Talk:FG 42

Bad information

This article claims that the STG44 was the first assault rifle. I'm sure that the Cei-Rigotti was and is still considered an assualt rifle by all definitions and was in production 40 years earlier. If I am incorrect could there at least be a citation? I'm not too keen on the whole editing on wikipedia and I don't want to change something erroneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.53 (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the misleading statement altogether. Koalorka (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Name convention

We should standardize a bit. We have MG42, MG34, MP40 etc. I think the dash should be taken out of this name. Is there a convention? Oberiko 00:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It appears that both mainstream literature, historians and period documents provide a space between the type classifier and model number, i.e. FG 42. Koalorka (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

removed needless speculation

i took out this phrase: "might have influenced the outcome of World War II if it had been produced earlier and in sufficient numbers. With production never reaching five figures its effect was inconsequential"

This is just weak speculation.

M60 GPMG prototype

I heard the M60 prototype was an FG42 with an MG42 belt feed. Is there any images of it? User:EX STAB

Indeed. The T44 prototype was an exact copy of the FG 42 with a belt-feed unit from the MG 42. Koalorka (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad info

When compared to the K98 Carbine or M98 rifle, the FG42 has significantly less recoil, muzzle climb, muzzle flash, etc. It's only when compared to LMG's that the comments regarding muzzle rise, flash, and accuracy apply. I think the article reads too much like a rumor and less like reality. The reality was that the gun was the first mistake of many in the realm of full-caliber automatic rifles. Later mistakes included the FN FAL, the M-14, and the HK G3. All these rifles suffered from the inability to control them in full-automatic fire. The drive to reduce weight and increase magazine capacity while at the same time adding a full-auto fire led to diminishing returns. Barrels heated up quickly while muzzle climb and dispersion opened up quickly. The end result were unuseable firearms. The Germans learned this early and diverted efforts to the StG 44 instead. Post-War powers were GENERALLY slow to learn this lesson with the exception of the Soviet Union.

The only successful and controlable full-caliber automatic rifle was only produced in limite numbers (10,000?) and that was the Armalite AR-10. --Asams10 23:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, sign your posts, don't indent, and there is a space after periods. Secondly, you don't understand recoil, muzzle rise, and the function of a muzzle brake. Your statements ignore the fact that the FG-42 has an UNDERBARREL gas operating system with the center of gravity below the bore, not above it. It is also an in-line recoiling gun which means that muzzle rise is a function of recoil almost exclusively. As the gun recoils, the center of gravity of the combined shooter/rifle cause the gun to rotate up and to the right. The less recoil, the less muzzle rise. Simple physics. Barrel length is relevant, not because of uncombusted powder but because of the pressure at the point the bullet reaches the muzzle. The higher the pressure, the greater the velocity. Again, simple physics say that the higher the velocity, the higher the energy for the same mass. Most of the powder is burned by the muzzle, even on an 17" barrel. The higher velocity gasses simply cause more recoil. Remember that gas from an explosion weighs the same as the powder that went into it and travels much faster than the bullet.

Now then, with a muzzle brake, you slow and divert that gas normally going straight out the muzzle to the sides. You therefore create a pressure wave that the shooter can hear more distinctly and negate that portion that combustion gasses contribute to recoil. Less recoil = less muzzle rise. Simple. --Asams10 18:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Bren, basically a slightly modified version of Czechoslovak Light Machine Gun (Lehky kulomet) vz. 26 (ZB vz. 26, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZB_vz.26) WAS fielded in German army as MG-26(t) so maybe the opening paragraph could use a little change.

You may change it, however your observation needs to include a distinction between the German Army and Air Force, both of which preferred to develop their own guns. The FG42 was also not in the same class as the BREN. --Asams10 21:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Pic needs editing

Somebody please change the pic file, because it says Rifle_FG42_model_2.jpg and the model showed is the FG42 Model 1. Wilhelm Wiesel 22:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Asams10 07:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

About the MG34's

I think someone should remove the comment about the lack of MG34's in the introduction. The average rifle section in the German paratroop batalion had 2 MG34's. (that's 2 MGs per 11 men squad) The remark about the MG34's weight is correct though. MattD -March 25, 2006

Yes, but there was a DISTINCT lack of MG-34's in the hands of paratroopers when they hit the ground. Definitely needs to be reworded. The intent was to have a stop-gap weapon that could provide a volume of fire as cover for paratroops until they could get their heavy weapons together.--Asams10 03:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Commas versus Decimal Points

I think that the caliber designation should use the decimal point, not the comma. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style ... "The Wikipedia rule for commas and periods in numbers is, for example 12,345,678.901 — contrary to Continental style." Given this, the cartridges in this article should be named using commas. Although they are of German origin, a country which uses commas, this is the English Wikipedia. Therefore, decimals should be used instead. CeeWhy2 08:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Historically correct designations should be used. There is no point in travestying correct designations by “translating” the numerical parts in English. Nobody in his right mind would “translate” the numerical part of cartridges of British or American origin by replacing point by commas at Wikipedia in other languages using the Roman alphabet. As for normalization, the style page is still a project. The proposed way of writing numbers is in flagrant opposition to the normalized way of writing. But then, there are those nostalgics who do not want to know about this, and keep reverting any allusion to internationally accepted norms. There is no question of language, but question of old habits that refuse to die. English is probably the language that is used by the greatest number of non-native speakers; by colonizing large parts of the world, the English found there language colonized by the world. The English language Wikipedia is probably the most international of them all, and should stick to internationally accepted norms. So, decimal points have to go the same way as other obsolete things like pounds and inches. There is no use for a Wikipedia that blocks and frustrates normalization efforts, and that prohibits correct transmission of facts.--Dutchguy 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody in his right mind would “translate” the numerical part of cartridges of British or American origin by replacing point by commas at Wikipedia in other languages using the Roman alphabet.

Actually, the Europeans do translate our designations for cartridges. For example, while you may think it is correct for American cartridges to be always spelt with a decimal, in the German and French Wikipedias, they use commas instead. If they like to change our designations for American/British cartridges to better suit their lingual habits, then I see no problem with universalising decimals and commas in accordance with the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. CeeWhy2 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you bring up 4 examples of how things should be done. As NATO is standardizing to the metric system, these NATO standard cartridges are correctly called by their metric NATO designation; it is not the “Europeans” who “translate”, it is NATO as a whole that normalizes to metric standards. The commercial names with inch dimensions are left as they were historically. I’ve seen mentioned the correct designations in the mentioned articles like .50 BMG, .30 Carbine, .223 Rem., .30-06 Springfield, .300 Savage and so on. The first point is that we do not see “translations” like 0,50 BMG, 0,30 Carbine and the like. The second point is that inch dimensions are given with the original decimal points, and metric dimensions with the correct decimal commas. This is the way it should be. I’ve-checked the ammunition article listings of the German, French, and Dutch Wikipedias (sorry, I only write in 4 languages) and in all cases, the historically correct designations of inch-dimensioned cartridges were used. --Dutchguy 08:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best to go with the Manual of Style; in either case establishing a consensus around this issue first is the way to go instead of going around individual articles and changing them. This will otherwise only set the stage for editing wars when someone with the opposite view starts changing the designations back.--Sus scrofa 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Nazi apologist" accusations and battle rifle

The FG42 was developed as an individual weapon even with stop-gap support capabilities whereas the BAR was developed as a support weapon. Not at all the same class. The former is a battle rifle; the latter is an automatic rifle.

The fact that Germany had a Nazi government is irrelevant in a technical discussion, and repeating systematically Nazi Germany is annoying. Nobody his right mind repeats over and over again in articles about weapons originating from other belligerents of World War 2 that they originate from Democratic United States, Communist Soviet Union, Fascist Italy and so on. Keep things basic, please.

Accusing me of being a Nazi apologist is below the belt. Both my grandfathers were decorated resistance members, and my mother is partially disabled because of mistreatment by the Nazi's. Asams10, please keep your filthy insinuations out of Wikipedia. Dutchguy 17:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First I agree we should cool it with the personal remarks, they only serve to retard the discussion. As for the whole Nazi Germany bit, it's just a name that's used to distinguish totalitarian Germany from the Germany of other historical periods, (for instance Weimar Republic), and politics doesn't enter into it. --Sus scrofa 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is an apologist tactic to attack those of us who ignore the political desires of thse who continaully remove the term "Nazi" from all articles. Good luck with that, it's not working. Your analogy is logically flawed as I've described before and has been spelled out in other discussions which you are either ignoring or chose to disregard. As for the technical discussion, you're mostly wrong. The FG-42 was not intended to replace the K98, it was created to supplement the MG34 and MG42 for paratroops. It is more correctly identified as an automatic rifle. An automatic rifle is intended to provide mobile automatic fire to the unit; this is the very foundation that brought the FG42 abut. The term "Battle Rifle" denotes a broader catetory and one where said rifle is the primay arm of the infantry unit. If we're going to plug the FG42 into a certain hole, it is most correct to identify it as an automatic rifle.--Asams10 20:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What discussion? Fact is that the LC-6 specification explicitly mentions the K89 as the reference. This shows that the proposed weapon was intended to be an individual weapon from its conception. Any author I’ve read, and foremost the standard reference book “Death from above” agrees with this basic fact. If someone can show me an acknowledgeable author who takes machineguns as a reference maybe, just maybe, there would be a discussion. The thing in question was called “Fallschirmjägergewehr”, a rifle, and not “Fallschirmjägermaschinengewehr” or something like that. As I see no proof of the contrary, and all acknowledgeable authors consider the FG42 as an individual weapon, facts indicate that the thing is a battle rifle. Based on facts, and disregarding a non-existing discussion, I reverted again nonsense about automatic rifle classification. Dutchguy 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Im gona have to go with asams10 with this one ForeverDEAD 21:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dutchguy on the battle rifle v. automatic rifle issue. The FG42 users manual is translated to English in the Collector Grade Publications book "Death From Above." In the description of the weapon, it is clearly stated that full-automatic fire is for emergency use. Besides that, how many automatic rifles are equipped with bayonets and can be configured for grenade launching? D.E. Watters 08:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's my impression that the designers attempted to have it both ways: the FG42 was intended to be both an automatic support weapon and an infantry rifle even if it wasn't very good in either role.--Sus scrofa 10:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just both ways, it is pretty clear that the FG42 was intended to replace the MP38/MP40, K98k, and sniper rifle, along with the emergency AR role. I can think of another battle rifle unrealistically expected to be an all-in-one replacement: the T44/M14. D.E. Watters 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Two for the change, two against the change. That makes no concensus, therefore without a concensus we should get an outside opinion or, like Dutchguy is doing, just ignore the conversation and try to bully your changes in. --Asams10 15:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Asams10, you did not bring any positive element into the discussion. You propose a completely incorrect technical thesis for which you fail to bring any documented proof to refute well known and accepted data you systematically overwrite. To the contrary, you accuse people who do of being Nazi sympathizers and bullies. Calling names at people doesn’t compensate for total lack of facts to mention. You have a negative attitude that has no place in here. We need arbitration if you continue your obstructive attitude. I change it back again, so please keep it there unless you have an interesting technical source to mention. Dutchguy 16:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're in danger of violating the 3rr. Because you are making the change and you don't have validation for your position, it stays the way it was until you can back up your position. Read: [1] then google "Automatic Rifle" and FG42... then google "Battle Rifle" and FG42. There are nearly 20 times more hits under Automatic Rifle vs. Battle Rifle. Why? Well, at the heart of it the term "Automatic Rifle" is the more accepted term. Of cours, I don't expect you to concede based on something as simple as a google search so, hey, why don't you find something compelling to back up your position and stop your reverting tantrum. --Asams10 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would have expected that the reference to the FG42 manual (actually in both editions) would have been enough. "The weapon fires single-shot and, in emergency, in the full-automatic mode." A German test report is quoted that states: "The paratrooper rifle FG42 is a self-loading weapon which can be used in exceptional circumstances as a machine gun by selective adjustment of single and sustained fire." Other indicators besides the integral bayonet and optional grenade launcher that the FG42 is intended in the individual weapon role include that early models of the rifle had optional 10 rd magazines. This is hardly what you'd expect for a dedicated AR. The final manual also indicated: "By mounting it over the rear sight, the rifle telescopic sight 4, GwZF 4 converts the FG42 into a sniper rifle." After testing the FG42, Hitler is reported to have stated that the FG42 will be the standard infantry rifle for the Wehrmacht after the war. The Collector Grade book "Sturmgewehr!" cites several occasions where German officials tried to get the Air Force to drop the the FG42 project in favor of the MP43/StG44, along with comparisons of the G43, MP43, and the FG42 as possible standard rifles. There was even an aborted plan to run Wehrmacht troop trials on the Eastern Front pitting the MP43 and FG42 against each other. (There were simply not enough FG42 available at the time.) It is also interesting to note that when US Army Ordnance ran a full set of tests on the late model FG42 at Aberdeen, the FG42 was compared against the T20E2, not the BAR. D.E. Watters 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I don't know what sparked the wave of vandalism, but we need at least semi-protection. Koalorka (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't have been so bad if it hadn't been intermingled with your edits. I don't think we lost anything. If you're done, I'll give the article a once over and make sure everything jives. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh heck no, I'm not done. I got my copy of "Death From Above" today and to my astonishment the rifle was produced in more than 20 different variants with a few main production types, running from Ausf. A-G. The genesis of the rifle is also pretty confusing, I'll be working on the page for the next few days. Koalorka (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I did the same thing with "Rock in a Hard Place", "Black Rifle" and a few other books. Don't have "Death from Above" yet. When you're done reading it, can I have it?!  :-} --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle rifle, not assault rifle

The second paragraph is incorrect. The Fg42 is a battle rifle, not an assault rifle. The StG44 inspired the assault rifle concept, not the FG 42. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.119.43 (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of reigniting the argument above, I want to bring this up again. The data from the user manual and "Death From Above" make a compelling case that the FG 42 is fundamentally a battle rifle. The selective fire feature is notable, but not enough to reclassify it. As others have mentioned, the case of this weapon is very similar to the M14 - another full-powered rifle which faced the unrealistic expectation of substituting for a diverse range of weapon systems. The M14 was meant to replace the BAR, but we don't call it an automatic rifle; it was supposed to replace the M1 Carbine, too, but we would all laugh at the idea of calling the M14 a carbine, no? The primary role of the FG 42, like the M14, is as an individual semi-automatic service rifle, and there is every indication that this was both its intended and its effective role.

I am also aware that many other sources describe it as an automatic rifle, but, quite frankly, this doesn't make them right. As someone who cringes to hear (for example) the FN FAL described as an assault rifle, I think we should see this as an opportunity to correct the record. Kaelri (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)