Weapons

[K K Rossokolski]

Interesting stuff....lots of numbers.
A few thoughts.....
1. I think it's an urban myth that the M60 was developed from the MG-42. These are quite different weapons, primarily in the operating system, gas in the M60 and recoil in the German weapon. The bolt locking is very different, and the very awkward M60 barrel change was a poor comparison with the MG-42. I believe the M60 designers did use the German belt feed system.

2. Please be careful with rate of fire numbers, which are IMO always misleading. Sustained rate of fire, which includes matters such as reloading, barrel change, and ammo supply is the important one.

3. Comparison of the M2 with the MG-42 is not really pertinent as the latter being readily portable was the rifle platoon automatic weapon. The heavy M2 was/is more of a heavy weapons platoon element.......its portability is closer to a light mortar than to say a Bren gun. It is certainly not a rifle platoon weapon. Probably fair to say that one of the few weaknesses of the USA TO&E in WWII was lack of a good Inf Pl MG. The 30 cal was too heavy, the BAR wek on sustained fire.

4. I agree with the suggestion that the "Mama Deuce" mobility be cut down a bit. How about Fire Cost 50, movement cost 60....which might reasonably measure the setting up, whilst precluding fire AND movement

5. Gud ta hair yo ugun MucUrvan....hair er thungs un thu Shakies?