Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "Metatron" channel.

  1. +Ville Hammar >Somehow this has turned into "Lloyd said Bren is better and he's WRONG!" rather, through the video he put forward a completely ludicrous theories. Therefore, not many people were able to watch until the end
    13
  2. Flibbity Gibbit crap, man, why are you talking such bullshit as 'One is for assault, one is for defense'? They both 'assault'. You can't fire from MG-42 for hours, that's not water-cooled Vickers. They're approximately the same weight
    6
  3. Flibbity Gibbit it designed for 'assault'. Don't be so Lloyd
    4
  4. boycot gugle >So the MG42 is simply an all-purpose machine gun it's belt-fed light machine gun >no assault party itself should carry one assault units carried flamethrowers, mortars and even field guns
    3
  5. Flibbity Gibbit in my eyes it's when machine gun crew moves with advancing squad/platoon, providing covering fire. Or, in the case of MG-42, advancing squad is machine gun crew.
    2
  6. boycot gugle sources? are you fucking blind? You can't distinguish between heavy belt-fed water-cooled guns like Vickers or Browning and light machineguns like Bren and MG-42 with tripod option?
    2
  7. boycot gugle >Please do provide sources that state that "belt-fed light machine gun" is a valid classification that's description, you moron, not classification
    2
  8. Nick Graham >the intermediate cartridge is more to standardize ammunition its less to the weapon overheating, though >the role of the machine gun is to provide suppressive fire and to keep the enemies head down while the infantry advance.  i don't see how russian Maxim gun M1910 with 600 rpm provides less suppressive fire than SAW with 1000rpm
    2
  9. Nick Graham that's not classification, god damn. You should check context. And context was that 'Bren (a light magazine fed machine gun) supposedly was built for assault, and MG's (both light belt-fed machineguns) supposedly were built for defense', and it's look like bullshit to me
    1
  10. Nick Graham >but it can also perform roles assigned to the heavy machine guns if you mean firing for a long time, I doubt that.  High rate of fire and a thin barrel do not help in that case.
    1
  11. Nick Graham >where do you get that the MG 34 and 42 have thin barrels ? visual comparison. With things like Type 92, SG 43 or DShK >plus after 500 rounds your supposed to change barrels that's a strange number. 500 rounds of what? 5 long bursts with 100round belt? 10 long bursts? AFAIR, MG-42 required barrel changing after 250 shots during "intensive firing". >Plus the barrel change process can be don't very quickly and even quicker on the mg42. you have only one spare barrel. >Plus you could argue the mg42 is a more effective heavy machine gun since it's high rate of fire can act as an area denial weapon and also instill fear. yup, i would argue. 500 rounds fired in 2 minutes, and then what - enemy will wait until both your barrels cool again? That's a nice area denial
    1
  12. Nick Graham >Yeah your comparing fixed weapons with fixed barrels Yet earlier you compared Vickers and MG-42. What changed? Btw, SG had quick-changeable barrel. >where are you getting it has to be changed after 250 rounds? from the internets >An m240 barrel which has a thinner barrel profile and shorter barrel can go 300-400 rounds before it can needs a barrel change. again, was it short bursts, couple long bursts, or couple rounds from time to time? You  completely excluded rate of fire. And i think that manufacture of steels for gun barrels stepped forward since the WW2 >The mg42 has a case that holds 3 spares. well, let it be three >a mg42 can spite more lead down range and do what? Wore barrel more quickly? >and can supress and entire platoon sized element and this even documented during operation market garden I think it has more to do with the position of a said machine gun than with its ability to waist rounds. After all,  machine guns with a much lower rate of fire also "suppressed platoon sized elements"
    1
  13. The Quack no so slow, as Bren. Around 700 rpm
    1
  14. Nick Graham what are you talking about?
    1
  15. The Quack minigun has nothing to do with squad-level fire support. Unless we are talking about air assault units.
    1
  16. Nick Graham yep, there is a reason. What it has to do with MG-42 exceeding rate of fire?
    1
  17. The Quack even 6'' howitzers used to support squads. Show me some squad-level man-portable 6'' howitzers
    1
  18. Nick Graham i've even seen 100mm cannons mounted on IFV's
    1
  19. Nick Graham m249 have intermediate cartridge. Although i don't see a point of spewing 1000 rpm from man-portable squad support weapon unless you are using it in AA role. >hmmwv's arent IFV's If we mentioned weapon carriers, why exclude IFV's?
    1
  20. Yep, I want to hear about Cold Steel
    1
  21. process definitely looks maddening
    1
  22. I'm pretty sure you can harden stainless steel to some level, we have knifes made from it after all.
    1