Posted on Aug 11, 2017
Hip-firing the MG-34? Büllshit or Historically Accurate?
2.1K
19
6
9
9
0
What was the practice on hip-firing the light machine gun MG-34? In this video I take a look at Army Regulations and other manuals, like the Heeresdienstvorschrift and Reibert.
Posted in these groups: 
Military History Visualized
Military History
World History
WWII World War Two
Military History Visualized Military History World History WWII World War Two
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
5
5
0
In my much younger days I fired the M -60 "Pig" from my shoulder. That was fun for 23 pounds. Thanks for the article...
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
OK here goes. I'm sure that someone out there is going to tell me how screwed up my opinion is. I DON"T CARE, let me have it. But back it up with field manual concerns like beaten zone, cone of fire, etc. etc. etc. I do not care if your wife's, cousin's, barber's, butcher's, brother-in-law could kill seven squirrels with head shots at 1100m with one six round burst running a five minute mile through a herd of wildebeests in boxer shorts and shower shoes.
Use of light machine guns (LMG's) and medium machine guns (MMG's) off a Tripod and T&E is most likely a waste of ammunition. LMG and MMG with ball ammunition (as opposed to some HMG which fire explosive rounds) are not battlefield "killers." That is not to say they don't kill, but there primary purpose in movement or assault is suppressive fires to support movement of the assault elements. The machine gun is a killer firing the final protective line as part of the final protective fires on the defense.
Firing from the Tripod and T&E keeps a relatively focused, stable beaten zone. Something a maneuver element can get to the fringes of. The object is to keep suppressive fires in place until you will take more casualties from your own suppressive fires than from the enemy lifting his head and firing.
Firing from the bipod substantially increases the size, and instability of the beaten zone; and thus substantially decreases the suppressive effect and requiring those suppressive fires to be lifted well before advancing assault elements are upon the enemy. The bipod is really only suitable for surprise contact in a meeting engagement.
Firing from the hip, is orders of magnitude less effective than firing from the bipod. The cone of fire is measured in multiples of 5 or six degrees instead of mils. There is no real beaten zone covered by "talking guns" with a significant suppressive effect. There is a criminal waste of ammunition, carried by your soldiers; and nothing like letting the enemy know where your crew-served weapons are for no good reason. You may find your self consolidating on the position without machine guns and/or machine gunners for your final protective line in the final protective fires when the counter attack comes.
Do machine gunners fire from the hip, yes, if they are poorly trained.
Use of light machine guns (LMG's) and medium machine guns (MMG's) off a Tripod and T&E is most likely a waste of ammunition. LMG and MMG with ball ammunition (as opposed to some HMG which fire explosive rounds) are not battlefield "killers." That is not to say they don't kill, but there primary purpose in movement or assault is suppressive fires to support movement of the assault elements. The machine gun is a killer firing the final protective line as part of the final protective fires on the defense.
Firing from the Tripod and T&E keeps a relatively focused, stable beaten zone. Something a maneuver element can get to the fringes of. The object is to keep suppressive fires in place until you will take more casualties from your own suppressive fires than from the enemy lifting his head and firing.
Firing from the bipod substantially increases the size, and instability of the beaten zone; and thus substantially decreases the suppressive effect and requiring those suppressive fires to be lifted well before advancing assault elements are upon the enemy. The bipod is really only suitable for surprise contact in a meeting engagement.
Firing from the hip, is orders of magnitude less effective than firing from the bipod. The cone of fire is measured in multiples of 5 or six degrees instead of mils. There is no real beaten zone covered by "talking guns" with a significant suppressive effect. There is a criminal waste of ammunition, carried by your soldiers; and nothing like letting the enemy know where your crew-served weapons are for no good reason. You may find your self consolidating on the position without machine guns and/or machine gunners for your final protective line in the final protective fires when the counter attack comes.
Do machine gunners fire from the hip, yes, if they are poorly trained.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
MSgt George Cater
If you have also fired them properly sited from a tripod with T&E, then you certainly know the difference and why those stability tools are issued with machine guns.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google