>>63890406
>everyone had squad level automatics
But not guns and MMGs, those are on higher levels, in the battalion. The companies only had two MMGs/HMGs at best, which is woefully inadequate for proper maneuver. They would always have to be strengthened or supported from the battalion's support / weapons companies.

>only the british did not have company level machine guns,
The Germans did not have company machine guns for the vast majority of the war. Only in '44 did they put in two HMGs on the organization table at the company level. Until then, they only had company mortars for organic fire support on that level. Heavy machine guns were a part of the battalion, in the heavy companies, leaving them in a similar situation as the Soviets.
>again, its an AT gun with a relatively ineffectual anti-personnel performance
It's a dual-purpose anti tank artillery piece, same as all the other Soviet guns. The 76.2mm ZIS-3s are also anti-tank guns, yet the Soviets used them also as regimental artillery.
The Soviet 45mm was also something the Germans did not have. They did not have any direct fire support guns on the battalion level and had to go to the regiment for their infantry guns. The Americans had similar direct firecapabilities to the Soviets with their 37mms and 57mms.

>and having to use a towed gun to support every platoon because the squad machine gunner has barely more rounds than a rifleman is questionable
Which again, is why, all the WW2 militaries fought primarily on the battalion / battalion sized task force level. A single WW2 company was simply not fit for independent operation as such for most of the war and for most of the parties. Everyone had to rely on higher echelon support to fight effectively.
>other countries have at least 500 rounds with the squad machine gunner, 1000 rounds in the case of the germans and the brits
Organizational ammo loads are never real. Nobody goes into battle with just that amount of ammo, if they can scrounge up any more.