how were / are general-purpose machine guns a good idea?
they are much heavier than light MGs (like th Bren) and don't have the punch of heavy MGs like the M2 or the DShK. Yes, they allowed the Germans to work around the versailles restrictions ... but then again, it's not like they didn't ignore those restrictions left and right anyway
What's the point?
good enough that, 80 years later, every army still packs GPMGs in the form of the M240 and PKM
aren't PKM and M240 comparably light though (thanks to more modern material and design)?
Unloaded MG 42 is 11,6 kg, PKM with Bipod is 9kg
M240 is officially a GPMG and its used pretty much the exact same way they were used back then, being able to be fired in bipod, tripod, or vehicle mount roles
its tactically identical in useage to the M1919 MMG
Yea, MG42 was just too heavy.
That is why no modern army uses a derivate of MG42 chambered in 7.62 NATO
>That is why no modern army uses a derivate of MG42 chambered in 7.62 NATO
What is MG3 for 500, you fricking tourist
>autist unable to recognize irony
another day on PrepHole
I think he was being ferrous. Apart from that: wtf am I looking at
I knew that this would happen.
I even chose the smuggest picture I could find to drive home the absolute sarcasm eradiating from my post and you still couldn't tell.
Do I need start copy pasting wikipedia paragraphs so people can pick up on sarcasm?
>Unloaded MG 42 is 11,6 kg
That's the weight of your average 3 year old.
>GPMGs in the form of the M240 and PKM
You're forgetting the dozens of armies that still use the MG-42 in one form or another.
the M240 is far more popular than the MG3 is
What's the point of GPMGs?
>Chambered in the same cartridge as your service rifle to simplify logistics
>Dabs on enemy infantry
>Greater firepower than automatic rifles like Bren and BAR
What's the point of you, OP?
>Chambered in the same cartridge as your service rifle to simplify logistics
ah, forgot to tackle this point.
Yes, it simplifies logistics but is it really worth the tradeoff? No-one would consider switching to 75mm artillery only to simplify logistics either.
Also iirc the germans issued special armor piercing bullets to their MG crews so that they could at least penetrate some stuff on closer ranges (still way less powerful than M2 though), so it might not be so much more simplified overall
MG34s, MG42s, and M1919s were perfect for what they were designed for, which is laying down cover fire in the attack to pin the enemy, or devastating enemy infantry movements in the defense. They are good at this job because the cartridge they are firing is sufficient for killing infantry while being light enough to carry lots of ammunition, in belts rather than mags, with a higher rate of fire than a .50 BMG.
It's why infantry squads still carry GPMGs. They're effective for the job they do. There is no tradeoff, since neither automatic rifles nor heavy MGs do the job they're intended for as well.
Captcha: HKTAPR. "HK Tapper"
>It's why infantry squads still carry GPMGs
GPMGs are largely relegated to weapons squads
time is a flat circle with rifle squads being issued LMGs in intermediate calibers and the larger GPMG being relegated to tripod use
mechanized infantry now carry a pair of M249s with the heavy firepower concentrated in the M2 bradleys cannon
> with a higher rate of fire than a .50 BMG
just wanted to say "but what about the MG5" but then I did some more digging and apparently is is genereally considered to be a moron move by the germans to switch to a GPM that has 600 to 800 rounds / minute
They are much lighter than heavy MGs (like the M2 or the DShK) and have more sustained firepower than light MGs like the Bren.
>they are much heavier than light MGs (like the Bren)
Not significantly, and the gains in capability are worth the extra ~4 lbs.
Bongs love gimpys mate
Brens are nice but they're really automatic rifles
M249s have terrible dropoff at range
7.62 NATO just can't be beat
and your basic b***h beltfed 7.62 is just that
We've ditched our m249s now and just put the gimpy and Marksman rifle in its place. But we bought the para barrel for everyone giving the M249 with even worse range
>Bren
>10kg unloaded
>30 round mags
>Quick change barrel only possible while moving the gun around, good luck doing it behind cover
>MG42
>11kg unloaded
>50 round belts, 250 round belts
>Can change barrel while prone, behind cover, etc
You're acting as if the MG series weighs 20 kilograms or something. They're big guns but not THAT big.
>Quick change barrel only possible while moving the gun around, good luck doing it behind cover
the frick?
>Can change barrel while prone, behind cover, etc
so can the Bren
but yeah
the L7 GPMG (FN MAG) also weighs the same as the MG42
You can't remove the barrel while keeping your head low with the Bren, not easily at least.
Look at how the procedures are done for both guns before typing.
why don't YOU look, smart arse?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-b-A8CJkKFA
ERMAHGERD IT"S SO DIFFICULT
Your video shows his head being up and out of cover, moron. Jej.
>EVERYTHING MUST BE DONE EXACTLY AS I SEE IN THIS VIDEO
is this German autism?
Use your fricking imagination, dipshit
There are videos of the barrel change procedure while lying prone, only you're too stupid or too disingenuous to look it up
And said procedure still isn't as smooth and easy to do as the MG42 while keeping your head down. That's my point.
I mean, if it's too difficult for you, so be it. Not every moron learns to ride a bike.
>MG42 still used in a dozen places
>Bren gun used by a couple third world nations
Hey, seethe all you want anglo, it won't fix your teeth or immigration problems.
>has no answer, reacts like a 12yo
I accept your grudging surrender.
How's your government going? Oh they raped more kids and it got brushed under the table? Oops.
Bro did you upload your selfie by accident? Lmao.
>n-n-no u, he said, seething
?t=1230
>cant even change barrel by yourself
Stop making the Bren gun look worse!
>still seething
You don't know till you finger frick a MAG
go away, lindy