Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "Soviet Infantry Small Arms Advantage Late in WW2? TIK Q&A" video.

  1. >One wonders why the Russians lost almost 9 Million soldiers kiilled in WW2 would you call a soldier, who died from cold and hunger in prison camp a "killed soldier"?
    5
  2. >Stalin' blocked the PPSH nope. Stalin blocked PPD, because it was a darn expensive and USSR had semiauto rifles
    3
  3. you have that Germans starved Russian prisoners of war to death. By millions
    3
  4. >Must be because they were so awesome! yup. It's quite an achievement - to beat technically superior enemy
    2
  5. > The PTRD antitank rifles took up overwatch firing positions during an infantry assault. When the MG-42's disclosed their positions, the PTRD's antitank rifles went to work firing in groups of threes at the MG-42's until they were silenced. Soviet 14,5 mm antitank rifles had really poor accuracy at long ranges. So, quite often it was the other way around
    2
  6. >the Germans had superior tactics nope >weapons in some places, yes >They were beat by shear numbers nope >Add to that Hitler's insane control of the tactics again, old story about "Stupid Hitler and intelligent German generals" You stuck in the Cold War, man, get some education. Start with Glantz
    2
  7.  @JackKrei  >They work with all documents Provide proof, please. > you, like all the soviet period folks are incapable of understanding facts and reality due to years of brainwashing. I'm not 'soviet period folk'. As I said earlier - you so incompetent you even incapable to understand that
    2
  8. :D
    2
  9.  @jaroslavkotov910  holy shit. Nicolas doesn’t know his arse from his elbow when it comes to the firearms. In fact, soviet engineers failed to create general purpose machine gun before and during the war, not for the lack of trying
    2
  10. >Australians with lee enfields and the odd Owen guns , Brens and Vickers MGs mowed down Chinese and north Koreans in korea so, that's why UN troops were forced to retreat? Because they were superior? :D
    2
  11. about 1,6. Not much, really
    2
  12. >It was the American and British bombing campaign that crippled the German manufacturing capabilities that saved the Soviets really? Then why Germans produced MORE in 1943-1944, than in 1941-1942?
    2
  13.  @stinkypete891  destroyed Luftwaffe but not manufacturing capabilities of the Germany
    2
  14.  @stinkypete891  and?
    2
  15.  @stinkypete891  nope. Swedes won WWII. They sold ball bearings to Allies
    2
  16.  @stinkypete891  What about swedes selling ball bearing to the Allies? They won the war, isn't it?
    2
  17.  @stinkypete891  >Swedes were importing ball bearings to both Britain and Germany. so, they won the war, right?
    2
  18.  @stinkypete891  >America was fighting a two-front war thousands of miles apart with Imperial Japan who's navy crushed you at the Battle of Tsushima, RIGHT??? nope >Soviets couldn't even defeat Germany WITHOUT America's help US couldn't defeat Germany without Sweden help. RIGHT???
    2
  19.  @stinkypete891  Nope. Cause Finland didn't sell anything to USSR. Or leased anything
    2
  20.  @stinkypete891  >RIGHT??? that's a stories from alternate universe. In our universe, though, Finland didn't sell or lease anything to USSR, ergo - Finland didn't won the war. According to your own logic
    2
  21.  @stinkypete891  nope. It's in your universe. One of them, at least
    2
  22.  @stinkypete891  >nope. You're universe and your universe only. not mine. You don't know things that were going on in my universe ;)
    2
  23.  @stinkypete891  ball bearings, man. Ball bearings
    2
  24.  @stinkypete891  ball bearings, man. They saved all. You stated that yourself
    2
  25.  @stinkypete891  hence. Sweden won the war. It's your logic, not mine
    2
  26.  @stinkypete891  Ball bearings, man. Remember - ball bearings. Sweden win the war, you stated that yourself
    2
  27.  @stinkypete891  > America won the war, saved Russia and the entire world. Sweden won the war, saved US, Britain and Russia and entire world. All the allies did was purchase ball bearings. Right???
    2
  28.  @stinkypete891  Sweden won the war, saved US, Britain and Russia and entire world. All the allies did was purchase ball bearings. Right???
    2
  29.  @stinkypete891  >Sweden sold ball bearings to Britain and Germany. Yes, you are right. Sweden won the war. You said that, not me
    2
  30.  @stinkypete891  you said Sweden won the war. Because they sold ball bearing to Allies. It's your logic man not mine
    2
  31.  @stinkypete891  you said you saved USSR because of land-lease. Hence, Sweden sawed all because of ball bearings
    2
  32.  @stinkypete891  >The only thing Sweden saved was it's own bank accounts and Allies. Because ball bearings were important
    2
  33.  @KBKriechbaum  >You can drop 20 rocks on a watch and claim that your technologically inferior rocks beat the technologically superior watch. what it has to do with german superiority? > Just with massive support did the soviets actually manage to get things going. like in the end of 1941, yes :D Massive support >Their losses speak a very clear language. about German superiority, yes >The finnish beat them up with way less manpower but way superior fighting capabilities. You talking about 1939-1940, yes? You will be surprised, but Soviet Army at the front was equivalent to the Finland army in terms of manpower > In WW2 it took the russians over 3 years to learn how a modern war is fought you falling into the trap of the "Great German fighters vs inferior Soviet fighters". But in fact it was "Great German industry vs inferior Soviet industry". So, it took russians over 3 years to build up industry more or less equal to German(in some areas) > The british fought immediatly and managed because their airforce and leadership was excellent. LOLWUT? You talking about guys who lost ALL their heavy weapons during Fall Rot, and only thing that saved Britain from falling was a 30 km wide anti-tank trench >Saying the Soviets were a good fighting force is ridiculous when you look at their losses. look at their enemies >They won through nothing but manpower. manpower solves nothing since invention of the machinegun, quick firing guns and shrapnel
    1
  34. ​ @KBKriechbaum  >The example with the rocks is merely to show that "winning" is relative and does not say much about fighting capabilities. then you failed to provide correct example >The russians never fought very smart. that's bullshit >Their doctrines never were very smart compared to their adversaries, either. you really don't know anything about russian military doctrine, so your opinion is irrelevant > They were very inefficient as a military they beat stronger enemy, though > hence massive losses even when massively outgunning and outnumbering their enemy like when? >The losses sustained by the soviets are due to inferior military tactics and poor training. the losses sustained by soviets are due German superiority in weapons and transport > But on the tactical level, the german military was just more advanced. that's just words. You don't understand their meaning > In the international comparison, even today russia lacks those on a grand scale. but you don't have an idea, what today Russia lacks or not ;) You just repeat the words you heard somewhere, not understanding their meaning >In the end of 1941, winter stopped the ill equiped germans. ROFL. What about ill equipped soviets? >Even without the red army being there, it would stop them. LOL. You are so funny >In the winterwar, the soviets had roughly twice the men in the fight, 100 times the aircraft and 30 times the tanks. as I said already - Red army was equal with the finns on the terms of manpower > The soviet casualties are 20 times as high as the finnish casualties. 390000 / 20 gives us 19000, not 70000. What's your major malfunction? > thats why you need 10 times more soviets in a fight against the Wehrmacht. Facts in numbers. explain then, why Wermacht win only when it concentrated 10 to 1 against soviet soldiers? > Industry has little to do with how good your individual already equipped force is in terms of training. really? ROFL. You so clueless. Try to think, how do you equip your force without industry? Where you get that fuels, ammo, food? Where you get that shells for your 280mm howitzers, bombs for your Ju 87? >The british fought the german luftwaffe at its prime and managed to fight them off. the british fought german wermacht at its prime and managed to loose badly. Unfortunately, USSR had no 30km wide anti-tank trench You stuck in the times of Cold War, pal. Try to educate yourself, start with Glantz books
    1
  35.  @KBKriechbaum  > Haha, you are so smart Only in comparison with you >the US shoved equipment up soviet russias booty not so much as they showed up Britain booty. Remember, what Germans did to Britain and US troops in Africa? >stalin himself said that they were on the brink of collapse and without the help of the US they would have he didn't said that. After all, where did you get that, obviously your Cold War era historical books don't cite Stalin quotes >Whenever russia tried something, afterwards they were worse of than before that's another bullshit >Russia to this day, is only a big gas station with very cheap prices. that's all you have to say about WW2? Very deep analysis, indeed. >The US fought the germans, too. The brits fought the germans too. Their kill/loss rates are a lot better. Because they had better militaries (and still have). obviously not because they waited until Germany bleeds their army on the Eastern front. No sir! > Looking forward to see how it goes for great russia in the future. Obviously you don't look into anything. You just miserable little man who thought he knew something about the history of World War II and now he is trying to hide his bitterness behind attempts to laugh at modern Russia. Attempts as miserable as he himself. Cheers
    1
  36. TiK is not Russian
    1
  37.  @marcinterlecki6021  why teach him how to pronounce word in russian, then?
    1
  38.  @marcinterlecki6021  > it's an acronym and Sh is for surname Shpagin Acronym from the Russian surname. Lewis, being an englishman, understandably having a hard time pronouncing russian letters > BTW it's weird that Russian has any objections i'm not a 'pronouncing nazi', and I am very annoyed by people who floods comment section with "It's not S-H, it's Sh" etc
    1
  39. > The only semi/full automatic rifle with a high powered rifle round in WW2 was the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). Garand M1, FG-42, Gewehr-41 and Gewehr-43, SVT-40/AVT-40
    1
  40.  @Crashed131963  >But the AVT used a lower powered short 7.62mm x 39mm or 7.62x41mm not a true 7.62x54mm round. I was talking about AVT-40, which was an SVT-40 with autofire capabilitiy. You were talking about rifle that was developed to complement assault rifle. Tokarev's rifle lose to Simonov's SKS
    1
  41. they had their 75mm antitank guns. And their 88mm antitank guns(not anti-aircraft). And Tigers. And Panthers
    1
  42.  @kirgan1000  what it has to do with anti tank defense?
    1
  43.  @kirgan1000  don't know anything about "suffering". As far as I know, almost until the end of war in general German artillery could fire more heavy shells than Soviet
    1
  44.  @rexfrommn3316  you talking about quite specific situation, then
    1
  45.  @Darqshadow  >Man to Man the Garand was better than the Kar and with use of the Thompson and Carbine the fighting became more lopsided for the U.S. air superiority helped too
    1
  46. >Tonns of SMG basicaly useless in a fields as CQC was more of an exception than a rule. Especially on East European fields. you have no idea what you're talking about. а) Soviet infantry, armed with submachineguns, rapidly closed with enemy riding on tanks b) with single shots and short bursts SMG's were effective up to 200 meters
    1
  47. ​ @slicemf5347  >To ride to an enemy trenches on tank is another form of suicide you have no idea what you are talking about. The safest attack method for infantry is to reach enemy lines as quickly as possible > Infantry goes on feet. to make it easier for machine gunners and mortars of the enemy to shoot at them ,yes >or alone from mg34\42 you don't realize that approaching to the enemy lines on foot makes infantry much more convenient target for MG34/42, do you? > Yea, and mosin is effective on 800 metres. nope. 400. How do you think, why? > In other words, outside of shooting range You wil miss. nope. Bullet drop is taken into account >Trained shooter in prone position will hit target at 200m, but from foot, rushing to an enemy trenches? forget about it. you really have no idea how the infantry attacks proceeds. NOBODY takes aimed shots while rushing to the enemy trenches. Germans, brits, americans, russians - nobody. >And once agai - You have to reach this distance first. familiarize yourself with WW1 assault infantry tactics. You can get an gist of how it was done before introduction of tanks and personnel carriers
    1
  48. >however in the open rural areas rifles would have the advantage because of the superior range. You must have quite skilled rifleman to use advantages of the rifle >Thus you deplete your own forces rapidly as well. as a matter of fact - no. Look at assault troops in WWI - often enough they had no losses >Someone using an SMG tend to use a lot more ammunition on blind fire I assure you, same goes for rifle fire >That means that more room in the supply train, that could have been allocated to other items, is taken up by small arms ammunition. look at the rate of fire of MG-38/MG-42. Then talk about consumption of ammunition :D >Overall since no army adopted the USSR tactics after the war, it seems unlikely that pure SMGs offered an overall advantage over the rifle/mg squad composition. But modern assault rifles are more close to SMG, than to traditional rifle
    1
  49.  @jernmajoren  >Not really, in open terrain where you can see your enemy at long range thing is, enemy don't want you to see him or hit him. So, it doesn't behave like target on the shooting range >WWI != WWII yup. They added tanks for rapid advancement and planes to suppress the defenders. But if you look into infantry tactics... >Assaulting troops in WWII often suffered horrendous losses. when closing to the enemy, yes. Alternate, they can seat in trenches taking potshots with rifles :D >The MG-34/MG-42 had slightly higher RoF than the PPD/PPsH-41, so there is only minor difference in ammo consumption. a) rifle ammo has much more weight and volume than pistol ammo b) MG's are used for suppression, which implies a high consumption of ammo >After WWII the common issued infantry weapons in use either full case that comes from USA. Because US generals imagined, that their soldiers would precisely hit targets at many hundreds of meters, despite their own studies that show that real combat distances for infantry during WW2 were about 300 meters >Modern Assault rifles have more in common with rifles than they do SMG's. lightweight, low recoil ammunition, effective range about 400-500 meters?
    1
  50.  @jernmajoren  >For germans the MG was the primary squad weapon meant to kill enemy, the rifle men were there to protect the MG And consumed rifle ammo at high rate >Thus rifles or MG's would be more optimal than SMGs to engage the enemy. yep. In their imaginary world :D In the end they decided that small, relatively short-range ammunition(not rifle cartridges) is way to go on the modern battlefield
    1
  51.  @jernmajoren  >Both of them are same size as rifles MP-40 or PPSH are the same size as rifle > So the main usage is that akin to rifles. do you think that SMG main usage was 'spray and pray'? >In general soldiers armed with short range weapons have historically taken significantly higher casualties than those with longer range weapons longer range weapons you mention includes not only infantry small arms
    1
  52.  @jernmajoren  > I think they were meant to fight the enemy at close ranges. what do you mean by close range? Is 300 meters a close range?
    1
  53.  @jernmajoren  >At longer ranges the precision of SMGs drops fairly quickly I really don't know where you got that idea. Effective range for soviet SMG shooting point target is 200 meters. If we take Kiraly 9x23 submachinegun, effective range will increase accordingly
    1
  54. > which was fine, except that its a bullet magnet infantrymen in the open field weren't an bullet magnet?
    1
  55. >No petrol, no winter clothes, not (enough) bullets really? How then they kept feeding those 1200rpm MG42?
    1
  56.  @JackKrei  Do Beevor, Hanson, Stepman etc work with soviet archives? If not - how are they relevant to the Eastern front? >I'm right about it all nope, you are clueless little man, too incompetent to even realize that
    1
  57.  @JackKrei  >I did provide proof! nope. The proof would be citing the sources used by Beevor, Hanson, Stepman etc. >Oh never said you were a soviet period folk " you, like all the soviet period folks". In proper english language "like all" means inclusion
    1
  58. >Guns are one of the few things communists make that are actually of good quality nah
    1
  59. they were effective when infantry, armed with SMG's rapidly closed with enemy. Riding on tanks, for example
    1
  60.  @pebo8306  > Why did the Russians loose 20 mil.men vs 5 mil. from the Wehrmacht! because most part of those 20 mil. were civilians
    1
  61.  @pebo8306  >your answer is BS nope. Just because you stupid enough to think, that all 20 millions of deaths were soldiers don't makes my answer a bullshit >why did the Wehrmacht inflict 5x casualties to the Red Army???? short answer - Wermacht did not inflicted 5x casualties on the Red Army >Maybe because most senior Red Army officers made extremly poor decisions maybe because you know shit about thing you trying to reason
    1
  62.  @yulusleonard985  >each infantrymen only have 40 rounds infantry man will have as many rounds as he can carry >Those soldier will fight more effective with Mossin than SVT how do you measure the effectiveness of the soldier?
    1
  63.  @yulusleonard985  so, you didn't compared unit cost of MP-40 with Kar-98?
    1
  64.  @andrebas1124  >why germans were reported to use 200 grenades per 10 soldiers with 2 supply guys carried 2 sacks of grenades to clean up the tranches? Soviets usually have 2 grenades per soldier I assure you, that soviet soldiers also used 200 or more grenades per 10 soldiers in same cases as germans
    1
  65. > what the Stavka thought about the average grunt.. not a lot in Red Army SMG's were issued to specialized units. For example, for troops who accompanied tanks in attack, "panzergrenadiers" so to speak
    1
  66.  @yulusleonard985  >The most expensive part is the barel nope >So for the soviet its cheaper to produce ppsh 41 than any mosin nagant. in fact, at the end PPSh were slightly more expensive to make than Mosin rifle >For the germans its cheaper to produce luger than any mp 40. only because the MP-40 was so darn expensive to make. But MP-40 was more expensive than Kar-98
    1
  67.  @yulusleonard985  >PPSH mechanism are too simple to be expensive. it's not the complexity of mechanism that makes the gun expensive.. Look at the PPD, for example. No so complex, but his cost was on pair with DP-28 >Also the fact even today longer barel will cost more I think that you can buy truckload of Mosin rifles for the cost of one Colt M1911 >Any direct blowback are cheap to manufacture. All you have to do is to add spring for the action. ROFLMAO. You really don't know what you are talking about. Just google MP-40 unit cost vs Kar-98 unit cost
    1
  68. nothing on pair with MG-34/MG-42
    1
  69. >There's no way you're getting 900 rounds per minute from ANY firearm, :D :D :D >To do so generates a LOT of heat and can potentially damage the weapon it depends on the cartridge. Obviously, pistol cartridges generate a lot less heat than rifle cartridges >Add in time to change magazines as well, and the much more likely rate of fire would be more like 100-150 rpm we are talking cyclic rate of fire, which is independent of changing magazines etc
    1
  70. MG was the dominant small arm for the German infantry and it consumes ammo with dreadful speed
    1
  71.  @rogerhinman5427  >. But when you dig into the details Germany ends up losing much of it's industrial capacity to several factors, such as allied air interdiction, production slowdowns/absenteeism/sabotage in the occupied nations, sabotage/illness/death of slave labor, inefficient planning and management, etc. with all this they managed to increase production from 1941 to 1944
    1
  72. MP-40 is quite accurate SMG
    1
  73.  @sergeontheloose  > As for MP-40 bullet stopping in the "vatnik" - there are numerous accounts of that there were accounts of soviet steel cuirass СН-42 not capable of stopping MP-40 bullets with steel core
    1
  74. the reasons the MG42 was given such a high rate of fire was that it was an 'universal' machine gun
    1
  75. Loza had quite limited experience with Thompson SMG. AFAIR, soviet testers from NIPSVO got a positive impression of its characteristics
    1
  76. > That means in a fight the Soviet squad would soon run out of ammunition, and the German squad with mostly bolt action rifles and one machine gun would be shooting and more accurately for longer. in reality German squad will expend more ammunition because MG34/42 high rate of fire > Ammunition is heavy, and troops can only carry so much but you can carry much more pistol cartridges than rifle cartridges
    1
  77.  @TheMentalblockrock  >But the MG42 is only one gun and one soldier, trainer to fire short bursts and at definite targets/ suppression. it's the main weapon of the German squad. How do you think, how much ammunition "suppression" requires? You can see that on youtube >The Russians were all spraying bullets as they charged. ROFL. Really? How do you know that? >Plus ALL the German squad carried MG42 belts as said in this video. because high rate of ammo consumption >Therefore the Germans would use less ammunition per enemy casualty. therefore Germans would use more rifle ammunition per enemy casualty. Rifle ammunition is much more heavier than pistol ammunition
    1
  78. soviet antitank rifles weren't capable of long-range precise shots
    1
  79. >The three primary types of weapon that Soviet infantry used were bolt-action Mosin–Nagant's, the semi-automatic SVT-40 and its automatic variant the AVT-40 nope. Number of built SVT-40 and AVT-40 was large(around 1,6 millon), but nothing to compare with numbers of Mosin's and SMG's produced(millions)
    1
  80.  @lotus95t  okay. But you said that "All three variants were used in similar numbers during the war". That's impossible
    1
  81.  @pebo8306  >I wonder why the Russians lost 5 times of their men compared to the Wehrmacht?? because they didn't starved Germans to death in prison camps
    1
  82.  @_kommandant_3055  not millions
    1
  83.  @sergeontheloose  >PPSh-41 was not a common gun for the Soviets during Stalingrad. Only the squad commander would have it. really? Alexey Isaev once pointed curious incident, when division, prepared to go into Stalingrad, was equipped with all automatic weapons it required(about 4000 units) but didn't had enough rifles
    1
  84.  @pebo8306  from rifles. German machineguns used rifle ammo
    1
  85. Germans are the Protoss and Soviet are Terrans
    1
  86.  @yulusleonard985  >By contrast the soviet fail to provide every platoon with MG. every soviet platoon had DP-27
    1
  87.  @yulusleonard985  ROFL. Why then germans had SMG's in rifle platoons?
    1
  88.  @yulusleonard985  and people with SMG in soviet platoons were ammo carriers for DP
    1
  89.  @yulusleonard985  > Lol half of them? why not? > there are only two ammo carrier in German platoon and they were armed with Kar-98, not with SMG ;) So, again - why germans had SMG's in their platoons? > If that true then DP 27 is the worst mg ever since it need six men to run it properly. MG-34 need a whole squad to run it properly ;) You said that yourself
    1
  90.  @yulusleonard985  >because German ammo carrier is not a combat unit. They are armed with smg not combat rifle. German ammo carriers were combat units and were armed with Kar 98 > You can check Military History Visualized on German infantry tacti you can check MHV yourself. Ammo carriers were armed with Kar-98 and they were combat units > if they do carry rifle it means they run out of smg nope. It means they were armed with rifles from the start > Which is the reason why they can enjoy high kill ratio when compared to smg centric late war soviet infantry tactic, caused by their inability to equip every platoon with MG Every soviet platoon had one or two DP-27. Germans "enjoyed" high "kill ratio" because they starved millions prisoners of war to death. So it goes And, again, you failed to explain, why germans had SMG's in their platoons
    1
  91.  @yulusleonard985  >The only guy in combat platoon who have business carrying SMG are their ammo carrier obviously, you didn't checked MHV video on the structure of German SQUAD ;) Ammo carriers were armed with Kar 98 >If you see one carrying mp-40 they are not in rifle company tell me you made that up. Please. >And if they have at least one dp 27 for every platoon they don't have to do that stupid half smg half rifle setup. why? >Im pretty sure even Glantz wrote that they only have one mg per company he was talking about heavy MG
    1
  92.  @yulusleonard985  >The only person who have bussines to carry smg are the ammo carrier or CO/NCO. ammo carrier carries Kar 98. Check MHV video ;) >the soviet practice half rifle half mg exist to make up lack of MG in squad & platoon level. there were no half rifle/half smg in squad or platoon. Check MHV video ;)
    1
  93.  @yulusleonard985  > the German standard rifle, even the Squad leader, yet around 1941 he was issued a MP40 submachine gun with 6 magazines of 32 shots each. yep. Squad leader. Ammo carriers and squad leader were three different persons ;) >At that level they have dedicated ammo carrier. and they also were armed with Kar 98 ;) >He havent reach late war soviet army. i'll lend you a hand https://www.battleorder.org/ussr-rifle-co-1944 try and find "half rifle/half SMG" organization :D >they never reach one mg per squad in 1941, in 1945, even post war. Don't be ridiculous. You know nothing about Red Army except some information from youtube videos you failed to understand :D
    1
  94.  @yulusleonard985  >even within article you linked if you total the number of smg and rifle it will be about 50-50 you failed to notice that every section had 1 or 2 LMG ;) And that SMG's were concentrated in specialized unit. Which also had LMG :D >The British/German/American perform better with only one MG. how do you checked that? We already established that you know nothing about WW2 except some videos you failed to understand ;) >That diagram most likely the ideal figure not actual inventory so, where you got that "half rifle, half SMG", then? ;) >This article said at the end of the war the ratio for LMG is 1:22.2 I don't know, where you get that number. Because article states "If the rifle company in July 1941 till States has 6 machine guns, a year later - 12 hand, at 1943 year - 1 easel and 18 machine guns, and in December 44 of the year - 2 easel and 12 hand." >And after the war they have to build that redundant SKS because they still suffer from MG shortage. ROFL. You so funny. SKS were meant to replace Mosin rifles >Even if you try to spin it that ammo carrier carry rifle, the fact they use SMG as PDW stand Fact? You said yourself that ammo carriers were armed with Kar 98. What's wrong with your memory, pal? >And ammo carrier in organization list you linked actually only carry a pistol nope. He carried a rifle
    1
  95. ​ @yulusleonard985  > Im pretty sure if by the end of the war the ratio of 1 lmg for every 22 men they are bound to have smg-mosin 50-50 split. I'm pretty sure that your statement have zero logic > basically some platoon have two instead 6 and the unlucky ony have one. basically your statement have zero logic >You said that. YOU said that. Remember, "Initially all men besides the machine gunner and his assistant were equipped with the “Karabiner 98 kurz”, the German standard rifle, even the Squad leader, yet around 1941 he was issued a MP40 submachine gun with 6 magazines of 32 shots each"? "All men besides machine gunner and his assistant" includes ammo carriers :D >Also what the relevance about this question btw? I'm waiting for you to admit that you wrote bullshit when you claimed that only ammo carriers were armed with SMG's :D
    1
  96.  @yulusleonard985  > so I like reality why do you continue to contradict reality, then? >If someone say something like the ratio each platoon have 6 lmg next year 12 lmg, next year 1 hmg and so on its more like the ideal not the realization. it's more like realization. More machineguns made means more machineguns in rifle company. Dead simple >While his statement like in a regiment of 2398 people they have 108 lmg and 54 hmg is more like total average And? >And his statement like in Crimean operation in 1944 one hmg/lmg per 43 men is the reality. Per "human personnel". Not per "fighter" . Of course you aren't capable to realize that military units were not entirely comprised from rifle platoons, despite the links I provided :D >So from those three informations I can pull a conclusion that the average HMG/LMG in each platoon is one or two. You making a progress. Remember, you were talking about "the soviet fail to provide every platoon with MG". But you aren't capable to understand the words you reading, so you drawing the wrong conclusion >That would be super embarrassing. nope. See, you aren't capable to realize that war is more than one rifle platoon fighting another >Assistant machine gunner is ammo carrier. nope. Look at MHV site, the link you provided. >Never said that. I said SMG in German army are pdw, carried by anyone have no bussines with combat. " German ammo carrier is not a combat unit. They are armed with smg not combat rifle."(c) BOOM! HEADSHOT! Looks like you have troubles with long-term memory
    1
  97.  @yulusleonard985  >2398/108 I already done my calculator job, your turn. 42 >Yes, it even more embarrassing if you have tanks, altilery, air superiority etc even economically supported by American and yet still suffer disproportionate casualty. i don't see how number of combat vs non-combat troops in military unit connected to that. But I'm a generous guy and will continue to teach you history lessons. You see, USSR didn't had artillery or air superiority. It was quite opposite >My explanation is they only have 1-2 mg each platoon as written in the article so they always have hard time. but we already established that you know little about WW2, so your explanations are explanations of man little versed >I wonder what is this supposed to do with smg argument? It shows level of your knowledge about things you are trying to reason. Close to nonexistent > You ask me irrelevant question I answer it on the fly "On the fly" - that's a good characterization about all you comments :D >I wait you to finish your calculator job about counting 2398 divided by 108. I wait for you to admit that your statement that not every soviet rifle platoon had a machine gun was false
    1
  98.  @yulusleonard985  >Yikes that lower than my 22.2, one lmg for every 42 men? nope. Just 42. >Im pretty sure we are talking one year after Kursk when air superiority switch and lack of truck hamper German altillery superiority. it not surprising that you are wrong >Thats rich from someone who know nothing about casualty. you cannot rate my level of knowledge of casualty. Because, as we already established, you make all your comments "on the fly" :D >That depends from your counting skill of 2389/108. nope. That depends on your skill to to admit that you was wrong. Try it will be easy. You already admitted that soviet rifle platoons had at least one MG. Just write "I was wrong, I made it on the fly"
    1
  99.  @yulusleonard985  >I always said that from the beginning. " By contrast the soviet fail to provide every platoon with MG." Long-term memory problems, amirite?
    1
  100. >I would say the normal situation was - "suppress and move" than "run close and rain bullets" you suppress with artillery and then move close and rain bullets
    1
  101.  @stinkypete891  nope. It's your universe. Cause you continue to raise the topic of Stalin ;)
    1
  102.  @stinkypete891  We agreed that Sweden saved all from Germany, aren't we?
    1
  103.  @stinkypete891  Sweden saved all from Germany. Ball bearings, remember?
    1
  104.  @stinkypete891  ball bearings beat lend-lease
    1
  105.  @stinkypete891  and ball bearings saved all
    1