Which made the better vehicle mounted machine gun, the MG42 or the M2 .50 cal?
The MG42 had of course a much higher rate of fire, making it more suitable for suppressing infantry and throwing more lead down range. But the Germans noted how the M2 had much better ability to penetrate light armor and defenses.
Should your vehicle mounted machine guns have a higher rate of fire or better penetration power?
I am reminded of the fact that even today the M134 tends to land significantly more hits than an M2 at similar distances.
>>30168749
M2, besides penetrating light armor, the psychological effects on the enemy after seeing their buttbudies torn to bits by the caliber, plus effective range of 3km
>>30168749
Not even close, M2. Better in every category except weight/ROF and that can be remedied via aircraft variants that could just as easily be used. Weight doesn't really matter when vehicles are so heavy anyway.
>>30168749
M2, better for dealing with light vehicles and has actual utility in the anti air role, plus everyone has a coax 7.62
MG34 stayed the main vehicle-mounted MG when the MG42 started to displace it in the infantry role. Accuracy and (lack of)dirt tolerance informed this decision.
>for close-in defence against infantry:
MG34
>for keeping those pesky aircraft away:
M2
>>30168749
M2 simply because it can double as an anti-vehicle weapon in a pinch. Both are pretty good at sweeping up infantry and the MG 42 is arguably better as far as mid-range lethality goes (more bullets=more chances to hit) but if an armored car pops up with a back full of soldiers and anti-tank weapons it's good to know you can tear right through that tin car.
>>30168749
Is that a fucking Chaffee?
What the fuck is that thing?
>>30170739
It's a movie tank
>>30170770
That makes a bit more sense.
What movie, I am morbidly curious now.
>>30169073
Much of the '34's longevity in vehicle/armor/fortress mounts was the way it changed barrels.
You could change the tube on a '34 with ease in a vehicle mount. Not so much with the '42.
>>30169073
>for close-in defence against infantry: MG34
the M2 is far superior for this role considering it can more easily cut through stone walls, sandbags, and trees, i.e. the cover infantry are going to use to assault a tank
>>30170786
>601px-Is_Paris_Burning-MG42-1.jpg
Alternatively, just search the image on google if you're too retarded to read.
>>30170909
You're right, I am retarded. I'll show my self out.
