Winter War Alternative History

George,
You absurdly complained about the rate of fire being excessive, I responded that it can be easily cut in half by modifying the bolt, but that the virtue of the MG 34 and 42 was the high rate of fire. If you do not know how to cut the rate of fire in half or more by modifying the bolt, it is rather stupid to conclude that I do not know how to do it either. You're much too busy belittleing me to read what I write.

 

Like your fallacies, the rate of fire is excessive and nonsensical for your intended application. Period. This should be evident by the fact that you've changed your "design"/intended application/logistics several times now. Indeed, the last time I've checked you are looking for an excellent "squad support weapon"-like machine gun firing at ~1000 RPM. Hmmm...I don't know? You mean like the stock MG34?

Care to enlighten me on how this is done? Someone like yourself (see Post 9) should surely have extensive knowledge in this field? Please; share with me! "Modifying the bolt" -- you mean adding weight either through a removable/permanent mass or machining the bolt out of a high density material with a high intrinsic specific heat? Or do you propose another means like decreasing tensional coefficients of the recoil springs? Hydraulic, pneumatic or mechanical recoil buffering? Gas porting? Increasing the stroke of the action? Induced dampening currents via the application of transient electromagnetic fields? Modifying the muzzle booster to vent more gas to the atmosphere? Reducing the load by changing the burn characteristics of the powder or thickening the case wall? Reducing the weight of the bullet so as to impart less reactionary force on the bolt? Note that these are all valid ways to decrease the rate of fire; but only two of these involve "changing the bolt". What impact do the sustained use of one or more of these modifications have on the design? How about increased wear? Recoil? Loss of reliability? How long will it take to perform these changes?

If you did any research at all, you'd realize that a mere bolt modification will not "easily cut in half" the rate of fire and ensure that the weapon will still work reliably. Period. I assume your next step will be to Google -- before blindly mentioning the MG3, read into the exact changes that were made to it in order to decrease the rate of fire by a large margin for some isolated applications -- hardly a trivial "changing the bolt"! Oh, there are certainly ways to reduce the rate of fire of a fast-firing automatic weapon but to do so by the margin you propose means a fundamental re-engineering. A combination of the methods I've mentioned above will do it (the question of how functional it will be remains open), but this is not a matter of "easily cutting" the rate of fire "in half" by "modifying the bolt" but rather a ground-up redesign of the weapon to ensure proper utility. This assumes you want a weapon that will still function. If not, I admit that you can easily reduce the cyclic rate of fire to 0 RPM with a simple bolt modification but I think that defeats the point.

You could have said this -- the fact that you stick to "modifying the bolt" shows that you lack sufficient depth of knowledge on the subject to discuss it.

Correct. The very same virtue that makes it totally unsuitable for your intended application.

The many fine essences of engineering design escape you. What are your qualifications to speak competently on this topic? There are - apparently - none as you cannot "easily cut" the rate of fire of either the MG42 or MG34 by the margins you suggest using the trivial means you've suggested. If you question my credentials, I am sure many here could fill you in. I'd be happy to explain but I'm still struggling to mentally design an straight blowback MG42 with the characteristics per your first reply.

Conversely, I freely admit that there is a finite possibility I have no idea what I'm talking about. But before we come to that conclusion lets look at your track record in this thread:

• every design "improvement" you've suggested is totally wrong (in many cases, fundamentally wrong)
• you've demonstrated a total lack of understanding of both the MG34 and MG42 (upon which your new design is to be based)
• your new weapon is to be made for two cartridges that don't exist until over a year after the conflict for which it is intended to see service in
• said weapon is to be manufactured in large numbers for export by an industry that can't even produce enough weapons for its own country and will equip a large portion if not most of the Wehrmacht and its allied forces
• you have a fundamental misunderstanding of even basic firearms use and tactics
• you have a fundamental misunderstanding of machining, logistics and transport
• etc, etc

Of course, there is no need for such a weapon for your intended application to begin with -- but let's forget about that.

When you know what you are talking about there is no need to stoop to straw men and insults. I would hardly say that I am "much too busy belittling" -- if you take offense to factual and coherent discussion, that is a sad commentary on your own abilities.

Cheers!