Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Shooting the MG-34 and MG-42" video.

  1. Doctrine differs from propaganda though. The doctrine was to try and assault the mg-42 during that 7 second window when they changed the barrel. When the gun was operational, there was pretty much only one thing to do: duck and cover. Germans however made it difficult to assault an mg-42 even during the barrel change. The allies had this wierd idea that "support weapons" meant that machine guns were supposed to be "supporting" the regular riflemen. The Germans did the exact opposite: the riflemen were trained to protect and support the machine gunner (by carrying extra ammo belts, as well as opening fire against enemies trying to assault the machine gunners during a barrel change) This also meant that the Germans thought of the machine gun as an integral part of their infantry squads, rather than an optional part like the allied forces did. Which meant they were issued with much more MG-34's and MG-42's than the allied troops were.
    38
  2. PringlesKing William: German troops were sniping with MG-42's equipped with scopes. If anything, the MG-42 was TOO accurate. Normally, you tend to prefer a little spread in a machine gun to increase the effectiveness of supressing fire. The Mg-42 on the other hand behaved like a precision rifle on full auto.
    26
  3. Harry Sullivan: Hundreds of thousands dead Allied troops due to german machine gun fire can attest to it's practicality...
    16
  4. mcjagermech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42 "The concept eventually led to the development of the MG34 which was envisaged and well developed to provide anti-aircraft coverage, highly portable infantry coverage, and even sniping ability . The MG34 was developed to use the standard German rifle round of 7.92×57mm Mauser." "As a result, the sustained rate of fire was very high. The MG 34 was so accurate that *it was often mounted on a tripod with a telescopic sight for sniping at very long distances* . It was chambered in the standard 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge (often called 8mm)." As to the rest of your ignorant claims, The BAR 1918 had a pathetic magazine capacity and couldn't sustain fire long enough to be a useful light machine gun. The M1 is a sub-machine gun. It doesn't compare to a light machine gun. Then there's the matter of how many were issued. The Browning 1919 weren't issued in nearly the same proportions as the Mg-34 and the Mg-42. So yeah. Back to history class with you. And btw, there is no such thing as a "sniper rifle". The term is "precision rifle". Sniper is a type of soldier, sniping is an activity, neither are a weapon.
    16
  5. Brett Higdon: They used asbestos gloves to change barrels.
    12
  6. And a WW2 vet would conclude that the M60 sucks ass cmpared to an MG34 or an MG42. :)
    5
  7. LuukvdHoogen: It's just small pieces of metal. Unless we're talking Aluminium, metal corrodes and disolves in nature over time. And while the lead in bullets might be a bit polluting, the amounts are so minute as to have that much of an impact. It's worse with plastics and Aluminium that nature can't break down with the elements.
    3
  8. Frank Teryngel: No, air raids would make short work of the Maus. The payload dropped by bombers usually exceeded the power of even artillery shells, so cutting through one of those Maus tanks would've been no problem. In fact it would've been easier than other targets due to how slow amd cumbersume the Maus would've been. An expensive sitting duck for the airforce bombers to play target practice with.
    2
  9. Ser. Hudson: The M249 sucks compared to the MG3. Even American troops hate it. The CNA conducted several surveys where they asked servicemen who were armed with M249's and used them in actual firefights to give them reviews of the gun. A whopping 70 % of M249 users were dissatisfied with weapon maintainability, and too many of them complained of how difficult it was to clear stoppages. I doubt you'd find as many MG3 operators having similar complaints. It's wierd how Americans adopt European Machine gun designs (like the M249, based on the FN Minimi or the M60 based on the MG-42) and manage to make them inferior to the European original designs.
    2
  10. LuukvdHoogen: Some bullets are made of lead. But enviromental restrictions have caused the industry to make new innovations with bullets and buckshot made of other metals (like steel). The problem is that lead has very good properties for making bullets. It's relatively soft and so deforms easier in the barrel, whereas harder metals put greater wear and tear on the inside of the barrel.
    1
  11. Wes Hebert: The lead wasn't "in the earth". Lead is mined from rock that encases the lead and prevents it from seeping out into the biosphere. When we mine lead and dump it out in forests and other places of the biosphere it ends up causing damage to living things. That said, I do agree that the supposed lead pollution from firearms is greatly exaggerated. There are much worse culprits in terms of lead pollution, while firearms are causing a largely negligible level of lead pollution.
    1