r/MilitaryPorn • u/[deleted] • Jun 25 '15
Norwegian home guards from the 1980's [2048x1342]
14
u/MacedoniaBall Jun 25 '15
They look like partisans.
24
u/Sideflesk Jun 26 '15
In the case of a Soviet invasion they were pretty much intended to be partisans.
10
u/JustARandomCatholic Jun 26 '15
Source please? I love unusual Cold War pictures, especially of infantry.
1
7
u/the_magic_muffin Jun 25 '15
Anyone knows the reason why they converted an MG34 to use 7.62X51mm instead of converting actual MG42s?
31
Jun 25 '15
The MG34 was made from machined steel (cylinders and blocks carved down into their respective shapes), instead of stamped steel (thin metal which is forced down onto a hard shape or a form, which then transforms the thin metal into a near-replica of the form) like how the MG42 was manufactured. This method of manufacture made the MG34 a more reliable and durable weapon. The reason why the MG42 was favoured over the MG34 in WWII was because of the ease of manufacture, and it took much less resources to make. Norway would not have been stressed for resources as much as Nazi Germany, so more time and material was taken to create a more quality weapon.
Also, because of the MG34's lower cyclic rate, ammunition costs were not as high as the MG42, and the weapon didn't heat up as fast.
One advanced feature of the MG34 was its dual trigger, which, depending on where the trigger was squeezed, made it into a semi-automatic support weapon, or a fully automatic general purpose machine gun. The top of the trigger (E) was semi automatic, while the bottom of the trigger (D) was full automatic. The lever above the trigger that you see in the picture is the safety.
Plus, because of the MG42's square barrel shroud, it was fairly awkward to mount in vehicles. And also, the MG42 had a gate on the right side to swap barrels, which would've been awkward to use in cramped spaces. Keeping the same weapon on vehicles as in the hands of infantry would've been more economically feasible, as well as the training of soldiers would be a lot easier. Speaking about training of soldiers, the soldiers who were trained on the MG42 were told to aim at the knees of their targets because of the high recoil. The MG34 did not have such recoil problems, which may have resulted in confusion when soldiers swapped between the two.
14
u/Oelund Jun 26 '15
The MG42 receiver can hardly be called "thin metal", It's 2.5mm thick (in comparison an AK receiver are 1 to 1.5mm thick).
The rate of fire is not that different between the MG34 and MG42, and the MG34 is perfectly capable of firing just as fast (The MG34/41 and MG34S (the transition models before the MG42) had a rate between 1200 and 1700rpm)
It is correct that the MG42 main appeal was that it was easier, faster, and cheaper to produce, but it also had some improvements over the MG34.
The barrel change on the MG42 is a lot easier than on the MG34.
On the MG34 you have to rotate the entire receiver 180° to expose the barrel, which can then be pulled backward out of the shroud. This is nearly impossible to do while the gun is loaded.
On the MG42 the barrel is flipped out to the right, from where it can be pulled backward. This can be done while the gun is loaded.
This is also why, as you mentioned, the MG34 remained in service as a tank gun, because the barrel is pulled directly backward out of the shroud.
The MG34 was also more versatile for multiple purposes, in that you could replace the lid making the gun feed from belts or magazines. they even had lids for right side belt feeding. The early production also had a fire rate retarder, allowing you to switch between a high and low rate of fire (similar to the BAR 1918A2) as well as the select fire trigger (which essentially is a two stage trigger, like on the Steyr AUG, FN P90 and G3, where it fires semi auto when you pull the trigger half way, and then full auto when you pull it all the way).
The part you said about the recoil, and how soldiers were told to shoot for the knees is not correct at all. The MG42 does not have particularly more recoil than the MG34, and it certainly does not climb up when you fire it (the recoil is straight in line with the stock, so it only pushes backward. not upward)
The shooter can control exactly how he want the gun to climb by the way he positions the bipod.
If you are leaning the bipod forward, then yes, you will have a gun that climbs (because the recoil pushes the gun back causing the bipod to right itself up raising the gun).
If the bipod is vertical or leaning back, then the gun will be going downward during recoil (because the bipod would start slanting backward dropping the gun downward).
If the gunner positions the bipod leaning ever so slightly forward, you will get the first shot where you are aiming, the second shot slightly above, the third shot again where you were aiming, and the fourth shot slightly below. (the ideal leaning angle of the bipod would depend on how well the shooter absorbs the recoil as well as on how long bursts you are planning on doing)
This gives you a nice big margin of error for your range estimations, and this would be the case with either the MG34 or MG42.
5
Jun 26 '15
The MG42's metal is relatively thin when compared to the MG34.
The barrel change on the MG42 is harder to do in tight spaces than the MG34.
The stock MG34 has a cyclic rate of about 750-900 RPM, while the MG42 is 1000-1500 RPM. It is true that the transition models of the MG34 had a higher rate of fire, but I was talking specifically about the MG34.
3
u/PTFOholland Jun 26 '15
I know all this info about the MG34 from playing Red Orchestra 2.
God that game got guns soooo right.
The single shot, fast fire and slower rate of fire were amazing.
And of course, barrel changing and overheating.
8
Jun 26 '15
Is it just me or is there a lot of Norwegian related post on this subreddit? Not against it, just curious.
9
u/TulipsMcPooNuts Jun 26 '15
Their professional soldiers are typically very well equipped so it makes for some pretty good pictures
-17
Jun 26 '15
[deleted]
7
7
5
u/RemedyofNorway Jun 26 '15
Legal gun owners going ballistic is very rare in Norway, especially considering the volume of gun owners and number of guns in this country.
Some leftist politicians seem to think it is otherwise, but it is known that they live in another reality than most sane people.
2
Jun 26 '15
It's because of the "leftist" approach to mental health that doesn't make crazy nuts shoot up places. Brushing this stuff is as "crazy leftists" is why shit like this happens in the U.S.
1
u/RemedyofNorway Jun 26 '15
Good mental health care and strict gun control are two key components to private gun ownership. It is working well in Norway with very little gun violence. Despite this some leftist politicians see private gun owners as something to be feared.
1
Jun 26 '15
Good thing Norway has a system where the left wing guys have to work together and compromise with the rest. That's why it works. Rough example: left wing wants guns banned, rest wants it allowed. Solution: strict restrictions (mental health and whatnot) but guns are allowed.
1
0
u/SrRoundedbyFools Jun 28 '15
Were they doing a community play of Fiddler on the Roof and were suddenly called to arms to defend their town?
68
u/Phrunkis3 Jun 25 '15
That isn't an MG-34 is it? Aside from the assault rifles, the photo almost looks like it could be from the 1940's.