The Bren LMG: Not Sold Separately...

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

Apropos the recent Lee Enfield and 25 pounder bashing: I was curious as to the reasoning behind the conspicuous absence of the Bren (from purchase as a support weapon). After recently reading "The 6th Airborne Div. in Normandy", "By Air to Battle", & "Red Berets into Normandy" i'd like to be able to position Bren guns apart from their sections.

I'm well aware that i could split sections and place the half with the Bren where i'd like, but then i'd suffer the morale penalties inherent to split squads. I also realize i could purchase more Bren carriers and use them as i would individual Bren teams - but that's not what i'm looking for. As a frequent player of Commonwealth forces, i've really wondered about this.

Obviously CMBO is a closed book, but maybe for the North African/Med theatre this could be considered. Certainly one can purchase the LMG42 and the M1919A4 .30cal (M1919 really an MMG, i know) separately when using Kraut & Yank forces. I know CM does not track individual soldiers so perhaps it could have been included as a 2 man team, as with 2" mortars or PIATs.

Before the flames fly: i've searched using key word combinations such as Bren, Bren LMG, & Bren gun (but only come up with threads that discuss its great accuracy and beloved place in the British TO&E) - i'd be happy if somebody pointed me to a thread that answered my question.

[Michael Dorosh]

In "leg" infantry units, the Bren was rarely deployed as a 2 man team; the section was broken down into a Bren team (either 3 or 4 men depending on what reference you believe) and a rifle team (6 or 7, when the section was at full strength, which frequently they weren't).

I will agree that special circumstances led to the employment of Bren teams away from this structure - you mention airborne ops. The first Canadian section across the Albert Canal was armed completely with Brens and Stens - but this was a strictly one section job and a little out of CM's scale.

If you have other sources pointing to the deployment of Brens in this manner...incidentally, why should they be exempt from morale penalties? Seems to me the rationale behind this is very solid.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

Thanks for your prompt reply, Michael.

A 3 man team sounds quite reasonable for CM purposes. Off the top of my head, I have several books published by Osprey (perhaps you dispute these books' quality), among them, "Army Commandos" and "Tobruk 1941", in which Bren teams are used apart from sections - often in defense - mounted on bi/tri-pods. Full strength rifle squads would then certainly be around to cover their backs. "Brazen Chariots" (concerning Crete), which i don't own but have read, also mentions this deployment. Perhaps it is more rare than i had thought. In a slightly unrelated note, several photos i've seen depict the Bren on an anti-aircraft mount (tri-pod) being fired (by a two man team) at low flying planes and gliders.

My feeling regarding morale penalties was contingent upon the availability of the Bren team as a separate unit (to be purchased under the current Support heading). If this were possible i don't see why a morale penalty should be incurred (if the team starts out as a separate unit - it does not warrant the morale hit). I'm aware that the Bren was the heart of the British section (the other men in the sect. all carried ammo for it) and splitting the section would rightly carry the penalty. However, that is not my intent.

[Pak40]

Valid wish, but I think I can explain why you can't do this in CM.

First, the Bren is a squad support weapon used in the same role as the BAR and MG42(squad organic LMG). If you would get your wish of detachment of the BREN, then everyone else would want the detachment of the BAR and MG42. Then people might want their Thompsons and MP40s detached from the squad and so on...This would lead to a lot more units on the fields and would then bog down slower machines and everyone would need a P400 just to play CM at a respectable frame rate.

Second, the squads you see are abstractions of where they actually are. The squads are spread out and one could argue that the Bren is bringing up the rear of the squad, which it typically would.

Third and probably most important(if I am correct). The squad support weapons are usually the last to die in squad. I believe this simulates two things: squad members picking up the Bren if the original Bren gunner is wounded/killed AND the likely account that the Bren gunner would be further behind the rest of the squad and therefore a bit safer.

Of course, I could be dead wrong, but that's the reasoning I concocted in my head.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

First, the Bren is a squad support weapon used in the same role as the BAR and MG42(squad organic LMG). If you would get your wish of detachment of the BREN, then everyone else would want the detachment of the BAR and MG42...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

err, you can get seperate, 2 man, LMG42 teams. Not as a split from a squad, granted, but you can get them.

[Simon Fox]

Bren teams acting entirely seperately from their section, probably not. But. the location of the Bren gun within infantry sections was not considered an inviolate structure:

"The Bren gun should be made available, away from its section and the men of its section, if the Platoon or Company Commander has a definite use for it in some other way. To tie the Bren gun to its section on all occasions may be to lose its usefulness whilst, on the other hand, it is likely to slow up and disorganize the action of the attacking rifle sections." Lt-Col R.L. Sherbrook "The New Infantry Weapons; Their Organization and Tactical Employment", Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, Vol. LXXXIII, February to November, 19

Bren teams in another role, probably so IMO. The British infantry battalion TO&E had a number of Bren guns in addition to those in the sections. If they weren't fired by a section then who the hell used them? Musta been a Bren team!

Typically support weapon units were issued with Bren guns for defensive purposes. So for example the Bn AT platoon had 3 Bren guns (one for each 2 gun section and a 2in mortar I might add) for defense. The 3in mortar sections (2 tubes) were also typically issued with Brens. The Bn carrier platoon was also of course issued with Brens and of course the carrier crew was a Bren team whether mounted or dismounted, as they frequently were. The Bn and Co would be able to draw on the extra Brens floating about as required for their own defense. I mean they wouldn't want to rely on the woeful Brown Bess or whatever that antiquated rifle they had, would they?

Extra Brens? you ask. Well in CM the Brit infantry Bn has somewhere in the vicinity of 38 LMG (though this was fixed up a bit in the last patch excepting that some of them are "fixed" on carriers now). The historical issue was somewhere in the vicinity of 63 ("British Army Handbook 1939-45" George Forty).

I agree that the British section should be split 3 (support element) + 7 (assault element). As to the issue of morale/firepower penalties for split squads I am uncertain as to the solidity of the rationale. If the typical tactical employment of a section is to split it and indeed if the training and practice of the sections within a platoon is to do so to what extent should they be penalised. The employment of a "Bren group" (ie pooling all the Bren sub sections under his command) was a typical tactical option available and used by a Brit platoon commander.

For a brilliant read on this and related subjects (ie Brit tank-infantry cooperation) try: "Military Training in the British Army, 1940-1944: From Dunkirk to D-Day" T. Harrison Place (2000)

[Michael Dorosh]

I posted a lengthy quote on here from Farley Mowat's book And No Birds Sang - he was a platoon commander in Sicily. In one action, a withdrawal, he massed all 6 of his Bren guns (three from his platoon, and 3 from another platoon) and used the firepower to cover his withdrawal. They were down to 1 or 2 mags per Bren, however. They also relied on smoke from the 2 inch mortar. I think that example jives nicely with what Simon Says.

[Guest Babra]

The reality is that until the game models individual soldiers (and their loads), we have to accept certain limitations.

[Simon Fox]

I'm sorry Babra but your refined thought processes are confusing me. Perhaps you could help this ignorant gutter-dweller by explaining your point somewhat? Just want to be absolutely sure not to misrepresent your meaning....

[Guest Babra]

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

I'm sorry Babra but your refined thought processes are confusing me. Perhaps you could help this ignorant gutter-dweller by explaining your point somewhat? Just want to be absolutely sure not to misrepresent your meaning....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fu-ture I will speak slow-ly so you un-der-stand.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

If you would get your wish of detachment of the BREN, then everyone else would want the detachment of the BAR and MG42. Then people might want their Thompsons and MP40s detached...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly never advocated detachment of the BAR or any of the respective SMGs. I believe i indicated in my original post that i understand why CMBO does not model individuals; a 3 man team or 7 / 3 section split with no morale penalty was subsequently suggested - hence the discourse on historical usage of separate Bren teams.

[JonS]

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

... Lt-Col R.L. Sherbrook "The New Infantry Weapons; Their Organization and Tactical Employment", Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, Vol. LXXXIII, February to November, 19 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simon,

is there a couple of numbers missing from that cite? I.e. "Feb to Nov, 1938" or "Feb to Nov, 1940"

Regards

JonS

[Simon Fox]

Oops, yes it was 1938 when the British army was getting used to the fact that the provision of an LMG in the section meant that now it could both fire and maneuver at the same time.

BTW cite is a verb not a noun. I've let Babra and Dorosh get away with it in the past, you've gotta make allowances after all, but you should know better.

[Guest Babra]

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

BTW cite is a verb not a noun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or a short form for citation. As in, "Can you provide a cit[ation]e? Sorry, was I typing too fast for you?

[Simon Fox]

No cite is not a short form of citation. Cite is an entirely different word. Cite is the act of making a citation, as in to cite a reference.

A citation itself is not the original reference or source that you quote or refer to but the making of that reference.

[Guest Babra]

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

No cite is not a short form of citation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is, as they say, consecrated by usage, and in these parts and where I work that's exactly what it means.

Why do you type "BTW" instead of "by the way"? I won't mention your use of "musta been" on this very thread.

If you're going to correct people's English, try following it yourself.

I'd refer you to "Definition 1:"

Citation

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Babra ]

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

...seperately...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as this has degenerated into a semantic/grammatical sniping duel... how do you spell that?

I'd rather talk about the King's weapons than His English.

[JonS]

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

BTW cite is a verb not a noun ... but you should know better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for pointing that out. It didn't feel right, but I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was.

Ones use of language is never so good that it can't be improved upon.

My favourite signature on this forum from years gone by was "Sbelling chequed by MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!"

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you're going to correct people's English, try following it yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Getting bitter and twisted again Babra, hardly suprising that you should take umbrage at the inconsequential. I'm not correcting anyone's English or spelling for that matter, I could only do that if I could edit their posts. I am quite happy for my own lapses to be pointed out after all I can quite happily brush them off with the trusty 'consecrated by usage' argument. Just pointing out the correct definition of cite, feel free to misuse it at your own whim. Perhaps you could enlighten me on your usage of it for future reference: do you cite your cite? or do you reference your cite? perhaps you could citation your cite? It's certainly a useful concept to devolve multiple meanings to the same word, makes things so much more streamlined.

[JonS]

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

increasingly off topic blather<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, yes. But Simon, you don't have time for this. Where's my turn?

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Andrew H.]

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

It didn't feel right, but I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Must be something else making you feel uneasy: cite is a noun. If you want proof, do a google search for, say "cite checking." You'll get hundreds of fascinating hits, mostly resembling this exciting passage:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This user-friendly text is the most readable and comprehensive guide to legal citations for legal practitioners. It explains the rules established in "The Bluebook," provides numerous examples, and includes exercises designed to reinforce the rules. "Cite Checker" is written specifically for the legal practitioner and focuses on the most common forms of legal writings - court documents and legal memoranda. This brief, clearly presented and organized workbook is an invaluable companion to "The Bluebook" and will help users master the often difficult task of cite checking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[JonS]

er, thanks Andrew, but if I want proof I think I'll use the COD rather than Google.

Oh, here it is:

cite /sait/ v.tr 1 adduce as an instance. 2 quote (a passage, book, or author) in support of an argument etc.

COD, 1991

Seems Simon is correct - it is a verb

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: JonS because he had comments mis-attributed ]

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Guest Babra]

Read my lips. Ab-re-vi-a-tion.

[JonS]

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

Read my lips. Ab-re-vi-a-tion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Its not a contraction, or an Ab-re-vi-a-tion, nor even an abbr.

[Guest Babra]

Trolls...