An answer to Simon Fox

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife:

Not truly an LMG?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try AAMG.

[Username]

I believe the germans that could get enough MP44s would group them into 2 squads and the LMGs were in a seperate squad together. This makes sense in that the speed of the squad, which is often limited by weapon weight, was homogenous.

The LMGs were a covering firepower squad then. It would make the handling of ammo, supplies easier also.

These platoons were very usefull at counterattacks and assaults.

The US platoon, built around semi and full auto weapons, had similaritys. The belted full auto covering MGs were not squad elements. The squad with garand, BAR and carbine and tommy gun could all move at nearly the same speed and be covered by the M1919s.

Lewis

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

An LMG gunner fires in bursts rather than just running through the ammo supply. This is because firing bursts was discovered to be better. The 20 round rule is first found in German MG34 mauals in 1938 (or at least, that is the first time Ezell attributes it) and shows up in Belgian literature on the MAG-58, US literature on the M-60, and is the current GPMG practice in most militaries using a GPMG (modern LMG).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what has Stalin confused is that we were both trained to fire in 3-5 round bursts. Not 20 rounds.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

I think what has Stalin confused is that we were both trained to fire in 3-5 round bursts. Not 20 rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the confusion is that the MAG-58 manual says "no more than 20 rounds shall be fired in a long burst" and M-60 manual for the Marine Corps in the middle 1960s says that "no more than 20 rounds should be fired in a burst". In addition, the great book "Guns Up" by two M-60 gunners mentions repeatedly the Marine Corps saying of the late 1960s "20" which they remind each other all the time to keep there weapons from jamming.

The Bren and BAR, along with the MP-44, were commonly fired with bursts also by experienced gunners, usually less than 5 rounds.

[Simon Fox]

Hey Jon where's that bloody turn? I could be doing that instead of blathering away in this foolishly titled thread!

[JonS]

But Simon - your name will live on in eternity/infamy (your choice).

I'm going skiing now :cool: , so you won't see it till probably Sunday night now

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Try AAMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shouldn't that be AAAR according to the new definition of the Bren as a rifle (albeit an automatic one) :confused:

Semantically Yours

JonS

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

Shouldn't that be AAAR according to the new definition of the Bren as a rifle (albeit an automatic one) :confused:

Semantically Yours

JonS

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it could also be an aalmg for the pedantic. It only matters if the role of the weapon in reality and design is understood as distinct and very different between the two weapons. Taxonomically, the weapons are distinct. The Brean and the BAR fit together in design and employment a lot better than the Bren and DP or Bren and MG-42.

As I said, an ORV has a very precise meaning to an insurance agent. I drive a Ford Explorer, and Ford has always called it an ORV, but it ain't. Its a mish mash of a stationwagon and a pickup truck and can drive around off road if it is forced, but likes the city better. I do not pay ORV additions to my insurance.

Not that the LMG issue is a big deal, it is not. It is just important to understand that the Bren is a MG-42 only better.

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Triumvir]

An LMG is not a GPMG. A GPMG can be used as an LMG, but an LMG cannot be used as a GPMG. The Minimi is generally accepted to be an LMG. A MAG is a GPMG. Put the Minimi on a tripod and you still have an LMG; it cannot be used to create a decent sized beaten zone through sustained fire.

Terminology may be important, but I suggest that your command of terminology is a tad sloppy, or at least a little vague. Could you define what an LMG means to you? To me, it means an automatic weapon that can change barrel, has firing support -- typically a bipod -- and a reasonably large supply of ready ammo.

No modern Commonwealth pattern army that I am aware of ever practices firing a MG, whether L, GP or H in 20 round bursts when doing aimed fire. Perhaps -- perhaps -- for creating a beaten zone at 500m, long bursts of 10-20 rounds may be fired, but otherwise, aimed -- as in the gunner actually aiming at something instead of setting the traverse and elevation wheels -- fire is only done in 3-5 round bursts. SOP in American units may be different, but most of the rest of the world works on either Eastern Bloc or Commonwealth pattern.

As for heat dispersion, the standard number of rounds that we were supposed to put through our LMGs before swapping barrels was 200 -- easy to remember because it was two full drum mags. I don't see that being that difficult on a Bren -- 7 mags doesn't seem that hard to fire off without wrecking a barrel.

[Tero]

Actually I think the term GPMG (standing for General Purpose Machine Gun) refers to a MG that can be used in various tasks and mountings with minimal modifications. That means a GPMG can be used as a LMG or HMG, the difference being the mounting. Dedicated LMG's or HMG's are (generally) single purpose, single mounting weapons.

For those of us who have actually fired modern GPMG's in its LMG guise in training the 20-30 round limit is pretty obvious: the recoil of the gun will make it hard to keep the fire on the target if you fire the whole belt at one go.

Also, 20-30 rounds is propably the number of rounds the AR's in the squad carry. Short, controlled 3 round bursts by everyone will not permit the enemy to locate the SAW at once. More than 20-30 rounds will send the rounds flying AND broadcast the position of the SAW to every enemy soldier within earshot.

If all the AR's in the squad go full auto 20-30 round bursts will not expose the SAW readily. The SAW gunner can of course fire the entire belt but the tactical situation must warrant going full auto.

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

USMC squads had 3 BAR's and was built around 4 man fire teams, a formation used by the USMC since the 1920's.

This would stand to reason. Their primary mission was assault from the sea with no or minimal chances of widrawing if the initial assault failed. To overcome the defenders and to be able to beat back counter attacks they needed high ROF weapons.

Army and USMC views hardly ever jibed back then, so the term "Americans" is a bit too broad for this discussion.

Concur.

The US Army led the USMC in the deployment of the M1 Garand, which some Old Time Hardliners in the USMC foolishly didn't want,

Can you provide any examples of differences or similarities in the US Army and USMC small unit tactics ?

but later in Vietnam the USMC was very reluctant in giving up the M14

Wasn't that more because of the teething problems with M16. IIRC it would jam because the chamber was not properly coated. Coating it with aluminium or other metal fixed this problem. I have read the USMC gave its troops a choice between the two and the troops generally chose the M14 even later.

The fully automatic weapons "Lesson" thought by the Germans of WWII has not held it's worth to this day as accurate single shot deployment is once again the norm for modern professional armies.

Could this be why the modern professional armied seem to be getting their arsed kicked by the less sofisticated bands of querillas and paramilitary formations armed with RPG's and AK-47's ?

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Triumvir]

Calling any recent involvement with professional forces against guerillas an arsekicking for the professionals seems somewhat... shaded.

I'd argue that losing 800 Somalians is a pretty piss-poor trade off for 30 odd Americans; the Americans simply weren't that valuable.

Incidentally, the above is a very deliberate troll, and I'd like to see who is still stupid enough to take the hook, even when it's being quite so explicitly displayed.

In Sierra Leone, the Brits did quite a number on the rebels, as did the NORBATs in the Balkans. Let's not even talk about East Timor; parts of the Indonesian army may be hard bastards, but the rabble they sponsored certainly wasn't. As for Chechnya, I don't suppose you're seriously going to call the Russian army professional.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:

Calling any recent involvement with professional forces against guerillas an arsekicking for the professionals seems somewhat... shaded.

In Sierra Leone, the Brits did quite a number on the rebels, as did the NORBATs in the Balkans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you point me to any links with detailed information about the fighting in this West African Diamond war? It has slipped from the media radar for a minute. Specifically, links concerning skirmishes between the British intervention forces & the limb-hacking machete wielding guerillas?

[Triumvir]

Alas, I can't; the only info I've seen on it has been through the Beeb, for obvious reasons.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Triumvir:

Calling any recent involvement with professional forces against guerillas an arsekicking for the professionals seems somewhat... shaded.

Perhaps. But we must not forget that these days more than ever the use of military force is governed by political considerations more than purely military ones. And that these political considerations a valid only as long as the attention span of the western TV viewer holds.

The clear trend is going from conscript armies towards highly trained professional armies. Unfortunately most of the conflicts they are called to deal with are not conventional engagements. Fancy words aside the tasks they are performing are purely to settle the conscience of the western public before "Who wants to be a millionaire" or "Survivor" starts. Incidentaly, I wonder why are they disarming only the guerillas in the most recent peace keeping operation ?

I'd argue that losing 800 Somalians is a pretty piss-poor trade off for 30 odd Americans; the Americans simply weren't that valuable.

That depends how you value a human life. But did or did they not adcheive what they were after with that 800 paramilitaries for 30 US troops trade off ? What would happen if a military convoy was hit in the Balkans and the NATO forces would lose 30 men at one stroke ? Massive retaliation or massive widrawal of forces ?

In Sierra Leone, the Brits did quite a number on the rebels, as did the NORBATs in the Balkans. Let's not even talk about East Timor; parts of the Indonesian army may be hard bastards, but the rabble they sponsored certainly wasn't. As for Chechnya, I don't suppose you're seriously going to call the Russian army professional.

The Russian army is a conscript army. That is why Afganistan is out too. Wasn't the Vietnam war one of the main reasons the US turned to professional military establishment.

What I had in mind were incidents like Kosovo and the "air war" against Serbia. How well did the professional armies fight against the enemy in these instances ? The only engagement that even resembles a war in recent history was the Gulf War. And even in that one the trend was to keep the kill ratio favourable while the actual outcome was a side issue.

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Triumvir]

Well, personally -- and you being an ex-conscript too, I think you have the same opinion as I do -- I think that professional militaries are overrated and legends in their own minds. Conscript Bundeswehr tankers have been able to compete and beat Canadian, British and US tankers; let's not even go into the adverse selection/moral hazard effect inherent in professional militaries.

Nonetheless, for force projection purposes, professional militaries are far better suited than conscript armies; and as you rightly point out, the majority of military interventions have been force projections in response to political needs.

Fewer people -- not to say no people, but fewer people -- mourn the loss of military professional when compared to the loss of conscripts because there is a sense of "well, that's what they're paid for" that isn't as applicable to conscripts.

The Somalis may have achieved what they were after, but the cost they paid to do so was probably in excess of the gain from their achievement; much like that of the Vietnamese, who undisputedly won the war, but crippled themselves by doing so. Pyrrhic victories aren't.

For Kosovo, I believe that the Danish and Norwegian battalions gave a good accounting of themselves; as for the "air war", it was as inflated as all other "air wars" are -- the latest BDAs are far less flattering than they were at the time (and correspondingly less publicised.)

Arguably, the propaganda from the publicised BDAs was the key in persuading Serbians to back down, and not the actual damage done. I think that this is the first actual case where Douhetian practice came close to theory; and I don't think it's likely to be repeated.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:

An LMG is not a GPMG. A GPMG can be used as an LMG, but an LMG cannot be used as a GPMG. The Minimi is generally accepted to be an LMG. A MAG is a GPMG. Put the Minimi on a tripod and you still have an LMG; it cannot be used to create a decent sized beaten zone through sustained fire.

Terminology may be important, but I suggest that your command of terminology is a tad sloppy, or at least a little vague. Could you define what an LMG means to you? To me, it means an automatic weapon that can change barrel, has firing support -- typically a bipod -- and a reasonably large supply of ready ammo.

No modern Commonwealth pattern army that I am aware of ever practices firing a MG, whether L, GP or H in 20 round bursts when doing aimed fire. Perhaps -- perhaps -- for creating a beaten zone at 500m, long bursts of 10-20 rounds may be fired, but otherwise, aimed -- as in the gunner actually aiming at something instead of setting the traverse and elevation wheels -- fire is only done in 3-5 round bursts. SOP in American units may be different, but most of the rest of the world works on either Eastern Bloc or Commonwealth pattern.

As for heat dispersion, the standard number of rounds that we were supposed to put through our LMGs before swapping barrels was 200 -- easy to remember because it was two full drum mags. I don't see that being that difficult on a Bren -- 7 mags doesn't seem that hard to fire off without wrecking a barrel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you simply need to rerewd my comments above to answer all of your questions, but I will amplify. I never said that a GPMG was an LMG, simply that an LMG was subsumed by an GPMG as a term -- the LMG "became a GPMG" after the war with the elimination of the MMG (tripod fired company level automatic weapon with sustained fire capability).

That the commonwealth used what was essentialy a heavy automatic rifle for many LMG roles is not in dispute. That many magazine fed ARs were used as belt fed (or large capacity drum like the Lewis) LMGs was significant about the role of the AR -- it was better done by other weapons.

The Minimi is a SAW rather than GPMG because of its weight, ability to work without the support of an A-Gunner, and its use inside of squads. The SAW concept revives the AR in a more useful form.

The biggest problem is that the Commonwealth Bren is so worshiped that anything that calls into questions is wonderfulness (which this does not -- before there are any wars I will admit it walked on water, killed Tigers, and could stand in for a Marsielle prostitute in a pinch), but no matter how heavy, a big magazine fed squad carried weapon is an Automatic Rifle. Concept pioneered by the BAR. Concept perfected by the Czechs. Concept obsolete by WW2 but gave good service anyway. Concept way obsolete in the face of the Assault Rifle, the SAW, and the GPMG but still clung to. Calling it an LMG just makes it seem like a bit more than a weapon that can fire automatically inside the squad without adding some of the key features of the the other weapons listed.

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

I think the confusion is that the MAG-58 manual says "no more than 20 rounds shall be fired in a long burst" and M-60 manual for the Marine Corps in the middle 1960s says that "no more than 20 rounds should be fired in a burst". In addition, the great book "Guns Up" by two M-60 gunners mentions repeatedly the Marine Corps saying of the late 1960s "20" which they remind each other all the time to keep there weapons from jamming.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know anything about Marine Corp MG practices, but in the Army the standard was 6 to 9 round bursts for the M60. I would fire longer bursts when I was goofing around, but rarely more than about 15 (unless I had a runnaway gun, which happened a couple of times), and I have put A LOT of rounds down range from M60s.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

You disagree? Maybe the Canadians didn't operate under the same scrounging philosophy as the Aussies, Kiwis and Brits? It's a common enough practice, more prevalent in some nationalities according to my impressions. Not something that's easy to quantify of course

But if you disagree then we'll just have to leave it there because there is no way I'm going through a bunch of first hand accounts and digging out specific quotes which might not satisfy you anyway, hehe.

When it comes to CM3 though then there is more hard data for that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, it sounded like BS to me too. Thanks for the clarification.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slapdragon wrote:

no matter how heavy, a big magazine fed squad carried weapon is an Automatic Rifle. Concept pioneered by the BAR. Concept perfected by the Czechs. Concept obsolete by WW2 but gave good service anyway. Concept way obsolete in the face of the Assault Rifle, the SAW, and the GPMG but still clung to. Calling it an LMG just makes it seem like a bit more than a weapon that can fire automatically inside the squad without adding some of the key features of the the other weapons listed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make a reasonably good argument that the Bren should be called an automatic rifle, and you may be able to classify it as such in theory, but the fact remains that it is a light machinegun.

I reprint the following from the "Bren: Not Sold Separately?" thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pak40 wrote:

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how the BAR and Bren are different in their rolls as a squad support weapon. They are BOTH mobile light mgs that support the squad with automatic firepower. Just because the Bren team has a 3 man element doesn't make it's roll different, it's still a squad support weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>David Aitken wrote:

You might as well argue that the way an MG42 is set up makes no difference to its role, it's still an MG42. Very wrong. An MG42 with a two-man team is a light machinegun; an MG42 on a tripod with optical sights, a few more men, and as much ammunition as they can carry, is a heavy machinegun.

By the same token, just because both the Bren and the BAR are magazine-loading automatic weapons with bipods which fire rifle ammunition, and were used as squad support weapons, does not mean they are both restricted to this role. Their design dictates how they can be used.

The BAR was designed as an automatic rifle. Originally it was only semi-automatic, and the small magazine reflects this. It is a one-man weapon intended to be fired as a rifle from the shoulder, and indeed the bipod was also a late modification. It lacks a quick-change barrel, the location of the magazine is less than ideal, and the gun was poor in the role of light machinegun.

The Bren is a purpose-designed light machinegun. Pistol grip, bipod, quick-change barrel, large magazine. It starts where the BAR leaves off; only through modification could the BAR approximate the role of light machinegun, and not very well. The Bren is first and foremost a light machinegun, and is suitable for many roles, from a squad automatic, to medium machinegun on a tripod, to vehicle machinegun.

Give a BAR a second crewman and there's not much he can do. It's awkward for him to change magazines. He can't change the barrel. If he carries lots of extra ammunition, the gunner won't be able to fire it all because the barrel will overheat. No point putting it on a tripod. With a second or third crewman, a Bren can do all of this.

So you are correct only so far as that the BAR and Bren were used in the same role, as squad automatic. But if you think that configuring it differently does not change the role, you are wrong. The Bren can do much that the BAR cannot, and this is why we are discussing the possibility of having this modelled in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You use the analogy of manufacturers calling a vehicle which is actually a SUV, an ORV for marketing purposes. Very well, but this works both ways. I can buy a GP, and call it a car simply because I use it as a car, but it is still a GP. This is what you are doing with the Bren – because it was used in the same role as the BAR, you claim that it is the same kind of weapon as the BAR. Again, you comment:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>no matter how heavy, a big magazine fed squad carried weapon is an Automatic Rifle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are wrong about the "squad carried" issue, because the Bren was not only a squad carried weapon. It was used in this role, but it does not immediately become a BAR just because the US happened to use an AR as their squad automatic. As for the "magazine fed" issue, you can indeed argue that an LMG isn't an LMG unless it has a belt feed, but the fact remains that the Bren is a LMG. No matter how the bullets get into the chamber, it is a LMG, and is strongly distinct from an AR for the reasons I have explained to Pak40.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Triumvir:

Well, personally -- and you being an ex-conscript too, I think you have the same opinion as I do -- I think that professional militaries are overrated and legends in their own minds.

I can not say I disagree.

But then again they do need to justify their upkeep and who wants to invest in a business that has a poor track record and bad reputation ?

Conscript Bundeswehr tankers have been able to compete and beat Canadian, British and US tankers;

And they are on the same side.

let's not even go into the adverse selection/moral hazard effect inherent in professional militaries.

I agree. Lets save that for later use.

Nonetheless, for force projection purposes, professional militaries are far better suited than conscript armies;

Yet one of the basic axioms is: no plan survives contact.

and as you rightly point out, the majority of military interventions have been force projections in response to political needs.

I would even venture to say they have been virtual force projections.

Fewer people -- not to say no people, but fewer people -- mourn the loss of military professional when compared to the loss of conscripts because there is a sense of "well, that's what they're paid for" that isn't as applicable to conscripts.

I think that is one of the dangers. 1 KIA is a human tragedy, 10 000 murdered civilians are statistics.

A peace keeper dies and his (or her these days) face is all over the paper. How terrible, what a waste. If the peace keeper was a woman even more terrible.

Ethnic group A "clences" a few villages of ethnic group B and 10 000 people vanish into the woods. What's on in the other channel ?

The Somalis may have achieved what they were after, but the cost they paid to do so was probably in excess of the gain from their achievement; much like that of the Vietnamese, who undisputedly won the war, but crippled themselves by doing so. Pyrrhic victories aren't.

Who decides a victory is a Pyrrhic victory ?

For Kosovo, I believe that the Danish and Norwegian battalions gave a good accounting of themselves;

That is my understanding too.

as for the "air war", it was as inflated as all other "air wars" are -- the latest BDAs are far less flattering than they were at the time (and correspondingly less publicised.)

I wonder why..... NOT.

Arguably, the propaganda from the publicised BDAs was the key in persuading Serbians to back down, and not the actual damage done.

Arguably, yes.

I think that this is the first actual case where Douhetian practice came close to theory; and I don't think it's likely to be repeated.

Except the change came from the inside. The outside pressure on the Serbian leaders seemed to have no effect but once the internal powers started moving the leaders had to alter their plans.

[Triumvir]

Aaargh, 24 hours sleeplessness plays bloody havoc with my spelling and grammar. Anyway, to respond to tero:

No plan may survive contact intact, I believe is the saying. Plans can and do survive contact; standard battle drills are a perfect example of those. As for virtual force projections, I don't think that the Sierra Leonians hammered by Brit Paras felt that to be virtual at all.

I don't see what ethnic cleansing has to do with using conscripts versus professionals in peacekeeping ops.

As for vanishing, Stalin may have been a bastard, but he was right. The Serbs are always the bad guys in the US media, since the media's need for a simple Manichean dichotomy fits that well; not so many people think about what the Bosnian Muslims or the Croats did to the Serbs, and what they would have done had they been in the same position as the Serbs. This doesn't excuse the Serbs one bit; but it hopefully will make the picture a bit more rounded.

Who decides whether victories are Pyrrhic? Historians... 8)

As for change coming from the inside, the change was started by the bombings, in a classic Douhetian style. The effect of the bombings was probably the same as any other bombing campaign throughout the last century, but coupled with internal unrest, was enough to topple the government -- and good riddance to them too.

[Username]

Pheww the BREN stench gun smell is wafting in here...

I think that Slap is saying that it would be better to have two MP44 men then 1 two-man BREN gun under most circumstances. I would agree.

The brits did not have a very mobile belt fed weapon in WWII. The BREN had to make up for alot of that. It is in no way comparable to a MG42 in any role.

Perhaps MP44 men should be sold separately?

Lewis

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

You are wrong about the "squad carried" issue, because the Bren was not only a squad carried weapon. It was used in this role, but it does not immediately become a BAR just because the US happened to use an AR as their squad automatic. As for the "magazine fed" issue, you can indeed argue that an LMG isn't an LMG unless it has a belt feed, but the fact remains that the Bren is a LMG. No matter how the bullets get into the chamber, it is a LMG, and is strongly distinct from an AR for the reasons I have explained to Pak40.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets face it, the bren was a light machine gun, a heavy machine gun, an antiaircraft weapons system, an assault rifle, an automatic rifle, a snipers dream, a gravity fed killing machine, the queens walking stick and when all wrapped up in an armored carrier a freaking tank too!

Does anyone know why a magazine fed weapon would need a tracked carrier?

Maybe the brits should have welded plates onto motorcycles and created the STEN gun carrier. The sole passenger/driver (he doesnt get a buddy to load for him) fires his trusty sten gun through an aperature in the front of the armored handlebars. Steering with one hand, firing with the other, popping wheelies and jumping over barbed wire too!

God save the Queen!

Lewis

[David Aitken]

I would direct those concerned to Lewis's anti-British jihad and my last comments to him in the aforementioned thread about the Bren.

Edit: See bottom of page here.

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]