If you were a soldier, and were shot with one, it would hurt you badly or kill you. Would that meet the definition of bad in any way?
Yes
Highly doubtful any actually succeeded.
Planes, machine guns, poison gas, flame throwers.
machine guns,mustard gas,aircraft of any kind,oh and tanks just to think of a few
I am guessing so that the machine gunners would not have far to go to get to them, which might have been necessary at any time, and speed would have been an asset.
There were many changes in weaponry from World War I-II. The machine guns were made lighter, planes were constructed to be better fighters and bombers, submarines were made more effective, tanks were given bigger guns and more armour, the sub-machine gun was invented, and the first semi automatic combat rifles were invented. Some guns stayed in the arsenal like the Springfield rifle, different types of Mauser rifles, and the 1911 semi-automatic .45 pistol.
Of course not!
Not sure what you mean...I believe Afghanistan and Iraq currently require machine guns...as well as Georgia...
The machine gun was devastatingly effective weapon against infantry charge.It could fire 8 bullets a second or more, and each trench would have a number of machine guns. During an infantry charge it could cut down a whole bregade in minutes! the machine gun made it unevitable that any charge on an infantry trench would cost many lives!
Probably about the same as any other country's machine guns in any wars they've won. We weren't the first to have them - by the time we employed them, our enemies did, as well.
because commanders would tell there soldiers to charge and the germans had the first machine guns so when the friendlies would chrge they would get hosed down by the enemy
Yes, but not any more than any other gun.