I would still argue that is very accurate, not as accurate as the bren but still accurate. From the way he was talking you couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn with it.
Yes but in the story the machine gunner was apparently missing at a range of 80 yards which is utterly unbelievable. The British solider wasn’t in cover apparently sitting out in the open, so why leave a man alive who could potentially kill you?
At the very start, there is subtitle " BRno (Czechoslovakia) ENgielf (England) = BREN" and in some of his previous videos I think he did mentioned ZB vz. 27 so he knows I guess.
BTW Cromwell tanks (and all UK tanks) used BESA which was Czechoslovakia machinegun too (vz.37). Had similar rate of fire as MG34 but was twice as heavy.
@DrFusselpulli The WH team lead by Dan get together and read the troll cave whilst eating popcorn?
Confirm or deny?
That may be true for countries like US or Russia, which are able to provide soldiers with never ending supply of ammo.
Which was not the case for Germany. Combination of high rate of fire and low precision in situation of finite amount of ammo made it not the best choice.
That’s irrelevent . A machine gunners job is not to pick people off his job is too suppress allowing his unit to manoeuvre and wipe the enemy out .
So if 30 guys are running at you the gunner job is to make them 30 hit the ground . Of course killing as many as possible in the process but that’s not his primary role .
MG-42 could do that like no other weapon . A bren gun could not .
It’s acruate to a point but they are designed to put a spread of rounds down not to pick people off .
You could still pick men off with bursts from the MG-42 but that’s not its primary role .
Troll cave 1 had a read time of over 30 hours, that would be pretty rough.
That’s not what I’m disputing, he makes it seem like you cannot hit the broad side of the barn with it, or a man at 80 yards, which of course is a crock of shit.
I’m not so sure, Germans placed far more value on their machine gun crews than the allies did. Riflemen were usually used as support not machine gun crews, which is the complete opposite of what the allies did.
You generally would not have troops running around with an mg-42 either, they were usually used in heavily fortified emplacements for defence, while the mg-34 was used more like soldiers use light machine guns today. Just look to the Normandy beaches, they weren’t using them to suppress, they were using them to kill as many as possible to prevent the beaches from being taken.
I’ve read that some veterans prefer worn barrels to increase the spread of the Bren.
But soldiers experience with Bren was good, wasn’t it? I think they liked it so it had to be effective somehow. Perhaps more as heavy assault rifle than machinegun though.
After all, there must be reason UK still used Vickers and BESA as well.
Which Combat Misson do you play? I toke a look and it seems there are more.
Multiplayer would be cool. Are there Brits? I want to shot your Spandau teams with my godlike all-mighty glorious Brens.
Deny. They don´t read the Troll-Cave at all.
True, the Bren is more accurate, but the MG-42 was not as spreading as he tell this in the video. A decent trained gunner would be able to hit a person on 80 yards with it without any problem.
Here is a comparison about where an average soldier would hit a target with an HKG3 and the MG3 (Spandau) on a distance of 328 yards on the shooting range. This is the arictmetic mean of 208 random soldiers who shot 5 bullets to the target. This is not the dispersion of the gun itself:
There is a 9% chance to hit a lying target with the Spandau on 328 yards.
The Spandau shoots 300 rounds before you have to do the barrel change. You would have 27 holes in your body if you lie on the ground in 328 yards distance just before the first barrel change on an average soldier.
If you are in a combat situation with stress, this indeed changes. In this case it will look more like that on 328 yards:
So, if you lie on the ground in a distance of 80 yards in a combat situation. You are maybe dead after 3-4 bursts if your enemy is an average soldier and not a blind shell shocked parkinson patient.
Of course . You are correct . Any weapons acruacy is hugely dependent on who is controlling it .
But the issue with the Bren was it did not have much of a spread .
For an example if you had 3 guys in a close formation walking across an open field . A decent burst from the MG-42 you could put all 3 men to death .
But with the Bren you would hit just the one guy , maybe the second .
Which also covers this point . A Bren gun on the Normandy beaches would not have the same effect . [quote=“Wenceslaus, post:588, topic:27880, full:true”]
I’ve read that some veterans prefer worn barrels to increase the spread of the Bren.
But soldiers experience with Bren was good, wasn’t it? I think they liked it so it had to be effective somehow. Perhaps more as heavy assault rifle than machinegun though.
After all, there must be reason UK still used Vickers and BESA as well.
[/quote]
I’d describe it as a bit of a love hate relationship .
It was superb at picking off multiple spread out individuals at medium range say across a field .
But when it was a close intense fight where you needed something with just that edge to make every cunt hit the deck in fear , the Bren didn’t cut it .
Where as the MG-42 ? You would be diving for the nearest door with shit running down your leg 
I agree, the the Bren is much more accurete. But the MG-42 is also accurate enough to kill someone even on greater distance very well if you wish. Fight distance on bipod is 800 meter, on Gun carriage it is up to 3000 meter. For sure, on this distances you also need luck but this would not be possible at all if the gun was such an unaccurate mess. Killing someone in a distance of 70 meter like in lindybeiges story would be easy if you are not an idiot.
You can yes I don’t dispute it . But for me if I’m judging a light support weapon I will judge it on its ability to command a battlefield and its ability to suppress a large number of enemy combatants .
So for me the MG-42 wins in every way against the Bren gun . Apart from the guy in the video I don’t think anyone would dispute it .
Besides I love the look of the MG-42
Also at the start of the war many allied troops found the MG-42 to be a night mare in regards to how many rounds it had fired . It used to be a tactic to count the rounds fired from the machine gun so they would know when the gunner was about to run out and they could make a dash , you could not do this on the MG-42 . Where it fired so fast it was impossible to keep up .
Yes. And the sound is absolutely terrifying. The first time I heard an MG3 (just a bit slower than the MG42), on the shooting range it was completely different from hearing it from movies or games. This thing is just loud and evil. As if a monster would tear up some steal with its claws or something. A dreadful barking of doom.
And it is even really strong, so it is not easy to find proper cover.
Given this information i highly doubt the main role of the machine gunner in the German army during ww2 was to suppress.
Of course it was that’s basic combat roles .
even Normandy beaches the primary defence was not the machine guns they were there to pin down any invading force until reinforcements such as a panzer division as well as artillery support can deal with them .
Of course naturally they kill a lot of men as well but there main role is to slow down and suppress.
but irrelevent of how many men you are losing a machine gun dug in will take time to get past , in that time that machine gun position can be supported and renforced costing the attacking force valuable time .
they’re there to suppress allowing supporting units to move more freely and command the battlefield . That’s why they say a firefight is won by who can put down the most rounds .
No they did not use machine guns the way you’re describing them. Riflemen were used as support to protect their flanks, while the machine gunners were tasked with killing as many as possible. The allies were the ones who generally had their machine guns suppress so the riflemen could move in and deal with the enemy.
Weren’t the panzer divisions stationed in Holland at the time of the invasion? Most of the German defenses on the beaches were stationary guns, they did not really have tanks rolling around. Most of the casualties on the beaches came from the machine guns.
No they were not . They was stationed close by they were never moved because they were under the persona control of hitler and all his staff was to scared to wake him up . [quote=“SirWarriant, post:598, topic:27880”]
No they did not use machine guns the way you’re describing them. Riflemen were used as support to protect their flanks, while the machine gunners were tasked with killing as many as possible. The allies were the ones who generally had their machine guns suppress so the riflemen could move in and deal with the enemy.
[/quote]
No I’m afraid you’re wrong @SirWarriant .
I’m almost positive the bulk of the panzers were stationed quite far from Normandy during the invasion. Remember they did not expect the allies there, they were 100% sure the invasion was going to be at Calais.
Go down to squad tactics, supports both our arguments to some degree. The Germans usually kept the machine gunners in front, while the riflemen were used as support.
