Just how accurate were the Bren and MG42?

[Centurian52]

I suppose this question could have gone into any of the WW2 western front forums, but CMBN appears to be the most active. Two of the WW2 weapons myths that I've become aware of are that the Bren was extremely accurate, to the point that it could be used as a precision rifle, and that the MG42 was very inaccurate, to the point of basically being a scatter gun. Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons has already done a video on the first myth. I don't know outright that the second one is a myth, but it smells fishy. The idea that the MG42 was a scattergun certainly doesn't seem very consistent with how it's modeled in Combat Mission, or any other reasonably realistic game I've encountered it in. I assume that there is probably a grain of truth to these myths. It does not strike me as remotely unlikely that the Bren really was more accurate than the MG42. But by how much? Can we actually put some numbers to the issue? The traditional units for firearm accuracy are Minutes Of Angle (MOA). 1 MOA is one 60th of a degree. These are exactly the same units as arcminutes, but for whatever reason we say MOA when we're talking about firearms, and arcminutes for every other application.

After much googling I was able to find a figure of 5 MOA for the MG3, which is very nearly an MG42. 5 MOA is certainly less accurate than I would expect of a bolt action rifle of the time firing a full power cartridge, but it doesn't strike me as at all bad for a machinegun. But is the figure of 5 MOA correct for the MG42? One of the improvements of the MG3 over the MG42 might have been the accuracy, or the poster who gave that figure might have been mistaken. At the extreme end, I can't imagine that the MG42 has any worse accuracy than the M249, which I seem to recall manages about 12 MOA (I don't remember where that figure came from though). Just that little bit of scatter might even be beneficial for a weapon with such a high rate of fire.

At the extreme end for the Bren, I'm sure its accuracy can't be better than 2 MOA. I've seen good marksmen achieve around 2 MOA with the SMLE and Kar98k. And if Gun Jesus says there are a host of reasons that it couldn't possibly be more accurate than an SMLE, then I'm inclined to believe him.

So, can anyone out there actually put a figure to these? In MOA, just how accurate was the Bren? And just how accurate was the MG42?

[Erwin]

Big different when firing single shots vs auto.  Vaguely remember the Bren being successfully used as a sniper gun.  

If you're familiar with the film Siege of Jadotville you will remember a scene in which the Irish company's sniper takes on a long range shot… with a Bren. The sniper exchanges his scoped Rifle No. 4(T) for a Bren and single loads a round with the magazine removed.

Also: https://armourersbench.com/2021/10/03/siege-of-jadotville-the-sniper-bren-is-the-bren-more-accurate/

Edited December 27, 2023 by Erwin

[Centurian52]

11 hours ago, Erwin said:

Big different when firing single shots vs auto.  Vaguely remember the Bren being successfully used as a sniper gun.  

If you're familiar with the film Siege of Jadotville you will remember a scene in which the Irish company's sniper takes on a long range shot… with a Bren. The sniper exchanges his scoped Rifle No. 4(T) for a Bren and single loads a round with the magazine removed.

Also: https://armourersbench.com/2021/10/03/siege-of-jadotville-the-sniper-bren-is-the-bren-more-accurate/

The Bren-sniper scene from the movie about the Siege of Jadotville was the very scene addressed, and debunked, by Ian McCollum

Nicholas Moran, a.k.a. The Chieftain, did a response in which he claimed that the scene itself actually might have been perfectly plausible. But his point boiled down to the fact that soldiers believe myths about their weapons all the time, so an Irish soldier might very well have believed that a Bren was a more precise weapon, and didn't at all contradict Ian McCollum's point that the Bren was not actually a more appropriate precision weapon than an actual dedicated sniper rifle.

Edit: Ok, having now re-watched Ian McCollum's video I realize that he actually answered the Bren part of my question in the video. Based on British firing tables of a Bren firing 10 round bursts from a tripod out to 1200 yards it looks like its accuracy was roughly between 4 and 5 MOA. So it's pretty accurate, but not a precision weapon. The MG42 part of my question still stands.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Centurian52

[wolfgang500]

I cannot give any information in terms of MOA. But having been trained on the MG 42 as a young soldier I strongly remember that this weapon was fairly accurate. We used to fire various practices, one of which was at a MG nest in 250 m distance. Requirement was a hit with the third burst, but we usually hit with the first.

[StieliAlpha]

In my Bundeswehr times in the early 80’s, I was trained on the MG 3 (which is basically the same as the MG 42 but with a lower rate of fire). I trained on the 150m shooting range only and found it, indeed, accurate enough. Hitting the mark with the first shot was no issue. However, it has no single fire mode and, if you shoot from the bi-pod only, latest the fourth shot of a burst is usually far off. That’s why we were trained to fire short 3-round bursts only.

Needles to say: A 10-round burst, shot from the bi-pod, would be a waste of ammo.

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by StieliAlpha

[Centurian52]

If people who have actually fired the MG42 or MG3 didn't notice any perceptible inaccuracy then I'm guessing that the figure of 5 MOA is probably correct. I recall from firing the M249 that 12 MOA (assuming that I am remembering the correct figure) is perceptible (though, for all the complaints about M249 inaccuracy, it didn't strike me as all that bad for a weapon meant to suppress an area target). So the MG42's accuracy must be better than 12 MOA. And I recall from firing the M16A2 that 4 MOA (at least that's what I recall being told the M16's accuracy was) is not perceptible (it always looked pin-point accurate to me). If 4 MOA isn't perceptible, then 5 MOA probably isn't either.

Interestingly, that would mean that the Bren and the MG42 have roughly the same accuracy. With a figure of 4-5 MOA for the Bren based on British firing tables, and 5 MOA for the MG3 (basically an MG42) based on the word of some guy on a forum that I haven't managed to dig up again. Would be nice to find some harder evidence for the MG42. But this might do for now if no one can do better.

5 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

Needles to say: A 10-round burst, shot from the bi-pod, would be a waste of ammo.

That might explain where the myth of inaccuracy came from. Regardless of the mechanical accuracy of the weapon, if Allied soldiers notice that longer bursts frequently scatter bullets all over the place then it isn't hard to imagine that a lot of them might start to think that the MG42 wasn't very accurate.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Centurian52

[JonS]

I'd expect the MG3 to be more precise^ than the MG42 *because* it has a lower ROF. Also, range shoots are a bit misleading because of the particular circumstances of a controlled shoot. In particular: a cold a fresh barrel, with no particular OMFG I'M GOING TO DIE pressure.

With a Bren it's basically impossible^^ to overheat the thing - it has an intrinsically low ROF, with feequent enforced breaks to swap the magazine. With an MG42 it's almost trivial easy to overheat it, and once the barrel starts to soften then both accuracy and precision are out the window.

That said, on the surface the Jadotville scene is nuts. Maybe the sniper knew his sight was cocked, or sumfink? But that's comparing a Bren to a SMLE, not a Bren to an MG42.

 

^ accuracy != precision

^^ not actually impossible. But still much much *much* harder than for a high-ROF weapon fed via a belt.

Edited December 28, 2023 by JonS

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

With a Bren it's basically impossible^^ to overheat the thing - it has an intrinsically low ROF, with feequent enforced breaks to swap the magazine. With an MG42 it's almost trivial easy to overheat it, and once the barrel starts to soften then both accuracy and precision are out the window.

The breaks to swap the magazine aren't really that significant. Remember that, thanks to the top loaded magazine, the assistant gunner can swap the magazines very quickly (a feature not modeled in Combat Mission unfortunately). But the ease and speed with which the barrel could be changed out means that overheating still wouldn't have been much of a concern for the Bren. The MG42 is also going to have frequent enforced breaks, since it's going to run down its 50 round drum faster than the Bren will run down its 30 round magazine (and it takes longer to change out a belt than it takes to swap a magazine). Remember that when we're comparing it to the Bren we are talking about the MG42 in its LMG configuration, in which case its belt is feeding from a 50 round drum, not a 250 round box. In its HMG configuration it would make more sense to compare it to the Vickers or M1919, not the Bren.

Even so, I believe you're right that overheating is a greater concern for the MG42, even in its LMG configuration. Barrel changes are quick and easy, just like the Bren. But I recall the recommendation was for a barrel change every 150 rounds, meaning that when it is firing the full 200-250 rounds per minute practical rate of fire (claimed) you are changing out the barrels more than once per minute. Which is why I believe German squads had to carry multiple spare barrels for the MG42, while British sections only carried one spare barrel for the Bren.