Andrew Kinnie

I am looking for a way to get the Armor and Gunnery book. Is this still available someplace? I also am curious about armor penetration vs. types of armor, etc.

Cool website. Thanks Andreas. Seems to me that question has been more or less answered. While the M1 was clearly superior to bolt action rifles, automatic weapons and volume of fire were better still. A U.S. squad with one BAR and 10 rifleman could not match the volume of fire of a German squad with its LMG, particularly when the squad had some MP44s as well. </font>

I agree. The MG-42 was good because it was a mobile true LMG. However, the advantages of rate of fire are offset by the disadvantages in general. The point I was making with the watercooled weapons and american .50s was that they had advantages that made them better in other situations. I think an emplaced well supplied water cooled .30 or a .50 is a more effective defensive MG than an MG-42. in any event, good points all around.

I didn't think it was getting uncivil, off topic or spiralling out of control. I don't have a clue what you're talking about with the cooler camo statement, but lets not talk bias. clearly there is a bias on both sides. WAIT! I know, maybe you meant a cooler BARREL.... In which case, yep you're right. A cooler barrel makes a better HMG...hence, water cooled.

Most battles were not fought from behind brick walls. The shear number of rounds that the MG-42 could fire was substantialy more then any other MachineGun of the War. Remember, the MachineGuns main prupose is to shoot at enemy soldiers, not the far less numerous half tracks. The MG-42 by all acounts from all sides was said and documented to be the deadliest MachineGun in World War2. This is an unbiased statement mind you. It has not escaped my attention that some refer to these posts as Pro Axis units, wich i'm sure you've all seen your fair share of. If anyone here can post some reading material that tells of the .50 cal or any other MG being superior to the MG-42 please enlighten me.</font>

Sure, they shouldn't be confused. My point again is that the role of an HMG is different from an LMG. The water-cooled weapons were better HMGs, and MG-42 was a better LMG. Both have advantages, the MG-42 is largely its mobility. I don't buy the higher rate of fire argument due to the aforementioned reasons. I'm not confusing tactical with operational (I know much more about tactics anyway). The MG-42 did present tactical problems. However, so did the BAR attached to a squad full of guys with semi-auto rifles. To me, it's not clear which is better or more effective. An american squad was more effective across the board, the german squad had a more effective automatic weapon. Incidentally, the BAR IIRC was a more mobile weapon than an MG-42, but also didn't really serve quite the same role (and was clip fed, not belt fed). I think people get to hung up on the MG-42's rate of fire and ignore the disadvantages. Clearly the american posed a problem for the germans or they would not hbave clocked the germans in the ardennes, and in the other counterattacks. You should remember that the americans beat the germans tactically, and solved the problems posed, where the reverse really isn't true. Incidentally, I'm concentrating on the americans here because I'm not as well versed on the British. Though I realize they, the canadians, and the French did quite well as well.

OK, I should have said "in common use as an infantry weapon." The original post was about mg-42, and they were not HMGs in any real sense.

I completely agree about the weight. The HMGs are not for a mobile attack, and therefore are not squad weapons. As I mentioned, the MG-42 was the best squad weapon. But again, not hugely so, and the armies with water-cooled weapons should see them with advantages in CM when used. They are better than MG-42s as HMGs (because the MG42 wasn't one, and couldn't serve in that role.) As for the "german's were defending emplaced positions" argument, here is where I totally disagree on two bases... 1. The Germans were not always defending, as they (like the americans) had a very offensive minded defensive doctrine. Counterattacks are the way to win, not sitting around in emplaced positions. That being said, the germans of 1944 were not that good at their own defensive doctrine. They were nowhere near as mobile as the americans (whether or not you consider the effect of airpower). When they didn't counterattack, they lost. Over and over again. When they did counterattack, they lost. Over and over again. Read about the the Ardennes offensive, and the complete failure of the germans to reduce american defensive positions, despite ridiculous advantages in numbers. The americans were more flexible and better at defending (IMHO). 2. As for americans attacking, they generally won convincingly. Yes, there are a lot of examples of small numbers of germans holding up large numbers of allies (though none that I can remember like the americans in the ardennes), in general, americans could and did beat the germans, without overwhelming numbers. Read "When the Odds Were Even" by Keith Bonn, or any of another half a dozen or so books I could name that came out in the past decade or so (and presumably others I'm not aware of). I haven't clue about the optics. It's possible, but it seems to me, any automatic weapon is not a sniper rifle. Pinpoint accuracy is not needed, just a reliable way to cover a beaten zone. A water-coolled weapon could do this extremely effectively. An MG-42 could only do it in short bursts, or would be wildly inaccurate, and burn the barrel. The higher rate of fire could make up for some, but not all of this.

The MG-42 was a very good mg, but it was not head and shoulders above everything else. It seems there has been a tendency to assume everything german in wwii was militarily the best. Simply not true. 1. Too high a rate of fire (which is why the post war replacement and the the US m-60 are much lower in rate of fire).... Could not fire sustained because of the waste of ammo (the squad would be rendered helpless almost immediately even if it could), the enormous kick made it stupidly inaccurate when fired for much more than a split-second, and the fact that it is air-cooled meant the barrels would need to be replaced every few seconds of such fire. 2. Air-cooled + higher rate of fire = very short bursts....contrast with Maxim guns or the US 30 HMG (IMHO the germans did not have a true HMG) which were water cooled and could fire essentially all day (and had the ammo with which to do it), remember WW I ??? 3. Other weapons that aren't normally considered squad weapons are thus not included in the comparisons with the mg-42....the US .50 terrified the germans, with good reason. It could blow through things that the mg-42 would bounce off, and if it hit someone, would tear them apart much more than a weapon firing a smaller caliber round would. If the MG-42 gets special effects, so should the .50, and any water cooled weapon. IMHO, the US .30 and Maxim guns should be much more effective than the mg-42 because of their constant fire ability. However, they should be tougher to move/set up (with the possible exception of the maxim which had wheels). 4. German squads primarily acted as protection or as ammo-carriers for the MG-42, and were otherwise far less able to throw out firepower than US squads, for example, who all carried semi-automatic rifles. This also should be reflected. All in all, I'm far from convinced that a german platoon with all its support, should be more effective than a US platoon with its support, for example.

For what it's worth, I won't buy BB because it won't be OS X native, but would if it was.....in a heart beat. For the record, you don't need a dp machine to get the advantages of X. I'm typing this on an iMac 400, and spend the rest of my time on an iBook (which also doubles as a cocoa development machine). X is fabulous. Andrew

OK, fair enough. I didn't know it was QuickDraw 3D RAVE. Bummer. Well I hope eventually it can be done. Good Luck! Andrew

Greetings.... I was wondering if and when you'll be carbonizing Combat Mission to run on Mac OS X natively? If you don't have current plans to do so, I'd be willing to help.... Andrew Kinnie