The .30 cal machine guns teams should have the same range as the German Mg42/Mg34

[Hidden Gunman]

800m is not indirect fire. I've shot at that distance and all you do is range your optic out for that distance or if you are using a fixed optic like an ACOG or a PSO you use the chevrons or hash marks.

Surprisingly I agree with that, although the projectile drop does start to come into play.

(Just to highlight that I'm being fair in my judgements).

 

[Ulatersk]

And now we're pretending the MG42 can sustain it's maximum cyclic rate of fire indefinitely. Wonderful.

Once again, apparently since we are pretending that MG 42 melts the barrel in 5 minutes, then yes, we can pretend it can also sustain its cyclic rate indefinetly.

 

[Rojan]

Bullshit.

Don't insult people...

Massed HMG fire was used throughout WW2, by most if not all Empire forces...and used post WW2 in Korea and Vietnam by Australians...it was used in 1st Tobruk, Bardia, Syria, and throughout the SWPA.

Again, bullshit.

Whenever you prop, whether a section or a division, arcs of fire are allocated, and if necessary, guns are staked in...that's basic soldiering.

I didn't say it wasn't used I said it was used to questionable effect when warfare had sped up past sitting in trenches for months on end. Referencing some story in World War I about the effectiveness of indirect firing MGs and applying it in a blanket statement for all warfare after that point is disingenuous. On top of all that, the point of my statement was to get at how irrelevant some story from 1918 is when talking about MG balancing in SD. None of this shit matters. Every other thread in this forum turns into a tug fest with people referencing technical documents and historical accounts. Stop. It doesn't matter.

 

[Drang]

Once again, apparently since we are pretending that MG 42 melts the barrel in 5 minutes, then yes, we can pretend it can also sustain its cyclic rate indefinetly.

I don't recall arguing anyone arguing that the '42 melts it's barrel in 5 minutes of normal firing. But you were the one quoting the cyclic (max) rate of fire, so you can hardly fault me for using your own damn figure. What am I to conclude?

You quote the MG42's cyclic RoF (knowing it cannot sustain this indefinitely), against the Vickers cyclic RoF (which it can sustain indefinitely), in an argument about rate of sustained fire against a position. Either:

A) You believe the MG42 can sustain it's cyclic rate of fire indefinitely, and are thus misinformed.
B) You are deliberately using an inaccurate figure to create a false comparison, and are thus acting dishonestly.

So don't throw a tantrum about me using your own figures back at you.