Talk:Rheinmetall MG3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

> (note that MG3 uses roller locking, unlike the HK G3, which use roller-delayed blowback)

Different names for the same principle. They work exactly the same, there is no technical difference between the two.

Is the MG3 definitely a delayed-blowback weapon rather than short-recoil operated? I'd just like to clarify as I'd thought it was the latter, but I'm far from certain. Chris 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the latter. I fixed the roller locked page by the way. Leibniz 19:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've changed the article's infobox (again). I've pointed it at the recoil operation page; should it go there, or to the fixed roller locked page, do you think? Chris 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. The recoil page is now pretty good thanks to the diagrams, but does not say anything about rollers. I think the problem is that there are different dimensions (source of power versus locking mechanism), and at the moment Wikipedia does not disentangle them properly: Firearm action reminds one of the List of animals (Borges). Leibniz 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thanks for that "animals" link, I think my brain's just imploded. Chris 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The barrel can be exchanged in less than 20 seconds. Maybe even less than 10 if you practise a little bit while the gun stays pointed at the target.

Definitely in less than 10 sec., maybe 5 sec. (open lid, pull hot barrel out, push cool barrel in, reload and fire) espcially when supported by the second gunner 11:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The MG3 is not one of the weapons the Wolf is officially equipped with(no machine gun is a part of it). If there is an MG3 mouted on a Wolf the mount is always self-made by its crew, the German Ministry of Defense does not support this and did also order the picture of a Wolf with an MG3-mount to be removed from a official brochure.

Contents 1 AA-52 Comparable? 2 Austria & Australia 3 MG3 for US Service? 4 Infobox 5 Design history

[edit] AA-52 Comparable?

I heard the AA-52 is comparable in performance to the MG3, Is this true? User:EX STAB

If the infos on the Wikipedia page are correct, then definitely not. The AA-52 is stated to have a 900 r.p.m. cyclic rate, whereas the MG3 has a cyclic rate of 1200 (and can be "tuned" to 1500) rounds per minute.

--84.57.81.223 03:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austria & Australia

The article mentions use by Australia (seems unlikely - the Aussies had used M60s as their GPMG from the 60's); whilst the table later credits Austria as being a user. I wonder if it was just a minor typo? Or did the Aussies have them as secondary armament on the Leopard tanks they got from Germany?

BW 60.234.146.97 09:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering this Eevo 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at the German Leopard page and there is a picture of an Australian Leopard with an MG3 mounted on its turret, so I guess the Australians used the MG3 at least on their Leopard tanks.

[edit] MG3 for US Service?

Why wasnt the MG3 used by the US Forces? User:EX STAB

I don't know the reason, maybe they just didn't want to adopt a former enemy's weapon whose business end they had met all too often. However, they tried to copy parts of the MG42 action, the result is the M60. However they didn't do a very good job as you can tell, with the MG3 having almost twice the rate of fire as the M60. I just hope the German Army never gets any strange ideas about removing this formidable weapon from their arsenals. It would be just plain stupid.

FWIW I just checked, the US introduced the M60 in 1957, and the MG3 remake of the MG42 dates from 1959, so maybe they just didn't want to replace a weapon they'd only just introduced.

--84.57.74.240 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Replaced the current template (firearm) with the recently standarised Infobox: Template:Infobox createde by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry task force. Deon Steyn 10:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design history

A couple of points about the article's design history regarding the MG42: first it says that the roller locking mechanism was designed by Johannes Stecke, whereas the MG42 page says Edward Stecke; which is correct? Secondly, it says that the MG42 is a development of the MG34: even if the MG34 was the starting point (which I understand it was), is it reasonable to say that one is a development of the other given the amount of difference between the two designs?

-- Chris (blather • contribs) 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the MG42 is a _totally_ different design and _not_ an improved version of the MG34. Of course there are certain similarities in the action because they are, well, machine guns. But the MG42 uses a very simplistic, as not to say idiot-proof action, and is manufactured using very cost-effective stamped-metal techniques. Actually the MG42 was designed by a specialist for industrial rationalization, not a weapons expert. In short, the MG34 showed that there was room for improvement and the MG42 fixed all the things that were problematic in the old model. --84.57.74.240 19:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seems some of the authors got confused there. The reference to the MG34 is redundant in this article. I reworked the design history and added some detailed technical information. Koalorka 01:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)