|
azraelck -> RE: Heavy automatic rifle vs LMG (5/31/2007 5:19:14 AM)
|
It's interesting. There actually seems to be two types of LMGs. One is the traditional, M1919 or MG34-type ones that are used deployed primarily to provide sustain supporting fire from movable positions. Then there's the ones like the Bren, which can be used in that role, or to provide mobile fire, like a BAR.
Automatic Rifles like the BAR and the Soviet AVS-36 are essentially heavy rifles, capable of fully automatic fire; to provide fully mobile support fire when needed, and capable of being used at range for accurate shots or up close in an assault. While most LMGs tend to be made for long sustained periods of fire from a deployed position. But there are plenty of notable exceptions to that, like the Bren gun. Of course, those tend not to be quite as good in the traditional LMG role, mostly due to the reduced ammo capacity. Of course, those big honkin' magazines jutting up probably didn't make the gunners too comfortable. It seems to me a good way to paint a target on one's self.
As to the game, it's arbitrary. If you want something to be designated a LMG or an Automatic Rifle, then do so. In the case of the Finnish Lahti-Saloranta, it appears that it was called an LMG originally, whether it matches the traditional design of one or not. The Bren doesn't either, not strictly, nor does quite a few more guns of that type that are still called LMGs.
The BAR is not the only automatic rifle, just the best known (and probably the best period). The M14 qualifies as well, as does the above mentioned AVS-36. I'm sure that there are more, that just don't get heard of very much because they either sucked like the AVS or weren't used quite as widely and with as much acclaim as the BAR.
|
|
|
|
