Before you start calling people idiots, work out why a .50 cal wasn’t included in a question about MGs.
Or you’ll continue to look like the idiot you have been showing yourself to be in various threads.
You’ve been warned before to watch your conduct, so do it. Tolerance of idiots is not limitless on this board
Carrying an FN-MAG is bad enough, I’d really rather NOT have to carry an M2!
It’s nice to have on a mount in a bunker though…
colonel hogan should be mounted in a bunker.
I’d emphatically suggest to bust him to Private Hogan before.
colonel hogan should be mounted in a bunker.[/QUOTE]
By whom ?
Can the award not be reduced to ‘just holding hands’ ?
Don’t worry, his privates will be busted by the mounting.
Do we care?
A passer-by who just happens to be a poo jabber?
A rather dapper gentleman with a neat moustache who just happens to be a member of Her Majesty’s Household Cavalry, who have always been rather indsicriminate about where they poke their lances?
No, because colonel hogan is a fan of heavy calibre weapons and a hand job ain’t gonna be a fair on a boy who wants a solid slug in him.
If he just wants to hold hands he should join the girl scouts, or the lower echelons of the air force, but as he loves the heavy browning then the navy is definitely the place for him.
I think you were rather ahead of me there. 
The highest ever r-o-f I’ve ever known of that was confirmed was 1520 rpm, by an experten MG42 team, who typically ran the thing at 1400. The “official” rate of fire cited from the Wehrmacht documentation is 1280 rounds per minute. (Source, published biography, citing the Heeres documentation).
Range was said as 1150 meters, with 1000 being deemed a typical expectation.
And yes, lest it be thought otherwise, I definitely favour MG42. I’ve carried one and not found it a burden. It falls easily to hand, and prepping it to fire is a smooth and natural experience, even to one as untrained in that arcane art as I.
Regards, Uyraell.
That pretty much explains my view…
Hello Riceman.
Sure the MG42 variant is still used, but only in some third world countries [perhaps some folks out there know the picture where the somlian pirate, all dressed up in red, holds up one of those, but without a barrel in it :mrgreen:].
The MG3 is the modified version of it - mainly speaking about the ‘Verschlussbremse’ or ‘Nato-Bremse’ inside the bolt, which reduces the weapons cadence and the projectiles speed [has something to do with humanity - we were told that the MG42 projectile was so fast under certain conditions, that a hit would result in such a shock situation of the blood circulation system, so the target is immediately dead … and also a slower weapon saves ammunition and you don’t have to change the barrel, bolt etc. that fast]. Also some minor mechanics were tweaked and a AA aiming net was attached to it [also you can clap the rear main aiming sights now up to adjust the distance to line of commencing fire etc. without showing your head. And many other things.
As you probably know the MG42 became faster and faster the hotter the weapon became when fireing it - the Nato-Bremse also solves that problem. I think the guys in Autriche build a weapon based on the MG42 which also contains something like a Nato-Bremse which you can adjust what cadence you want - the italians buy that one too.
Greetings.
PS: Nevertheless you are somewhat right - when i recall my boot camp time i can remember, that i once had a MG asset pocket made out of black leather with MG42 stamped on it - so we are still using ‘some things’ from that time. :army:
The US Army performed a study after the War and found that although most casualties were caused by artillery fire of some sort, the machine gun had the distinction of having the highest wounding to death ratio. Fifty percent of all soldiers hit by machine fire died…
Nick, slightly random thought here, but is that the same study that recorded Germans as having had something like 50% less head casualties because of the helmet shape being more protective; or just a study that cross-referenced the fact?
I know that due to the study I’m thinking of, a major re-evaluation of helmet shape and protection factors took place, leading to the adoption of the current helmet. I’m just not sure if the study you mention and the study I have in mind is the same study, or two different-but-linked.
Regards, Uyraell.
I have no idea, but the current Kevlar helmet didn’t come out until the early 1980s I think (I wore the Kevlar in basic training and had one issued thereon after, but did wear a “steel pot” during my MOS training actually) and there was a controversy due to its resemblance to the Stalheim…
Yes, it’s that controversy (in part, media-manufactured, in part manufactured by others with “vested interests”, I’ve always thought) that made me ask you.
I had been aware of several studies, some of which were linked by virtue of cross-referencing eachother, I just wasn’t fully certain in the cases of these two.
Regards, Uyraell.