Which army was proportionally the most lethal in World War II?

I realize that, I used to carry an M60A1. He’s not talking rate of fire, he’s claiming gunners could fire two round bursts, which as I said, was twenty rounds a second, so a two round burst would be a tenth of a second if my math is correct. The MG-3 has a recommended burst of three to five rounds per Wikki, just like an M-60, with a recommended barrel change at between 100 and 150 rounds.
My post meant more for informing the general audience than a corrective to what you posted.
IIRC, the M60 is a close copy of the MG42.
 
My post meant more for informing the general audience than a corrective to what you posted.
IIRC, the M60 is a close copy of the MG42.
Nope. The M60 used parts of the MG42 and FG42, not very well. The M60 really did suck.

My friend Curtis at US Ord has improved it quite a lot.
 
there is a theory he was not so much a appeaser as much as a collaborator,
Of course I know this MADE IN MOSCOW "theory"—you (the commies and Moscow imperialists) have created and promoted it for ages. Meanwhile, your totalitarian pact is not a theory but a solid fact.


1755368419982.webp
 
Which means damned near nothing.

China makes more computers than any other country in the world right now, that does not mean that any of them are worth a crap. They are also the leading nation for manufacturing and selling video game consoles, but good luck actually finding one for sale at your local store.

And no, the XBox and PlayStation are not "Chinese". They are assembled there, but are designed and sold by US and Japanese companies.

The problem with both the USSR and modern Russia is they value ideological purity far more than ability. That is why their NCO Corps is an absolute joke. Quite literally, the "Sergeant" in an infantry unit has just as much time in the service as the Privates do. They were simply judged to be more ideologically pure, so sent to a special school based on that alone.

In fact, they very issue that they produced "more officers" screams that they in reality had a serious problem. When a nation at peace is going through that many officers, it damned near screams that most of those commissioned were of absolute garbage quality. Or on the battlefield their tactics were so bad that they were expending them in prodigious numbers.
I wrote nothing about the quality of Stalinist officers—they sucked back then, and they suck today. In general, all Moscow empires are Potemkin villages, paper tigers, and Ronald Reagan proved it well for all of us. That’s why, if the USA/UK, Ukrainian UPA, Polish army, Anti-Stalinist partisans, etc. had unleashed the unthinkable operation, the Bolshevik empire would’ve collapsed within weeks.

FV0LAlOXsAEMLAl.jpg

 

Attachments

  • 1755369191064.webp
    1755369191064.webp
    57.1 KB · Views: 8
My post meant more for informing the general audience than a corrective to what you posted.
IIRC, the M60 is a close copy of the MG42.
Speaking as one who carried and fired one, the M-60 was an abortion.
 
I wrote nothing about the quality of Stalinist officers—they sucked back then, and they suck today. In general, all Moscow empires are Potemkin villages, paper tigers, and Ronald Reagan proved it well for all of us. That’s why, if the USA/UK, Ukrainian UPA, Polish army, Anti-Stalinist partisans, etc. had unleashed the unthinkable operation, the Bolshevik empire would’ve collapsed within weeks.

FV0LAlOXsAEMLAl.jpg


It wasn't a double cross, the Soviets reneged on every promise they made to the WAllies.
 
Free elections in all the Eastern European countries for one. Free elections in territories captured from Japan is another. Return or repayment for all Lend-Lease equipment and supplies for a third. Attempting to force the WAllies out of Berlin for a fourth. Does the Berlin Blockade ring any bells in your head?
 

Only keeping short term occupation forces in formerly German held countries, then leaving and allowing them to hold free elections just to start. And to do the same things in the occupied territory that Japan was holding, as well as not annexing any Japanese territory.

All of those they reneged on, especially Eastern Europe as they controlled it with an iron fist and would invade and occupy most of it repeatedly for the next five decades.
 
I thought it was pretty good, for the era it was made. And it was a huge improvement over the M1919 Browning.
Did you ever try to change a barrel on one? You needed to carry an asbestos glove, which no one ever did.
 
Free elections in all the Eastern European countries for one. Free elections in territories captured from Japan is another. Return or repayment for all Lend-Lease equipment and supplies for a third. Attempting to force the WAllies out of Berlin for a fourth. Does the Berlin Blockade ring any bells in your head?

Oh, the Blockade and Berlin Wall were absolutely justified. After all, so many of the oppressed from Western Europe were flooding into the free and Socialist East Germany and other nations that the Soviets liberated that it was overwhelming their ability to give them all jobs.

547bbaf3-247a-4705-95f6-096804fb0521_text.gif
 
Did you ever try to change a barrel on one? You needed to carry an asbestos glove, which no one ever did.

I never said it was perfect. I said it was a good gun for the era (1950s). And it was far better than the M1919 (which also used an asbestos glove).

And yes I had. Remember, I was a grunt after all.
 
15th post
I thought it was pretty good, for the era it was made. And it was a huge improvement over the M1919 Browning.
The 1919 is more reliable. Heavier, and the A6 is a poor attempt to turn it into a shoulder fired weapon, and the lack of a quick change barrel hurts, but all of the negatives can be rectified except for the weight difference.

It will always be heavier than the M60


But the MG42 is orders of magnitude better than both.
 
Only keeping short term occupation forces in formerly German held countries, then leaving and allowing them to hold free elections just to start. And to do the same things in the occupied territory that Japan was holding, as well as not annexing any Japanese territory.

All of those they reneged on, especially Eastern Europe as they controlled it with an iron fist and would invade and occupy most of it repeatedly for the next five decades.
After WW2 the Soviets found themselves controlling land they had liberated from the Nazis, right or wrong they were not going to give up total control of those lands, that is because every invasion of Russia has come from that direction and they had just lost millions of people to the Nazis, the events since 1980 when the Soviet Union collapsed proved those fears were confirmed, all those Countries now in the anti Russian alliance known as Nato, some of them like the Baltics Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria and Finland all fought on the side of the Nazis and took part in the Holocaust some more than others,so the political situation for them was the price of siding with Hitler the Baltic states were the worst there was hardly a Jew left alive in Latvia, as for the Berlin situation and the airlift that was more economic the West Germans introduced the Deutschmark going against the agreement to have a unified economic based order.
 
Back
Top Bottom