Timothy OConnor wrote:But I've noticed that some people call water-cooled MGs heavies for some reason.
I think we read a bit too much of our modern perspectives onto history when we look at
some of these weapons.
Remember, when the Browning M1917 machine gun went into production (in ... wait for
it ... 1917!), that the primary means of mobility available to all the world's armies was
the muscle power of men.
Soldiers marched, carrying their weapons and their personal kit with them. Food and
ammunition, the command staff, and occasionally the wounded or sick could ride in
horse-powered transport. But the soldiers, and their kit, marched.
In that environment, machine guns were classified as light, medium or heavy. Guess
what the classification was based on?
Their weight.
A machine gun was not classified as heavy due to it being heavy duty, or for having
heavy penetration, for use against heavy targets, or being cool beyond measure
and "heavy, man". It was classified as heavy because
it was heavy.
It had nothing to do with utility or function. Nothing to do with tactics. Nothing to do with
any abstraction of methods of employment. It had to do with weight.
So also, by the way, tanks were classified as light, medium and heavy because of their
weight. And cannons were classified as light, medium and heavy because of their
weight. Because that's what the logistics train needed to know.
Today we get ourselves all wrapped up in whether something was or was not
appropriately described as heavy based on how it was used. We forget to ask the
simple question of how much it weighed. The M1917 weighed more than 90 lbs. If you
were responsible for moving an M1917 200 miles by manpower, you would understand
why it was important for your whole command and logistics train to know you were
dealing with a heavy machine gun.
And of course in today's parlance a 7.62mm GPMG with bipod = light and on a tripod = "MMG" or "SFMG" (sustained fire MG).
Today the vast majority of logistics and transport is motorized. So now we focus on
terms that catagorize the weapon according to its intended tactical role rather than its
logistical footprint. So we have SAWs (squad level aimed automatic weapon fire
support) vs. GPMGs (base of fire for maneuvering infantry) vs. SFMGs (high volume of
fire over time) vs. HMGs (heavy caliber automatic weapons).
But in WW2 a Bren, a BAR, a Degtyarev DP27 and an MG42 (with bipod) were all light
machine guns because they were light enough that one man could carry them. An
M1919 or an MG42 (with tripod) were medium machine guns because they weighed so
much that it took two men to carry them. A Vickers, an M1917, a Degtyarev M1910
("Maxim"),
or a US M2 .50cal or DShK 12.7mm were all heavy machine guns
because 2 men could not carry them. Everyone, from squad corporals, to logistics and
personnel officers, to commanders, needed to know that if the weapons were going to
have any impact on the battle (or even make it to the battlefield).
I get the feeling that GHQ feels the detail on their infantry is low enough that such a proxy is close enough.
The detail is so superb that OF COURSE we all want the right kit for our crews! That is
why we scream for Mosin Nagant rifles (WITH BAYONETS) and PTRD ATRs for our Red
Army troopers, both 2in and 3in mortars for our Brits, and BOTH M1919s and M1917s
for our US Army troopers (and M1919A6s for our US Paras!).
I still believe that the GHQ
Micro Armor, the Game rules contribute to the organization
of the infantry packs. It seems that other vendors work harder to ensure that their
infantry figures can be formed into proper squads, platoons, and companies, but with
the GHQ infantry the organization of the infantry is expected to be more abstract.
If the infantry figures, detailed as they are, are mearly meant to be suggestive of the role
of the stand (it's not three men with a machine gun, it's a support stand, ), then it all
makes sense.
Unfortunately that's not much help to those of us who try to model and play at 1-to-1 unit
scales.
