Re: WWII MGs

On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 12:06, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> At 11:53 AM -0500 3/7/03, Flak Magnet wrote:
> >That's long enough to hamburger anything soft and squishy down-range!
> 
> There was an instance that I'm rather fond of recounting in the 
> Battle of the Somme where 10 MGs from an MG company fired just shy of 
> a million rounds over the course of 10 hours. The point of the effort 
> was to deny the Germans vital ground for assembling a counter attack 
> on positions that the British had just taken. From what I've read, it 
> worked too. All of the fire was indirect at long range.

And here I'm thinking that mines and arty were the only viable
area-denial weapons.  Go figure.

> >It makes me wonder why there aren't modern weapons with water-cooling
> >capability for use in static positions... or perhaps there are and
I'm
> >showing my Ameri-centrism...
> 
> There are AA guns that are configured thusly. I think the ZSU-23-4 
> has water cooling jackets on it's barrels.

I was thinking more along the lines of line-infantry weapons, though I
didn't explicity state that.

> Mainly I think it's a doctrine thing. We dumped them in WWII because 
> they were too heavy, then we loaded up the infantryman to, what, 
> Twice his load in WWII, reduced the range and weight of the ammo load 
> and doubled or tripled it.
> 
> The British had the Vickers guns up through the 50s and I think 60's 
> as reserve weapons based on their utility and durability alone. In 
> mechanized roles with some kind of transport vehicle (Austin Champs 
> or Land Rovers post war) they're just as useful as any other weapon 
> and more durable. The water supply is the only critical thing.

>From what I hear, there are 3rd world countries still training with
Vickers.  It's a gun that should never die...