Many of the comments to this video illustrate the popular myths that caused this film to be made in the first place.
As with any machine gun, their effectiveness was (and is) more a factor of gunnery skills than rate of fire and raw volume. Fires that are poorly directed fail to suppress and can never hit. Increasing the rate of fire or volume does not fix this.
The lesson of this admittedly propaganda-based film is NOT that German full autos are ineffective, rather, it correctly points out that the German gun’s faster cyclic rate does not convey greater effectiveness.
Against ground-based targets, any fully automatic firearm has more than fast enough cyclic rate to be effective as a machine gun. Good machine gun gunnery dictates that most bursts will run around 6-9 rounds. Consider that a plodding cyclic rate of 360 rounds per minute works out to six rounds per second and even “slow” cyclic rates are faster than this. This sends a complete burst within a second or so. A few tenths of second or a few more or less rounds per burst won’t matter. Of course, the lower rate of fire is likely easier to control, the cone of fire is probably tighter, and ammunition at belt fed quantities quickly becomes heavy.
The real solution to determining the best approach is to do something demonstrated in this video. Test the equipment, technique, and doctrine. Try whatever you like, but keep track of where the bullets actually end up and how long it took to get them there. If a given technique, doctrine, or equipment is truly more effective it will show up in an appropriate measured test.
Rumors among Allied troops caused many myths of the German MG 34/42 to spread and it’s unusually high rate of fire and subsequent distinctive firing signature. The German gun was effective but that was due more to the skill of Germany gunnery, as forcibly demonstrated at the Battle of the Somme in World War I, and was not due to any magic in the gun or in a higher rate of fire..
Firearm User Network 
DracoAvian4
Oct 01, 2015 @ 06:30:13
But it does state that the lower rates of fire do greatly affect accuracy during bursts. Which is absolutely true with light, individual weapons like the MP-40 or Thompson. But this is absolutely incorrect concerning mounted weapons, which do tend to score more hits on moving targets because of the higher rate of fire.
I do agree when you state that an MG’s effectiveness is based on the gunnery skills of the crew, but I would also like to add that infantry doctrine also plays an important factor. If I may make a reading suggestion, I’d recommend “Blood Red Snow.” The Germans liked to deploy their MGs so that they were the knockout punch, while the infantry provided support. Americans reversed the doctrine (I believe due to the advantage of the M1 Garand being a repeating firearm) and used MGs as support to the riflemen.
Additionally, in this film, it is depicted that the German Automatics required more personnel to carry ammunition, and erroneously implied this would be a limiting factor in the number of guns on the battlefield. In fact, the biggest advantage of the MG42 over the MG34 was that a significant portion of the weapon system was made from stamped steel. Most importantly, it reduced the manufacturing costs and took significantly less time to produce leading to many more machine guns for the Wehrmacht.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Oct 01, 2015 @ 06:57:25
>> But it does state that the lower rates of fire do greatly affect accuracy during bursts. Which is absolutely true with light, individual weapons like the MP-40 or Thompson.
True and that was part of my point. Raising rate of fire or increasing cyclic rates doesn’t always increase effectiveness. It might even reduce effectiveness.
>> But this is absolutely incorrect concerning mounted weapons, which do tend to score more hits on moving targets because of the higher rate of fire.
In the article I did specify my point was concerning ground-based targets, such as humans and wheeled or tracked vehicles moving over rough and broken terrain.
A very slow cyclic rate of 360 rounds per minute is six rounds a second, which is one shot every 0.16 seconds. That’s about two rounds fired in roughly the time of a normal eye blink. It’s possible to demonstrate mathematically that a sprinting human or fast moving vehicle could theoretically dash between launched bullets, but if you truly believe that is a viable tactic you can try first.
>> I do agree when you state that an MG’s effectiveness is based on the gunnery skills of the crew, but I would also like to add that infantry doctrine also plays an important factor.
Gunnery skills, such as machine gun marksmanship (accurately firing a cone of fire), enfilading, grazing fire, and the like are doctrine and tactic agnostic. As always, base fundamentals can be applied to any tactic or doctrine.
>> In fact, the biggest advantage of the MG42 over the MG34 was that a significant portion of the weapon system was made from stamped steel. Most importantly, it reduced the manufacturing costs and took significantly less time to produce leading to many more machine guns for the Wehrmacht.
This is a different approach to volume that the Russians also used. A good-enough design that is cheaper is often the better choice simply because we can have more.
LikeLike
Fergus Mason
Oct 01, 2015 @ 07:06:22
Most civilians have a fundamental misconception about how machineguns are used. You don’t aim them at individual targets, like a rifle. You use them to create a beaten zone, a long ellipse swept by fire. Beaten zones can be laid down on the enemy’s position or used to channel them into a killing ground for the riflemen, Claymores or whatever.
The reason the MG42 had such a high rate of fire is that the Germans calculated anyone in an MG34’s beaten zone (900rpm) had an 80% chance of being hit. The MG42’s rate of fire was designed to increase that to 100%.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Oct 01, 2015 @ 07:19:21
Great points!
Beaten zone size and location is controlled by the cone of fire. A gunner that can accurately place a tight cone of fire can accurately place the beaten zone where most effective, establish more effective grazing fire, etc. A 2-4 mil (7-15 MOA) cone of fire is about optimum. A traverse of 4-5 mils between bursts insures concentrated, slightly overlapping beaten zones with complete, even coverage.
Adding more volume to this, such as by increasing cyclic rate, can increase hit potential ONLY IF the cone of fire remains reasonably tight. Spraying more bullets without control just sends more random projectiles and fails to improve suppression. The German calculation is correct, however, it doesn’t make the MG42 a magic buzzsaw. As with all other machine guns, its effectiveness depends on the gunnery skill of the crew.
LikeLike
John Tate
Oct 12, 2015 @ 15:45:11
In the past few weeks I’ve conducted a few firearms qualification shoots. In every one, far more time was spent on remedial issues (e.g., trigger control) than anything else. I’m confident the participants are sick of hearing “TRIGGER, TRIGGER, TRIGGER” yelled at them. But the truth is profound: you cannot shoot fast enough to make up for misses, and poor trigger control guarantees misses.
Likewise, we all need to take a lesson from the New York Police Dept’s display of expertise: 84 shots, 83 misses.* Whether in congested Brooklyn or rural New Mexico, someone must account for where those 83 stray rounds went. ((Maybe those guys need to go back to six-shooters.))
In any case, the value of accuracy over sheer firepower is well displayed in this WWII Army training film comparing US and German full-auto small arms.
LikeLike
John M. Buol Jr.
Nov 01, 2015 @ 08:38:42
From James Holland
http://warisboring.com/articles/a-lot-of-what-we-think-we-know-about-world-war-ii-is-wrong/
LikeLike