Best WWII Semi-Auto Rifle

[renrich]

Another point is that with practise the Garand is very easy and fast to reload. We had a rapid fire exercise in basic on the KD range where we loaded a single round, from the prone position, and upon a signal had 10 seconds ( I think) to fire the single round, reload and get off eight more rounds at the target. Another thing that gets under my skin is authors of historical novels who don't know their weapons. Am reading Jeff Shaara's "No Less Than Victory" a gift, and one of the characters in the book, during the Battle Of the Bulge, obviously is using a Garand. The Garand is mentioned over and over again. The character in the book several times, glances down to see if a clip is loaded in his rifle. I got news for Shaara, as you cannot glance down and see if a clip is loaded. All you can do is look down, pull back the operating rod handle and see if a round is chambered but even then you cannot tell how many rounds are in the rifle without unloading all rounds. If I was going to write a trilogy about WW2, which this book is the third one of that trilogy, I would get me an M1 and become familiar with it, even to the point of firing it. Likewise, if I was writing about the War of Northern Aggression I would get a rifled musket and find out all I could about it. I guess I am just old and crochety.

 

[Demetrious]

t the War of Northern Aggression

Us Yankees call that the "War of H'AINT AFEER'D O NUTHIN."

The Grands alleged firepower advanatages have been discussed and rehashed many times. There is no doubt that the garand did confer additional firepower to the inidividual Infantryman, but for the squad as a whole, the Grand has been estimated as providing only about 20% more firepower to the squad overall. this is because as a a fraction of the squads total firepower potential, the rifle element only adds a relatively small proportion

If you're talking about your standard US Rifle squad, which, to my memory, had 10 riflemen, one BAR gunner, and one with a Thompson SMG... are you saying that the single BAR and Thompson outweighed the ten riflemen?

 

[renrich]

Demetrious, very good. I have not heard that one before.

 

[Demetrious]

Demetrious, very good. I have not heard that one before.

My cousins live in Georgia (my yankee aunt married an Alabama man,) so my family knows pretty much every one to exist, and we're constantly manufacturing new ones.

 

[Shortround6]

If you're talking about your standard US Rifle squad, which, to my memory, had 10 riflemen, one BAR gunner, and one with a Thompson SMG... are you saying that the single BAR and Thompson outweighed the ten riflemen?

I was thinking the same thing. The composition of the US squads did change during the war with the number of BARs increasing. With other countries the squad automatic/LMG did provide the the majority of the fire power. 8 Grarands do but out more firepower than 8 bolt action rifles but the were few LMG that had less firepower than a BAR.
Not all early war US squads had Garands, at least in training and initial planning.

 

[Demetrious]

I was thinking the same thing. The composition of the US squads did change during the war with the number of BARs increasing. With other countries the squad automatic/LMG did provide the the majority of the fire power. 8 Grarands do but out more firepower than 8 bolt action rifles but the were few LMG that had less firepower than a BAR.
Not all early war US squads had Garands, at least in training and initial planning.

Add to that the fact that squad LMGs were just that- squad-based. They maneuvered with the riflemen as an integral part of the unit. The "base of fire" was put down by dedicated MMG or HMG teams that operated as their own units.

 

[parsifal]

If you're talking about your standard US Rifle squad, which, to my memory, had 10 riflemen, one BAR gunner, and one with a Thompson SMG... are you saying that the single BAR and Thompson outweighed the ten riflemen?

Its not valid to compare the BAR to the rifle component, because of the limited magazined ammunition supply in the weapon. This was a criticism levelled at the BAR from its very inception, based as it was on the French concept of firing from the hip to support the advancing Infantry in WWI. The french during the fighting in the great war developed this idea of returning fire while advancing, developing a weapon, the Chaucat, as the weapon to provide that firepower. It was a concept and a weapon that nearly destroyed the French army in 1917. The Chaucat disaster is still remembered as an exemplary example on how not to employ machine huns. Despite this, the BAR was developed to fulfil the same role, as at that time the US army was desperate to pick up any helpful pointers from overseas armies that it felt had more expereince than it. In the finish the BAR was not used in that way, but as a squad support weapon it was still limited by its inherent design

A better comparison would be to compare the firepower generated by the rifle element to that of a true support gun, like the 30 cal or better still, the MG42. The MG 42 can generate up to 1200 rpm of controlled and aimed fire, over a distance of up to 1000 yards or so, though typically this was more like 500 yards.

I dont know th exact ROF for the Garand, but for the Lee Enfield, the fastest bolt action ever made, typically it was 10 rpm, with a maximum achieved under combat conditions at Mons in 1914, of 15 rpm. Thats aimed fire incidentally. As I said, I dont know the the rof for the garand under combat conditions, but for aimed fire, would estimate that to be about 20 rpm per riflemen. Typical ranges that riflemen can engage under combat conditions are about 250 yards. When you compare that to the typical engaement ranges of the MG42, it becomes apparent that the MG can fire for longer and faster than the riflmen. If the range is ignored, the ten riflemen will get off 200 rounds per minute, combined, to the 1200 rounds per minute of the MG 42. Even the 30 cal, with an ROF of 600rpm, will have three times the firepower of the rifle component. And I am not really taking into account the range advantages for the support guns

The Thompson has the ability to match the 30 cal in terms of rof, though the burst is ,imited by the magazine, and fire from the SMG is going to be only a fraction as accurate. Moreover, in terms of effective range, the Thompson (or any other SMG) is limited by its range. Its a close assault weapon, designed mostly for work in the trenches. It gave Infantry the ability to deliver large amounts of firepower at close range, for a shaort period of time, delivered hopefully at the right time, and in the right place.

The BAR could never really fulfil that role mostly because of the limited ammunition supply. It was incapable of laying down a continuous stream of fire to support the advanacing (or retreating) Infantry. This was the great strength of the German MG development....what we now call the GPMG, it could fulfil the role of both support and squad based weapons, and gave them an enormous advantage in firepower as a result. For the allies, the idea of a support MG had to be retained as a separate unit, in the case of the British it was the Vickers, in the case of the US it was the 30 cal. Even though the Allied ideas on MGs were not as advanced as the german, the same basic truths still apply, the majority of the firepower for the squad came from its MG support (the fact that the support for the squad was from outside the squad is not that important). The allied squads, as I indicated previously retained an outdated concept that it was the rifle that provided the majority of the firepower for the squad)

 

[Clay_Allison]

The BAR is one of the oddest rifle niches of all time, a full auto assault rifle in a full power rifle cartridge. Like an assault rifle for a gorilla rather than a guerilla.

 

[renrich]

I understand that the BAR, with a cut down stock was quite effective when used by Clyde Barrow and others. Kidding aside I never quite understood the efficacy of the BAR. It always seemed to me that a skilled rifleman with a Garand could almost equal a BAR because of being more accurate. However, the BAR was still in everyday use in Korea.

In 1959, in basic training, we did an exercise called line of skirmishers. This was a squad in line abreast about five yards apart advancing across a field firing the Garand from the hip. I thought that this seemed like a good way to hunt quail but a good way to get killed in a war if the enemy had cover and automatic weapons. To me, it smacked of War of Northern Aggression tactics. In 1959, we still qualified on the KD range but also fired at pop up targets at indeterminate ranges in what was called Trainfire.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I understand that the BAR, with a cut down stock was quite effective when used by Clyde Barrow and others. Kidding aside I never quite understood the efficacy of the BAR. It always seemed to me that a skilled rifleman with a Garand could almost equal a BAR because of being more accurate. However, the BAR was still in everyday use in Korea.

In 1959, in basic training, we did an exercise called line of skirmishers. This was a squad in line abreast about five yards apart advancing across a field firing the Garand from the hip. I thought that this seemed like a good way to hunt quail but a good way to get killed in a war if the enemy had cover and automatic weapons. To me, it smacked of War of Northern Aggression tactics. In 1959, we still qualified on the KD range but also fired at pop up targets at indeterminate ranges in what was called Trainfire.

A pair of BARs were with the weapons load that killed Bonnie and Clyde too. One of the Tx Rangers had one, and the Sheriff's Deputy that found out where they'd be had BARs. Machine Gun Kelly also made a name for himself with the weapon. It was great for guys like that because in a gang fight the 30-06 bullets could slice through car bodies that would stop .45 ACP bullets (like those fired by the Thompson).

 

[timshatz]

Machine Gun Kelly also made a name for himself with the weapon.).

I thought he did it with a Tommy Gun. Heard the guy really didn't deserve the name "Machine Gun Kelly". It was given to him by his girlfriend (who was a real pain in the ass type) as an attempt to make him more than he really was. Guy was more of a talker than a doer.

Something of a Macbeth type character, he wasn't driven, she was.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I thought he did it with a Tommy Gun. Heard the guy really didn't deserve the name "Machine Gun Kelly". It was given to him by his girlfriend (who was a real pain in the ass type) as an attempt to make him more than he really was. Guy was more of a talker than a doer.

Something of a Macbeth type character, he wasn't driven, she was.

Might be I was thinking about someone else.

 

[Shortround6]

A better comparison would be to compare the firepower generated by the rifle element to that of a true support gun, like the 30 cal or better still, the MG42. The MG 42 can generate up to 1200 rpm of controlled and aimed fire, over a distance of up to 1000 yards or so, though typically this was more like 500 yards.

These were usually company or battalion level weapons. Not really in a discussion of squad or platoon weapons.

The MG 42 cycled at 1200rpm but the deliverable rate was much closer to 250rpm. It needed a large and complicated tripod to do it and a supply of spare barrels.

The practical rate of fire for most bolt guns is 10-15 rpm ( it takes 10-15 seconds to reload using a stripper clip. The Enfield is a bit better in some situations, especially for the first minute.

Aimed fire takes about 2-3 seconds a shot, the hang up is in the reloads. the semi-auto is a bit faster in that you don't have to work the bolt but with both you do have to reacquire the sight picture. Non-aimed fire (suppresive?) gives a much bigger advantage to the semi-auto.

Most tripod MGs could only put out 200-250 rpm effectively for more than a few minutes time with the LMGs being good for 100-150rpm. The sturdiness of their mounts did mean that the fire was much more effective however. A squad LMG (not BAR) was good for the same number of rounds per minute as 5-10 riflemen (while only needing 2 men) but it's actual effect was greater. The BAR was good for about 80-100rpm and when you compare that to the higher rates of fire for the semi-auto rifllemen it is easy to see where the US squads fire power was coming from. And thus the Platoon's firepower.

The BAR could never really fulfil that role mostly because of the limited ammunition supply. It was incapable of laying down a continuous stream of fire to support the advanacing (or retreating) Infantry. This was the great strength of the German MG development....what we now call the GPMG, it could fulfil the role of both support and squad based weapons, and gave them an enormous advantage in firepower as a result.

Not really, at the squad level every MG had a limited ammunition supply. In the case of the BAR it was around 800rds carried in Magazines or bandoleers to reload the magazines. In the case of the Bren it was the 750 rounds in the magazines ( or less depending on how the magazines were filled) plus what ever the riflemen would give up to reload magazines. For the Germans at 6lbs per belt of 100rounds or so it was whatever weight of ammunition the squad was willing to carry to support the MG. At 15rps for the MG 34 and 20rps for the MG 42 even 800-1000rounds doesn't last long even fired in bursts and allowing for barrel changes.

The advantage of the GPMG was that it simplified logistics and training over maintaining two (or three) different guns in the army.

For the allies, the idea of a support MG had to be retained as a separate unit, in the case of the British it was the Vickers, in the case of the US it was the 30 cal. Even though the Allied ideas on MGs were not as advanced as the german, the same basic truths still apply, the majority of the firepower for the squad came from its MG support (the fact that the support for the squad was from outside the squad is not that important). The allied squads, as I indicated previously retained an outdated concept that it was the rifle that provided the majority of the firepower for the squad)

The Germans also held an number of tripod mounted MGs in the MG company of the rifle battalion did they not? Provided with larger crews and carts for transport if not motorized these guns had thousands rounds per gun and the equipment for longer ranged support fire.

The Germans may have held a few tripods at company level for mounting a few of the MGs normally located in the squads for special purposes in defense or attack but then the British were supposed to have a few tripods for the Bren guns at company level also.
The LMGs that moved with the squads were supposed to add to/ be the core of firepower once the squad had advanced to a new position that the support guns couldn't reach or thicken up a defensive position.

 

[timshatz]

Might be I was thinking about someone else.

Could be. There were a few criminals who wandered around with BARs (you could buy both the BAR and the Thompson at a hardware store back then) and some of them even knew how to use them (as apposed to John Dilinger who was supposed to be the worst shot in the criminal world). Problem is it was very hard to hide or manuver with. It's a big gun.

There was a guy, I can't remember his name but it might've been Vern Miller, who was very good with a Thomson or BAR. Was trained by the military and then spent time as a cop before going rogue. Once wiped out a hit squad that was out to kill him. Very good and very brutal guy.

 

[renrich]

I think they got some of the weapons by robbing National Guard armories also.

 

[parsifal]

These were usually company or battalion level weapons. Not really in a discussion of squad or platoon weapons.

True, in the sense of who controlled them, but not true in the sense of those who used them. A squad or platoon would often be given the suport of a 30 cal or Vickers for a given operation.

The MG 42 cycled at 1200rpm but the deliverable rate was much closer to 250rpm. It needed a large and complicated tripod to do it and a supply of spare barrels.

250 rounds per minute is a bit low from what Ive seen and read (ive never see an MG42 firing, but I have seen an M-60, which is based on the German gun.....it has a practical rof much higher than what you are saying). At 1200 rpm it will tear through barrels quickly, if fired at that rate continuously, but not so quickly if there pauses in that fire. Changing a barrel for an MG 42 was an easy and quick operation.

For the Vickers, from what I have read, and from what vets have told me, it mattered not if the firing requirements were being measured in seconds minutes or hours....the Vickers could keep spewing rounds out continuously no matter what the task.

The Germans could and did use the MG 42, as a support weapon, without the tripod that you referring to. As an improvisation, they would use a second crew member. The bipod at the front would be held by this second crew memeber, to keep the gun more stable. Realistically, the gun would require a minimum of 3 members to function efficiently, but the returns for this investment were well worth it.

The practical rate of fire for most bolt guns is 10-15 rpm ( it takes 10-15 seconds to reload using a stripper clip. The Enfield is a bit better in some situations, especially for the first minute.

Most books that I have put the practical rate of fire for the Mauser at 8 rounds per minute, with the Enfield at 15 rounds per minute. I did my small arms gunnery training on the Enfield (partly), and achieving a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute at a target over 250 yards and achieving the required level of accuracy takes years of practice....a time factor that just isnt available in wartime. For most average shots, achieving accurate aimed fire at those ranges, they might get 2-4 rounds off per minute, and it doesnt matter if the rifle is auto, semi auto, or bolt action. After I progressed to the SLR (FN) I still had difficulty achieving high accuracy at those ranges. If we accept that getting near the target is good enough, and rely on mass fire effect to achieve the objective, the rate of fire does go up, but would still be hard pressed to reach that level of 10-15 rpm. A semi auto rifle like the garand could reach that "semi-accurate" rate much more easily. If the fire excercise is a sustaiined firing excercise (where the rate of the MG fire goes down as you say, and which I agree with, though not to the extent that you are saying) so too does the ROF for the rifle element.

Aimed fire takes about 2-3 seconds a shot, the hang up is in the reloads. the semi-auto is a bit faster in that you don't have to work the bolt but with both you do have to reacquire the sight picture. Non-aimed fire (suppresive?) gives a much bigger advantage to the semi-auto.

Agreed, except that a high level of training is needed to achieve accurate aimed fire at normal battle ranges of 250 metres or so. At those ranges, in a battlefield environment, against a moving target, it is very difficult to achieve that ROF

Most tripod MGs could only put out 200-250 rpm effectively for more than a few minutes time with the LMGs being good for 100-150rpm. The sturdiness of their mounts did mean that the fire was much more effective however. A squad LMG (not BAR) was good for the same number of rounds per minute as 5-10 riflemen (while only needing 2 men) but it's actual effect was greater. The BAR was good for about 80-100rpm and when you compare that to the higher rates of fire for the semi-auto rifllemen it is easy to see where the US squads fire power was coming from. And thus the Platoon's firepower.

Agree with your conclusion, though your numbers are low to me for the MGs


Not really, at the squad level every MG had a limited ammunition supply. In the case of the BAR it was around 800rds carried in Magazines or bandoleers to reload the magazines. In the case of the Bren it was the 750 rounds in the magazines ( or less depending on how the magazines were filled) plus what ever the riflemen would give up to reload magazines. For the Germans at 6lbs per belt of 100rounds or so it was whatever weight of ammunition the squad was willing to carry to support the MG. At 15rps for the MG 34 and 20rps for the MG 42 even 800-1000rounds doesn't last long even fired in bursts and allowing for barrel changes.

I cant say much in relation to this. It appears corect to me, but I can approach the supply issue from slightly different perspectives.

A German Infantry Division standard ammunition issue for its Infantry Divs was 150 tons. This was a standard 5 day issue of ammnunition (on the basis of moderate daily usage) , which equates to 50 tons per regiment, 15 tons per bn, and so on. In the heat of battle (ie a high rof) , with maximum ROF maintained, the standard ammunition issue could be shot off in less than 6 hours. A single battalion of the 9th Australian division once shot off something like 40-80 tons of ammuntion in less than hour in one of the battles it got engaged in in 1941. From prepared positions, particularly in defence, the ammuntion expenditure rates could be high, but they were also sustainable (from a weapons usage pov), so long as the ammunition could be kept coming

In New Guinea, my father told me that each man in the squad had to carry two loaded magazines of Bren ammunition, whilst the gunner carried either four or six. In a 12 man squad that gave the gun 26 magazines for immediate use. Roughly that means the squad had 520 rounds available, but then there is all the unchambered ammunition to consider. The standard Jungle pack was about 40 lbs, of which more than half was ammuntion (I am told) . How many rounds is 240 lbs? Ive no idea, but its a lot.

The advantage of the GPMG was that it simplified logistics and training over maintaining two (or three) different guns in the army.

I agree, but thats not the only advanatage. If the fire exercise required sustained fire, a belt fed gun could do longer burst, and variable length bursts. A magazine fed weapon is always limited by the size of the magazine, and though they could be reloaded at intervals, in a hot close assault where it was important to keep the enemy's heads down, the brens and BAR type guns were at a disadvantage. In fact they couldnt really do the job as a single weapon.

The Germans also held an number of tripod mounted MGs in the MG company of the rifle battalion did they not? Provided with larger crews and carts for transport if not motorized these guns had thousands rounds per gun and the equipment for longer ranged support fire.

The Germans may have held a few tripods at company level for mounting a few of the MGs normally located in the squads for special purposes in defense or attack but then the British were supposed to have a few tripods for the Bren guns at company level also.
The LMGs that moved with the squads were supposed to add to/ be the core of firepower once the squad had advanced to a new position that the support guns couldn't reach or thicken up a defensive position.

Agree with all of this, except weapons that you refer to as "bn guns" were always attached to companies platoons or even squads when being used. They were commanded by Bn HQ,in the sense that they would be distributed by them, but used by the subordinate formations. This was applicable to all formations that enjoyed a heavy weapons company, these formations were not kept in a concentrated park in the same sense as artillery was.....they were distributed to the subordinatee formations as needed (with the crewws of course) . With regards to you last statement, that is only partly true. Vickers guns were the least mobile of the support guns, MG 42s were as mobile as a Bren or a BAR, and 30 cals almost as mobile. If the platoon or the squad advanced beyond the range of the support element, it would not be unreasonable to expect the support guns to move up with them. The Russians certainly thought this with their whelled "sokolov mounts" for their heavy maxim support guns

 

[Shortround6]

250 rounds per minute is a bit low from what Ive seen and read (ive never see an MG42 firing, but I have seen an M-60, which is based on the German gun.....it has a practical rof much higher than what you are saying). At 1200 rpm it will tear through barrels quickly, if fired at that rate continuously, but not so quickly if there pauses in that fire. Changing a barrel for an MG 42 was an easy and quick operation.

While I have fired a single 50 round belt from an MG 42 It doesn't qualify me as a MG expert
However please note that that the MG 42 barrels were plain steel and would wear out much quicker from high fire rates than an M-60s stelite lined barrel. While text book fire rates were often exceeded in combat it was given that the MG-42 should be fired at so many rounds per minute and the barrels changed every few minutes. The barrels were rotated so no single barrel was burned out too quickly.

Even at one belt (250 rounds) per minute the Vickers started boiling water in just a few belts and then evaporated water at the rate of one pint every belt or so.

The Germans could and did use the MG 42, as a support weapon, without the tripod that you referring to. As an improvisation, they would use a second crew member. The bipod at the front would be held by this second crew memeber, to keep the gun more stable. Realistically, the gun would require a minimum of 3 members to function efficiently, but the returns for this investment were well worth it.

this "expedient" was usually used because of tall grass or some other obstacle that prevented normal use of the bipod. Laying the gun across somebody's back or shoulder while they grab the bipod is no substitute for a tripod. Or if you are referring to placing the bipod on the ground and having somebody try to hold it the results aren't going to be a lot better. the rear end of the gun is unsupported except by the firers shoulder and the recoil of 20shots a second WILL move the point of impact even at 100yds. Short bursts are needed with frequent re-aiming. During my very short exposure to this weapon I never got off less than 7 shots per burst although trained gunners with more experience could get off 3-4 round bursts.

ME"Most tripod MGs could only put out 200-250 rpm effectively for more than a few minutes time with the LMGs being good for 100-150rpm..."

Agree with your conclusion, though your numbers are low to me for the MGs

I am trying to use numbers I have seen published as either doctrine or practical. For example the Bren gun was supposed to fired at 4 magazines per minute and barrels swapped every 2 1/2 minutes or 10 magazines in a sustained fire mission. Post war Brens converted to 7.62 NATO often (always?) had chrome lined barrels which stood up to the firing better.
It is the barrel cooling that limited the practical rates of fire more than anything else. Somebody once fired a French AA 52 for 500rounds using linked belts, According to the story there was no rifling left in the barrel for almost 300mm in front of the chamber. Yes the gun will still fire but any hope of accuracy is long gone.

As noted, Chrome lining and especially stelite will significantly change the the rate of barrel wear.
Over heating guns can lead to jams and other problems. Melvin Johnson once wrecked a BAR with about 700 rounds. Gun was fastened down and trigger tied back and magazines changed as fast as possible. For-end was smoking before 400 rounds with visible flames not long after. Gun ceased functioning just over 700 rounds when the mainspring (which had lost it's temper) would not return the bolt forward. Please note that the Russians changed the location of the mainspring on the DP light MG from under the barrel to a tube out the back of the receiver on the DPM.

Is your German example including artillery ammunition?

I do have some figures for a US infantry regiment in the summer of 1941. I am not claiming that this was ever used in combat but it does show what they were thinking in 1941. EACH BAR was allocated 820-860 rounds (depending on which type of rifle squad it was in) on the "unit ammunition train" in addition to the 320 rounds carried by the solder with the weapon. of the ammunition on the unit Am Tn 468-500 rounds were to issued before combat. Another 540-576 round were carried on the ammunition train of a higher unit. The numbers change because of the ammunition in bandoleers. 60 round bandoleers for Bot rifle equipped troops and 48round bandoleers for M-1 equipped troops.
The numbers for the Browning 1919 air cooled MG are 3000rounds on the prime mover or or ammunition truck, 2000 more rounds on the unit Am Tn and a further 1000rounds on the train of a higher unit. 6000 rounds total compared to the 1720- 1748 for each BAR.
The 1917 water cooled Brownings were supplied with 6750 rounds on the prime mover or ammo truck with another 1500 rounds on the higher unit ammo train for total of 8250 rounds.
Granted ammo could be redistributed to cover shortages but obviously the water cooled guns were expected to provide the sustained fire support.

I think you may have mad a slight error in the ammo available for the Bren gun in New Guinea. Bren gun magazines hold 30 rounds (or often 28 to aid reliability). 25 magazines with 28 rounds apiece is 700 rounds. Yes you can use loose ammo or pull the ammo from stripper clips during lulls in the battle but even at my 120 rounds a minute 700 rounds in magazines is going to last under 6 minutes. How fast can a couple of squadies reload the magazines?

Me"The advantage of the GPMG was that it simplified logistics and training over maintaining two (or three) different guns in the army."

I agree, but thats not the only advanatage. If the fire exercise required sustained fire, a belt fed gun could do longer burst, and variable length bursts. A magazine fed weapon is always limited by the size of the magazine, and though they could be reloaded at intervals, in a hot close assault where it was important to keep the enemy's heads down, the brens and BAR type guns were at a disadvantage. In fact they couldnt really do the job as a single weapon.

I don't believe anybody was just holding the trigger back on air-cooled MGs of any description. Even Vickers gunners were taught to fire 4-5 round bursts. They just space the burst a bit closer.

Agree with all of this, except weapons that you refer to as "bn guns" were always attached to companies platoons or even squads when being used. They were commanded by Bn HQ,in the sense that they would be distributed by them, but used by the subordinate formations. This was applicable to all formations that enjoyed a heavy weapons company, these formations were not kept in a concentrated park in the same sense as artillery was.....they were distributed to the subordinatee formations as needed (with the crewws of course) . With regards to you last statement, that is only partly true. Vickers guns were the least mobile of the support guns, MG 42s were as mobile as a Bren or a BAR, and 30 cals almost as mobile. If the platoon or the squad advanced beyond the range of the support element, it would not be unreasonable to expect the support guns to move up with them. The Russians certainly thought this with their whelled "sokolov mounts" for their heavy maxim support guns.

When guns were detached for use by subordinate units, they were often detached in pairs or platoons of 4. They were often used for long range fire or place to enfilade an enemy position or expected attack route. They would usually be part of a battalion fire plan, either in attack or defense. In some circumstances (thick jungle or woods, city streets, very mountainous terrain) with restricted fields of fire they might be parceled out to small units to use as they see fit but these guns are a very important part of the battalions firepower, for a Major to surrender control of these weapons to Sargent or corporals to do with as each sees fit doesn't seem like the best use.
Be sure not to confuse a squad with a Vickers gun in company and a Vickers gun with a squad in company for local security.

As far as movement and the LMG use, it is precisely why the LMG came into wide spread use. In WW I the Vickers and Maxim guns could not keep up the the attacking troops. The LMGs (Lewis, Chauchat, etc) could be brought forward and provide automatic fire from the new forward positions WHILE they waited for the heavier guns to be brought up. In many cases a fold of ground,a stand of trees or buildings could block the line of fire from where the tripod mounted guns were or the LMG was in a vantage point (just over a low ridge) were it could hit targets the Heavy MGs couldn't even if they were only a few hundred yds away.

And please do not confuse the LMG version of the MG 42 ( or it's capabilities) with the tripod mounted version. While the LMG could be mounted on the tripod with extreme speed without the tripod and the long range sight it had very little long range capability. Without extra barrels and copious amounts of ammunition the LMG MG 42 cannot perform support fire missions like Vickers guns.

While Russian troops dragging their "sokolov mounts" at the run in attacks make great propaganda photos they also make great targets for any Germans who can see them.
The big guns ideally support the attack as the troops move forward, then move forward themselves as the leading waves/s cover the big guns advance (change in firing position) with their lighter automatic weapons and rifles. Repeat as needed until ultimate objective is reached. Vickers guns, Maxim guns and the like do not lead attacks or accompany leading waves except in extraordinary circumstances.

 

[renrich]

Just as an aside, according to an article in the "American Rifleman" the US Marines in the Pacific obtained 30 cal air cooled MGs from wrecked(?) planes which had a higher ROF than the A6, equipped them with a shoulder stock and bipod and increased their firepower a great deal. According to Dean, that gun weighed around 24 pounds and had a ROF of 1200 RPM.

 

[Shortround6]

Just as an aside, according to an article in the "American Rifleman" the US Marines in the Pacific obtained 30 cal air cooled MGs from wrecked(?) planes which had a higher ROF than the A6, equipped them with a shoulder stock and bipod and increased their firepower a great deal. According to Dean, that gun weighed around 24 pounds and had a ROF of 1200 RPM.

My Father (who was in the 6th Marine div.) used to tell a story about a man in his company who did the same thing. The company commander made him get rid of it before they saw action because he claimed they would need an entire platoon to haul ammo for it.

 

[Maxrobot1]

I have owned and fired an FN49 in 7mm and had the pleaseer of owning four M1 Garands with my Dad. We fired them in club matches. Friends of mine have owned and shot SVT's, G43s and yes a VZ29. The FN49 was a tilt bolt locking system and the VZ29 was too but the bolt was cammed sideways.
In firing all except the M1 the shooter feels and hears the clakety-clak of the bolt and bolt carrier reciprocating. With the M1 it is just Bam! Bam! Bam!
Field stripping the others was not for the faint of heart. The M1 is wonderful. No tools needed.
Rugged, reliable, good sights (with windage too!)and quick to reload - the M1 is my choice for best semi-auto rifle.