|
I think we need to differentiate in this discussion between Machine Guns (usually heavy, crew-served, and firing full-power rifle ammunition) and Submachine Guns (usually lighter, individually operated, and firing pistol-caliber cartridges). The intent of the original question is, I think, that of SMGs primarily, though LMGs are sort of an intermediate. The Russians and the Germans were the first to really adopt the SMG in large quantities, though they had been around in various armies since WWI. There are many advantages to SMGs-- they generally are lighter (though not much) than combat rifles, and you can carry more ammo. However, they normally require multiple hits to be effective, and the cartridges are inherently less powerful/effective than rifle rounds. Which is better to arm your forces with will depend on what kind of a war you plan to fight.
As regards surviving in games longer with a SMG than a rifle..... come on! Game "survival" is all based on what the programmer thought was a more useful weapon in various circumstances, not necessarily reality. Rifles and SMGs have different uses and each is better in different circumstances, but generally if I had a choice on an open battlefield (i.e. not in cities or jungles), I would take a unit of riflemen over an equal unit equipped with SMGs--- The effective range of a rifle, used correctly, will keep the SMG-armed troops so far away that they can't hit your people. The SMG is a very good weapon for close-quarters battle, but is certainly not the optimum weapon for all purposes. Doc
|