The next MG42 variant

[ParaDivision]

1. “…you imbecile…” - someone who shows such primitive historical understanding & low IQ in his post shouldnt use this word
2. your knowledge of ww2 weaponry is the low-mid level someone gets when thinking reading a wiki page counts as research. german belts were modular and the boxes were just for transport. any variation of 50-100-150-200-250 was common on the battlefield. especially when under bad supply situations 250 belts could be split up into shorter lengths.

[RobertS42]

@ParaDivision

“…you imbecile…” - someone who shows such primitive historical understanding & low IQ in his post shouldnt use this word

That has got to be projection… And you’re not beating the allegations with a “no u”

@ParaDivision

your knowledge of ww2 weaponry is the low-mid level someone gets when thinking reading a wiki page counts as research. german belts were modular and the boxes were just for transport. any variation of 50-100-150-200-250 was common on the battlefield. especially when under bad supply situations 250 belts could be split up into shorter lengths.

You somehow think that you’d be able run around with a 100+ round belt, without any container, just loose in the air, in any meaningful practical way… Where would you store it, how would you prevent jamming from a shit feed angle if you were to use a back pack. There’s a reason why infantry machine guns without belt-boxes or magazines required a loader/ammo carrier. And yes I do think that the 1919 and MG 81 are silly for being used like they are in game, before you accuse me of being a hypocrite or pulling a whataboutism. But since the game has decided that 100 round belts are “practical” for one man, I’m drawing the line at 100 rounds.

[ZOMBERWARRIOR15-live]

@ParaDivision

I suggest a tech tree version with 150 rounds, 1200 fire rate (stronger than the current version) and a slower reload, higher walking penalty (walking speed of 40%) a minimally slower aiming speed.

Better grab the MG42 100 and give it the corresponding Rate of Fire and a longer Ammo Belt for the Specialist Fraction’s Machine Gun In this class of weapons in WW2This option is better than putting in a 3rd MG42

@ParaDivision

This layout depicts the historically accurate fire rate most commonly used for infantry (mg42 fire rates could be changed from 1200 to 1800 by replacing the bolt with lighter/heavier bolts)

The 1800 are only for the MG45, the improved version of the MG42.The standard MG42 Bolt has a Rate of Fire of 1200 and the Light Bolt 1500, the latter of which should also be the one to use.We already have the Glorious MG81 so there are no problems in giving this amount of high Rate of Fire to the MG42

@RobertS42

No… it varied between 900 and 1500…

Incorrect, that figure is a modification, from the factory it is 1200-1500

It would be amazing to see the early premium MG42 receive this treatment as well.

[TUSUPOLISI69]

@RobertS42

There’s a reason why infantry machine guns without belt-boxes or magazines required a loader/ammo carrier.

quite sure majority of lmg’s had ammo carrier regardless was it belt / mag fed.

@ZOMBERWARRIOR15-live

It would be amazing to see the early premium MG42 receive this treatment as well.

also early mg34 with select fire / rate reducer

[RobertS42]

@TUSUPOLISI69

quite sure majority of lmg’s had ammo carrier regardless was it belt / mag fed.

But the mags and belt box ones didn’t require an ammo carrier to be used effectively… “Nice to have” is not the same as “almost unusable without”

@TUSUPOLISI69

select fire

The MG 34 had a kinda progressive trigger setup

Or rather a trigger with two notches where one is full auto the other semi

[TUSUPOLISI69]

@RobertS42

But the mags and belt box ones didn’t require an ammo carrier to be used effectively… “Nice to have” is not the same as “almost unusable without”

depends what you consider effective, laying sustained fire as machine guns often are supposed id say its quite hard.

[VoyoMayPL]

@RobertS42

The 250 rounders were separate belt boxes for emplacements

Depends what you mean by emplacements. Yes, they weren’t fired on the move in this configuration (or at least they weren’t supposed to), but they were certainly used by common infantry both in attack and defense (not only in bunkers, pillboxes etc).

[RobertS42]

@TUSUPOLISI69

depends what you consider effective, laying sustained fire as machine guns often are supposed id say its quite hard.

Nobody said anything about sustained fire… The problem with exposed belts while not staying still is that they tend to snag things… among other very detrimental downsides…

@VoyoMayPL

Depends what you mean by emplacements. Yes, they weren’t fired on the move in this configuration (or at least they weren’t supposed to), but they were certainly used by common infantry both in attack and defense (not only in bunkers, pillboxes etc).

I guess a better term for it would be “static firing positions”…