Probably 1, and then redefine it as a squad. Thereby getting enough squads to fill the paper divisions.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Probably 1, and then redefine it as a squad. Thereby getting enough squads to fill the paper divisions.The question is whether they stick with 2 or 3 fire teams per squad.
But you should show me a squad MG that was better then the MG 34/42 at the WWII.
Probably 1, and then redefine it as a squad. Thereby getting enough squads to fill the paper divisions.
Bren gun.
But the Bren was a lousier AFV gun, especially for co-ax or turret use, The Bren was worse at trying to fill the medium mg role on a tripod even though tripods were available. The Tripod mounted mediums were supposed to sustain 200rpm for long periods of time that is asking a bit much form a Bren. The Bren was a lousier AA gun even with the gas regulator opened to the max and fitted with a 96-100 round drum. So you have three roles where the MG 34 or 42 was better and one role where the Bren was better.
As for the MG 3 today? fit the barrels with stellite inserts, slow the gun down to around 900rpm (fit heavier bolt?) and make dam* sure the quality of your ammo stays high.
And that is not cutting edge but things that could be done in the 1950s.
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
Much criticism has been leveled at the M60 for that asbestos glove that was used with changing barrels.
On the MG3 or MG42 you better be wearing a good pair of gloves too when you pull that barrel out, of course you could just tip the muzzle up and it'd fall out, but that would tell the world where you were and what you're doing.
.I would note that in the first video the gun is NOT firing 'real' ammo. The total lack of recoil is something of a giveaway
Some re-enactors use guns converted to use compressed gas (propane or acetylene ?) for noise and muzzle flash while being safe and avoiding legal problems of machinegun ownership
.The MG 42 was a very good design and as I said before, could do a number of jobs fairly well with little or no modification even if not being the ideal for some of the jobs. But going for the ideal in each job might mean 2 or 3 or even 4 different guns
View attachment 248053
Now maybe you could hold onto the bi-pod without using the glove but please notice that without the tripod the gunner may have difficulty holding the gun up.
With the Bren the bipod held up the gun and the carrying handle could be used to change the barrel.
One BIG criticism of the M-60 is how much of it they got wrong or how many better solutions for various details had been used around the world years before the M-60 came out.
For guns designed and built in the 30s it is one thing to get a few things less than optimum but for gun developed in the 1950s to get soooo much below par is a true puzzle considering ALL the WW II experience they had to draw on.