安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
like i said, my main gun was the g3 not the m4 so i dont remember much of the m4. And if you dont believe me, just check my country.In Greece All men must do military service for one year so no im not lying. and no the m4 is not more accurate. Its more stable i give you that due to the 5.56 bullets. Shooting an m4 after shooting with g3's seems like airsoft which is amazing for sustained combat, but doesnt do as much damage as a g3 would do . And mate, there are many m4's out there. Our's used to have safe/single/full auto. And i never said we were issued 2 guns at all times. I specifically said, main rifle was the g3. the m4 was used in some ocasions in QRF training.
I think of Nazi Germany as a taste of anarchy - no rulers, no ideology. Just genes gone wild. It's how ugly humans are when you don't divide and rule them.
At Nuremberg we swept that under the carpet and chose to live in la-la land. We still live with the reality of the nature of man in every war that is fought, and the worst of manifestations of the genie can come out of the bottle again at any time when the conditions are right and the rulers lose power.
I like Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical analysis and military simulation. Site for it has an article about MG34 and MG42s that is extract from Volume IIA book http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Equal-Inf-Sqds.pdf
The Effect of Squad Automatics on an Infantry Squad's Overall Firepower
...it took the Allies until the 1950s to produce a comparable weapon. This was the MG 34 machine gun, followed by the even more lethal MG 42 machine gun.
The standard German machine gun in 1941 was the 7.92mm MG 34. The MG 34 was the world's first General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG), a term that is standard in today's armies but was unknown in 1939. The MG 34 was the first true GPMG because it was used as the standard infantry squad automatic (on a bipod) as well as the platoon or company's MMG-HMGs (on a tripod). It even had a respectable anti-aircraft (AA) capability due to its very high rate of fire (900 rounds per minute), accuracy and ammunition feed. The origins of the MG 34 go back to 1930 when the Swiss company of Solothurn produced a MG called the MG 30 which they offered to the German army. The MG 30 was a very advanced design and was probably the first 'straight line' MG design. It incorporated a butt in prolongation with the barrel axis and an ingenious quick change barrel design, both features of the MG 34. However the German Army was not impressed with the weapon and asked Mauserwerke (Mauser) to improve on its design. Mauserwerke jettisoned the side feeding box magazine and designed a new belt feed mechanism which could also take the saddle drum magazine used on the MG 15. The bolt locking system, the recoil system, and the barrel changing system were also all redesigned. The resultant MG34 was immediately accepted by the German Army for two main reasons: it was technically the finest weapon in its class in the world, and more importantly it fit in with the German Army's infantry squad tactics which had been continually developed during and after WWI.
The most far reaching impact of the MG 34 was tactical rather than mechanical. To understand this very important fact, we need to digress slightly and examine in simple terms how infantry squads worked in combat during this period. The infantry squad was essentially the smallest self-contained manoeuvre unit on the battlefield. It was capable of independent action and had both the structure and morale to be sent into action unsupported. The typical infantry squad of 8-12 men and could be separated into four functional parts. These were: command section (the squad leader), communication section (radio if available, which they weren't in the Red Army), heavy weapons section (LMG, automatic rifles, heavy AT weapons) and assault section (rifles, SMGs, grenades, flamethrowers, light AT weapons). The assault section (also often called the rifle section) was usually the largest section in the squad, with the 'command' and 'communication' sections also part of this group when the situation required. In general terms the infantry squad operated as follows. In offensive situations the heavy weapons section was expected to cover and suppress the enemy's firepower, enable the assault section to close and neutralise the enemy position. In defence the heavy weapons section was expected to provide the bulk of the firepower needed to eliminate the enemy attack, with the assault section protecting the flanks of the main defence.
To fulfil these requirements, the ideal squad MG had to be: light enough to be carried forward by one man to directly support an attack, able to be brought into action within less than a minute, easily concealed, operated by one or two men at most, have adequate firepower (rate of fire, ammunition feed and accuracy) to suppress and inflict damage on the enemy defences, and be able to maintain a sustained fire for a long period (i.e have adequate barrel cooling and be reliable). Like many technical specifications, the squad MG was a trade-off between conflicting requirements. Traditionally in MG design, 'adequate firepower', 'cooling' and 'sustained fire' meant belt fed ammunition and some form of assisted cooling such as water. These in turn meant the weapon was very heavy (far too heavy to be carried forward), difficult to conceal and slow into action. In addition, the voracious appetite for ammunition of automatic weapons meant the squad MG required an ammunition system which other members of the squad could support; specifically they could carry some of the required ammunition forward in support of the MG team.
The result was that every other army (except the German Army) opted for air cooled and magazined fed designs, which collectively became known as light machine guns (LMGs). It was felt that the LMG could still provide adequate firepower to 'do the job' and there was essentially no choice anyway. It was simply impractical to have anything but air cooled barrels and it was felt that having squads members festooned with ammunition belts was unworkable. Separate ammunition magazines (with 20-30 rounds each) could be carried by all squad members, and the resultant limitations on fire rate, coupled with a LMG designed to fire 400-600 rounds per minute, meant the cooling problem could be managed. The US army didn't even opt for the LMG as the standard squad automatic in the interwar years. Instead they opted for the Browning automatic rifle (BAR) M1918A2. This was essentially a heavy automatic rifle with a bottom loading 20 round magazine (which is inconvenient to change in action) and an extremely violent action. At 10kg in weight, the BAR was a heavy as contemporary LMGs without the flexibility and firepower advantages of most current LMGs. Amazingly, the BAR remained the US army's squad light automatic weapon until after WWII.
Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the LMG compromise did not satisfy the Germany Army's tactical combat requirement in the interwar years. Ever since the development of 'shock troop tactics' by the German Army in WWI, the Germans (along with some other armies) had struggled to find a MG which could meet all the demands required of a modern squad MG. They decided to pursue the concept of the General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG); a weapon capable of meeting the demands of the squad LMG and also powerful enoguh to equip the heavy MG platoons and companies. Firstly, they ignored the idea that having squad members festooned with ammunition betls was unworkable. As it turned out this was true, and I am often amused to see modern day infantry squads with belt ammunition draped over their shoulders on newsreels and photos! Secondly, the problem of cooling was solved by using a perforated air cooled barrel and more importantly, an ingenious and very rapid barrel changing system. Barrel changing was simplified by hinging the gun body to the rear end of the barrel casing; unlatching allowed the gun body to be swung sideways and the barrel pulled straight out of its bearings. In action, a good crew could change the barrel in 5-10 seconds! Finally, the Germans kept the MG 34 light enough to be carried and brought into action by one man. With a bipod attached to the barrel (standard in LMGs) the MG 34 weighted 12.2kg. This is only marginally heavier than the oustanding British Bren LMG at 10.1kg, the Red Army's DP 1928 LMG at 9.3kg, and the US Army's BAR at 10kg.
If the MG 34 was required to fulfil the role of MMG (medium MG) or even HMG (Heavy MG), it was fitted to a small tripod (weighing 6.75kg) or more commonly to a large tripod (weighing 23.6kg). The large tripod incorporated a sprung cradle to reduce the recoil and vibration, and the facility for telescopic gun sights and remote firing capability on a fixed arc. On the large tripod, the MG 34 was effective out to 2 500-3 000 metres. Coupled with the much higher rate of fire, this meant that the MG 34 also outperformed most contemporary WWII HMGS. The only real weakness of the MG 34 was that it was too good! The quality of design and workmanship meant long and precise manufacturing processes, and the weapon was very expensive for a squad weapon. As WWII progressed MG 34 production could not match demand. This led direclty to the even more formidable, cheaper and easier to manufacture MG 42. The MG42 is considered by many experts to be one of the finest MGs ever made and matched by few rivals even today. The post-war US M60 LMG and British L7A1 GPMG unashamedly copoied the best features of the MG 42. When the German Bundeswehr was reconstituted in the 1950s they considered the MG 42 better than anything on offer! The result was the MG 42 was placed back into production by Rheinmetall (in 7.62 NATO calibre) as the MG 1, and later the MG 3.
Considering all the above it is not unreasonable to ask; was the German Army's advantage in GPMGs significant in the overall scheme of a modern war like the Eastern Front during WWII? Applying the methodology detailed in part II (The Structure of the 1941 Soviet and Axis Resource Database) to the various MGs from WWII enables us to gain an insight into this question. Table Ger Res Database 1 reveals that the MG 34 in LMG made had an OCPC (Overall Combat Power Coefficient) value of 8.56, while the HMG mode the OCPC was 11.96. The corresponsing tables from the Soviet FILARM model reveal the DP 1928 (squad LMG) had an OCPC value of 5.37, while the comparatively heavy and cumbersome Maxim 1910 MMG had an OCPC value of 8.63. This means that on average German infantry squads had around 1.6 times more direct firepower than the best equipped Soviet Rifle suqads. It also means that a German infantry squad had similar firepower to an enemy MMG, and was able to rapidly move this firepower forward to immediately support any attack of defence....
... There is little doubt that the MG 34 was the finest weapon of its generation. It remained unmatched by any equivalent Allied or Soviet weapon in WWII and was only superseded by the MG 42. The impact of the MG 34 GPMG on infantry combat in WWII, and the advantage it bestowed upon German infantry at the tactical level, is difficult to overstate. Interestingly, the superior firepower of the MG34 (and the later MG 42) is very carefully simulated in most tactical or tactical-operational level military simulations today. However for some mysterious reason this same superiority is ignored (or at least totally underestimated) in most current operational level simulations of WWII battles and campaigns. In many of these simulations, both side's infantry squads are treated as generic united with similar combat attributes. This is a mistake and will severely diminish the simulation's value.
If there are two things the reader should take away from this discussion on GPMGs, it is that all infantry and rifle squads are not equal, and that the impact of having tens of thousands of superiorly armed squads is very significant in any military campaign.
I think the reason you see this is because operationally, small arms is not THAT important. Most battles at a tactical level in ww2 were uninteresting and one-sided because that's what a well-planned attack looks like. It doesn't matter that the BAR and MG34 are different because many of these firefights are decided before they're even begun by the presence of artillery, massively superior numbers at a small scale, and/or AFVs. If the battle's close enough that the MG34 vs the DP 1928 or Bren are going to make a difference, that's probably an ill-advised move.
Also, my experience with operational games is that they are simulating units well above the squad, think battalions, regiments, divisions. At that scale, small arms differences don't come out. Most WW2 tactical games give german squads a lot of power in their small arms(though, one thing to understand is that as the war went on, the stretching out of the German Army to fill hundreds of infantry divisions made many platoons come with looted weapons instead.)
Also, reading back on that, as the war went on, most infantry could not really maneuver at the squad level for anything but security operations- to actually move and attack or march, they marched as platoons due to the lack of effective manpower- leadership material was in short supply as motivated candidates got hoovered up by the more technical parts of the militaries.
Also good meme saying the G3 is more accurate. The AR-15 platform that the M4 is derrived from is literally the most accurate service rifle design to ever see standardized usage. It uses a rotating bolt and direct impingment which give it around 4 MOA and 500m, where the G3 averages around 6 at that same range due to its roller delayed blowback system which was much easier to produce for less advanced nations but also much less effective in terms of accuracy.
The MG34 was hampered by being awkwardly forced into multiple roles, It was functionally only effective as a light machine gun and vehicle armament, The Soviet Union didn't use their DP as a tripod mounted HMG for instance as they had far more effective options, a .50 cal for instance which you analysis clearly ignores. And it also seems to ignore the fact that Maxim guns were far more reliable and effective than a MG34 in the HMG role, similar to the Vickers and Browning 1917 Britain and the US fielded.
High rate of fire is a practical disadvantage on a infantry machine gun. The Maxim had already found an optimal rate around the 500-600rpm range. That's why the Bundeswehr is replacing their MG3 with its 1,000rpm with a 640rpm MG5.
If you think the VG divisions all hit their small arms TOE targets, i'll tell you that the Russian rifle divisions in 1944 were entirely armed with semi-auto rifles in the infantry platoons.
The MG34 in LMG role is rated as having almost the same Combat Power as a Maxim 1910.
MG34 LMG Role 8.56
Maxim 1910 8.63
MG34 HMG Role 11.96
MG42 even more effective than MG 34.
You seem to be missing the point of what made the MG34/42 revolutionary and adopted by everyone.
The reason MG34/42s were far more effective than MMGs and HMGs other nations relied on was due to their combination of light weight, high versatility, high accuracy, high rate of fire, reliability and quick barrel change etc. Weapons such as Browning 1917, Maxim M1910 etc lacked this without bringing more firepower. That's why Nazi Germany's GPMG won and everyone followed suit.
The reason the Bundeswehr is using MG5s is due to how combat has changed, because of standardisation, because infantry have to carry heavier loads of other equipment so they can carry less ammo, because combat tends to more often be at shorter ranges and in urban environments requiring even more versatility and mobility and ability of individual soldiers to put down firepower faster, because of the engineering of guns progressing over the past 80 years. Not because a lower rate of fire is simply more effective, you airheaded dolt lol
You're actually saying that because the Bundeswehr is using MG5s you think it is an example of how lower rate of fire is simply better? Geniunely? Not only this, but the irony is completely lost on you that at the same time you're claiming Allied WW2 MMGs and HMGs were better?
MMGs and HMGs as infantry weapons were mostly dropped immediately after WW2, you complete and utter doughnut. And replaced in favour of the GPMG trend started by the MG34.
There's a reason that post-WW2 so many countries stuck with the MG3 and "The MG42 is considered by many experts to be one of the finest MGs ever made and matched by few rivals even today." while infantry abandonned these obsolete MMGs and HMGs in favour of the superior GPMG precedent that the MG34/42 set.
You're actually uniroincally arguing that because the MG5 is replacing the MG3 it means the likes of WW2 Allied MMGs and HMGs as infantry weapons are also better?
The guns that went on to be used with infantry in the field by some third world militias?
While you simultaneously point out that the MG3 is still in service in the militaries of first world countries as an infantry weapon in the 21st century?
lol k then
In fact the US Army rejected the MG42 because of its low reliability when they were developing light machine guns to replace the BAR and M1919. Instead opting for the much more reliable M60.
you're comparing water cooled machine guns that literally never jam and can fire indefinately to the light machine gun role of the MG34 and MG42. Even during WW2 the US realized that with a more mobile force the Automatic rifle was a superior weapon. light machine guns are designed for infantry who have poor training and coordination so they have the entire squad operating to supporting a single weapon, where US forces were far more mobile because their Automatic weapons were rifles that doubled as light machine guns and assault weapons, while their riflemen were actually functional soldiers by themselves.
No one has ever operated a MG42 and also said it was a fine weapon, certainly not the best machine gun ever. The only reason the Bundeswehr didn't replace it sooner is because of how little Germany invests in its armed forces and their complete lack of combat experience for 60 years.
Germany is such a poor country.
Every nation followed suit - Oh, yea sorry you're right. I forgot about in Vietnam all those U.S soldiers running around with water cooled HMGs.
In Falklands and Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria jogging around the middle of a firefight with HMGs, not using anything like the MG34/42 - nope, L7 has nothing to do with the MG34/42.
You better get in touch with Nigel Askey and let him know he's got everything wrong.
Or you take the specifications of weapons and make a methodology for data analysis and controlling for statistical results that you can prove degrees of statistical liability with.
Impressions from video games and Japanese cartoons is prob more insightful tho tbh
That is adopting the GPMG set by the MG34. They're not designing the next Heavy Automatic Rifle or the next Maxim.
The M60 is a continuation of the MG34.
Yea Task Force Knight just love their ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Bickers. They don't use anything like GPMGs as started by the MG34. Nope. They use water cooled HMG, not successors of the MG34.
Yea that's why the FN MAG/M240 is nothing like the MG34, it's a successor of the BAR.
Yea that's why for the past ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ 70 years we don't have soldiers with Assault Rifles that are successors to the StG44, and with Squad Automatic Weapon GPMGs that are successors to the MG34, nope. What we have is Heavy Automatic Rifles that are successors to the BAR.
no i just can't. someone just ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ kill me now. end it now please.
maybe if i just re post the previous comments again they might go in this time.
Never seen this guy give an inch, no matter how wrong.
There's absolutely no way that anyone could make accurate statements with such pinpoint precision and quantify things like "combat effectiveness" like that. Even if you could create a fictional universe that modeled these weapons correctly there's so much in terms of chaos theory that you would have to ignore that it would make the entire point invalid. Anyone who claims otherwise is delusional. "Nigel Askey" is a game developer and not a historian. So thanks for admitting you used games as your source.
The M60 is actually based off the Lewis Gun just with a belt feeding system, the FN MAG is based off the M1918 BAR. The MG42 system was a dead-end design and not nearly as inspirational as you seem to think. Belt feeding was developed by maxim, the quick change barrel was invented in the 20s, heavy and light machine guns had their emergence during WW1 the MG34 was just a failed attempt to fit the same gun into way too many roles, Where the other powers developed specialized weapons for specialized roles instead of trying to fit one gun into multiple roles it wasn't effective at. In fact the US used the M1919 as a light machine gun and air cooled heavy machine gun, the M1917 was the same design but water cooled for sustained firepower and the M2 browning was the same except it could also be used as a anti aircraft gun, anti armor weapon, aircraft weapon, shipborne weapon etc. So the M1919 is more ubiquitous and effective.
The StG-44 is a SMG, "Sturmgewehr" was a propoganda name but it was originally called Machine carbine, the StG-44 was originally designed to fulfill the same role as the M1 Carbine in US service. it was so terrible as a machine carbine they renamed is Machine pistole and issued it as a SMG. The first real military assault rifle to see widespread service was the M16.
Also the M240 was designed as a successor to the M1919. Infantry squads are issued the M60 and later the M249 to fulfill the role of automatic rifleman since the replacement of the BAR.