And since you replied me like four times now, also very consequently I see.
There is a difference between better and superior. And you clearly put so much faith into the M1G, that it nullifies the doctrines of basically all major WW2 nations and recks the superiority of German GPMGs and to the point where you say it makes more sense to sacrifice reliable, accurate, easy-to-use and build and cheap rifles to produce one weapon which were mostly unreliable, expensive, required more production time and sometimes even required you to switch ammo type/ logistic, not to mention changing machines and teaching workers.
You know, being just simple plain âbetterâ to the point where you trade production and logistic efficiency and reliability etc. because it is just better.
And they were dumb because you assume that weapons are made of glass, that the MG34 and 42 have poor reliability annd that only one dude knows how to use it.
If the MG42 breaks, it is mostly based on your position getting shelled by artillery and not because Johnboy hit the MG or Hans dropped the MG.
how do you contract dysentery? who are more vulnerable groups who could contract dysentery? could lack of supplies have anything to do with contracting that disease?
they couldnt support any tank at that time and not just tiger and panthers. they heavily lacked fuel, they lacked materials, they lacked industry capacity to mass produce loads of tanks. they needed to counter massive quantity of soviet tanks so it was better to focus on armor and firepower than on quantity of tanks. they provided contract for engine to maybach which at that time wasnt suited for mass production. they had design flaws cause transmission wasnt designed for such heavy tanks, etc. but hey hindsight is 20/20.
also if they didnt have those tanks and concentrated on infantry, they would have lost even worse/faster. not to mention tigers and panthers only made small part of german tanks. 569 KT, ~1300 tiger I and 6700 panthers out of 50k tanks. they also had 13.5k panzer 4 and 15.7k panzer 3, 6.6k panzer 38(t) and 3.4k panzer 2 (which was produced until 1944)
tell me how is that happening when 115k soviet tanks (out of that 66k medium tanks, mostly t34 and 13k heavy tanks) are going against you. tell me how effective are panzer 2, 3 and panzer 38 vs t34? would you rather have 8.5k medium/heavy tanks against that or better rifles?
If German doctrine is really that stupid, we should see the German army defeated all the way when faced with the âdoctrine more advancedâ American army, unable to carry out any counterattack
Useless stupid things shouldnât cause trouble, right?
Using LMG to suppress enemy infantry is important in WW2.
German and other nation makes each squad serve of the LMG, but US army choose not to put suppression duty on rifle squads, but have dedicated weapons squad.
And from the Cold War to the present, suppressive firepower in squads is still needed, even though every soldier has a fully automatic weapon.
You can see that the US military still divides fire teams by LMGs. Because assault rifle canât fire for long periods of time and suppress the enemy .
I am not going to participate in the discussion, but Panther production was on par and even surpassed Panzer IV H and J production. By mid 44 to the end of the war the Panther was pretty common among Panzer Divisions.
I am of course only talking about tanks and not stuff like assault guns, tank destroyers and other support vehicles made with the same chasis.
I donât have a dog in the race that is the rest of this conversation, but Iâd like to point out that while the Army still has squad-level lmgs, the USMC has done away with them in favor of automatic riflemen
