Propagandacast small arms fake news.

I assume what you learned is how the USMC uses them. That is doctrinal and does not necessarily reflect the way other countries favor to use their MGs. It's very likely that there are big differences, as for example how US doctrine focusses on medium rate of fire (550-650 RPM) MGs while the German army prefers to use their 900-1300 RPM MG3. Or for example how Dutch soldiers are trained to operate very differently compared to US or UK soldiers.

Rate of fire has little effect on the size of the beaten zone. A higher rate of fire just means you fire shorter bursts in order to get the same number of rounds on target.

In the fundamental application of fires, all militaries work the same way.

Dane's a Coh2 treasure. Prove me wrong.

Also, did I seriously see someone claim the AK-47 is not a copy of the StG44? Really?

He is a treasure, and I really enjoy his casting. He just didn’t know anything about small arms specifically.

As for the AK vs StG, no the AK is not a copy of the StG, but it is heavily influenced by it. They have very different methods of assembly, construction and manufacturing as well as vastly different locking systems and gas systems.

The StG44 is mechanically more like the SVT-40 than anything else that came before it, sharing the same locking system and gas system.

Simply looking alike does not make one the copy of the other. Form follows function and both were designed to fit the same role. Look at the FG-42 and the M-1941 Johnson light machinegun. They look pretty similar, but mechanically they are very very different.

What you are describing is the relationship between the beaten zone,

What Im trying to get at, is that machine guns have good suppresion in part because of their inaccuracy, this is evident by the beaten zone, which is a desirable trait for a fire support weapon.

Some weapons would have smaller beaten zones, and provide less suppression over a wider area. I would call that a more accurate weapon.

A HMG which is designed to have a larger beaten zone, I would call less accurate by design.

Quite the contrary! Lots of Soviet equipment was excellent and fit it’s purpose extremely well.

The PPS-43 is probably the best SMG of WWII and the PKM is probably the best general purpose machine gun of all time!

DSHK is also being used today in active combat(not in modern armies tho, but in plenty of non 1st world countries armies), while MG42 usually rusts in museums.

He is a treasure, and I really enjoy his casting.

Agreed, that's enough of a reason to bury him somewhere in the middle of the ocean, on a deserted island and mark the spot with X.

DSHK is also being used today in active combat(not in modern armies tho, but in plenty of non 1st world countries armies), while MG42 usually rusts in museums.



Agreed, that's enough of a reason to bury him somewhere in the middle of the ocean, on a deserted island and mark the spot with X.

MG-3 is only a rechambered Mg-42 with minor changes

Yeah I was going to say thats likely due to Russia building insane amounts of weapons, which have floated around many parts of the world quite freely, as opposed to German weapons, a western nation, much more highly regulated and generally updated with more modern versions.

According to Popenker even Maxims were being used in eastern Russia as late as the 80s, apparently water cooled systems are useful in that terrain.

DSHK is also being used today in active combat(not in modern armies tho, but in plenty of non 1st world countries armies), while MG42 usually rusts in museums.



Agreed, that's enough of a reason to bury him somewhere in the middle of the ocean, on a deserted island and mark the spot with X.

Sorry what? All sorts of weapons from the war are being used, even many German such like the MP40 and MG42, and no self-respecting "first world country" would allow itself to arm unreliable Soviet piece of shites in weird calibers, even if they made millions of them.

A further note, the MG42 might have been beaten by the MG34 as the first general purpose machine gun in the world but it WAS the standard for machine guns to follow after the war, that's also the reason we copied it to make the M60 and later the Germans themselves made the MG-3 and the Austrians the MG74 which are both variants with just slight modifications to the original with almost the same RPM and scope mounting rails.

Yeah I was going to say thats likely due to Russia building insane amounts of weapons, which have floated around many parts of the world quite freely, as opposed to German weapons, a western nation, much more highly regulated and generally updated with more modern versions.

Germany is one of the leading exporters of military arms in the world today and has remained a large presence in the arms trade throughout the Cold War. The main reason more people don’t use the MG3 is simply because it isn’t as good as more modern designs like the PKM and FN MAG58 (M240B).

The Soviet block did a great job arming its troops with standardized weapons across a great many countries.

The most prolific German arms manufacturer today is Heckler and Koch (HK) who make the HK416 as their primary export rifle, which is an AR-15 derived rifle with the gas system from an AR-18 added, with the AR-18 originally deriving its gas system from the G43 which took it in turn from the SVT-40.

German firearms are excellent, but to say that Russian ones aren’t is to misunderstand history.

Sorry what? All sorts of weapons from the war are being used, even many German such like the MP40 and MG42, and no self-respecting "first world country" would allow itself to arm unreliable Soviet piece of shites in weird calibers, even if they made millions of them.

I challenge the assertion that Soviet arms are “piece of shites” or that they are in weird calibers.

With some exceptions that have since been removed, Soviet block arms are just as standardized in caliber as western ones with you getting a singular pistol caliber (9mm Makatov vs 9x19 NATO), intermediate rifle (5.56 nato vs 5.45 Soviet or 7.62x39) full sized rifle/GPMG round (7.62x51 NATO vs 7.62x54R Soviet) heavy machinegun (.50 BMG/12.7x99 NATO vs 12.7x108 Soviet)

So with the exception of having both 5.45x39 and 7.62x39 for intermediate calibers, the Soviet system is no more complicated than the NATO system. Plus most places use only 5.45 or 7.62x39, not both, with the exception of bigger countries like Russia itself which can handle the supply issue.

As for reliability and quality, Soviet arms are damn good. The reason we see them as “cheap crap” is because AKs are already paid for by the former Soviet states and on the surplus market you’re getting s huge discount. Parts kit build AKs in the US that were mostly already high quality Soviet parts only need a few cheap add ons to make a complete rifle so it can be sold as a very affordable price. To make an AK to old world 1960’s standards would cost even more than making an equal quality AR-15/M16, which is exactly why current manufacture Arsenal AKs made in Russia cost upwards of $1000 compared to a comparable Colt AR-15 (model 6920 for example) is about in the $800 range.

The MG3 just recently started to get replaced by the Heckler und Koch MG5 which is very similiar to the M249.

I challenge the assertion that Soviet arms are “piece of shites” or that they are in weird calibers.

With some exceptions that have since been removed, Soviet block arms are just as standardized in caliber as western ones with you getting a singular pistol caliber (9mm Makatov vs 9x19 NATO), intermediate rifle (5.56 nato vs 5.45 Soviet or 7.62x39) full sized rifle/GPMG round (7.62x51 NATO vs 7.62x54R Soviet) heavy machinegun (.50 BMG/12.7x99 NATO vs 12.7x108 Soviet)

So with the exception of having both 5.45x39 and 7.62x39 for intermediate calibers, the Soviet system is no more complicated than the NATO system. Plus most places use only 5.45 or 7.62x39, not both, with the exception of bigger countries like Russia itself which can handle the supply issue.

Agreed, but would like to mention (as a guy, who served in the Russian Army), that russian regular regiments mainly equipped with AK-74/AKS-74/AK-74M and AKS-74U with 5.45, because they were produced in marvelous numbers. AKM/AKMS/AK-103 with 7.62x39 are only for SpecOps and sometimes for some elite regiments (airborne for sure and possible marines).

IIRC it was an issue with number of produced AK-74M, because Russian Army has millions of them in storage and that was a reason to be against new mainline AR for Russian Army, but it was 10 years ago or so.

Sorry what? All sorts of weapons from the war are being used, even many German such like the MP40 and MG42, and no self-respecting "first world country" would allow itself to arm unreliable Soviet piece of shites in weird calibers, even if they made millions of them.

....

Huh? The reason the whole third world is awash in AK-47's is because they are the most reliable pieces of shit.

I started watching documentaries on tanks on Netflix and Amazon prime. There are numerous ones on the main battle tanks. I'm not so sure I buy into the idea of "superior German engineering." They somehow missed the point that the idea is to win, not just look good on paper or coming off the assembly lines. For example, around half of "dreaded" Ferdinands broke down on their way to Kursk. Some of the ones that got there were turned into bonfires by Russians because some geniuses forgot to include machine guns for protection from infantry.

In comparison to the cool-looking German vehicles, the T34's were butt ugly. However, as an engineer I understand them better. The main gun breaches were made of something like 8 pieces, instead of the 60+ in a German tank. The workers didn't bother grinding down welds or anything that wasn't purely functional. It was like the made the calculation that this tank is nothing more than a tool, with a life expectancy of 3 months and its life goal is to destroy 0.8 German armored fighting vehicles.

For example, around half of "dreaded" Ferdinands broke down on their way to Kursk. Some of the ones that got there were turned into bonfires by Russians because some geniuses forgot to include machine guns for protection from infantry.

But there is one small detail. Ferdinds were destroted not because they din't have MG. But because some "alternative blessed" german officer wanted to use them as assault guns to break soviet trenches with digged infantry and masked ATG positions. For same reason many SU-76 were lost, when commanders tried used them as tool for defense breakthrough (because they looks like tanks for them and as you is tank, you must break this german defense! I don't know nothing about you low armor and lack of turret!). As you can understand, any turettless TD very bad tool for this task. SU-76 is tool for light arty support for infantry. Ferdinand is clear tank killer. It's not su-122 or sherman with 105 howitzer.
About superior german engeenering...just ask yourself on which tanks germans captured all Europe and could went to Moscow outskirts? The most coolest were p4 with short barrel. And if soviets tried to stop them with early kv's and t-34's (that breaks early, than could see germans tanks), then german in end of war tried to do the same with KT,JT and all other heavy broken stuff.

About superior german engeenering...just ask yourself on which tanks germans captured all Europe and could went to Moscow outskirts? The most coolest were p4 with short barrel. And if soviets tried to stop them with early kv's and t-34's (that breaks early, than could see germans tanks), then german in end of war tried to do the same with KT,JT and all other heavy broken stuff.

I have to add that Soviets the situation of 41 wasn't helped by the fact that so many officers got *BLAM'ED* by Stalin.

I believe Dane isn't trying to push fake news, but he might just not know.

But there is one small detail. Ferdinds were destroted not because they din't have MG. But because some "alternative blessed" german officer wanted to use them as assault guns to break soviet trenches with digged infantry and masked ATG positions. For same reason many SU-76 were lost, when commanders tried used them as tool for defense breakthrough (because they looks like tanks for them and as you is tank, you must break this german defense! I don't know nothing about you low armor and lack of turret!). As you can understand, any turettless TD very bad tool for this task. SU-76 is tool for light arty support for infantry. Ferdinand is clear tank killer. It's not su-122 or sherman with 105 howitzer.
About superior german engeenering...just ask yourself on which tanks germans captured all Europe and could went to Moscow outskirts? The most coolest were p4 with short barrel. And if soviets tried to stop them with early kv's and t-34's (that breaks early, than could see germans tanks), then german in end of war tried to do the same with KT,JT and all other heavy broken stuff.

Most of the early war "German" tanks were Czech designed and built. As for the Ferdinands, the Germans themselves recognized that no MG was a weakness and retrofitted them with MG's.

Germany is one of the leading exporters of military arms in the world today and has remained a large presence in the arms trade throughout the Cold War. The main reason more people don’t use the MG3 is simply because it isn’t as good as more modern designs like the PKM and FN MAG58 (M240B).

The Soviet block did a great job arming its troops with standardized weapons across a great many countries.

The most prolific German arms manufacturer today is Heckler and Koch (HK) who make the HK416 as their primary export rifle, which is an AR-15 derived rifle with the gas system from an AR-18 added, with the AR-18 originally deriving its gas system from the G43 which took it in turn from the SVT-40.

German firearms are excellent, but to say that Russian ones aren’t is to misunderstand history.

Great comment

Apparently the Cold War is still going on and americans have to cite 70s propagand in 2019. Sad.

Agreed, but would like to mention (as a guy, who served in the Russian Army), that russian regular regiments mainly equipped with AK-74/AKS-74/AK-74M and AKS-74U with 5.45, because they were produced in marvelous numbers. AKM/AKMS/AK-103 with 7.62x39 are only for SpecOps and sometimes for some elite regiments (airborne for sure and possible marines).

IIRC it was an issue with number of produced AK-74M, because Russian Army has millions of them in storage and that was a reason to be against new mainline AR for Russian Army, but it was 10 years ago or so.

5.45 is an excellent round, but I would be remiss to not mention that it is highly inspired by the US 5.56 M193 round used in Vietnam.

Which brings me back to one of my earlier points about the StG vs the AK. The StG pioneered the concept of a intermediate round assault rifle, with a full diameter round, the 8mm kurz (7.92x33). The AK took the concept for the round and then applied other, frankly better, operating systems with the rotating bolt and long stroke gas piston.

Then comes along the M16 with its small caliber, high velocity round, which is a different take on the intermediate round concept. The idea of a 22 caliber bullet being thrown at very high velocity caught on and the Russians updated the AK to use the same concept by creating the 5.45x39.

So while the StG May have started the intermediate cartridge assault rifle revolution, it no longer has anything directly in common with the modern AK-74M.

Apparently the Cold War is still going on and americans have to cite 70s propagand in 2019. Sad.

And an American is the one who corrected it...?

Cool facts turned to fanboys yelling at each other