CW a tougher fight?

[akd]

You forget the magazine difference. Lee Enfield has a 10 round magazine, the Kar only 5.

Lee-Enfield is still reloaded by 5-round charger clips, so a full reload would take longer. I strongly suspect that in combat there was no practical difference in rate of fire amongst the various bolt-action rifles of WWII, but people sure do love to focus on it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

haha. Mr Salt still casts his shadow

And he hated being called "Mr. Salt".

[JonS]

And he hated being called "Mr. Salt".

Yes. Exactly.

[wokelly]

And he hated being called "Mr. Salt".

Again, huh?

Is the above source not reliable?

[Sergei]

Again, huh?

Is the above source not reliable?

Au contraire, he's a forum legend. Take your hat off when you mention Mr. Salt. Or Sgt. Pepper. Or whoever he was...

(just so you understand, John D. Salt was a wonderful person and forum character who, unfortunately, did not reach immortality as far as we can reliably tell.)

[JonS]

I don't think he's dead ... just drifted off to other interests in the hiatus between CMAK and CMBN.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/search.php?searchid=1287078

[Sergei]

Like I said, did not reach immortality as far as we can reliably tell.

[dieseltaylor]

Those who know suggest that indeed the Lee-Enfield was easier to fire quickly compared to the Kar. There is a War Office paper which I have quoted on the pistol thread for the Lee-Enfield though I have yet to find anything for the Kar.

And a 10 shot magazine is always going to be more useful than a 5 shot magazine.

[Holien]

I don't think he's dead ... just drifted off to other interests in the hiatus between CMAK and CMBN.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/search.php?searchid=1287078

FYI = John Salt IRL has had a tough few years... he is still around but not playing CMBN yet.

I hope he might be prodded into that direction and when I next have a beer with him, and Kip and I will encourage him and extol what he is missing....

[Sailor Malan2]

I don't think the Bren average was 60.

"WO 291/474 Rate of fire of the LMG.

In trials held in 1944, the average time of Bren gunners needed to re-aim in between bursts was measured as 2.3 seconds; to change mag and re-aim, 3.8 seconds. These figures are not fast enough to maintain the official "rapid rate" of 112 rds/min, which would need 1.8 and 3.3 seconds respectively."

Doing some quick calculations the average Bren gunner was roughly 80-86% (reaiming and reaim + mag change respectively) as effective as he theoretically needed to be (say mean of 83%). That means he could practically on average get 93 rounds down range per minute, somewhat less when he needed to change the barrel (roughly 150-200 rounds per barrel so every two minutes or so).

I also get the impression, but have no proof, that the Bren was operated by one man. If so the reload speed should be somewhat better and the gunner closer to 114rpm, though probably not 114 given the loader does not help reaming.

The entire test mainly focuses on the advantages of the German guns over the Brits, and largely concluded it was the belt feed that made them more effective, not the Rate of Fire. That kinda makes sense to me, most modern GPMs and SAWs are belt fed but not near the 1200-1500 rpm of the MG42 (most are around 850rpm which is closer to the MG34's Rof). Most of the test is theoretical though, the Bren reloading and remaiming being the only actual timed aspect.

Bren's had two man crew (usually) and I picked 60rpm as a conservative sustained rate. As you say, the official rate was double that. On the oher hand, I think you need a better training than I ever had to stick to only 125 to 250 rpm with a MG34/42. With a 42, sneeze during the burst and thats another 10 rounds gone! Good Bren site: http://tbo.wikidot.com/bren-lmg