Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 09:51 PM UTC
I'm building a Tamiya Jagdtiger and found the MG 42 supplied for the AA mount has no butt-stock :
But then I see in these only pics I have that it appears to missing here also
There is zero text devoted to it and I am having no luck with the Google Device yet .
Was it carried inside -- or the photo example has been blown-off r otherwise removed ?
Removed by original poster on 04/09/16 - 17:13:37 (GMT).
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: September 30, 2015
KitMaker: 2,493 posts
Armorama: 2,344 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 10:11 PM UTC
D3 is part of the pedestal mount.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 10:12 PM UTC
D3 is the base for the stand .
It's not there for what reason I seek
I did initially believe I had cut it off when I removed it from the sprue but that is not the case
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 10:15 PM UTC
It almost looks like a spade handle is attached --- but there would need to be a trigger extension / link .
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 10:21 PM UTC
What is that ?
Georgia, United States
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 10:38 PM UTC
Is it possible it may have been removed due to being of little use? It would seem to me that most gunners would just grab the trigger handle and fire away like mg gunners do on aircraft. Maybe if shooting at ground troops, but if firing at planes or elevated targets you'd really have to crouch to keep the stock against your shoulder.
On the Campaign Trail:
Tank Destroyer 2020
Frederiksborg, Denmark
Joined: September 08, 2007
KitMaker: 98 posts
Armorama: 90 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 10:47 PM UTC
The cocking handle. Have a look here :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJkU4Sah8IHTH Heinrich
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: June 04, 2015
KitMaker: 80 posts
Armorama: 73 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 10:54 PM UTC
Thats the span slide (Spannschieber) your tip of the knife is pointing at.
In firing position it is locked in front position but you can also lock it at the rear like in the photo.
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 10:57 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Is it possible it may have been removed due to being of little use? It would seem to me that most gunners would just grab the trigger handle and fire away like mg gunners do on aircraft. Maybe if shooting at ground troops, but if firing at planes or elevated targets you'd really have to crouch to keep the stock against your shoulder.
I dunno -- I've never fired a mounted or dismounted MG
I guess .
Hoping to find some more pics
England - West Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: January 24, 2009
KitMaker: 144 posts
Armorama: 143 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 11:01 PM UTC
There were no butt stocks on the mgs inside the tank. This would be taken from inside the tank, probably hull mg, and used outside the tank for aa fire, hence no butt stock.
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 11:02 PM UTC
Love that channel !
Yeah - I've watched that vid before
I just want to make sure I know what I'm looking at.
These B&W photos are challenging some times .
The fuel filler ( coolant ? ) cover looks to be missing in that pic because of the jack's position and the contrast etc
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 11:03 PM UTC
Quoted Text
There were no butt stocks on the mgs inside the tank. This would be taken from inside the tank, probably hull mg, and used outside the tank for aa fire, hence no butt stock.
Ah -- OK
Makes sense .
BINGO , thanks !
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Friday, April 08, 2016 - 11:35 PM UTC
A related question then :
So they forgo the barrel armor for this capability ?
It was my understanding that the bow MG's were shrouded in 3/4" armor .
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 09, 2016 - 12:06 AM UTC
For what it's worth , the kit has the nominal bow gun ( barrel )
Does it require a different ball interface or the shroud is jettison'd ?
.... looks like I need to learn way more
Frederiksborg, Denmark
Joined: September 08, 2007
KitMaker: 98 posts
Armorama: 90 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 09, 2016 - 12:35 AM UTC
The bow gun is a MG 34, wich AFIK is the only german MG with an armoured barrel.
Apparently the JT had a MG 34 and MG 42.
HTH
Heinrich
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 09, 2016 - 04:39 AM UTC
Some early Jadgtigers had this post mounting for a supplied MG42. Presumably the butt stock had been removed by the crew in this case for reasons already noted. This gun position was not successful or popular, as what guy is going to stand exposed and fire at a strafing plane which has many more guns than you, most of them in much bigger calibers, and maybe even rockets? The guns and mounts were removed and put to better use in subsequent production.
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 09, 2016 - 04:55 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Some early Jadgtigers had this post mounting for a supplied MG42. Presumably the butt stock had been removed by the crew in this case for reasons already noted. This gun position was not successful or popular, as what guy is going to stand exposed and fire at a strafing plane which has many more guns than you, most of them in much bigger calibers, and maybe even rockets? The guns and mounts were removed and put to better use in subsequent production.
If Tamiya produced it this way I have to assume that they were issued to the tanks without stocks -- Or , they just used this picture without much research . ( doubtful
)
If this MG 42 was carried just for this role it seems that a spade-grip set-up would have been better . I don't see an advantage in removing it
But like I said - I have never fired an MG 42 at aircraft from a pedestal mount
And , yeah - pretty much a suicide position with very little chance of impacting the attacker
.. but the little man in the Tamiya drawing looks quite comfortable in his stance - WITH the butt-stock
Alaska, United States
Joined: February 22, 2015
KitMaker: 47 posts
Armorama: 47 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 10, 2016 - 01:31 AM UTC
What about an AA sight? Wouldn't it have one of those?
Alaska, United States
Joined: February 22, 2015
KitMaker: 47 posts
Armorama: 47 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 10, 2016 - 01:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Thats the span slide (Spannschieber) your tip of the knife is pointing at.
In firing position it is locked in front position but you can also lock it at the rear like in the photo.
I think the cocking handle is on the left side like a MG3 is now, just a improved version of the MG42.
...I am wrong, it's on the right but I don't think that's the cocking handle.
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 10, 2016 - 06:13 AM UTC
Well -- after all this looking , I can tell you that I relly want one now
I personally can't find another example of a 42 , or 34 , with the stock removed or any mention of it occurring for whatever reason on ANY MG
I really don't see it being an advantage simply removed from the gun -- really a handicap overall IMO .
I'm beginning to believe Tamiya went with that one example .
wouldn't be the first or last time something like this occurred
Washington, United States
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,792 posts
Armorama: 1,186 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 10, 2016 - 03:50 PM UTC
Without a butt stock you aren't going to be able to pull it in tight for better aiming or even really use the sights. At that point it's pray and spray walking your rounds on target, using your tracers for aiming.
Australia
Joined: March 31, 2016
KitMaker: 4 posts
Armorama: 2 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 10, 2016 - 05:08 PM UTC
The buttstock on the MG42 could be removed and there is a screw underneath that would be removed. The butt contained no mechanism so function was unaffected. A dummy cap was then fitted in its place. The butt would be removed for the tripod mount (lafetta) and double mounts. It was removed to prevent the butt cracking or breaking as these mounts transmitted sharper vibration through the mount as opposed to a nice soft shoulder. The MG3, the modern clone had a rubber cap to cover the buffer when the butt was off.
Texas, United States
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 10, 2016 - 05:16 PM UTC
Thanks , Steve .
it no doubt can be removed but WHY isn't it there on this type of mount and is this an outlier
Can you link to any photos ?
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: June 04, 2015
KitMaker: 80 posts
Armorama: 73 posts
Posted: Sunday, April 10, 2016 - 05:22 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I think the cocking handle is on the left side like a MG3 is now, just a improved version of the MG42.
...I am wrong, it's on the right but I don't think that's the cocking handle.
MG42 / MG3 had no cocking handle on the left side, it was/is always on the right side. And yes, it is for sure the cocking handle. A few years back in Afghanistan we used this gun a lot.
