I like tactical machine guns.
By 'tactical', I don't mean some stupid Maglite or a knife. I mean something you can really use, and that will make a difference. I am reminded of a paraphrased Peter Kokalis quote, "Rifles that shoot full auto waste ammo; real machine guns, properly placed, win battles".
The ZB 26, as seen here (please tune out the bombastic music) was what is called a 'squad automatic'. It is an offensive weapon, designed for covering fire. The British version, the BREN, was to be a squad automatic; by the end of WWII the ambition by the British Army was to have ONE BREN gun for every 8 men.
That's a lot of fire. Believe me.
The Soviet model, based on ideas dating back to WWI, had a suppressive fire idea: not unlike the 'walking fire' idea the French had settled on with the Chauchat. The BAR, by the way, originally was nothing more than a product-improved version of the Chauchat. These squad guns got implemented very differently than their original intents, as always happens; and they developed to be the base of suppressive fire for crawling squads of infantry.
I like heavy machine guns, and I like the planning, thinking, and land tactics that go into placing them. I have no interest at all in the so-called 'glory' of war, and I think in mechanical terms. I'm not a coward, or at least I like to think I'm not, although I always feel like one; I hate being afraid, and in the past I've been so afraid I don't have the vocabulary to describe it.
However, I like heavy machine guns, or at least General Purpose Machine Guns (GPMG's) applied as such, and I appreciate fine machinery; and I like this gun.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice, although I wonder how the magazine messes with the gunners field of view.
ReplyDeleteWhat of the MG34/42 (these may fit your definition of heavy and not squad weapons), or the Browning .30 1919A6?
I have no personal knowledge of war, but I am interested in how and why we go to war, and how they are waged.
How and why we go to war? Well, really, that's a subject completely as of itself. And ultimately has nothing to do with machine guns.
ReplyDeleteI like the MG42 quite a lot, although the original version had a far too high rate of fire. 1220rpm is like a sewing machine. The Yugo version has a rate reducer, bringing it down around 8-900 rpm.
The Browning 1919 series I have no experience with whatsoever. I understand they are fine machines, but... I have no personal hands-on with them at all. I should, probably.
Good point about the field of view;
If you look closely at the top of the gun, you will see the sights are offset; as for the magazine being in the way, it's obvious to me the gun is designed for right-handed shooters only. The original design was for a gunner and loader, and I can only assume the loader was also something of a spotter.
Jud, you bring up a very valid point: if the gunner's field of view is obstructed by the magazine, how can you assess threats? I would figure it would lead to a great deal of waggling back and forth on the bipod, taking a look around; and actually, as I think writing this, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Tunnel vision is a huge problem in combat, and if the very design of the weapon requires the user to shift out of a visual mindset, so much the better.
Huh. I've never fired a vertical magazine weapon, so I don't know. Maybe that's why I think it's cool: it's different.
Possible.
As a Browning 1919A4 Machine gun owner, I can sing the guns' praises (simplicity, reliability, accuracy and ruggedness) all day.
ReplyDeleteI can also bitch about it's weight, headspace issues and other quirks.
But in a defensive position, there are few medium guns that I'd rather have.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete