All these IRL arguments aside:
But infantry running into their hard counters and winning is bullshit.
+1
Regardless of IRL - that's the problem.
Posts: 71
All these IRL arguments aside:
But infantry running into their hard counters and winning is bullshit.
Posts: 1225
Nope.
Just nope.
Too ammo hungry, too encumbering, ran too hot. Not in any way the best. Best =/= most dakka in a video game, but hey, video game reality ignoring contexts always make the over engineered inefficient German stuff look OH EM GEE GEWD, so no doubt that's enough for you, right?
Mg42 IRL wasn't some sort of godly gift, but this makes zero difference to the game anyway.
It'a a single 240mp infantry support weapon. Realize this, stop trying to use it as some sort of enemy at the gates ruskie lawnmower of REICH SUPERIORITY JA, climb off your wehr-a-boo throne and play the game.
Posts: 209
Posts: 627
All these IRL arguments aside:
But infantry running into their hard counters and winning is bullshit.
+1
Regardless of IRL - that's the problem.
I should not even get into these sort of arguments, but thats BS. MG34/42 were pretty much without parallel in their day and have set the conceptual standard for GPMGs. This applies both from a production/enduser standpoint.
Posts: 105
Posts: 1484
Posts: 1705
Posts: 380
Posts: 1705
I want carpet bombing due to historical accuracy, my God how many times we gonna discuss this MG42?
Posts: 1705
Everyone crying about mg42 and American blobs, but forgetting about OKW and shitty obers that snipes all allied mgs like 50 cal. OKW blobs are more harder to counter than American or soviet.
Posts: 380
I mean we need to think not about only ost, we need to think about all factions. You want to solve problem only for ost, but forgetting that usf have problems with blobs too.
And OKW means less than nothing for ost players.Its like saying ostheer is competitive because OKW has good blob.
Posts: 135
Posts: 1225
[...]
It's a great technical achievement, as a lot of german stuff was.
It is not a very good infantry machine gun. It is a good stationary point defense weapon. The notion it is responsible for all machine guns after it is nonsensical bunk. It, like all WWII weapons, was assessed post war and desirable aspects identified. You'll note, for example, that only the dumbass Americans tried to make an infantry machine gun with 1200+ RPM after WWII, and nobody else considered it a good idea. One of many aspects that the MG42 did not do well.
Posts: 627
Eh...first of all, I did not say or imply that "it is responsible for all machine guns afterwards". There was no such notion. Of course it did pioneer the GPMG concept, I dont see how that can be disputed. Secondly, you are all wrong. Again, look at the contemporaries. BAR (questionable if one can even call it a machine gun, matter of terminology I would reckon), ZB 26 and derivatives (ie. Bren), DP, FM 24 etc..
None of these has any substantial advantage over the MG42, all of them are severely lacking when considering the total package. All of them have had comparatively lesser impact on successive firearms design.
Dumbass Bundeswehr and a whole host of other militaries still fire well in excess of a 1000 rpm. Just saying. ROF is as much as matter of doctrinal/tactical preference as anything. There were of course complaints about the MG34/42 from the endusers, ROF was never among them, and the Germans had extensive access to all the listed alternatives and in fact used them in certain formations as part of TOE.
Posts: 1225
ROF has a massive impact on the utility of any GPMG
Say, for example, if I wanted to try and tote around an M134, so I can be cool like the Terminator. On the one hand, I have a huge RPM. Ignoring the weight of the gun entirely, for a moment. Firing the thing for 5 seconds chews through the best part of 3kg of 7.62mm ammunition.
Every time I get a five second burst, I lighten my pack by 3kg. Do you know how much total gear the average solider carries in your local army? Have a little fun and figure out, if carrying nothing but ammo, how long he gets from that MG.
Excessive rate of fire in a GPMG makes it a massive investment for the squad overall. Your gunner has to carry a crap load of ammo, everyone else probably has to be carrying some ammo, and your demands on the logistics are encumbered by the weight of shot you're responsible for.
More than that, what purpose does the 600rpm it has over most contemporary GPMG's serve? In aircraft, the massive RoF is to try and catch planes in very, very small attack windows. When you're on the ground, what practical benefit is there to putting 180 rounds into an area verses 100? Suppressive fire from 400rpm up is enough to cause people to duck for cover.
High cyclic rate also means regular barrel replacements, which means carrying more barrels, and quicker wear on the parts responsible for cycling your ammunition. It's a long series of small to medium problems that make the MG42 far from the best choice of GPMG.
The absurd RoF also means aiming it is a pain, with instructions to begin aiming at the knees of a target been state standard and a pretty clear representation of how hard the gun was to control.
The necessity of belt feeding firing at all means that the MG-42 is almost useless in offensive operations; whilst this served Germany's purposes in the war very well (and their military doctrine at the time), it's a big problem for any other army and when considering the weapon in general. Ammo belts often require untangling after moving, are cumbersome to reload and more problematic still to carry around.
In assaults, machine gunners need to re-position and re-aim their guns quickly, taking advantage of breaks in enemy fire and running with the riflemen. The above, and the awkward center of gravity for the MG42, make it an awkward weapon at best and a liability at worse when not on the constant defensive.
As far as its 'contemporaries'; the BAR was produced two decades and a half before it, the Bren I would argue to be a better GPMG (if a less refined design).
What it all boils down to is that the MG 42 can be said to be a better heavy machine gun than the Bren of the BAR, which is sensible, because neither of the other two are meant to be heavy machine guns. The Mg3, it's natural successor, is a heavy machine gun for good reason, and almost nobody tries to use it as a GPMG with good cause.
Posts: 1705
I mean we need to think not about only ost, we need to think about all factions. You want to solve problem only for ost, but forgetting that usf have problems with blobs too.
Posts: 1705
Seriously.
You complain that two 320mp squads split up enough to require lengthy traverse kill your single 240mp unit.
Are you dumb, or just dumb?
Not to even speak about smoke. My GOD, the hard counter to static weapon teams is doing its job? SHOCK AND HORROR
Posts: 3293
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
32 | |||||
840 | |||||
70 | |||||
15 | |||||
6 | |||||
6 | |||||
5 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |