>>321581
>Rate of fire only steadily increases as the battlefield gets more modern. Else, we would still be using bolt action rifles as main weapons.
I disagree. There is an optimum rate of fire for controllability. This means you don't want a SAW at 1000rmp.
>Else, we would still be using bolt action rifles as main weapons.
We don't use them because they fall outside that optimum range, however, the sustained rof for a rifle is different than we would expect on an MG. This means about 90rmp on rapid fire mode at most. Any more than that and it's a waste of ammo.
>The perfect WW2 squad tactics would be mirroring Cold War Soviet tactics, 8 main squad divides into 2 teams, one team with a marksman, one team with a machine gun, everyone else hold SMG.
I don't know about WWII, but the fact that the US seemed more inspired by the Germans than by the USSR says something. There is a reason we use two SAWs for a 9 man squad, but we also have DMRs, also two per squad. This allows one element to cover the other, and is useful in bounding. I find it hard to picture how you would accomplish this with only one SAW per squad.
> When the machine gun team fires to cover, the marskman team moves, and vice versa.
You can't really do vice-versa. If you could suppress with a marksman, then there would be no need for an MG of any type. Actual MG teams are also a platoon-level thing, not squad, even if squads are also augmented with MG teams from time to time.
> All that matters is to come close to the enemy and crush them with high volumes of fire and control enemy's territory.
If the enemy has chosen to go with multiple SAWs, and actual rifles, you are not going to get close. That's the point. Your SMG isn't going to suppress an enemy beyond 150m, and you can be suppressed beyond that point with rifles and a set of SAWs. There is a reason SMGs are not used for combat anymore, this is that reason.
>If the enemies are further away, you advance toward them
That's fine, but the enemy has decided not to be retards and use weapons fit for the job. Have fun advancing on an enemy that can actually throw lead at combat ranges.
>Combat is less about accuracy, but more about maneuvering and using fire/noise to distract enemies while maneuvering.
This false dichotomy always comes up in internet arguments. Yes, we practice maneuver warfare, but that does not mean accuracy isn't one of the most important things to learn. There is a reason that the US places importance on marksmanship. Even the gunners must learn to fire accurately with their weapons. Making noise near an enemy requires that you actually aim, that you understand your weapon, especially if you're a gunner. Machine gun theory is super important and is one of the harder things to grasp. This is why good gunners stay gunners. They're hard to come by.
Accuracy is important, and so is maneuvering. They two go hand-in-hand. Do not be fooled into thinking that simply going cyclic on an MG will do its job. An MG is a finer weapon than that. It's both a science and an art.