Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Using the .303 introduces problems, not solves them. The rim causes problems in feeding.
Full auto rifles using full power cartridges are almost worthless, they are uncontrollable in full auto fire.
You have a tactical and logistic problem. Something like 98% of rifle fire is done at ranges under 400 meters. However 50% of MG fire is done at over 400 meters. The ideal cartridge for a rifle is far from the ideal cartridge for a machine gun.
The Germans (and some other countries) decided that the light MG was the source of fire power for the squad. The rifles were to support the the MG. The use of a common ammo eased supply and meant that the riflemen could use their ammo to keep the MG going in theory, different clips, magazines, belts hindered the actual ability of a squad under fire to actual "swap" ammo although lulls in the fighting might allow for a transfer of ammo from "rifle" clips/magazines to the MG feed units.
Other countries planned that the rifle provided the firepower of the squad and either allocated fewer MGs per squad/platoon/company or a vary light MG/auto rifle to "support" the riflemen.
The US with the M1 had a much, much higher rifle base of fire and the use of the BAR as a support weapon didn't hurt them as much as a few other armies that used the BAR as the squad automatic with bolt action rifles.
Using 2 different cartridges in the squad (7.9 X 33 for the assault rifles and 7.9 X 57 for the MG) makes sense from a tactical firepower standpoint but falls down a bit in logistics.
As far as an IDEAL WW II rifle goes there was nothing introduced in either materials or design until the mid/late 50s that could not have been manufactured in WW II.
Many armies didn't train their soldiers to use the rifles they had effectively, 3 to 6 days on the range with 20-60 shots fired per day isn't enough.
Crap sights don't help. That is to say sights that work OK ( and just OK) on good weather days a couple of hours after sun rise to an hour or more before sundown.
Aside from the US only the British had a rifle sight that was worth anything.
Remember, fire power is hitting the enemy, one hundred misses in the general direction of the enemy is not firepower, a lesson often forgotten.
Giving the ammo from K98 to MG34/42 in the lull would not alleviate any ammo the MG crew might experience. The ammo allowance for the K98 was some 50 rounds, and prior the lull the rifleman might be down to maybe 20-30 rounds. If the riflemen gives each 10 rds, that makes 100 rds for the MG, but the riflemen are down to 10-20 rds each - not a good prospect once the fighting resumes?
The benefits outweighting the shortcomings? The USA was also using the low power cartridge for their M1 Carbines, granted not in the same squads/platoons.
IIRC the Germans were relying on their MGs to lay down the suppressive power, so the infantry is able to get closer to the enemy in order to destroy it?
Well, it was the pre-war theory in a lot of armies. As can be seen by the Japanese type 11 MG which used a hopper taking 5 round rifle clips. In actual practice a lot of troops just had one more squad member carry extra ammo for the MG over and above the the "standard" issue if they could get it.
The benefits can outweight the shortcomings. While the US was using the the M1 Carbines in the same squads/platoons, that was not the original intention. It was to replace the pistol for most service men who were not riflemen like heavy MG crew, mortar crew, radio men, artillery and the like. It's use spread, due to light weight and the 15 round magazine but it's lack of power was a bit of a problem. A cautionary tale to those who advocate equiping ALL squad members with SMGs
US probably had less problems with logistics than most other countries.
I would note that after the Soviets went to the AK 47 they used the RPD MG in the squad and then the RPK ( auto rifle?), Czechs used the Vz.52/57 MGin order to use the same ammo at squad/platoon level.
That is part of the theory, British supposedly also used Bren gun fire to allow the riflemen to get into bayonet and hand grenade range
But to be suppressed troops have to KNOW that they are the ones being shot at. Near misses or the crack as the bullet goes by, "Spray and Pray" doesn't do the job as well and requires a tremendous amount of ammunition.
IF you have the time/money the ideal solution is a new cartridge of about 6.5-7mm caliber firing a 120-130 grain streamline bullet at about 2600fps. The recoil is much less than the standard rifle rounds making full auto fire in a 9-11lb rifle at least practical if not fully effective and such a round is still effective at 600 meters or more which means the squad/platoon doesn't need a bigger caliber MG traveling with it (you might want them at company level though?)
The expansion of the theory beig some modern LMGs, able to accept the assault rifle magazines?
The ex-Yu army was operating their LMGs (mostly copies of MG42 and PK) by two soldiers, one carrying MG and ammo, another carrying tripod and extra ammo. Don't remember who was carrying the spare barrel.
The Sviets were equipping whole divisions with PPSh, due to dire circumstances, rather than due to having a choice.
Agreed. ......Germans - who knows how many, and yet they went for a completely new cartridge.
is a bigger sibling of the AK-47, it's copy being a prized item back in our war of 1991-95, due to far better accuracy than the AK. FWIW, the ex-YU army infantry company was relocating it's LMGs, along with recoilles rifles and 82mm mortars in 'support platoons', once the RPK become available.
There is good suppression work, and then there is lousy suppression work?
Doh.
Seems like Russians were on the money with caliber choice, back in ww1, when they choose Arisaka 6,5mm round for their assault rifle.
Something like 98% of rifle fire is done at ranges under 400 meters. [/QUOTE
I'll have a Lee Enfield then please.
Steve