An answer to Simon Fox

[Slapdragon]

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

Oddly enough, this is pretty close to the reason why you cannot call a Bren an LMG despite it being commonly misnamed as such. It is better than a BAR, granted, but just because a person is given a .45 and told to pull the trigger really fast does not make the .45 a HMG. Same with the Bren. Calling it an LMG is more a morale exercise now, and may have even been one then.

[David Aitken]

Slapdragon: A simple question. Not a trick, I am just interested to hear what you think. What kind of weapon is this man holding?

[Slapdragon]

I should also add that the inclusion or exclusion of the Bren from the squad is not an issue I care one way or another. Unless it was more effective, I would be inclined to keep it inside just because it would only be a 5 or maybe 6 point unit, but it does not turn my crank one way or another. Under 200 meters it is not much more effective than an MP-44, so it is not a big issue as far as I see, so if it had been moved out I would be equally blase' about it. On the other hand, perhaps the discussion should turn to the DP and DPM, which are LMGs technically, were used as such, but also appear inside sections. They are not as reliable as the Bren, but have superior firepower. Their drum though makes them on the edge. Are they an LMG? Not sure really. I think they are, but will have to look farther into them.

By the way, who ever said they shoulder fired a Bren is pretty tough. I got to pick one up and they seemed a bit heavy. I never was able to shoulder the M-60 except in a theatrical pose, I never would have wanted to shoot it from the shoulder.

[Username]

The BAR evolved further into the automatic role as troops removed the bipod (couple of pounds) and later models had plastic instead of wood stocks.

The BAR could be fired from the shoulder, giving it better accuracy on the move, then any heavier weapons.

Its certainly a heated subject and has brought out hissy fits and lots of proper english here, but I still say that a weapon like the BREN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAME should be held within a unit element. By that, I mean that it is either in a squad or in a HQ units. If extra BRENS were within TOE then buy the whole platoon and get an extra one built into the platoon HQ lets say. Or have a BREN squad that is 8 guys with 2 BRENS. Split this squad and be happy.

I dont see the big deal that Aitken and the others are crying about. The german LMG is a waste as a support weapon. But why should I expect anyone to have anything resembling thinking at this point.

Is it true that someone said the English are an ungovernable people?

Lewis

[Username]

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

By the way, who ever said they shoulder fired a Bren is pretty tough. I got to pick one up and they seemed a bit heavy. I never was able to shoulder the M-60 except in a theatrical pose, I never would have wanted to shoot it from the shoulder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ive seen the SEALs (who use a lightened M60) do a drill where they pull out by blazing away with these lighted weapons from the shoulder. They fall back in groups covering each other while making their way back to the rubber baots. They arent firing bursts but near full auto. They have some kind of canvas ammo holder and use the weapon as a single man type.

In any case, it would be very difficult to do this on the move.

Lewis

[Marlow]

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

They have some kind of canvas ammo holder and use the weapon as a single man type.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This isn't anything unique to the seals. Inside the metal ammo cans, M60 ammo comes packaged in cardboard boxes that are placed in cloth bandoleers. these can be attached to the feed tray of the gun. This keeps the belt from dangling in the dirt, and does a pretty good job of feeding the belt without causing stoppages.

[David Aitken]

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

But why should I expect anyone to have anything resembling thinking at this point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, practise what you preach...

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon: A simple question. Not a trick, I am just interested to hear what you think. What kind of weapon is this man holding?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like some mark of a Sterling to me.

[David Aitken]

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

Looks like some mark of a Sterling to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct. But what kind of weapon is it?

[Slapdragon]

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

You are correct. But what kind of weapon is it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is an automatic carbine. People who classify a weapon by the round it fires will call it a machine pistol, but it has a full stock which really brings it out of the pistol category, so this is technically incorrect. You could also call it a submachinegun (sometimes hyphenating the word) which is a cut down machinegun.

[David Aitken]

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

It is an automatic carbine. People who classify a weapon by the round it fires will call it a machine pistol, but it has a full stock which really brings it out of the pistol category, so this is technically incorrect. You could also call it a submachinegun (sometimes hyphenating the word) which is a cut down machinegun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your response. What strikes me about your definition of the Sterling, normally classified as a submachinegun, is that you are systematically rounding up.

I was under the impression that a carbine is a shortened rifle, initially for cavalry use, and later for vehicle and heavy weapons crews, and officers. To call a weapon which fires pistol rounds automatically a carbine is rather flattering. Even more so is calling it a submachinegun, or "cut down machinegun".

And yet in the case of the Bren, you round down. It has all the characteristics of a machinegun save a belt feed, and thus it becomes an automatic rifle. If a weapon firing pistol bullets automatically can be called a submachinegun or "cut down machinegun", then what on Earth is a light machinegun, and why on Earth is a Bren somehow inferior to this classification?

As you call the Bren an automatic rifle, I expected you to regard the Sterling as an automatic pistol. Employing your own logic, we can see that no matter if it is designed to be a submachinegun, it in effect bears no characteristics of any kind of machinegun. It is simply a stocked pistol with a large magazine which fires automatically. I quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>just because a person is given a .45 and told to pull the trigger really fast does not make the .45 a HMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With this in mind, I do not understand how you can regard the Sterling as either a carbine or submachinegun, when all it is, is a fast-firing pistol with some more substantial characteristics.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Calling it an LMG is more a morale exercise now, and may have even been one then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I conclude that you seem to reserve special logic for the Bren which you do not apply to other firearms. The BAR was designed as an automatic rifle, and it indeed bears all the characteristics of a rifle which fires automatically. The Sterling was designed as a submachinegun, and you agree that this is a correct term to use, or the equally flattering "automatic carbine", although both terms rather exaggerate its capabilities. But in the case of the Bren, even though it was designed as a light machinegun, and heartily resembles a machinegun in form and function, you reverse your logic in an effort to classify it as an automatic rifle.

[Username]

grasping for any straw now I see.

Instead of posting just pics, why not post some stats on the weapon too? Is it a 9mm? Whats its rate of fire? mag fill? etc? Doesnt seem like Slappy is that familiar with the weapon (nor am I). I dont think he is rounding up but probably not that familiar with the weapon. he does , in fact, call it a SMG but gives a reason for calling it an automatic carbine.

For you to go off on some discourse built around that begs desperation..

Lewis

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

[David Aitken]

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

For you to go off on some discourse built around that begs desperation..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for confusing you with some simple logic. The precise model is of no consequence. The picture I chose was simply a clear depiction of a soldier carrying a submachinegun. Slapdragon obviously understood that. You, on the other hand, would predictably attempt to confuse the issue.

[Andrew H.]

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

You are correct. But what kind of weapon is it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a club.

It won't function as an SMG/machine carbine/military-style assault weapon unless you load it.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Andrew Hedges wrote:

It won't function as an SMG/machine carbine/military-style assault weapon unless you load it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Username]

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

Sorry for confusing you with some simple logic. The precise model is of no consequence. The picture I chose was simply a clear depiction of a soldier carrying a submachinegun. Slapdragon obviously understood that. You, on the other hand, would predictably attempt to confuse the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite. First you post a pic and say "Slapdragon: A simple question. Not a trick, I am just interested to hear what you think. What kind of weapon is this man holding?"

But then go onto some roundup/round-down BS. The only thing simple here was your argument. The pic, btw, is not clear, the mag is out the side on the weapon away from the photographer. From the angle of the pic, it isnt clear.

But you are just showing everyone your true colors by doing something like this. First you say "oh trust me, really I care what you think" then come off with your weak "you round some weapons up and some down, hmm, whys that?". Very poor show old boy (I am starting to tawk like these blokes ).

Theres no hard and fast dilineation between weapons. But a weapon having a belt feed, and the resulting amount of short call firepower that a belted weapon can deliver DOES make it a class apart from clip fed weapons.

I am glad that the game, whether intentionally or not, at this point models it that way. Hopefully it will in the future!

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

I conclude that you seem to reserve special logic for the Bren which you do not apply to other firearms. The BAR was designed as an automatic rifle, and it indeed bears all the characteristics of a rifle which fires automatically. The Sterling was designed as a submachinegun, and you agree that this is a correct term to use, or the equally flattering "automatic carbine", although both terms rather exaggerate its capabilities. But in the case of the Bren, even though it was designed as a light machinegun, and heartily resembles a machinegun in form and function, you reverse your logic in an effort to classify it as an automatic rifle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I call it an auto carbine because it fits that category, not because I round up and down. Here are some basis for taxonomy of weapons. First is that round does not matter , functional design does. This is known as a functionalist perspective. For a weapon, you throw away all the marketing, and ask yourself what does the design allow it to do.

First: ammunition does not matter in weapon designation until you leave the small arm class (and make the weapon a cannon). So "rounding up" as you say is not an issue because the use of pistol ammunition does not make that AC/SMG a pistol. A pistol is a handgun designed for use in personal protection firing one round each time you pull teh trigger. A machine pistol is a pistol that fires many rounds with each pull of a trigger.

A rifle is shoulder fired weapon (not hand fired) that combines a rifled barrel and some form of ammunition (loose, cartridge, or otherwise) that fires one round for each pull of the trigger. Some of these rifles evolve with different methods of reloading a round, bolt, lever, or even mechanical. When they get a magazine, automatic capability, but are still man portable they are automatic rifles. If they retain these characteristics, but trade maximum range for portabilityof weapon, they become assault rifles. An automatic rifle provides auto fire capability to small teams.

A carbine is a short rifle carried by mobile troops and capable of either shoulder fire, or sometimes designed to fire from the hip. An auto carbine is a weapon that is a carbine with automatic fire capability. Auto carbines blur in form and function with assault rifles (as do many weapons after WW2 when older terms become twisted by new concepts). auto carbines are often called submachineguns. Note that the M4 version of the M16 is called a carbine and a submachinegun in literature, but does not fire a pistol bullet.

The LMG is the lightest class of machinegun that still retains a heavy barrel, a large magazine capacity, and is used as a base of fire where its extended magazine and barrel can keep it in action. It however must be light enough to keep up with a platoon, and is thus usually bipod mounted.

The MMG is a team fought weapon that adds a bipod, and usuually is fought at the company level. It does not move up in an assault like the LMG, but has a tripod.

In addition to a tripod, the HMG must have something else to recommend it for heavy long range sustained fire, such as a water jacket, very long range, better ability to penetrate hard targets, or something.

The GPMG subsumes the LMG role, but can fill the MMG/HMG role , often using special attachments or support.

The SAW subsumes the AR when high magazine capacity moves down into the infantry squad in a weapon not much heavier than the basic AR.

Often, the MMG/HMG role is not performed as well by the GPMG as the originals, but it is much more versatile.

[Richard Morgan]

So the Bren is an assault rifle? Well well, old sweats like me learn something every day. My experience of the weapon was the 7.62mm L.M.G. variant - as it was classified by the British Army (someone here reckons they were wrong.) We were always taught that the gun team represented the primary firepower of the section. An L.M.G. gun team could crank out a pretty impressive rate of fire. Ist I.A. weapon fires, weapon stops: cock the weapon, mag off look in, no rounds, new mag on, continue firing. With a clued up gun team, this would take all of a second to accomplish. The limitations to the weapon's firepower in section use were not caused by mag capacity (30 rounds in 7.62 L.M.G.) but by availability of ammo. Customarily, all section members had to carry a couple of L.M.G. mags exclusively for use of the gun. One very useful feature of the weapon at the time was that S.L.R. mags were interchangeable (albeit of 20 round capacity) and could be loaded onto the weapon as well, so that in an emergency, a rifleman could keep the gun firing. By the way, "Light" is a relative term. I always seemed to get lumbered with the bloody thing on march and shoot competitions and I can assure you that they are anything but :mad:

Cheers,

24575715 L/Cpl Morgan (retired)

P.S. What is Lewis's military experience? I would be fascinated to know!

[David Aitken]

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

Not quite. First you post a pic and say "Slapdragon: A simple question. Not a trick, I am just interested to hear what you think. What kind of weapon is this man holding?"

But then go onto some roundup/round-down BS. The only thing simple here was your argument. The pic, btw, is not clear, the mag is out the side on the weapon away from the photographer. From the angle of the pic, it isnt clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, you are the only person crying foul here. Slapdragon is continuing the discussion. Secondly, it is apparent to me that Slapdragon understood the intent of my question, and recognised why I chose a picture of a Sterling. I considered using an American SMG to avoid doubt, but I credit Slapdragon with the power of intuition. I probably would have cut down the odds if I were asking you the same question, for reasons that you are ably demonstrating. Thirdly, I said it was not a trick question and it was not. I did not use underhand methods to try and make Slapdragon say something he would regret, and then grill him on the basis of a few casual words. I was only interested to see whether he would classify the Sterling – or any weapon which I would call a SMG – as a SMG or an automatic pistol.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But you are just showing everyone your true colors by doing something like this. First you say "oh trust me, really I care what you think" then come off with your weak "you round some weapons up and some down, hmm, whys that?". Very poor show old boy (I am starting to tawk like these blokes ).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, it appears that you are confused by simple logic. It is apparent to me that the Bren is a LMG, by analysing its design. However, Slapdragon is using relative logic to classify it as an automatic rifle. Therefore it was necessary to establish the basis of this relativity, by asking him what he considered to be the class of a different kind of weapon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Theres no hard and fast dilineation between weapons. But a weapon having a belt feed, and the resulting amount of short call firepower that a belted weapon can deliver DOES make it a class apart from clip fed weapons.

I am glad that the game, whether intentionally or not, at this point models it that way. Hopefully it will in the future!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is getting into the territory of the other thread. You continue to make the strange assumption that if BTS were to model the Bren correctly, they would somehow be unable to give it its true capabilities, like every other weapon in the game, and would be forced to give it extra powers. I really don't think you are making this argument on a technical basis – you just seem desperate not to allow the Bren its real-world capabilities.

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

The LMG is the lightest class of machinegun that still retains a heavy barrel, a large magazine capacity, and is used as a base of fire where its extended magazine and barrel can keep it in action. It however must be light enough to keep up with a platoon, and is thus usually bipod mounted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so I was mistaken in my assumption that a belt feed was one of your criteria for a LMG. That leaves only the weight of the barrel. Therefore, you apparently regard the Bren as an automatic rifle simply because the MG42 has a heavier barrel. No matter that it bears all the characteristics of a LMG and functioned extremely well as such, you just think the barrel was a bit too light, and therefore you knock it down a peg and give it the same classification as the BAR, a true automatic rifle and a significantly less capable weapon.

Granted, you may think it neat to call the Bren an AR because it held the same role in the British squad as the BAR held in the US squad. But the fact remains that the Bren was used to its full potential in the British army, and held the position below the Vickers very well. Lewis claims that this was only a stopgap, because he is convinced the the Bren is inferior, largely because it is British apparently. But the US platoon was in need of his beloved M1919, because the BAR was only an AR, and couldn't fill the role of LMG, making a MMG necessary. It all evens out. Think of the Bren as you like, but it is clearly a LMG in form and function.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

So the Bren is an assault rifle? Well well, old sweats like me learn something every day. My experience of the weapon was the 7.62mm L.M.G. variant - as it was classified by the British Army (someone here reckons they were wrong.) We were always taught that the gun team represented the primary firepower of the section. An L.M.G. gun team could crank out a pretty impressive rate of fire. Ist I.A. weapon fires, weapon stops: cock the weapon, mag off look in, no rounds, new mag on, continue firing. With a clued up gun team, this would take all of a second to accomplish. The limitations to the weapon's firepower in section use were not caused by mag capacity (30 rounds in 7.62 L.M.G.) but by availability of ammo. Customarily, all section members had to carry a couple of L.M.G. mags exclusively for use of the gun. One very useful feature of the weapon at the time was that S.L.R. mags were interchangeable (albeit of 20 round capacity) and could be loaded onto the weapon as well, so that in an emergency, a rifleman could keep the gun firing. By the way, "Light" is a relative term. I always seemed to get lumbered with the bloody thing on march and shoot competitions and I can assure you that they are anything but :mad:

Cheers,

24575715 L/Cpl Morgan (retired)

P.S. What is Lewis's military experience? I would be fascinated to know!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I would never class it as an assault rifle because of its weight and designed range for fire. Maybe you could argue it was an early SAW with low magazine capacity.

[Slapdragon]

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

Ah, so I was mistaken in my assumption that a belt feed was one of your criteria for a LMG. That leaves only the weight of the barrel. Therefore, you apparently regard the Bren as an automatic rifle simply because the MG42 has a heavier barrel. No matter that it bears all the characteristics of a LMG and functioned extremely well as such, you just think the barrel was a bit too light, and therefore you knock it down a peg and give it the same classification as the BAR, a true automatic rifle and a significantly less capable weapon.

Granted, you may think it neat to call the Bren an AR because it held the same role in the British squad as the BAR held in the US squad. But the fact remains that the Bren was used to its full potential in the British army, and held the position below the Vickers very well. Lewis claims that this was only a stopgap, because he is convinced the the Bren is inferior, largely because it is British apparently. But the US platoon was in need of his beloved M1919, because the BAR was only an AR, and couldn't fill the role of LMG, making a MMG necessary. It all evens out. Think of the Bren as you like, but it is clearly a LMG in form and function.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the Bren was the best AR made, allowing it to fill many roles that it was clearly not designed to fill. However, it lacked magazine capacity to be an LMG. Do like the Lewis, and pop a 90 round feed device on top, and you would have had it right in the LMG camp.

Relying on what the commonwealth called this is also not an issue because they had a really odd sense of nomenclature. Ab example was with tanks, which they continued to call Infantry, Cruiser, and Light sometimes bouncing the tanks from one section to another for no good reason, long after every other country had just thrown them into functional and weight classes.

[IPA]

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

I think that the Bren was the best AR made, allowing it to fill many roles that it was clearly not designed to fill. However, it lacked magazine capacity to be an LMG. Do like the Lewis, and pop a 90 round feed device on top, and you would have had it right in the LMG camp.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well how about this?

A Mark I Bren with a 100 round drum magazine. Admittedly it was only used in an Anti-Aircraft role and SAS Desert Jeeps, but does that drum magazine transform it into an LMG in your view?

(Posted just for the eye candy).

Peter

[easy-v]

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

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

Show off!

[David Aitken]

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

I think that the Bren was the best AR made, allowing it to fill many roles that it was clearly not designed to fill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And for the reaons I have explained, I think the Bren most certainly was designed to fill the roles it was used in. Your only justification for claiming that it was not designed for these roles is because you insist on calling it an automatic rifle, which it patently is not. The BAR is a true automatic rifle, and what you say about the Bren would be accurately applied to the BAR.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, it lacked magazine capacity to be an LMG. Do like the Lewis, and pop a 90 round feed device on top, and you would have had it right in the LMG camp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, like your barrel weight argument, this is completely arbitrary. In effect you agree that the Bren is a LMG, but the 30-round magazine makes it an AR. This is nonsense, even before we consider the training given to the Bren team number two, who was able to change the magazine so quickly as to make no serious degradation to the weapon's performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Relying on what the commonwealth called this is also not an issue because they had a really odd sense of nomenclature. Ab example was with tanks, which they continued to call Infantry, Cruiser, and Light sometimes bouncing the tanks from one section to another for no good reason, long after every other country had just thrown them into functional and weight classes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not relying on the official designation, I am relying on analysis and commonsense.

[Slapdragon]

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

Well how about this?

A Mark I Bren with a 100 round drum magazine. Admittedly it was only used in an Anti-Aircraft role and SAS Desert Jeeps, but does that drum magazine transform it into an LMG in your view?

(Posted just for the eye candy).

Peter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. It would become more capable of performing the suppressive fire role of an LMG, and although its barrel is still too light, at least you can change it. If you can come up with some proof that the British, contrary to current understanding, used the Bren as an LMG and gave the infantry these drums, then I would definately say it deserves the title. Otherwise, My neighbor has a Volkswagen beetle which he claims can go off road, thus making it an ORV. The fact that they saw the need of the drums to increase rate of fire shows the importance of larger feed devices in the LMG type role.

I suspect this is coming down to a more political issue. People want the Bren to be given the firepower and use of a MG42, so anyone who points out that it is just a rather heavy AR acting as a squad automatic weapon is throwing some mud on that image. I do not doubt that the Bren is a fine weapon. I do not say that its historical use as a squad automatic weapon was not a good use for it, nor do I say that the weapon did not provide the lions share of a Commonwealth squad's firepower. Compared to a bunch of Enfields, the thing is great. Its just that it was a 1920s attempt to update the automatic rifle, was used just like an automatic rifle (except for the rather odd emplyment as a vehicle mounted weapon), had a much lighter barrel than other LMGs, and was rarely employed as a stand alone team since the British felt that it was a support for an underwise underequipped rifle section. The fact that the British did not have a really good LMG (ok, they had the Lewis, but the Lewis could never be called "really good") or for that matter an MMG does not mean that the Bren suddenly and magically becomes a good candidate for either role, or that the designers of it thought they were making a GPMG.

Now for some interesting reasons why people like to call the thing an LMG. In 1924 Vaclav Holek decided that the Belgian BN and the American BAR were not useful automatic rifles, so he started work on what he referred to as a "light machinegun. It was essentially a Bren with belt feed and a heavy barrel. He was told by various armies that they preferred the BAR because of its magazine feed system (to keep ammo wastage down with advancing troops and reduce rate of fire) and with a lighter barrel (to make it more portable. Always an excellent salesman, he modified his design to make it fit into the BAR model -- removing the belt feed and replacing it with a magazine fed from the same direction. So like the bastard child it is, it retains some of the LMG characteristics, and indeed although the British used it as an AR inside of sections, they called it by what Holek called it in 1924.

After the war, the ZB26 concept was revisited in an attempt to make the weapon back into a true LMG or even see if it could fill the GPMG concept that the Russian and German Armies were / had pioneered. The result was the Model 52 which returned to belt feed, a heavier barrel, but could still take older magazines. Interestingly enough, Czechslovakia offered this weapon for license to the British (which happened several times that Eastern bloc countries offered to license weapons designs to western bloc countries) but were turned down. The British felt that the magazine feed was all that was needed for a "sectional weapon" and that a larger capacity magazine would only encourage to be used in "other support roles", which I thought were very funny comments considering the wide range of uses the Bren was put to in WW2. Of course, the British were still thinking IW at the time, but still it was interesting there reasons for not considering the 52 with belt feed.