WW2 American, British, Soviet and German Rifle Squad FIREPOWER Comparison

Here we examine the squad/section/gruppe size of the US, British, Soviet and German armies in WW2 and see which could theoretically put the most firepower into the air. Then we'll think about how this may have impacted the way the soldiers would have fought. Obviously this is just theoretical. In reality, nobody would fire all their bullets as quickly as possible, and you'd rarely find a situation where both sides just lined up perfectly to fire at each other. However, it could still offer us some insights into the way the troops fought.

⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).

- - - - -

📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚

Bull, S. "World War II Infantry Tactics: Squad and Platoon." Osprey Publishing, 2004.
Glantz, D. “Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941-1943.” University Press of Kansas, 2005.
Glantz, D. “The Companion to Colossus Reborn.” University Press of Kansas, 2005.
Grant, N. "The Bren Gun." Osprey Publishing, Ebook.
Harriman, B. "The Mosin-Nagant Rifle." Bloomsbury Publishing, Ebook 2016.
McNab, C. "German Soldier versus Soviet Soldier: Stalingrad 1942-43." Osprey Publishing, 2017.
McNab, C. "MG34 and MG42 Machine Guns." Osprey Publishing, 2012.
Pegler, M. "The Thompson Submachine Gun." Osprey Publishing, Ebook.
Quesada, “MP 38 and MP 40 Submachine Guns,” P43.
Rottman, G. "World War II Infantry Assault Tactics." Osprey Publishing, 2008.
Thompson, L. "The Sten Gun." Osprey Publishing, Ebook.
Zaloga, S. “The Red Army of the Great Patriotic War 1941-5.” Osprey Publishing, 2001.
Zagola, S. & Ness, L. “Companion to the Red Army 1939-1945.” The History Press, 2009.

- - - - -

⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐

This video isn't sponsored (or monetized, due to the nature of the video). My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from YouTube ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos (note: I'm behind with the Q&A's right now, and have a lot of research to do to catch up, so there will be a delay in answering questions). There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.

Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!

- - - - -

ABOUT TIK 📝

History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.

This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.

[TheImperatorKnight]

I was going to talk more about squad tactics (which is why I said I would at the beginning of the video). However, when I dived into the editing, I decided that it would be better to do this in another video. So this video will lead onto a video about squads and platoons, and possibly companies. Then I can answer a Patreon question regarding the ability of the Allies and the Axis to coordinate all arms in an attack.

As always, if you guys have book recommendations regarding these topics, let me know!

[erikkritter]

TIK, growing up I knew my godfather had been a paratrooper during the second world war. He never would talk to me about his experiences during the war until as a young man I returned home after enlisting in the United States Marine Corps. He volunteered for the army the day he heard of the Japanese Bombing of Pearl Harbor. Almost a year later he was in the 509th and jumped into North Africa during operation Torch. There he suffered wounds and was evacuated. After recovery he was transferred to the 505th and jumped into Sicily during operation Husky. There he served until he was transferred to England after being wounded again later in the Sicilian campaign. Upon his recovery he was to be sent back to the US to serve as an instructor, but he refused and asked for another combat assignment. His final combat jump was with the 101st into Normandy. He said they were dropped several miles away from where they were supposed to be and he and others tried to fight their way back to Allied Forces by moving north east. They didn't make it. He and five others that he was with were captured after being ambushed. He said they had about a dozen when they were ambushed and that something knocked him unconscious. He thought it was a grenade because he had a few grenade fragments in him when he awoke as a prisoner of the Germans. He remained a prisoner until the end of the war. He was wounded twice more in escape attempts.

What he told me about the German squad based firepower was simply this:

"The bastards would set up one MG in a strong position where they could 'pound hell' out of us. That damned thing put out more fire by itself than one of our squads combined. They always had plenty of ammo for it .... I guess every man in their squad carried a lot of ammo for it. We learned to look for ways to flank the damned things because to go straight at it was suicide. The bastards knew we would do this so they would have another MG (or two) set up so that the flanking approaches were all beaten zones for the other MGs. They were very good at setting this up. We would have to work at it to find something they missed (which was rare) or go on long looping flanking movements which slowed us down and ran a huge risk of finding more Jerry positions. Usually the best thing to do was to find the damned MGs mark them and request mortar or artillery fire to knock them out. Then as soon as the mortars (or arty) finished, rush the bastards and finish them off before any survivors could take over the MGs. That didn't always work as well as we hoped. The bastards always had good cover and concealment. You had to go in as fast as you could. So fast that you risked getting blown up by our own fire. It was the only good way. We couldn't find a better one."

I'm fairly sure the only reason he started talking to me was that he was trying to tell me how to survive.... but once he started talking it was like the floodgates opened and he couldn't stop. For years I would go visit he and my godmother and after dinner he would always motion for me to follow him and he would collect a bottle of something or other and we would sip and swap stories in his study or on the porch. He told me of specific actions he was involved in and it always ended with him quiet with tears in his eyes but never openly crying. I think I was the only person he ever talked to about it that wasn't there. His wife later told me that she used to go sit in the next room and quietly listen to us. She said he had never been able to talk to her about his experiences. He only ever told her that it was horrible and not for women.

[Nomad]

>TIK mentions the MG-42
>immediately suffer PTSD flashbacks to having both barrels on my '42 melt while playing Red Orchestra

[Shinito]

Funny how the side with the fastest firing MG had the worst logistics.

[flashbackhistory]

1:45 - 500 rpm is a VERY generous ROF for an MG 34/42 being used as a light machine gun. Consider the limiting factors:

1) Ammunition. When used as light machine guns, the MG 34 and MG 42 usually used 50-round belts (the MG 34 also had a 75-round saddle drum), which had to be reloaded after every 7-10 bursts. Longer belts could be used when in static positions, of course.

2) Barrel changes. The MG 34/42's high rate of fire required frequent barrel changes. In general, barrels had to be swapped out every 250 rounds, although this could be pushed to 400 rounds in an emergency. In other words, barrels had to be changed every 1.5 to 2.5 minutes when at the max effective ROF, with each barrel change taking 5-15 seconds (and possibly more if the crew was green, had cold fingers, etc.)

3) Controlability. Even when fired from a bipod, the MG 34/42 could be difficult to control during longer bursts. Some squads apparently carried tripods, but their use would obviously have been restricted to certain situations.


This ROF is actually comparable to the BAR's max effective rate of fire. See FM 23-15, the June 1943 field manual for the M1918A2: "The most effective rate of fire for this weapon is from 120 to 150 rounds-per minute. The sustained rate, however, is from 40 to 60 rounds per minute."

The MG 34/42's advantage didn't really lie it its rate of fire, but in the inherent advantages of a belt-fed design with interchangeable barrels. In an extended firefight or at the crescendo of an assault, those features came in handy, allowing for short periods of very intense fire or longer, more measured engagements. And even then, German squads in the East sometimes supplemented their firepower with liberated LMGs like the DP 28. Even with the MG 34/42, they still felt they needed more automatic firepower!

8:10 - 30 rounds per minute is a reasonable figure for the M1 (it's the one quoted in Bond's 1943 Infantry Basic Course). But it's the highest reasonable figure. The 1940 M1 manual, for example, gives the lower figure of 25 rounds per minute as the maximum effective rate of aimed fire.

The M1's real advantage over the Mauser was arguably not ROF. Rather, it was that the M1 was significantly more accurate (lower felt recoil and no need to risk losing sight picture by working the bolt). The head-to-head test between the Mauser-action M1903 and the M1 published in the September-October 1940 edition of Army Ordnance showed this. M1 shooters took about 15% fewer shots to hit their targets and they did it faster!

Carrying two BARs wasn't just a product of scrounging. It was effectively doctrine. June 1944, most American rifle squads actually had TWO BARs! Each company HQ had a pool of 6 spare BARs it could dole out (enough for 2/3 squads to get a second BAR).

In a similar vein, Thompsons also weren't formally issued to squad leaders. Indeed, it wasn't until June 1944 that non-Ranger infantry were formally issued submachine guns at all! Like the extra BARs, these SMGs were officially kept at Company HQ and doled out as company leadership saw fit. A lot of squad leaders had to (or chose to) carry M1s.

Don't forget the two M7 grenade launchers issued to each squad, either! Starting in mid-1943, these gave GIs more long-range explosive firepower than any other squad-sized formation of the war (the Germans typically only had one per squad). The M7 could fire HE, frag, or HEAT grenades 200+ yards. And some GIs even rigged them up to fire 60mm mortar bombs!

10:50 - Prior to 1944, the Soviets did have classic LMG + rifle squads (in addition to all/mostly SMG units). However, by the late war, the Soviets no longer had all-rifle (and LMG) squads. They usually mixed SMGs and longer-ranged weapons at a roughly 1:2 or 1:3 ratio. For example, a mid-1944 rifle platoon had 9-13 SMGs to complement its 17-21 rifles, 2 sniper rifles, and 6 LMGs.

[podemosurss]

10:29 They were a lot of changes on Soviet squads during WW2. I thing the closest one you could choose is the 1941 model, which is similar to the German. Here is the most common display:
-1 Squad leader (PPSh-41).
-2 Submachinegunners (PPSh-41)
-1 Machinegunner (DP-27)
-1 Assistant (MN-91/30)
-5 Riflemen (MN-91/30)
The MN-91/30 could be switched with the SVT-40, though only guards, airborne and motor rifle units used the SVT-40. If we keep the MN-91/30 we have:
1x200 (Machinegunner)
3x150 (PPSh-41)
5x10 (MN-91/30)
That´s 700 rounds per minute, so not so far from the Germans if we go with a 1941 rifle squad. If we go with a 1941 motor rifle squad, then it's SVT-40 which was a semiautomatic rifle like the American M1, with a 10-round magazine, so it could be around 20 to 30 rounds per minute. Going by maximum, it would be a total of 800 rounds per minute, so not bad.


In 1942 2 more soldiers were added, plus the unit's equipment was no longer fixed (except for the MG). The "payback" is that they went from 4 squads per platoon to 3.

As for tactics, what they did was "human wave" done right: in order to attack a position defended by an enemy unit, another unit of higher order would be sent (for instance, if a squad is defending, a platoon is sent), with the sub-units turning for fire and maneuvre (the Germans did the same thing of fire and maneuvre).

Edit: I found an error in the comment: Soviet squads by 1941 template were 11 men, not 10. Here are the numbers of firepower:
With MN-91/30: 710
With SVT-40: 830
Also, please note that the version of the MN is the MN-91/30, and the tests shown are for the MN-91/24 (Finnish version), so there would be differences.

[gwtpictgwtpict]

I agree with your basic conclusion, in a max rounds down range in a minute competition the German section wins, but I think some some of the fire rates you've gone with are wrong. The only one I can speak directly to is the Bren, in the early 1980's I played soldiers in the OTC (Officer Training Corps) at university and our section LMG was a Bren re-chambered for 7.62 NATO. The number two on the Bren would not be firing his rifle, but observing and dropping fresh magazines in when the gunner knocks the empty one out, very easy on a Bren. Six magazines a minute is achievable, seven is possible with a well drilled team. So, drop the number two's 15 rounds from the total and add 56 or 84 to the Bren total. Just a point from personal experience, I enjoyed the video :-)

[lorgaraurelian]

For the Russian squad, it is more complicated. As far as I know, we had whole squads armed with PPShs and PPSs for room/trench clearing and "field" squads armed as described in this video. The PPSh has twice the rate of fire as MP-40 does. Also, many of our riflemen had the Tokarev auto-rifle similar to US Garand one.

[johnlansing]

Hi. Having the luck to talk with WW2 veterans I was told one of the great things about the BAR was that on single fire it was able to blend into the squad then when a target showed itself they would go to auto fire thus causing the enemy the problem of locating the squad strongpoint

[Goknub]

I believe the comparison needs to be done at the Company level. Most nations held their machine-guns in dedicated squads/platoons not in the standard infantry squad like the Germans.

Comparing standard squads misses this firepower and gives an inaccurate impression of overwhelming advantage laying with the Germans.

[.R]

Please don't tell Lindybeige about the superiority of the MG42 over the BREN. ;-)

[PickleRick]

TIK, not sure where you're getting your numbers, MP-38/40= 500 rpm, Sten= 500-600 rpm, Thompson M1= 700-800 rpm

[vassilizaitzev]

This reminds me of a book my brother read and I started called "Monty's Men." by John Buckley. It focuses on the British Army in Europe from 1944 to 1945. I believe the argument was that the British used set piece battles with artillery as the key factor to cut down on casualties. My brother mentioned the theme as, "Make enough of an impact to have a place at the political table when war is over, but for gods sake don't bleed the army white." I've only read the first 50 pages, but I believe Buckley mentions about the German small arms firepower. If I recall correctly, it came at a price with other elements of the German army suffering from supply and production problems. Artillery I think took a hit. I'll see if I can't find the passage and quote it in a follow up post. Hope all is well Tik!

[GarethThompson-uw]

I think 500 rounds per minute for the MG42 is a bit optimistic. Yes, it had a stupidly high cyclic rate. But in its light machinegun configuration (which it would be in while supporting a regular rifle squad) it ammunition comes in 50 round units. It takes time to change out the belt on a belt fed weapon, longer than it takes to swap out a magazine. In order to fire 500 rounds in a minute they would have to load and fire a new 50 round belt every six seconds. That means they aren't firing in bursts, but expending all 50 rounds in a continuous 2 second stream (assuming a cyclic rate of 1500rpm), then speed loading the next belt in 4 seconds flat, then expending another 50 round belt in another 2 seconds. Somehow going through ten 50 round belts in a minute without melting all of their barrels.

500 rounds may be about right for the MG42 in its heavy machinegun configuration (mounted on a tripod, with the belt held in a 250 round box, and with a whopping six spare barrels on hand (meaning that you can afford to overheat each barrel much faster, since it will take longer to cycle back to the first barrel)). But for an MG42 in the LMG configuration (mounted on a bipod with the belt held in a 50 round drum attached to the gun) I think about 200 rounds in a minute might be more realistic. I vaguely recall a source somewhere suggesting 250 rounds in a minute as the practical rate of fire for an MG42 in an LMG configuration, which passes a sanity check. 250 rounds would mean going through each 50 round drum in about 12 seconds. If we assume half of that is firing and half of that is loading we get a much more reasonable 6 seconds to open the feed tray, detach the old drum, attach the new drum, pull the new belt into the feed tray, close the feed tray, and charge the bolt. And you expend each 50 round drum in a more reasonable 6 seconds (firing bursts rather than a continuous stream). 250 rounds per minute still doesn't leave much time for barrel changes, so I still think 200 rounds is probably more practical.

Having seen British, American, and German infantry firepower for myself in simulated combat (Combat Mission series) I have my own opinions on them. The British are definitely at the bottom of the firepower ladder here. The MG42 clearly has more firepower than the Bren, and the marginal superiority of the SMLE over the Kar98k is not enough to make up the difference. But they aren't at the full 1:2 disadvantage you estimated here. The Bren makes up some of its disadvantage in sheer rate of fire by being able to keep up a more continuous and sustained fire (magazine swaps (especially with the assistant gunner helping) are much faster than replacing belts, and the slower rate of fire doesn't overheat the barrel as quickly, meaning there are fewer barrel changes (overall there are just fewer and shorter interruptions in the fire)). It is possible for the British to gain the upper hand with sound tactics and by concentrating two or more Brens on each MG42. In practical terms I'd say that the German infantry squad is only perhaps 20% to 30% better than the British infantry squad.

I have to put the Germans in the middle. The German infantry squad is certainly more powerful than the British infantry squad, but it doesn't feel as powerful as the American infantry squad. The issue for them is that all of that firepower is concentrated in a single weapon. If the machinegun is in a bad position, that compromises the effectiveness of the entire squad. When the machinegun needs to move, the entire squad is effectively out of the fight until it reaches its new position. If the machinegunner gets hit, the entire squad is rendered combat ineffective unless/until someone is able to retrieve the machinegun. The machinegun is a single point of failure for the Germans that makes their squad less flexible and more brittle overall.

I really have to put the American squad on top. I think the overall firepower of a German and American squad may be about the same. I can't quite tell if the American squad as slightly more firepower overall, or if the German squad has slightly more firepower overall (yes the Germans are probably firing a greater number of bullets per minute, but one bullet from a rifle seems to be worth more than one bullet from a machinegun). But since the American firepower is (mostly) evenly distributed among the riflemen, there is no single point of failure like on the German squad. No single casualty can render the squad combat ineffective. Any part of the squad has enough firepower to transition smoothly from being a maneuver element to being a base of fire. Overall, it is just more flexible and resilient than the German squad. And frankly, it's pretty hard to argue with universally issued semi-automatic rifles in an era in which most armies are still equipped with bolt-action rifles.

Again though, I think the American squad's advantage is marginal. It is probably only about 10-20% better than the German squad. Overall I think the three armies are a more or less even match for each other in terms of equipment. If the Germans had a significant advantage, it was in the fact that they were on the defensive on most fronts by the time American troops get stuck in.

Edit: Oh yes, and I have to call out the American airborne infantry squad as probably being the most powerful in the world. On top of having universal semi-automatic rifles like the regular infantry, they also had a decent light machinegun at the squad level in the M1919. The M1919 may not quite be the equal to the MG42, but it closes the gap in automatic firepower by enough that the semi-automatic firepower of the M1 Garand has a very easy time pushing the US airborne infantry squad over the threshold of having far more firepower than any other infantry squad in the world. The late-war Marine infantry squad, with three BARs to a squad, is also pretty damn powerful. A single BAR provides pretty meager firepower compared to either the Bren or MG42. But three BARs is much more intimidating.

[gaiusquintilliuslupus]

I am a simple man, when I see TIK, I prepare my Halder hate.

[NexusBreeze]

Unfortunate that the Italians and Japanese are missing.

[charlesphillips]

As I have said before, the small arms equivalent of “amateurs talk tactics, professionals study logistics.” is “amateurs talk rate of fire, professionals study ammunition supply.” Section level tactics emphasise controlling the section's fire, i.e. not everybody shoots at once in order to conserve ammunition. If your section is backed by a good logistics system to keep them supplied, they can fire more. The US probably had the best logistics and the Soviets the worst, however circumstances vary.

Looking at your rates of fire from automatic weapons your numbers seem a bit odd. You have SMG gunners firing 6 magazines a minute, but the Bren can only fire 4 despite having an assistant and a convenient top mounted magazine. While the BAR only manages 3. Note cyclic rate is virtually irrelevant, the important times are changing the magazines and selecting targets. I suspect the Bren is the realistic number and the SMG are likely to be 3 magazines a minute, like the BAR.

You also need to look at the number of magazines, the MP40 issue is 6 magazines, so even if he could fire all 6 in the first minute he would then have a long pause while he reloaded the magazines. Conversely the Bren and BAR would have a large number.

While an MG42 could fire 500 rpm if it had enough ammunition and long enough belts and the gunner was not spending any time selecting targets. Using 50 round belts one would be struggling to manage 10 belt changes. Also firing at that rate the barrel would overheat in the first minute, requiring a barrel change, assuming they are carrying a spare.

Overall you would be better looking at how much ammunition the section carries, that how fast it could fire it, if it were crazy enough.

[jonathanbirkeland]

Firstly, great channel and I enjoy your content immensely. However, I do have some feedback for this video based on my own research and experiences working with rifles, rifle squads and machine guns both recreationally and as a US Marine.

1. Rates of fire for squad leaders shouldn't count. The squad leader of any squad is using his weapon only when personally required to such as during the final stages of an assault, or in self defense. At all other times his role is to direct the fire of the squad. This is why the squad leader is usually armed with a submachine gun. It is handier and more compact which allows the leader to be more mobile running around and directing the actions of his squad. Submachine guns are also ideal for close-in work such as self defense and in the final stages of an assault or defense where the squad leader is most likely to be needing to personally engage the enemy. It's a win-win, since the leader has the worst weapon for long range, but is expected to be directing fire and maneuver when the squad is engaged at longer ranges (ranges greater than 100 yards/meters) and has the best weapon for close range when he is actually going to use it.

1b. US Army squad leaders would've carried an M1 rifle, not a submachine gun. US Marines were different during different times in the war, but still usually would've also had an M1 rifle by the mid-late war period.

2. Rate of fire values for the bolt action and semi-automatic rifles seems reasonable, but the values for the light machine guns and automatic rifles is all over the place. From a practical use perspective, rate of fire of a support weapon is a function of how fast the gun actually fires, how easy it is to reload, how much ammunition is available and how often the weapon needs to have it's barrel changed due to overheating.

2b. Guns don't exactly jam when they overheat like they do in some video games, but they do tend to destroy their barrel by basically melting it. After a certain point the barrel will no longer shoot anywhere near the point of aim and eventually warp so badly that it won't shoot any kind of a group at all and becomes only as accurate as a smooth bore musket.

2c. Cyclic rate of fire, rapid rate of fire and sustained rate of fire are often confused, and lead to many contradictions. The short version of the story is, that although different automatic weapons have different cyclic rates of fire (how many rounds per minute the gun could theoretically fire if it were fired in one long, uninterrupted burst for 60 seconds) the practical sustained rate of fire is usually around 100 rounds per minute and the practical rapid rate of fire is around 200 rounds per minute. Basically, the faster the cyclic rate of fire is, the more time you end up wasting letting the gun cool off, change barrels and spend reloading. This is why after WWII, most light/medium/general purpose machine guns have a cyclic rate of fire between 500 and 700 rounds per minute.

3. Doctrinally the US had a very different view on how to arm a rifle squad and stand out as different than all other squads of the era. A standard squad of the era is a gun team that the squad is based around while the US had a flipped approach where the rifle was the focus and had an automatic rifle in the team in order to give the squad a bit of a boost in firepower, without limiting mobility. The debate on this is still a hot topic for a lot of people, but considering how little each warring nation actually changed their rifle squads during the war, it is safe to say that each side was more or less satisfied with their performance.

Conclusions:

Under most circumstances each squad had fairly even performance, with the best "standard squad" being a tie between the British and the Germans, where it mostly came down to a duel between the BREN and the MG34 or MG42, with the British riflemen having a slightly better rifle and the Germans a slightly better light machine gun. The US squad was at least equally as effective as the British and German squads, but isn't as easy to compare because it was fundamentally different in design and purpose. The Soviets are unfortunately the losers having the worst rifle and worst light machine gun. The M91/30 Mosin-Nagant is easily the worst bolt action rifle of the main powers due to it's sticky action and the DP-28 is about on par with the US BAR since both suffer from not having a quick change barrel, which limits the time that a rapid rate of fire can be sustained.

Below are my estimates of more realistic rates of fire for individual weapons.

All Submachine Guns NA (see point 1)

US BAR 100 rpm
M1 Rifle 30 rpm

German MG34 or MG42 200 rpm
German Kar98k 10 rpm

British BREN 150 rpm
British Lee-Enfield 15 rpm (No1MkIII or No4MkI)

Soviet DP-28 100 rpm
Soviet M91/30 Mosin-Nagant 10 rpm


Keep up the great work on the channel and don't take this as an attack on yourself or your work. I invite you to visit me in the US someday ( Fall of 2022 when I get back from Okinawa? :) ) and we can go shooting from my collection and you can get some hands on time with some historical firearms.

I'll even pay for all your ammo. ;)

[mattbabcock]

As an American Soldier (this is a mid-1980s snapshot), I was qualified expert on the M16, the M60 machine gun, and the M1911(.45) / Baretta(9mm) weapons. During my training with Fernspähkompanie 100, I also qualified for the Schützenschnur in Gold (German Marksmanship Badge).

Area suppression note: The "3-round burst" (vs. full auto), introduced on the M16A2, was to reduce "spray and pray" ammunition waste.

I found the German rifle less capable than the M16 and the pistol sloppy (I don't remember the rifle or pistol model numbers), but I really enjoyed the MG3. Assigned at the time as the primary gunner for an M60 team, I was impressed by the overall firepower and feel of the MG3. I was "told" that the cyclic rate was double what I was used to, and it certainly felt like it.

Forty years after WWII ended, the continued contrast between the the American and German infantry squad weapons remain. Tactically, in the attack the Americans hold the overall firepower advantage (my experience is only with these American and German weapons). I found that the M16 and M60 could be fired accurately on the move, whereas their rifle was a bit clunky and the MG3 could only be fired from non-mobile (bipod, tripod, or fixed) positions. Brief mobile attempts at firing the MG3 were neither accurate nor able to be prolonged. However, in a defensive posture, I would have preferred the MG3.

Source: Me, and only for the weapons covered/compared at that moment in time.

[Devsfan]

Ok, just home for lunch here on the East coast US, and get to see another interesting video from TIK !