unless it required german scientists and captured fissil material to build one :know:

Hm... I think I might be right this time.

The Stuka was a very good dive bomber, which causes the consequence of it being slow, a big target, and extremely vulnerable to fighters. Poland's airforce was destroyed on the ground, the French were completely suprised in the Ardennes, and the convoys in the med had no fighter cover either. The Stukas lost their effectiveness as soon as the Brits replaced their biplanes in North Africa. .Course, the Eastern Front was still useful for Stukas, the Soviet air force wasn't one to behold

Kurt Knispel was the biggest tank on tank ace with 168 kills. Wittmann had 138 tank on tank kills. Wittman was actually something like 3rd or 4th.
(US)Staff Sergeant Lafayette G. Pool is credited with 258 enemy vehicle kills, by type is unknown.

The M60 was a direct desendent of the MG42, the 240G is a totally different animal. All your choices are "in the family of" choices. Thats like saying the M3 submachine gun is derived from the MP40. It isn't but it's in the family of.

The doctrine in the early 80's was tailor made to deal with the soviet machine. There is zero German style WW2 tactics. The officer corp during our military rebirth were the junior officers of Vietnam and they swore that Korea and Vietnam would never happen again. From the ground up the doctrine and tables of organization was designed for what our mission was at the time. It sure didn't incorporate WW2 doctrine. I will agree with you that thousands of lives were thrown away due to ignorance and stupidity.

This part is intriguing. I'd like to hear more.

Sounds like I need to upload the Tiger program.

-S

Just do a google search for U-234, you'll find tons of material.

Maybe the M240 is different, but the Bundeswehr and many others still use the MG3, which is basically an MG42 adapted to NATO caliber.
I handled it myself during basic training (navy has to do the "green stuff" as well), but was glad not to be assigned machine gunner of my squad, as the thing weighs three times as much as a G3.
I'm not a weapons expert, but interested in weapons history (if I would live in the US I'd collect historical military arms), the simplicity of the thing fascinated me.
Somehow you could tell that this was a weapon that was designed by soldiers in wartime for war, not for some defense bidding process.
Shooting the MG3 was an experience, was more precise than I thought, even with me aiming it, and the ammo was certainly gone very quickly.
Even if the MG3 has a "NATO brake" (Bundeswehr urband legend) reducing rate of fire.

IL-2s were shot down on masse not because of their design but due to the fact that that early in the war German pilots were of better quality and battle hardened, Soviet pilots not so.

At the beginning young Soviet pilots would run away from the Germans.

The IL-2 was a bugger to take down..best place was to hit it from underneath.

The M240G medium machine gun is an adaption of the earlier M60 machine gun,, which is directly patterned off of the MG42. The M240 was intended to be a lighter replacement for that weapon, using plastic furnishings and thinner steel, but the functionality is essentially the same. Still, both weapons share much in common with the MG42.

I only got to fire a G3 once, but I must say, if the weapon has any faults it is that it is a bit too fast and a bit too accurate. A proper machine-gun burst needs to spread out a bit , imo, to achieve the effect of a long-range shotgun blast. It does no good to hit a single target with 8 rounds when 1 will do the trick.
In American weapons, the lower rate of fire helps achieve this aim because the recoil forces you off-target a litte bit. With the G3, I practically had to wiggle the barrel to spread the rounds out. I exaggerate, all I had to do was loosen my tight grip on the weapon,something which comes from years of training with "bumpier" weapons. Overall, an excellent medium automatic rifle, though.

Has been replaced with the G36 by now.:D

You too could have your own Tiger tank!

http://dvice.com/archives/2008/12/mind-blowing_re.php

http://dvice.com/pics/RC-550-lbs-King-Tiger-tank.jpg

Errr, unless my memory fails me the M60 was more based on the FG42 than the MG42.

Dont know about the history of M60, but it would seem strange to base an Machinegun to an paratrooper assault weapon/very light MG than an "real" MG, i.e. the MG42.

EDIT: I stand corrected. FG42 it is.

EDIT2: Well, let's say I kneel corrected. It's based on FG42, but there's few things like the belt feeding mechanics that is taken from MG42.

Half right or close enough.

I had forgotten all about that. I guess I need to go back to infantry school:oops:
Well, at least I wasn't totally wrong