The Germans lost, didn't they?
Seems to me that the FN-MAG (M240) and the Browning M1919 (and the Lewis) were far more successful than the MG42 and its clones in terms of armies winning wars.
We didn't win in Vietnam. Does that reflect on the quality of our equipment?
I think the soldiers and logistics probably have a little something to do with victory as well.
The WWII German Tiger tank was one bad a$$ machine, but they still lost.
There is no doubt that the Germans had much better weapons than the Allies during the war. Their tanks, machine guns, and anti-tank weapons were vastly superior to what the US army had.
However, their supreme commander negated their advantages through poor Geo-political decisions. If he had not invaded Russia, but concentrated on beating the UK, he could have owned Europe.
“were far more successful than the MG42 and its clones in terms of armies winning.” wars”.................................... Especially when thousands more were produced and thousands more troops had them?
Superior weapons don't win wars. Superior fighters or numbers of fighters do.
The MG42 was superior in every measurable way to the the M1919, just as the Panther tank was superior to the Sherman. And if the Germans would have had a Panther for every T-34 and M4 Sherman that was produced, I'm not sure they would have lost.
Hitler was their Robert Macnamarra
They were winning until they invaded the USSR and declared war on the U.S..
The best military in the world cant win with stupid people in charge.
Maybe they measure success based on the length of time the weapon has been in service.
Yes, they did, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that their MG42 sucked. If it hadn't sucked, they certainly would have won WWII. It's unequivocal.