenda anymore, the paratroop units did the smart thing and they went back to the excellent MG34 and superb MG42 as the squad LMG with the FG42 being used as an automatic rifle.

And this is how it is portrayed in the game, the game isn't historically inaccurate at all in this respect. As said so many times before in this thread, you can not do a straight comparison between the stats of primairy and secondary weapons.

Narwan

[Tarrif]

As I said just a few posts ago, the original argument was for the FG-42 to have the same stats and function as the B.A.R. I know we got side-tracked with other discussions about SAW's and LMG's. The fact is that the FG-42 could very well be interchangeable with the B.A.R. and perform just as well if not better. I know the game doesn't allow this, but from a purely technical and functional point of view there's no disputing that.

As you said, it could be a stand-in for a LMG or a rifle, even though it wasn't usually better than the weapons it was standing-in for. It was a multi-function weapon, and while it wasn't always the best in each individual class, it still *could* perform those duties. The FG-42 wasn't meant to replace anything - it was meant to augment the fire-power of the Fallschrimjaeger squads as a weapon that adequately perform single-shot, long-range, close-range, and rapid-fire shooting. As someone that has used the FG-42 I believe its a superb weapon for its day, although if I had to use it in combat I would probably utilize more as an automatic rifle than an LMG, especially since better LMG's were available at the time.

While you are right that there were no more large scale airborne operations, smaller scale ones happened right up to the end of the war. One of the most famous was the rescue of Mussolini, in which the FG-42 made its debut and performed wonderfully.

I understand the game designers have to make choices between historical/technical accuracy and balance. If they feel the FG-42 would serve the game's purposes better as a automatic rifle that for some reason doesn't work the same as the Browning automatic rifle then so be it.

[chuckfourth]

WE are not doing a comparison between weapon stats The argument is that the weapon was very likely to have been used in the same -role- as BAR when appropriate. There are many sources that tell that it outperforms the BAR. Including in this threasd a testimonial from someone who has fired both.
Its light weight was compensated for by its straight line layout and generally excellent manufacture.
Regards Chuck.