@maxbucket@hw97karbine Lol, not only was it more that capable of dealing with Panzer IV at that point, but it was like the 5th of the German Tank force by that point at best. Germans didn't win the Battle of France because their tanks had more armour.
@OlgaBazova Wow, so you are acting like replacing one letter with another is somehow different to replacing one letter with another (but smaller). Such a pathetic response to a pathetic argument.
@KommandantKurt The thing is, that's not the best comparison, most WW2 big nations deployed units far more in line with actual modern special forces. Germany had Brandeburgers and Skorzeny's Units, US/Canada had Devil's Brigade and to an extent OSS, UK had SAS and SBS, Soviets also did.
@Bookhermit1@oroborous How the fuck are you supposed to adapt to something that may cause an ecological and food production catastrophe for the whole continent? You can't just AC the ocean or put all the farms underground
@kinpatsukenshi That doesn't excuse the Tommy gun being too heavy for what it actually provided, having a really not well designed stock and early models having some of the most atrocious sights ever. All while being ridiculously expensive.
@hw97karbine@kinpatsukenshi Notice how none of them are in cover. This is clearly not a combat environment. If you are using a rifle in combat, you are expected, you are taught to actually aim it.
@trasselvardias Also thinking back, you are probably right about fragility. I remember reading somewhere that if you drop Suomi on the ground there's a good chance that something in it would break and a complete strip would be needed to fix the issue, but since I can't find the source, nvm.
@trasselvardias Yes, and that's precisely where lies the problem, almost all interwar SMGs were not worth it for what they actually provided. To me the best SMG of the war is tied between MP-40 and PPSh as the best examples of something that is well-oiled by the troops and isn't that expensive.