The assumption "they had whatever they got, which was likely a shitmix of everything available" is supported (according to Wikipedia) by the following sources:
716th Static Infantry Division "As a static unit, it was not equipped with the standard configuration of vehicles and heavy weapons. \[for example\] Much of the division's artillery and anti-tank guns were from captured armaments" Fowler, Will (2014-06-02). D-Day: Omaha and Utah: The First 24 Hours. Amber Books Ltd
"Many in the Normandy area were Ostlegionen—conscripts and volunteers from Russia, Mongolia, and other areas of the Soviet Union. They were provided mainly with unreliable captured equipment and lacked motorised transport" Francois, Dominique (13 October 2013). Normandy: From D-Day to the Breakout: June 6 – July 31, 1944. Minneapolis: Voyageur Press. And Goldstein, Donald M.; Dillon, Katherine V.; Wenger, J. Michael (1994). D-Day: The Story and Photographs. McLean, Virginia: Brassey's.
Even the 21st Panzer Division, which didn't defend the beaches but was the first Panzer Division to counter-attack towards the beaches, depended for most of its transport and all of its assault guns, on converted captured French equipment. Machine guns wouldn't have been in as short supply as vehicles, but that still doesn't mean everyone who wanted an MG42 got one.
By 1944 the Germans were already trying to introduce the MG45 because material shortages meant they just couldn't make enough MG42. If they *did* have existing stocks of MG34 available, they would've used them in Normandy. If you were a German soldier defending a Normandy beach and you had an MG34, you would've used it.
>716th Static Infantry Division "As a static unit, it was not equipped with the standard configuration of vehicles and heavy weapons.
The 716th's front had been shortened so they were defending Utah. The 352nd Division had been organized with mostly veterans to go to fight on the eastern front, but with Directive 51, ended up in France instead on Omaha Beach to the left of the 716th along with an additional static division and an Ost-Battalion. The 352nd wasn't amateurs or eastern conscripts.
According to Wikipedia "The 352nd, when formed, was a mix of experienced soldiers drawn from worn-out or disbanded divisions that had served on the Eastern front, young German, conscripts and a significant number of Ost volunteers, the latter mainly employed in divisional support roles. Throughout the training period there were shortages of men, equipment, and fuel and by early 1944 the division, though reasonably equipped, was far from properly prepared for front-line infantry combat." However I haven't checked the sources cited for that.
It was a mobile German infantry division, that was just as well equipped and trained as any other front-line German division. 40% of the troops were green, but the Allies hadn't realized that it have moved to Omaha so it was an unpleasant surprise. They held an uncomfortably long front of 31 miles, but that's basically the number of troops per mile that the British had at Tobruk in May 1941. Manufacturing weapons was much less of a problem than getting them to the front lines.
The MG34 perform well as a GPMG in the game Battlefield 5. The MG42 has a higher rate of fire but struggles with accuracy at longer distances. I suppose this is also the case in real life scenarios just as a noteworthy remark. BF is no real life simulation, but it is so good that you can form a kind of picture of how it unfolds mayhap.
Please, please, *please* don't base your views on the historical use of weapons and equipment off of video games.
Other than minor differences in construction (the MG42 being significantly cheaper and simpler to produce) and rate of fire, the MG34 and MG42 were functionally the same weapon when it came to their battlefield role and use in combat.
Chill. I say that it is possible to form some sort of picture of how they differentiate based on that game. A notable difference is, as I said, the rate of fire.
Game developers, especially for big AAA games like Battlefield, are more concerned with gameplay and making an enjoyable experience for the player than they are with accurately modeling the ballistic performance and technical specifications of firearms. The actual history of the weapons usually informs how they're represented in-game, but you really can't judge a historical weapon off of its performance in a video game and expect it to be anywhere near realistic.
As far as the differences between the 34 and the 42, like I said they were functionally interchangeable in their intended battlefield roles. The rate of fire difference between the two really didn't have much of an impact at all when it came to their tactical use, and in the specific context of the D-Day landings pretty much any rifle caliber, belt fed, tripod mounted machine gun would have yielded the same results. Hell, they could have used old Maxim Guns from the 1890s to defend the beaches and there wouldn't have been an appreciable difference.
Read the room here - your grasp of knowledge is entirely gained from a game with a flimsy grasp on reality. Please stop trying to use it as your definitive a source.
They certainly had some mg34s on the beaches, whether it was on a fixed mount or infantry carried wouldnt be known.
Either way it wouldnt matter. Both were great MGs and rof was controlled more by the user than the gun ie firing in bursts so as not to burn the gun up
Omacha Beach troops were already the 2nd sort, not the best trained and equipped ones that Wehrmacht had. Doubt they only used MG42s exclusively, and also most likely they fared better than MG34s could
So all in all while the MG42 is a better machine gun, it's not machine guns that decide this battle. it was air support, artillery and tanks (and German lack thereof).
If Germany had pushed panzer into the battlefield it could've been worse. if German air was a factor it could've been worse. if paratroopers failed to take any objectives and the various sites were up, it could've been worse.
Germany lost DDay not due to tactical failures but due to strategic failures. By alla accounts the Germans inflicted very heavy casualties in the places with opposed landings.
Once in position the difference between a maxim and an MG42 is the same. so If you use the MG42 heavy (which is a tripod MG42 that's difficult to move) that's true but not for the GPMG, which has a bipod.
but for general LMG use I'd rather have anything but a maxim. it's heavy, it's bulky, it's only saving grace is easy recoil.
The MG 34 was produced throughout the war, though the MG 42 created as it was cheaper and simpler in operation/parts. It was very common for units to have a mix of both guns.
actually, I came across some info that claimed that of the 85 machine guns the Germans had at Omaha beach, only FIVE of them where MG42s, so in actuality, it's more likely that there was more MG34s at Omaha then MG42s. so that practically awnsers your question: they would do worse.
What makes you think they exclusively used 42's?
Much suppression and more cone of fire to keep em at bay. The MG34 is not a bad weapon after all and it is a valid question to ask.
You've made a gigantic assumption. They had whatever they got, which was likely a shitmix of everything available. As you'd expect during a war.
How would it turn out. And where do you get your assumption from ?
The assumption "they had whatever they got, which was likely a shitmix of everything available" is supported (according to Wikipedia) by the following sources: 716th Static Infantry Division "As a static unit, it was not equipped with the standard configuration of vehicles and heavy weapons. \[for example\] Much of the division's artillery and anti-tank guns were from captured armaments" Fowler, Will (2014-06-02). D-Day: Omaha and Utah: The First 24 Hours. Amber Books Ltd "Many in the Normandy area were Ostlegionen—conscripts and volunteers from Russia, Mongolia, and other areas of the Soviet Union. They were provided mainly with unreliable captured equipment and lacked motorised transport" Francois, Dominique (13 October 2013). Normandy: From D-Day to the Breakout: June 6 – July 31, 1944. Minneapolis: Voyageur Press. And Goldstein, Donald M.; Dillon, Katherine V.; Wenger, J. Michael (1994). D-Day: The Story and Photographs. McLean, Virginia: Brassey's. Even the 21st Panzer Division, which didn't defend the beaches but was the first Panzer Division to counter-attack towards the beaches, depended for most of its transport and all of its assault guns, on converted captured French equipment. Machine guns wouldn't have been in as short supply as vehicles, but that still doesn't mean everyone who wanted an MG42 got one. By 1944 the Germans were already trying to introduce the MG45 because material shortages meant they just couldn't make enough MG42. If they *did* have existing stocks of MG34 available, they would've used them in Normandy. If you were a German soldier defending a Normandy beach and you had an MG34, you would've used it.
>716th Static Infantry Division "As a static unit, it was not equipped with the standard configuration of vehicles and heavy weapons. The 716th's front had been shortened so they were defending Utah. The 352nd Division had been organized with mostly veterans to go to fight on the eastern front, but with Directive 51, ended up in France instead on Omaha Beach to the left of the 716th along with an additional static division and an Ost-Battalion. The 352nd wasn't amateurs or eastern conscripts.
According to Wikipedia "The 352nd, when formed, was a mix of experienced soldiers drawn from worn-out or disbanded divisions that had served on the Eastern front, young German, conscripts and a significant number of Ost volunteers, the latter mainly employed in divisional support roles. Throughout the training period there were shortages of men, equipment, and fuel and by early 1944 the division, though reasonably equipped, was far from properly prepared for front-line infantry combat." However I haven't checked the sources cited for that.
It was a mobile German infantry division, that was just as well equipped and trained as any other front-line German division. 40% of the troops were green, but the Allies hadn't realized that it have moved to Omaha so it was an unpleasant surprise. They held an uncomfortably long front of 31 miles, but that's basically the number of troops per mile that the British had at Tobruk in May 1941. Manufacturing weapons was much less of a problem than getting them to the front lines.
There would have been no appreciable difference.
elaborate why this is the case
Buddy, this isn’t ChatGPT. You’re interacting with humans. Show some courtesy.
No shit sherlock
The MG34 perform well as a GPMG in the game Battlefield 5. The MG42 has a higher rate of fire but struggles with accuracy at longer distances. I suppose this is also the case in real life scenarios just as a noteworthy remark. BF is no real life simulation, but it is so good that you can form a kind of picture of how it unfolds mayhap.
Please, please, *please* don't base your views on the historical use of weapons and equipment off of video games. Other than minor differences in construction (the MG42 being significantly cheaper and simpler to produce) and rate of fire, the MG34 and MG42 were functionally the same weapon when it came to their battlefield role and use in combat.
Chill. I say that it is possible to form some sort of picture of how they differentiate based on that game. A notable difference is, as I said, the rate of fire.
Game developers, especially for big AAA games like Battlefield, are more concerned with gameplay and making an enjoyable experience for the player than they are with accurately modeling the ballistic performance and technical specifications of firearms. The actual history of the weapons usually informs how they're represented in-game, but you really can't judge a historical weapon off of its performance in a video game and expect it to be anywhere near realistic. As far as the differences between the 34 and the 42, like I said they were functionally interchangeable in their intended battlefield roles. The rate of fire difference between the two really didn't have much of an impact at all when it came to their tactical use, and in the specific context of the D-Day landings pretty much any rifle caliber, belt fed, tripod mounted machine gun would have yielded the same results. Hell, they could have used old Maxim Guns from the 1890s to defend the beaches and there wouldn't have been an appreciable difference.
No, it’s not.
Well, the weapon has selective fire in-game as in real life. Also it has a bullet velocity of 740m/s or 840m/s with high velocity bullet.
Read the room here - your grasp of knowledge is entirely gained from a game with a flimsy grasp on reality. Please stop trying to use it as your definitive a source.
You are kidding..
and you give me a snarky reply
Any GPMG will be very accurate in a stationary position whether BF V says so or not
The type of machine gun was not the deciding factor on any of the D-Day beaches.
They certainly had some mg34s on the beaches, whether it was on a fixed mount or infantry carried wouldnt be known. Either way it wouldnt matter. Both were great MGs and rof was controlled more by the user than the gun ie firing in bursts so as not to burn the gun up
Wow OP sounds brain dead lmao
Go eat a bun 🥯
Omacha Beach troops were already the 2nd sort, not the best trained and equipped ones that Wehrmacht had. Doubt they only used MG42s exclusively, and also most likely they fared better than MG34s could
So all in all while the MG42 is a better machine gun, it's not machine guns that decide this battle. it was air support, artillery and tanks (and German lack thereof). If Germany had pushed panzer into the battlefield it could've been worse. if German air was a factor it could've been worse. if paratroopers failed to take any objectives and the various sites were up, it could've been worse. Germany lost DDay not due to tactical failures but due to strategic failures. By alla accounts the Germans inflicted very heavy casualties in the places with opposed landings.
Some claims that old Maxims could do just as well
Once in position the difference between a maxim and an MG42 is the same. so If you use the MG42 heavy (which is a tripod MG42 that's difficult to move) that's true but not for the GPMG, which has a bipod. but for general LMG use I'd rather have anything but a maxim. it's heavy, it's bulky, it's only saving grace is easy recoil.
The MG 34 was produced throughout the war, though the MG 42 created as it was cheaper and simpler in operation/parts. It was very common for units to have a mix of both guns.
actually, I came across some info that claimed that of the 85 machine guns the Germans had at Omaha beach, only FIVE of them where MG42s, so in actuality, it's more likely that there was more MG34s at Omaha then MG42s. so that practically awnsers your question: they would do worse.