>>63890228
>since each platoon was covered by their guns, an MMG on a tripod and their squad machine guns
Where is this idea from? Your average WW2 platoon had automatic rifles only, with only the Germans operating genuine light machine guns (yes, I know the English language doesn't properly differentiate between the two, but the English language is stupid).
Platoon mortars were here and there, but their capability was severely limited. They were more equivalent to modern rifle grenades within common combat ranges, rather than any larger mortars, and couldn't provide adequate suppression for maneuver. Only advantage is in organic point obscuration.
Medium and heavy machine guns were typically on the company level with the company mortars, the exact same as the Soviets.
Everyone was entirely dependent on higher echelons for relevant fire support.

>but only a single platoon in a soviet company would have been covered by an MMG, since they had only the one
Only one, sometimes more rarely two. Compared to 0 on the German side, two on the American, 0 on the British and 2 on the Japanese and 0 for the Italians. This is average rifle companies.
>and it was wheeled instead of on a tripod which made it slower
The wheeled Maxim / SG43 is faster to set up than a tripod.
>45mm sucked in the anti-infantry role
A 45mm high explosive fragmentation grenade is a 45mm high explosive fragmentation grenade. Put one into a window and the occupants of that room are combat ineffective.

>and the 76s cant be moved on foot anyways
Of course they can. It's just not operationally viable, unless you conscript a bunch of riflemen and have them pull it on a rope like they were serfs pulling a barge.
>so that really just leaves their mortars to do all the work, and that really just sounds like the least versatile army unit of the entire war other than the italians
It sounds like all other WW2 militaries.