How accurate is this? Lloyd says that the Germans lost land on the Western Front so quickly because when the machine-gun was knocked out, the rest of the section would retreat.
Here's the link:
https://youtu.be/VXQygRVvEmM?t=7m15s
>>1200168
If you had experience in Infantry tactics you would understand that the Machine Gun is what you entire platoon is based around. And if the enemy has one and you don't you are fucked. The MG causes 70% of the causaulties your unit makes.
So yeah they would retreat once the opposing force had the only MG
>>1200984
>The MG causes 70% of the causaulties your unit makes.
That's not true, especially in WW2. The MG is meant to suppress the enemy while your infantry flank with rifles, grenades and SMGs to kill them. The MG providing 70% of sustained firepower is more realistic.
>>1200168
I don't think he says that
But the Germans didn't lose land on the Western Front very quickly, the premise is flawed if you're not just strawmanning.
>>1201145
>>1201140
My bad, he said consistently, not quickly.
>>1200168
>How accurate is this? Lloyd says
That's all I need to know that whatever you're linking, its certainly not accurate.
the man is an idiot with a rare gift for speaking in ways that sound like he actually knows what he's talking about, even when he is completely wrong.
>>1200168
He makes that insinuation that British mgs must have been better than German ones since they won the war. He conveniently forgets their spanking at Dunkirk or the channel dash between then and the Normandy landings. Not to mention allied air power and 1000 other reasons why the Germans lost wwii which had nothing to do with spandaus.
>>1201123
>WWII
We're talking WWI mate. The British didn't start experimenting with mixed unit tactics until Cambri
>>1202870
>Bren/MG34
>WWI
>casualties
But weren't the large majority of casualties from artillery?
