Mg42 greatest weakness

[Scott Clinton]

My 2 cents:

The Mg42's greatest weakness was its ROF. Most posts regarding this MG focus on its incredible ROF as SOLELY a good thing. In reality it was not, especially considering the (lack of) training German infantry were receiving in '44-45.

Even a well-trained infantryman will fire his weapon at much too high a ROF. Men with the lower level of training that the German infantry were receiving in '44-45 would have been much worse. This excessive use of ammo (ROF) has been born-out in study after study in the US and other NATO countries where it has been shown that any round fired after the third has virtually no chance to hit the target.

I use as practical evidence not only the current German squad MG which is simply an updated MG42 with a much LOWER ROF but the M16a3 that is restricted to three shot bursts to help alleviate this problem. Other examples also exist.

The Mg42's ROF was just too high. It ate up ammo at such a high rate that it was impossible to keep one in action on the attack where ammo had to be carried forward on a continuous basis. On the defensive where ammo supplies could be pre-placed this was (of course) less of a problem. This assumes that the Germans always had sufficient TACTICAL supply. And this IMHO is NOT a valid assumption. Maintaining tactical supply as probably the single largest problem the Germans faced in '44-45.

Bottom line is IMHO the Mg42 is very easy to over-rate in a wargame if a game only looks at statistics like the ROF. But, I will wait and see how this weapon is modeled in CM along with ammo. As long as the German's are not constantly 'swimming' in ammo it should not be a problem from what I have seen.

All that said, if it came down to a BAR or a Mg42…give me the Mg42! ! ! ! :)

------------------
The Grumbling Grognard

[elwood]

Don't spit on me for playing CC3, but what is said here actually happens in that game. If you don't monitor the MG42 closely, it will chew through the ammo in a couple of minutes. While CC3 isn't what I'd call a model for WW2 infantry tactics, it does get some things right.

[PanzerShark]

I think the biggest problem of the mg42 was:
Not being inventid by the Allies http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Would have made d-day slightly easier http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[scoop88]

Another weakness of the MG42 was that the barrel had to be changed frequently because of the heat generated by the extremely high ROF. The other night The History Channel had a special about German WWII small arms and showed how the barrel had to be changed, using re-enactors in German uniform and equipped with a real-live MG42. Also, if you remember during Saving Private Ryan, during the firefight with the machine-gun nest at the knocked-out radar station there was a lull in the MG42 firing and Tom Hanks ordered his men forward because, as he said, "they must be changing the barrel."

I wonder how THAT can be modelled in CM?

[rwcanuck]

I do not think that was an MG42 in SPR judging from the rate of fire sound you here...I think it is the MG3 which came out with a lower rate of fire after the war but looks very similar.

The MG42 has the correct sound in CC3..that is why it has been referred to as the "Canvas Ripper" http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[Big Time Software]

Good stuff in this thread...

Yes, the MG42 had the same problem as the BAR (in a sense) and that was limited ammo. The benefit of the BAR was that the grunt was forced to stop firing so that he could swap mags, while a green MG42 gunner with 250 rounds linked up might try to peel through them. Having fired a HMG MG2 (actual WWII MG42 modified to have slightly lower rate of fire, but higher than MG3 I think) I can tell you that good fire discipline was a must.

One thing that is being forgot here about the LMG version of the MG42 is that there was another limiting factor -> recoil. It kicked like a mule and therefore would be VERY difficult to fire more than a couple of belts of ammo (100rnds) in one long burst. The HMG has no such recoil problem though. Also, the German practice was to link up 250, fire through that, and then load in another 250. It isn't like it has 3000 rounds all connected and ready to go http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif I saw a M60 gunner try to do 500rnds and BOY was that a long belt of ammo http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

As for changing the barrel, we don't simulate that. My book on live firing German automatic weapons states that a trained crew could do it in 6 seconds. Since CM's weapons aren't firing all the time there is no need to specifically simulate barrel changes and ammo reloading. Lower quality troops do fire more frequently though, which does chew through their ammo faster.

Steve

[Lee]

Having had first-hand experience with some of these German
weapons, I can confirm that the ripping canvas description of
the sound is accurate. It really does sound like that, amazingly
high ROF. And Lord have mercy on anyone caught out in the open
when one of those things opens up on em. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

My standard preferred loadout is 225 rounds per belt.

[This message has been edited by Lee (edited 09-30-99).]

[buddy]

I think the German MG42 is an outstanding example of fine German craftsmanship. Anyone notice the similarity of this weapon and of the US Army M60 machine gun? Seems like I heard somewhere that the weapon is a pretty good copy of the old German weapon from the barrel back (with some modifications, of course). Find a picture of both if you don't believe it. Course I could be wrong . . . ah well, food for thought . . .

[Rob Deans]

The greatest weakness was its ROF.

This merits discussion as to the strength it had due to its ROF. I think this has been talked about before, but a short mention.....

The psycological impact that its weight of fire had was a strength unto itself. Automatic fire is not used to kill as much as it is to suppress, espcially in an offensive capacity. The same as indirect fire. NOW, it does a good job in causing cas too but the weight of fire laid down by one of these machine guns has a marked psycological advantage over rapid rifle fire from a section or the bup-bup-bup of even a 50cal, to list a few.

On the ammo thing, I recently had a most interesting conversation with a German vetran. He started the war in the labour corps and followed the army into Poland, repairing roads and bridges. After conscription into the army shortly thereafter, he served in the 95th Infantry Division and marched 3000km into France and back in 1940. After being moved to the East he and his division took part in Barbrossa and was wounded in the head in late 41. After convelessing (sp) in Germany he found himself as an infantryman in the 21 Panzer Div. He was captured at El Alamein and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp in Alberta. The conversation was a little more in depth than that......One of the many interesting points he made was that the panzergrenadier sections had two MGs in them and that more often than not, the setion was simply an ammo carrying party for the MGs. He talked of "50 rounds for my rifle and 500 for the gun" and the like. He spoke of the difference between the infantry (1 MG) sections and the Panzergrenadier (2 MG) sections and how the two half sections would cover each other forward. Almost ever aspect of his stories was in some way related to, or had mention of the MGs and the ammo. "carry this and carry that........we had so much ammo to carry....". It was two of the best hours of conversation that I had in a long time.

Rob Deans

[LT CANADA]

Hey sorry to be off topic but what do u guys think is better the BAR or the BREN in the LMG catagory? I think the Bren, but im partial to Brit made weapons becouse Canada used them in World war 2. My brother and I used to get in terrible fights about the lee enfield rifle and should the British and commonwealth switched to the m1 Garand or not? I think that it was good they didnt, but again im partial to British weapons http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[Big Time Software]

Rob makes a VERY good point. The US Army had to make a training film SPECIFICALLY to deal with the MG42's high RoF sound. The announcer kept saying that its bark was worse than its bite. Right http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif But the footage clearly showed that the average US soldier was not all that convinced he should be sticking his head up when one of those things let loose.

In infantry combat, staying in one place for too long is often equal to death, so the MG42 could do a lot of damage without even nicking anybody. The Germans used to have fields of fire designed to simply pin down the attcker so that mortars and artillery could be called in to finish up. In that regard, the MG42's high RoF was a plus.

Still, the RoF was obviously too much since the Germans knocked it down after the war.

Steve

[Los]

RE: Garand vs Bren:
Well even though the Granad was probably a better weapon for it's role at the time I just love the way the Lee Enfield No.1 Mk III looks (I have one muyslef) so would be hard pressed to cast the slightest disparagement its way.

RE: BRen vs BAR. WHile the Bren may have been a better weapon,it was not significantly so, and as far as I'm concern the absolute loyalty that the BAR engendered from its users speaks well for its performance. SO both were pretty much legendar weapons, even if neitehr were in the same league as the MG42.

"Another weakness of the MG42 was that the barrel had to be changed frequently because of the heat generated by the extremely high ROF."

This is (and remains) a problem for ALL machineguns. The MG42 was better off than any of its counterparts because you could swap out the barrel in seconds. Whereas an M1919A3 you'd be long dead before you could fix that porblem. And a fifty cal? Yeesh you have to reset the headspace and timing after each barrel change!

Los

[R Cunningham]

Scott,

Though the high ROF of the MG42 could be a drawback, it was specifically designed that way on the theory that with a high ROF more rounds would hit where aimed in a short burst. I don't know how successful this really was in practice, but the theory was latter demonstrated on the G11 rifle that the Bundeswehr almost fielded. It could fire three-round bursts and all three rounds would leave the muzzle before the firer felt any kick.



[This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 10-01-99).]

[aaronb]

LOS:
"RE: BRen vs BAR. WHile the Bren may have been a better weapon,it was not significantly so, and as far as I'm concern the absolute loyalty that the BAR engendered from its users speaks well for its performance."

Absolute loyalty is a matter of perception: I know people who actually like Fords, for example :). The Bren: more accurate, higher mag capacity, far more reliable, quick-change barrel. I've fired them (in .303 British and 7.62 NATO), and they're a joy to work with. IMHO, the real issues are reliability and quick barrel-change.

"The MG42 was better off than any of its counterparts because you could swap out the barrel in seconds."

Perhaps we could change this from 'any' to 'many'. As mentioned, the Bren barrel change is quick and easy. The only hazard is burned fingers.

[Herr Jung]

Most of the disadvantages, as well as the advantages, of MG42 is attributed to the 25 rounds per second cyclic rate of fire that inevitably leads to high ammunition expenditure. However, the contention that the high ROF often rendered it inaccurate and thus ineffective is subject to debate. Afterall, we are talking about a weapon that is rated as one of the greatest weapons of WWII.

To begin with, comparing the automatic fire characteristics of MG42 and M16A3 is meaningless - especially the argument for 3 round burst. Also, MG3 is designed to accept either lighter bolt for about 1,300 rpm or heavier bolt for about 800 rpm. Belgian FN MAG 7.62mm GPMG, which seems to be replacing M60 GPMG, fires 750-1,000 rpm which seems requisite of today's best MGs.

Daniel Musgrave in 'German Machineguns' writes: After a few years of experience with the MG 34 (900 rpm), the users requested an increased rate of fire. This was probably required because technical studies had shown that dispersion could be reduced in short-burst firing of light machineguns by increasing the cyclic rate. Experimental modified versions of the MG 34 were demonstrated with firing rates as high as 1,650 rounds per minute . . . In order to increase the cyclic rate . . . a complete redevelopment was accomplished by Rheinmetall. The MG 34/41 had a cyclic rate of about 1,200 rounds . . .

A quote from a 1943 issue of the US Army 'Intelligence Bulletin' states: The Germans are instructed to fire bursts of from 5 to 7 rounds when they employ the MG42 as a light machine gun, since an operator cannot hold his gun on the target for a longer period. The Germans believe that when the weapon is properly employed the compactness and density of its fire pattern justify the high ammunition expenditure.

The US Army in WWII and many years thereafter seemed to have adopted a diametrically opposite view regarding the ROF of automatic weapons. 30 cal. Browning and M60 have very slow 500-600 ROF for MGs. In one wartime US Army footage, the Browning and MG34/42 went head-to-head on the range, and voila! the American MGs were proven to be more accurate (after 30 rounds) and of course it was claimed that 'accuracy' was what mattered on the battlefields. However, I think they forgot to take into account that the German weapons were meant to be operated with a lot shoter trigger pulls than their American counterparts - especially .

Accuracy is a many-faceted problem with automatic weapons. Even under ideal conditions, good fire discipline and skill with the particular weapon are a must. MG42 was subject to all the common problems of comparable maching guns, but still managed to hit what it aimed. I particularly like the description that an MG with high cyclic rate of fire under ideal circumstances was used like a long-range shotgun where bullets impacted the target area at about the same time.

As several posters noted above, the Germans regarded their MGs as their main source of firepower and keeping them well supplied was probably a top concern for field commanders. IMO, the assumption that German MG42 crews were inadequately trained after 43/44 so as to render the guns not as effective is unsubstantiated. The modern trend is towards providing more automatic weapons per squad as no rifles can match the firepower of machine guns.


Young

[Herr Jung]

To address some other points in this thread:

As weapons design usually go, M60 also borrowed several well-known features of previous works. Its feed plate and feed cover mechanism are identical to MG42's. Its bolt mechanism is from Lewis gun. Its quick-change barrel is from the Bren gun.

The sound of MG42s in SPR is peculiar. I initially thought they were MG3s with heavier bolts. Now I tend to think the lower powered propellant of blank ammunition is the culprit. I know some of the movie prop guns have to use certain boosters placed on the muzzle to keep the guns functioning automatically. Also I think the distance of listener from the gun can result in different sound effects. Can anybody compare the sound of live firing vs. blank firing in reenactment shows?

The psychologically debilitating effect of MG42 sound was an important factor in determing who came out ahead in engagements, IMO. According to one German veteran, the enemy just kept running away when he shot the weapon over the heads of the enemy because they couldn't stand the roar. The fast burp and the thundering echos must've done a number on the psyche of men who had to overcome it.

Cpt. Miller in SPR instructing his squad to take advantage of the 6 second barrel changing of MG42 just seem so desperate. Had the men known any better . . .


Young

[Bryan Corkill]

I get to shoot an MP40 this weekend!!!!! My girlfriends grandfather, after stating he talks to me more often than her, said he'ld head off to his storage room and dig out some stuff he 'found' in his duffle when he made it back to the states. (MP40, Luger, Walther, German Paybooks, couple of iron crosses, and some pictures he took.) Said the MP40 took more effort to get back than he put out in the entire war. As to the barrel change, he stated that by the time you realized it just wasn't a pause, they were done. Their solution was a base of fire w/ BAR and Garand, (he loved the BAR) and a flanking action to w/in grenade range. He also stated that about all the 60mm was good for was smoke and taking out MG nests.

[This message has been edited by Bryan Corkill (edited 10-01-99).]

[Moon]

Well, in my army time in the Bundeswehr I have fired the MG3 (which is an MG42 with some changes, a lower ROF is one of them) extensively. Three round bursts were regarded as ideal (but difficult to achive, you basically had to pull the trigger with your fingernail, otherwise you would fire off 5-6 shots easily). Usually, the first two rounds would be pretty much on target, but from the third on you can forget any aiming. 5th or 6th round often would end up in the dirt beside the target plate (fired as LMG using a bipod in prone position).

I cannot remember unfortunately exactly after how many shots you were supposed to change barrels, but I do remember that after a few bursts already the barrel would start smoking slightly and would often become red hot after several long bursts.

[Los]

"He also stated that about all the 60mm was good for was smoke and taking out MG nests."


Interesting. It is believed by some that the 60mm mortar did not fire smoke rounds. (I know the modern ones do). I might have to go dig up my machineguns and mortars book and confirm this. That would make a difference.
Was your girlfriend's grandfather a grunt? Ask him about smoke grenades. (Use carrying etc)

BTW, regarding the MG sound in SPR. Hmmm, I would seriously doubt that they took the sound right off of the live shoot into the movie. They usually redo the sound in the studio. There is a big difference between a blank firing and a live firing and even a big difference between firing blanks through an open muzzle and a BFA (Blank firing adapter).

Los

[Big Time Software]

Los,

Ammo types came out of the definitive book on US weapons (The American Arsenal) from what I recall. I think what we have here is yet another faulty vet memory (like the ones I have seen talking about being shot at by 77mm and 88mm guns on Panthers http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif)

The usefulness of the 60mm mortar has been something we have seen debated before. I have a great collection of veteran stories in The Deadly Brotherhood. In it some swear by them, others at them. Same thing with weapons like the BAR. Sounds like they typical "can't please everybody" kind of thing http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif Our understanding, and they way they naturally work in CM, is that the 60mm mortar was good for keeping the enemy's heads down, but not for taking them off. This was true, but worse, for the German 50mm mortar. The Germans eventually figured it wasn't worth having around so they got rid of them from front line units.

Steve

[Scott Clinton]

I think most of these type "60mm debates" all revolve not around the weapon, but how it was used.

It was not heavy arty. What it was supposed to be was a LOCAL light support weapon the LOCAL commanders could call on and (most importantly) count on being ready for them to use whenever they needed it. A pea-shooter is better than a 12 gauge that is not loaded.

I read a book about a USMC vet that humped 60mm from Peliku to Okanawa (sp) and from what he said it did its job and the front line grunts were happy to have them so close. And the company commander loved them because he 'owned' them. Sorry don't recall the name of the book, its at home (damn good read). He also never mentioned smoke...

------------------
The Grumbling Grognard

[Gespenster]

Guys the M60 is actually copied from the German MG34 whcih had a ROF of Approx 800-900 RPM. The MG42 is also a copy of the MG34 with an upgraded ROF and a few other changes. The MG34 is in reality the Grandfather of all modern LMG's. And while I agree the ROF of the MG42 was probably TOO high, the Soldiers trained to use it were very good at changing the barrel, as someone mentioned earlier it took an average of 6 seconds... My Great Uncle was in the 101st Airborne in WWII... and he told me when he heard an MG42 begin to rip into the woods it scared everyone to death. So not only was it effective mechanically but also mentally. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

JT

------------------
Those who forget our history, are doomed to repeat it.

[MikeLopez]

I thought the M60 was based off the MG42 design, not the MG32.

------------------
Its in the game, baby!

[MikeLopez]

oops, my bad... MG34 hehehe

------------------
Its in the game, baby!

[Tim]

Regarding the M60, it is considered to be a very bad copy of the MG42. After WW2, US engineers were ordered to make a new machinegun based on the lessons learned from the MG42. What they came up with was an almost identical weapon to the MG42, and it was aparently ( aleast according to my book), scrapped because of this. The Engineers were again sent to the drawingboard and designed, as far as I remember, what was to be known as the M60. One thing perticuarly stupid about the M60 was its barrel. It had to be unscrewed from the breech in order to be changed and could not be done while the barrel was hot. After inserting a new barrel, the sight had to be recalibrated. As far as I know this problem was not rectified until the 80'es.

Gotta go.

[Los]

Actually even as far back as the early seventies the M60 had the changeable barrel similar to what we carry today. ( I know they were standard issue back in 77 when I first saw one up close) I can check to find out when that change occured. The fifty cal still has the screw in barrel where you have to set headspace and timing after every barrel change also.

Los

[Harold Jones]

As far as I know the 60 always had a quick change barrel. What it didn't have was a handle. To change the barrel you hit the release and pointed the gun to the ground and shook the barrel out. Eventually they got around to issuing asbestos mittens to the assistant gunners so that they could just grab the barrel and pull it out.

[nagy]

So this guy has to wear asbestos mittens all the time or get them on when it's time for barrel changing? I try to imagine what it must be like when they have all the other tasks that require some sort of sleigh of hand and then having these mittens on, poor assistants!

------------------
nagy

[Los]

Easy there Nagy! ;)

Actually the M60 spare barrel bag (which the AG carries) has in it:
One spare M60 barrel.
One asbestos mit.
One gas ring tool.
One cleaning kit.
(you can fit your T&E in there too)
And whatever else you can shoveonto nit
Note that even with the handle it's a good idea to use that mit to avoid burning yourself. Even the MG42 has a mit that came with it. You don't sit there with the mit on, in fact you just use it like a pot holder when necessary.

Note that hot weapons is not the sole purview of the MG. The AK, M16 and other SLRs can get incredibly hot during a firefight. I have burned myself a few times (common occurance with infantrymen). I once had a second degree burn on my neck from an M16. Was kneeling down after consolidating on an OBJ and checking a map when the rfle, leaning on my shoudler, slipped and the muzzle burned my neck. Was a nice scar for a few weeks.

The AK is absolutely horrid in ths regard (most models) since it has a only cheesy little piece of wood over the barrel/gas tube which itself gets pretty hot (Not as efficient a heat deflector as most SLR forward grips).

Note that I'm not talking about plinking on the range but real firing like in a fight two-four mags in quick succession.

Older weapons have this problem too. Reminds me of a funny story: My old team sergeant used to tell us (He was 3 tours Marine in Vietnam) He was getting ready to lead out a LRRP when some cheesedick rear echelon Major wanted to accompnay them. The guy was horrified when he saw all the rounds they were carrying (500 per man). All authoritative-like he picks up the handset to the radio and goes, Son this is how we kill the enemy by getting on this and calling air and arty." To which our supremely confident PFC LRRP leader holds up his M14 and goes, "Sir by the time you reach anyone on that ****in' thing this here rifle is gonna be white-hot." BTW after that misison the major never went anywhere near the field again.

Los

[Herr Jung]

To my knowledge, M60 quick change barrel mechanism was borrowed from the Bren gun (Czech ZGB 1933), but unlike the Bren (with bipod attached to the frame) M60 had its bipod attached to the barrel itself so the gunner had to hold up the MG to keep it from plowing into the ground while he removed the barrel + bipod. So it was probably difficult for the gunner alone to change the barrel (unlike MG34/42). I think this is corrected with the new E3? model.

Asbestos pads were standard issue items for MG34/42 gunners. Looks like yellowish scouring pad with strap. It was often hung in front of the black leather replacement parts pouch (Ersatzstucketasche 34) carried by the gunner. It appears the gunner himself usually did the changing while the assistant handed him the fresh barrel from the barrel container.

HJ

[Tim]

Again regarding the M60, I was just talking to a friend the other day and it seems I was somewhat wrong about the barrel change. What I said was right, but only for the early versions of the M60. Later, around the late sixties, a new barrel which could more easily be unscrewed and which wasn't attached to the bipod and sight was produced in a new version of the M60. But he also told that the real problem isn't that it is hard to change the barrel on the M60 or the Bren gun. The ingenius thing about the MG42's barrel changing system is that it is easy to do while lying down. With the M60 and the Bren gun you had to either turn the gun around or pull the gun backwards so that you could reach the tip of the barrel. This caused the soldiers using either the M60 or the Bren gun in combat to mostly change their barrels after combat instead of during combat. This produces a lot of wear and tear on the barrels rifling because the rifling gets much more worn when the barrel is hot and this in the end greatly effects the precission of the weapon. Of course this is no problem if you have plenty of new barrels. I don't think that the Mg42 would have been a succes if it hadn't had the quick barrel change system bacause the doctrines said the barrel had to be changed for every 180 shots fired. Of course if somebody is assaulting your position you coudn't care less about doctrines, but when it was possible it meant that you could fire sustained for a long period of time without degredation in precision.

[Los]

Not that I wouldn't mind seeing a new LMG to replace the M60, you guys are looking ridiculously way to much into this whole barrel change thing. Even a guy with moderate training in the weapon can change the barrel on an M60 rapidly, whether it's bipod, or tripod mounted,, whether he's laying down, standing up, or sitting at a retaurant with with his feet up on the table. Also keep in mind MGs are fired as crew served weapons, which means you have an AG down there beside you to help out in most all cases. Sure in the movies you have one guy parading around firing the MG with one hand and feeding the belt himself, but there's usually someone with you to help out. It's more effective that way.

Los

[Harold Jones]

LOS I was under the impression that the M60 was being replaced by a ground mount version of the M240.

[R Cunningham]

Mr Jones,

It is. It took forever, but the Army finally figured out it was better to buy a proven weapon, the M240, than to keep dicking around with the M60. The brits have had this one for quite a while, I think they call it the "gimpy" (from GPMG). It is a 1959 design. The model we are fielding is the M240B. I'm not sure what the differences are from the original version. We've had them on the M1 since the beginning as Coax and Loader's MGs.

In relation to the original theme of the thread, the M240 uses the feed system of the MG42.

[Harold Jones]

Thanks for the answer. I loved the M240, it was reliable as all heck. I don't know that I ever experienced a mechanical malfunction on one. I assume that the m240b has a shoulder stock, adjustable sights, a longer pistol grip and a bipod attached. The M240C which is used on the Bradley is identical to the M240 that is used on tanks except that it is setup for righthand feed instead of lefthand.

Other countries know the M240 as the FN MAG. Just to keep this marginally on topic. The M240 has an adjustable gas port that allows the cyclic rate to remain nearly constant as the gas ports get fouled by carbon. It has three progressively larger holes marked one to three. When you notice your rate of fire slowing you can remove the barrel and change to the next larger hole. In theory this will allow you to maintain a cyclic rate of 900 rpm for quite awhile without extensive cleaning of the gun. Of course most people just set it to three at the beginning so they can get the highest rate possible. I don't know what the rate is when the gas port is at maximum but there is a noticable difference in the sound when it fires.

------------------
If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.




[This message has been edited by Harold Jones (edited 10-13-99).]