The Bren LMG: Not Sold Separately...

[Brian]

<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.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. Part of the standard range shoot with the Bren was from the shoulder, standing unsupported. Its no harder than firing the M60 GPMG from the shoulder, which was also done.

The real problem with the Bren was that it lacked a proper foregrip, unless the bipod was folded. One tended to burn one's hand on the gas cylinder otherwise.

[Brian]

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

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 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to get really picky, they were called "charger clips" - "stripper clips" is an American term.

The Bren magazine was also loaded using charger clips, for speed but there were two provisos - the clips had to first be reloaded, with the rimmed base of each round, surmounting the previous, whereas for the SMLE, the rounds had to be loaded into the clip, with one above and the next below the rim. The other proviso was that you only ever loaded 28 rounds. Whilst the capacity was 30 (in fact up to 34 could be fitted in), the spring was too weak to reliably feed them. Both were traps for young diggers when it came to being tested on the Bren.

[JonS]

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're being a little harsh on David here Brian. I thought he made it clear that he was talking about firing bursts, but that the Vickers allowed those bursts to be fired or longer - ie hours if need be.

Regards

JonS

[Andreas]

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

I think you're being a little harsh on David here Brian. I thought he made it clear that he was talking about firing bursts, but that the Vickers allowed those bursts to be fired or longer - ie hours if need be.

Regards

JonS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The really big difference is of course that out of the two limitations under which MGs labour (ammo availability and temperature), the Vickers (and the Soviet Maxim?) only laboured under one, the ammo availability. If you ran out of water, you could run the Vickers on urine if need be (apparently done at the Somme - sure, on the parade ground you would get a rocket, but in battle...). Makes a big difference, compared to a German MG42 gunner, who not only needed spare ammo, but also spare barrels (what happened with overheated barrels BTW, could they be reused after cooling down?)

Regarding detaching the guns from the carriers, I find that awkward when designing scenarios. If you give the Commonwealth forces a carrier, you always give them more FP than they historically had, since the carrier lMG would be detached to become the squad lMG, AFAIK. Also, I doubt that the carriers of mortar detachments had lMGs as standard, but if someone could enlighten me on that...

[Michael Dorosh]

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

If you want to get really picky, they were called "charger clips" - "stripper clips" is an American term.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES! Thank you for the correction. Good info all around, especially the part about the rims on the cartridges.

[Monty's Double]

Sorry to wade in with an essentially anecdotal submission, but here goes:

A friend of mine was in (British) army intelligence (insert your own joke) during the late 80's/early 90's. When he did his infantry training they were still armed with the L1A1 rifle, a semi-auto weapon based on the Belgian FN FAL with a 20 round clip. Each squad (12 men I think) also had 2 Brens as LMG's, rechambered for the 7.62 NATO round shared with the rifles. He's quite adamant that in practice they ended up breaking down into 2 teams ("bricks", I think they are called) who spotted and loaded for the Bren gunners. This kind of suggests that the firepower and accuracy of the Bren was pretty impressive, if it was still used like this alongside (almost) modern assault rifles. I'm not trying to make any outrageous claim for the Bren, but if you have to put it on a continuum with the BAR at one end and the MG42(light) at the other, I'd place it towards the German weapon.

OK, I'll duck now.

[Brian]

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

I think you're being a little harsh on David here Brian. I thought he made it clear that he was talking about firing bursts, but that the Vickers allowed those bursts to be fired or longer - ie hours if need be.

Regards

JonS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I might have been a bit harsh but he did say, "holding the trigger and not letting go". This implies continious, automatic fire which is not how an MG is used. Even in WWI, when extremely long machine gun "barrages" were fired, they were fired in bursts, not continiously.

Even the watercooled MG's, such as the .30 cal, the Maxim and MG08 and the Vickers could not handle the amount of heat generated by continious fire - it literally vapourised the water in the cooling jacket, thereby preventing it from cooling the barrel.

By firing bursts, the short periods between the bursts were sufficient to allow the water to circulate.

As to the use of urine to cool the Vickers, the same method can be utilised to cool any MG barrel - and was upon numerous occasions. Usually with aircooled barrels, they are removed (if possible) from the weapon and then have water poured over them. I have one very good picture this being done by Dutch troops during the Indonesian War for Independence with a Browning .30 cal. While I'm sure it doesn't necessary improve the life of the weapon, it does allow it to continue firing for extended periods.

Another poster asked if heated barrels could be reused - yes they can and are - until the lining wears away. The US military were the first to introduce "stellite" - an extremely hard steel for use in lining MG barrels (first used in the .50 cal barrels in airforce bombers). For most other forces, the life of an MG barrel was several tens of thousands of rounds, at which point the accuracy and safety of the weapon is called into question.

Vickers also were designed to allow barrel changes and these were, during extended shoots, often changed. Another cause for a pause in firing was to check head-spacing (the distance between the face of the breach-block and the chamber to ensure a proper seal/obturation).

[Marlow]

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

I might have been a bit harsh but he did say, "holding the trigger and not letting go". This implies continious, automatic fire which is not how an MG is used. Even in WWI, when extremely long machine gun "barrages" were fired, they were fired in bursts, not continiously.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. And you complain about others not reading what you post? What David said was:

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

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>

What part of " This would not mean you hold the trigger and don't let go" confused you?

[Andreas]

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

I might have been a bit harsh but he did say, "holding the trigger and not letting go". This implies continious, automatic fire which is not how an MG is used. Even in WWI, when extremely long machine gun "barrages" were fired, they were fired in bursts, not continiously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, you should really read what he wrote. I have noticed you scolding people for not reading your posts closely, I think it would behove you to read others' posts closely, especially if you fly off the handle because of not reading closely enough.

Just to quote directly from David's unedited post:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Orginally posted by David: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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(emphasis by me)

What was your point again? Maybe you just need to cool down a bit, and read more closely.

And Marlow beat me to it, damn you Marlow, damn you to hell. Can't I be the only gloater on this board?!

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[Username]

Clip is slang in the US for Magazine.

Its interesting that the brit rifle needed two stripper clips to load up? That never came up in the other thread about the garand vs lee enfield. Must have taken longer to load too.

In any case, this thread just gives her majesty's servants a vent point. The conversation should be if the soviet LMG will be available seperate. Make that case and maybe you have a chance down the roud.

In CMBB, MGs will have increased leathality with the improvements to rates of fire, covered arc, etc. To give this to clip fed weapons is a bit much.

Lewis

http://www.brengun.org.uk/index.html

[Brian]

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

What part of " This would not mean you hold the trigger and don't let go" confused you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooops, I stand abashed. I apologise most unreservedly. It does appear I leapt before I looked.

[David Aitken]

Thanks to those involved in resolving the exact wording of my post in my absence.

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

In any case, this thread just gives her majesty's servants a vent point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, and not to address a valid issue concerning the units available to all of the Commonwealth troops in CM? I don't care about the Lee-Enfield vs. Garand debate and I doubt most people here do either. Personally I have no reservations about the British infantry weapons used in the Second World War and I don't feel the need to be defensive about it (see the one post I made to the thread in question, on page six I think). This thread is unrelated to that and concerns the important issue of Commonwealth troops being denied a stand-alone LMG which they had in reality, while all other armies have their equivalent modelled in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The conversation should be if the soviet LMG will be available seperate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally I don't know much about the deployment of Soviet machineguns. We don't yet know whether this will be an issue. The fact is, in CM two of the three main forces have a good selection of machinegun teams, whereas the third is unfairly restricted. Presumably BTS will do their usual research and decide which machinegun teams will be available to the Soviets. If they make a mistake, someone in the know will hopefully challenge them. That time has not yet come, and a challenge may never be necessary. But in this case a challenge is overdue. I would suggest that analysing what has been done and suggesting how it could be improved is much more helpful to BTS's future efforts than trying to guess what they're about to do and imagine what they might possibly do wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In CMBB, MGs will have increased leathality with the improvements to rates of fire, covered arc, etc. To give this to clip fed weapons is a bit much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the issue you broach is that machineguns are capable of more than is currently modelled in the game. This depends not on the weapon but the configuration. As we have discussed, not all clip-fed weapons are the same. The Bren can be set up for rapid fire, unlike the BAR, and should be modelled as such in CM. The squad weapon would remain as-is, like the German MG42, but the heavier configuration would have greater capabilities.

You suggest that this is just an opportunity for us to bitch, but it sounds like you're the only one bitching, as though it annoys you to think that British weapons really were effective.

[Username]

Only belted MGs should be modeled as separate weapons. Thats the way it is now.

If clip fed weapons are reduced to one man through a casualty, can they move? Do they have a reduction in firepower? Only one guy to man and load the weapon? Suddenly, the 'near-mg42' slider goes definetly towards the BAR end of the spectrum.

Lewis

Aitken, why so snippy? Chin up lad..

[David Aitken]

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

Only belted MGs should be modeled as separate weapons. Thats the way it is now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That explains the HMG42, but not he LMG42. The Bren can easily manage the same ROF as the LMG42. And I would suggest that the relevant question is "were they historically employed this way?", which is true in the case of the MG42 and the Bren, but not the BAR.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If clip fed weapons are reduced to one man through a casualty, can they move?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Bren team might realistically be three men, but your point stands. I doubt he could move with much ammunition. What is the case with the LMG42? How is the ammunition carried, in boxes, or do we imagine that it is strapped over his shoulders? Gun in one hand and ammunition box in the other is perfectly realistic in either case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do they have a reduction in firepower?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Presumably.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Only one guy to man and load the weapon? Suddenly, the 'near-mg42' slider goes definetly towards the BAR end of the spectrum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which would be accounted for in the engine. The fact remains that Brens were employed this way and BARs were not. You continue to present arguments which seem to be based on a desire not to allow Commonwealth forces the units they are entitled to, not on any historical or technical issues which would prevent them being correctly modelled in the game.

[Pak40]

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

The Bren can easily manage the same ROF as the LMG42.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's just plain silly in cyclic or practical ROF. Here are the numbers:

MG42 LMG cyclic: about 1200 RPM

Bren Cyclic: about 500 RPM

MG42 LMG practical: about 250 RPM

Bren practical: about 90 RPM

German numbers from several book sources, including German Military handbook. Bren numbers from several book sources and http://www.brengun.org.uk/index.html

[Username]

Of course. The bren was also very dependant on a clip monkey. It was not a belt fed weapon. Bottom line.

Lewis

[JonS]

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

Of course. The bren was also very dependant on a clip monkey. It was not a belt fed weapon. Bottom line.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the LMG42 isn't dependant on a belt/mag monkey?

[Username]

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

And the LMG42 isn't dependant on a belt/mag monkey?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not as much so. A box of belted ammo being 250 rounds. Thats a factor of 8.

Cmon. Are there any good arguments?

Lewis

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Brian]

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

Not as much so. A box of belted ammo being 250 rounds. Thats a factor of 3.

Cmon. Are there any good arguments?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously never fired an LMG, belt or magazine fed, if you believe that. The No.2 on a belt fed MG is just as busy as on a magazine fed MG - he is ensuring that the belt feeds correctly, isn't tangled and either clipping the next belt on the end or preparing it for loading if they cannot be clipped. He also has responsibility for helping in case of a stoppage and for changing the barrel when necessary.

He's a busy man, occasionally he even shoots his own weapon, if need be but his primary responsibility is to ensure the smooth working of the MG.

Let me guess, Lewis, you've never served in the military and you're about 16 years old. Right?

[Priest]

I would just like to say this is all very informative and thanks to everyone for the knowledge I am soaking in.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

[Geier]

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

Makes a big difference, compared to a German MG42 gunner, who not only needed spare ammo, but also spare barrels (what happened with overheated barrels BTW, could they be reused after cooling down?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For the m/58 KSP (GPMG in the UK, aka FN MAG, it was a FN design originally, not to be confused with US M60 GPMG), which had exchangeable barrels and a gas regulator, SOP (peacetime) was/is to change barrels after 250 rounds (one box of ammo). There was no problem firing off two boxes on one barrel but the wear was heavier. You just put the hot barrel on the barrel case lying on the ground. Barrel exchange was done by the gunner, as was "cocking" (term?) the gun and the "opening up" (term?) to put the new belt in place. The loader opened up the new box of ammo and put the belt in place. The gunner then slapped down "the lid" (term?) and continued to bogie. The loader needed to help the feeding often or the gun would jam.

The barrel would be sufficiently cold after the next 250/500 rounds. It used the same 7.62mm ammo as the G3.

This gun was near impossible to fire from the shoulder (a bit heavy and no hold available) unless you were Jesse Ventura or just out to make some noise. There was a pouch that could be easily fastened to the side that could carry 50 rounds (48 if you didn't want it to jam). This made it possible to use while moving, firing from the hip.

A side note, changing barrels in heavy snow is not fun. If the snow is "loose" you need to attach a little sled to the bipod and there is a strong possibility that the barrel case will vanish if you don't pack the snow hard. This makes the gun unwieldy to move. A guy in my battallion put a very hot barrel down in the snow which made a jet of steam/hot water spurt up and burn his face.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Geier ]

[Geier]

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

That explains the HMG42, but not he LMG42. The Bren can easily manage the same ROF as the LMG42.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even close. At least if you are talking about firing more than 20 rounds. Reloading, no matter how drilled you are, takes time.

Hold on, is anyone arguing that a clip/mag/pouch/whatever equipped mg is somehow "better" (or just as good as) than a belt-fed? Or that it had a ROF/suppressive power similar or better than a belt-fed? I can understand the temptation with Lewsi being on the other side of the argument but that is just plain silly.

[David Aitken]

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

That's just plain silly in cyclic or practical ROF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Not even close. At least if you are talking about firing more than 20 rounds. Reloading, no matter how drilled you are, takes time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for the confusion, I was responding to Lewis's arbitrary claim that only belt-fed machineguns should be available as teams in CM. In CM terms, the Bren could easily manage not the same ROF, but the same regularity of fire as the LMG42 as it is currently modelled.

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

Of course. The bren was also very dependant on a clip monkey. It was not a belt fed weapon. Bottom line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Bottom line" of what? Your argument that we should not be allowed to employ the Bren in CM as it historically was? As JonS and Brian have pointed out, whether a gun is belt or magazine fed, its performance will degrade significantly if it loses its number two. This is and would be modelled in the game as appropriate.

As I have explained, and you continue to ignore, the entire basic design of the Bren allows it to be employed as a standalone LMG where the BAR would be totally inappropriate. So far the only credible impression I am getting from you, is that you cannot bear to imagine that the British squad automatic might have been a better and more flexible weapon than the US equivalent, and very suited to heavier roles where the BAR was not.

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

Hold on, is anyone arguing that a clip/mag/pouch/whatever equipped mg is somehow "better" (or just as good as) than a belt-fed? Or that it had a ROF/suppressive power similar or better than a belt-fed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not at all. I am simply countering Lewis's argument that the Bren should not be employed as a standalone LMG in CM. As you might notice, he has offered numerous shallow ideas like...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If clip fed weapons are reduced to one man through a casualty, can they move? Do they have a reduction in firepower? Only one guy to man and load the weapon? Suddenly, the 'near-mg42' slider goes definetly towards the BAR end of the spectrum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...which have no relevance to his argument, only to the way the weapons are modelled once they are in the game, which he is desperate not to see in the first place. And he has the cheek to comment:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Cmon. Are there any good arguments?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis, you have been offered plenty of good arguments. Your own arguments are the poor ones. I have seen you employing your – I called it bizarre, but I think "feeble" is far more appropriate – logic on three different subjects recently, and it is apparent to me that you are not at all interested in an answer unless it is the one you want to hear.

What you want to hear is apparently that the British forces during the Second World War fought badly with bad doctrine and bad equipment. This contention is nonsense, but there is no point in me refuting it, as you will not listen. To see such a wilfully ignorant person forcing their delusions upon this community is a great irritation for me, which I am sure pleases you no end, but I must allow you to continue, and recommend to myself and everyone else that you should not be challenged and should be allowed to remain in your own little world.

Please, by all means, believe that the US forces were superior to all during the war, or indeed the Germans, or whatever it is you want to believe. Please also feel free to stay away from here, as I see no point in you engaging in the discussions on this board, as no-one is likely to accept what you say, and your own beliefs are certainly not to be changed.