The Bren LMG: Not Sold Separately...

[IPA]

IIRC the Bren group was commanded by the section second in command, either a lance corporal or corporal for airborne units. This and the fact that the bren team was trained to operate as a separate fire group (point in dispute) would theoretically reduce the moral penalty.

Peter

[xerxes]

A bren team would be a great addition to the British (and polish!) suppport forces.

Is the vickers mg really as weak as CM models it? Wasn't there a better (i.e. more men, tripod, etc.) configuration?

- xerxes

[Pak40]

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

Well I am not particularly familiar with US squad practices but as pointed out by David the BAR and the Bren aren't exactly in the same league. The BAR may have been a one man weapon in the US squad but the Brit squad actually had a 3 man bren element. The rationale for making a seperate Bren team is exactly the same as that for making an MG42 LMG team: they were part of the TO&E for a higher formation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

I can assure you that the BAR man didn't operate apart from the squad as a "one man weapon". Sure it only took one man to operate it (just like the Bren) but the BAR man was often complemented with at least one squad member when put into action. I really think it depends on the situation at hand. One could argue that the U.S. squad should be able to split into whatever ratio the commander decides, whether it's 6/6, 4/8, or 2/10.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"The section must go into battle organized, every man knowing his own job. The section is divided into two groups: ¾ (i) The Bren Group … (ii) The Rifle Group

[Alternatively] "… the section may be organized into three groups - two rifle groups and one Bren group."

--- Infantry Training, Part VIII. - Fieldcraft, Battle Drill, Section and Platoon Tactics, 1944<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea what the reference to "¾" refers to. (EDIT: It's a typo and does not refer to anything).

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

[Username]

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

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.

I can assure you that the BAR man didn't operate apart from the squad as a "one man weapon". Sure it only took one man to operate it (just like the Bren) but the BAR man was often complemented with at least one squad member when put into action. I really think it depends on the situation at hand. One could argue that the U.S. squad should be able to split into whatever ratio the commander decides, whether it's 6/6, 4/8, or 2/10.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever seen the Sand Pebbles?

All kidding aside, the BAR was "sort" of the same role as the BREN but you have to look at the whole picture. The US had a mobile air cooled BELT fed MMG. It also had distributed semi-auto rifle fire from the Garands. So, the BAR had more firepower around it. It nicely filled the mobile-one-man-automatic-rifle role.

So the BAR filled this role but had more mobile firepower/less manpower drain than the BREN. The BREN may have been better at suppressing a two window house at 300 meters, but the BAR could suppress the same on the run at 100 meters. It could also take comfort in the fact that M1919 were putting solid firepower (not clip fed) on target and that Garands could cover it when it was reloading.

The US wanted to win the war through movement. The BAR was part of the equation. The brits really had equal defensive firepower (maybe) but not equal offensive.

Lewis

[David Aitken]

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

Is the vickers mg really as weak as CM models it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main asset of the Vickers was its non-stop firing ability. This would not mean you hold the trigger and don't let go, but it does mean that you can fire longer and more often. Restricting it to the short, intermittant bursts of the air-cooled machineguns in CM is arguably unfair.

<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>

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.

[David Aitken]

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

The BREN may have been better at suppressing a two window house at 300 meters, but the BAR could suppress the same on the run at 100 meters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are quite right that the BAR was originally designed as a mobile individual weapon. However, you are wrong to suggest that the Bren is a static weapon. It is quite possible to fire a Bren from the hip whilst moving. It is arguably better than even the LMG42 in this respect.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally Posted By David A. 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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. Finally there's a good reason for making a 3 man Bren team. I undterstand better now.

The only problem I see now is the fact that if you have a 3 man Bren team then at least one of the two "supporting" men in the team are considered to be helping the gunner, which means he wont be firing his rifle very much. Therefore you'd lose some firepower much like the MG42 (squad organic) is modeled in the German squads.

For those who don't know about the reduced firepower of the squad organic MG42: The MG42 as part of a squad is reduced in firepower compared to the MG42 LMG that can be purchased separately. This is to account for the fact that one of the riflemen in the squad would be helping with the belt ammo. And since all men in a squad are modeled as firing a weapon, a reduction was made to the MG42 firepower to make up for the ammo loader's duties.

Obviously the Bren doesn't use a belt but David makes it sould like the 3 man team makes a big difference to the Bren gun and therefore at least one of these men must sacrifice some firepower to help the Bren gunner in providing ammo, changing the barrel, carrying exra ammo, spotting, etc...

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally Poste by David Aitken The BAR was designed as an automatic rifle. Originally it was only semi-automatic, and the small magazine reflects this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just thought I'd point out that these two sentences contradict each other although it may be true.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

The Germans have a light and a heavy. The US have two mediums and a heavy. The British only have a medium. There is not such a good argument for providing BAR teams, because the BAR is strictly an automatic rifle and a one-man weapon. The Bren is a light all-purpose machinegun....

So the question I would ask is, why is there no light machinegun team for Commonwealth troops in CM, while the other two main armies have an equivalent?

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe this was stated in my first post. All the discussion centered on the

"squad level" theory of exclusion misses these points - namely, that 2 to 3 man Bren teams were included in British TO&E and that the other combatants in CM have 2 to 3 man light and medium MG teams. This adds up to what i perceive as a slight on the modeling of available British Infantry LMG firepower that one can bring to the CM battlefield. The Vickers is not favourably modelled and the exclusion of separate Bren teams places the Commonwealth player at a loss for relatively inexpensive, mobile MG power.

[Username]

I believe the BAR was semi and full auto at first. It was then full auto only in two rates, 350 and I forget the other. The BAR at 350 would allow single shots to be attained.

The BAR can be fired like a rifle, at the shoulder, while moving, the BREN would be a handfull.

Lewis

[Andrew H.]

If commonwealth forces had a two or three man Bren team somewhere in their TO&E, this should be modelled in CM, the same way that the 2-man German LMG team is modeled.

But I don't think that CM should bother to develop elaborate squad-splitting rules to simulate the fact that Brens may have operated alone on occasion; this takes things down to the level of modeling single soldiers.

Brens and BARs are more similar than they are alike, esp. when compared to the MG 42. Both the Bren and BAR have 20 round clips, which limits the amount of suppressive fire that these guns can put out, even if a spare rifleman acts as a Bren loader. Nevertheless, the Bren did have a quick-change barrel, which would permit more sustained fire. The Bren is slightly heavier than the BAR, too -- 23 vs. 19 lbs, I think.

Oh, I don't think the absence of a separate Bren team has much effect at all; I have never had much use for the separate German LMG teams, and I would imagine that a separate Bren team would be even less useful. Nevertheless, if they existed, they should be modeled, if only for completeness.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Andrew Hedges ]

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

Both the Bren and BAR have 20 round clips, which limits the amount of suppressive fire that these guns can put out, even if a spare rifleman acts as a Bren loader. Nevertheless, the Bren did have a quick-change barrel, which would permit more sustained fire. The Bren is slightly heavier than the BAR, too -- 23 vs. 19 lbs, I think.

Oh, I don't think the absence of a separate Bren team has much effect at all; I have never had much use for the separate German LMG teams, and I would imagine that a separate Bren team would be even less useful.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Andrew Hedges ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, guv'na, the Bren used a

30 ROUND CLIP.

I'd try to use factual specs when attempting to support arguments that call the Bren an ineffective weapon.

If this is your observation, i dare say you don't often use Commonwealth forces and have not read much about their deployment.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

The BAR can be fired like a rifle, at the shoulder, while moving, the BREN would be a handfull.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a documented case of a Fijian soldier in Malaya in the 50's using 2 Brens at once - one in eahc hand. From teh hip.

so yes, you are right - 1 Bren = 1 Handful.

But on a more average note I've fired the Bren from the hip, and I'm not a 6'6" 250 lb Polynesian.

It's actually very easy to do. accuracy is another thing of course.

[ASL Veteran]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

There's a documented case of a Fijian soldier in Malaya in the 50's using 2 Brens at once - one in eahc hand. From teh hip.

so yes, you are right - 1 Bren = 1 Handful.

But on a more average note I've fired the Bren from the hip, and I'm not a 6'6" 250 lb Polynesian.

It's actually very easy to do. accuracy is another thing of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I remember Rambo firing an M60 from the hip at the end of the first movie ... He was pretty PO'd too!

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I believe the BAR was semi and full auto at first. It was then full auto only in two rates, 350 and I forget the other. The BAR at 350 would allow single shots to be attained.

The BAR can be fired like a rifle, at the shoulder, while moving, the BREN would be a handfull.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, check out early pattern BAR belts. The BAR was designed to be fired from the hip, with the butt of the weapon secured into a stock on the waistbelt.

[Username]

The BREN normally was loading 28 rounds per clip.

So when the guy is running with the BREN is the loader firing his weapon one handed? The loader had a box with 12 clips in it. Looks kind of bulky.

In any case. Is the russian lt mg going to be modeled sep?

Lewis

[Andrew H.]

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

Actually, guv'na, the Bren used a

30 ROUND CLIP.

I'd try to use factual specs when attempting to support arguments that call the Bren an ineffective weapon.

If this is your observation, i dare say you don't often use Commonwealth forces and have not read much about their deployment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II gives the Bren a 20-round magazine. I don't know whether that is correct, or the bren website is correct. But even with a 30 round magazine, the Bren would still have more similarities to the BAR than the MG 42 (although I do agree that 30 is better than 20).

[Stalin's Organ]

AFAIK the main similarities between the Bren and the BAR are that they are both magazine fed and both gas operaetd.

With the MG42 the simlarities are:

Quick change barrel

designed as a squad automatic weapon

tripod mount

Now appart from those teh three weapons were, of course, completely different!! :eek:

And BTW IIRC common practice withthe Bren was to load 28 rounds in the mag - supposedly the last 2 caused a problem deeding.

[David Aitken]

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

So when the guy is running with the BREN is the loader firing his weapon one handed? The loader had a box with 12 clips in it. Looks kind of bulky.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your point is? In a squad configuration the ammo is spread between the riflemen. Your comments might be relevant to the Bren in the independent support role which we are asking to be modelled. In any case, it still provides equal if not better suppression fire on the move than the BAR.

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

But even with a 30 round magazine, the Bren would still have more similarities to the BAR than the MG 42<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, for the reasons I have detailed above. The only significant difference between the Bren and the LMG42 is that the former lacks a belt feed. As I have explained, the BAR is an automatic rifle, whereas the Bren and LMG42 are true light machineguns are far more effective in this role.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Well, the Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II gives the Bren a 20-round magazine. I don't know whether that is correct, or the bren website is correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I own Bren mags - they hold 30 rounds. They sometimes only loaded 28 so as not to stress the springs.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

The BREN normally was loading 28 rounds per clip.

So when the guy is running with the BREN is the loader firing his weapon one handed? The loader had a box with 12 clips in it. Looks kind of bulky.Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A clip only holds 5 rounds; the correct terminology is "magazine". A "clip" was used to reload the Lee Enfield. It may interest people here to know that the Lee Enfield magazine was only removed from the weapon for cleaning - and the weapon itself was reloaded from the top via stripper clips or loose rounds - not changing the magazine.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

For those who don't know about the reduced firepower of the squad organic MG42: The MG42 as part of a squad is reduced in firepower compared to the MG42 LMG that can be purchased separately. This is to account for the fact that one of the riflemen in the squad would be helping with the belt ammo. And since all men in a squad are modeled as firing a weapon, a reduction was made to the MG42 firepower to make up for the ammo loader's duties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A little off topic, but this is generally not true. Due to what I think is likely a bug, the LMG42 in all German squads except VG Heavy SMG is allowed to fire with only 1 soldier manning it and with no loss of FP. The FP reduction to simulate 1 rifleman assisting the gunner does not exist. It was supposed to, but it isn't in there. I think this is also true for British squads with the Bren as well.

[WWB]

One strong argument for why the a Bren Team should be seperately avaliable for the Commonwealth is that in CM, unlike in real life, one cannot detach the bren from the carrier (nor the MMG for that matter). While I will not make any claims that this was achievable under battlefield conditions, this was certainly achievable very close to the front.

WWB

[Brian]

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

The main asset of the Vickers was its non-stop firing ability. This would not mean you hold the trigger and don't let go, but it does mean that you can fire longer and more often. Restricting it to the short, intermittant bursts of the air-cooled machineguns in CM is arguably unfair.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me. If any SNCO in a MMG Section saw a gunner "holding the trigger and not letting go" he'd quickly get a rocket so fast he wouldn't know what day of the week it was.

Vickers were fired in bursts, get that BURSTS, in exactly the same way all MG's were. The only difference was that the bursts were longer. In the case of the Bren, it was 3-5 rounds. For Vickers, 8-12 rounds.

I'm sure some of you will believe its impossible to get that sort of accurate count out of an automatic weapon and you'd be wrong. Every gunner was taught a simple mantra and they'd recite it under their breath, "one thousand, two thousand, three thousand" - each couplet representing 3-5 rounds. As they grew more experienced, they knew that was how many rounds they'd fired.

In the case of the Vickers (or the Bren on the tripod), the gunner would also alter the lay of the weapon, between each burst.

If you want an excellent film portraying the _proper_ use of British infantry weapons, then get the movie starring David Niven entitled "The Way Ahead" (or it was released in America as "The Immortal Battalion"). In the final battle scenes, Stanley Holloway is seen firing a Vickers correctly. Burst-tap left-burst-tap-tap-right-burst-tap-left-burst-tap-left. Each "tap" represents him knocking the side of the weapon to traverse it and spread the fire.

The problem with the way in which CMBO treats the vickers is that it is usually utilised at far too shorter a range, compared to how it would be in real life.

Another problem is that it does not allow the Vickers to be dismounted from the MMG carrier. They were rarely, if ever employed from the carrier.