Excellent material DonL, I really enjoyed watching those training images. They show very clearly, both the great stengths of the MG42 and at the same time its weaknesses.
The strengths are of course its terrifying rof and continuous fire capabilities. This enabled it to operate in both the offensive and defensive role at the same time.
The weaknesses of the MG42 were its high rate of fire and its ability to fire large volumes of ammunition more or less continuously. in other words, the MG42s strengths were, at the same time its weaknesses. A high ROF in a situation where ammunition was in short suppy was a definite liablity, moreover the High ROF meant that barrels were needed to be changed every 150 rounds or so . Human nature being what it is, people will tend to keep pulling that trigger and not conserve ammunition. This increases ammo expenditure and inherently makes the weapon less controllable, except if a second squad memeber is there to help unjam snagged belts, feed additional ammunition boxes and hold the bipod down to try and keep the weapon steady. Not big problems, except if you are short of bullets and/or short of men, like in the jungle.
By comparison, the Brens apparent weaknesses were its low rate of fire, and its magazine feed. Its strengths wer its low rate of fire and its magazine feed!
Low ROF made it a far more controllable weapon, and greatly reduced the ammunition expenditure. It also greatly reduced barrel wear, because it allowed barrles to cool more regualalry. A barrel change might be needed every 1000 rounds, or more. Having a magazine feed greatly reduced the problem of mud and grit, and more or less forced breaks in shoot, that enabled the gunner of commander to take stock and order a ceasefire if that was what was required
In some situations the Bren was a far better squad weapon for these reasons