The Bren LMG: Not Sold Separately...

[Username]

The British thought the MG 42 was better then the Bren, proof?

WO 291/473 Performance of bullet weapons.

On the matter of relative rate-of-fire of the Bren and MG-42, this paper says "...the advantages of the German gun over the Bren are due almost entirely to the belt feed rather than to the cyclic rate."

A trial was conducted to find out, for closely-spaced standing targets, whether "traversing fire" – traversing the gun over an arc without aiming at individual targets – was superior to "service bursts", that is, firing short aimed bursts at individual targets, with the Bren gun. The results tabulated here show the expected number of casualties per 30 seconds' firing:

Range (yds)

Spacing in feet

Service bursts

Traversing fire

100

4

9

16

100

8

5

8

200

4

8

12

200

8

5

7

Another trial concerned the relative accuracy of the Bren fired from the hip using ball and tracer ammunition. Firing at fixed targets at 35 yds and moving targets at 17 yds, an improvement averaging 24% was found firing tracer rather than ball.

Yet another trial involved comparing the Sten gun against the service pistol. At a range averaging 10 yards, the following average results were obtained on targets exposed for an average of 5 seconds and moving across the line of fire at 10 feet per second:

Type of fire

Hits per shot

Hits per engagement

Shots per engagement

Sten from the hip

0.12

1.86

16

Pistol from the hip

0.08

0.48

5

Pistol, aimed

0.14

0.71

5

Here is another interesting one:

WO 291/476 Comparison of rifle, Bren and Sten.

This paper investigates four theories about small-arms effectiveness:

Rifle and Bren shooting is generally so poor that the real accuracy of these weapons is never used;

Rifles and Brens are rarely used at long ranges except by snipers;

For semi-skilled troops, automatic weapons are disproportionately better than single shot;

The advantage of automatic over single-shot is increased by battle conditions.

Trials conducted at the School of Infantry confirm 1, 2 and 4. "It is admitted that all the above trials have been on a small scale and that the sample of men was probably not representative of the Infantry as a whole; but it is expected that the trends shown will hold for all except possibly the first class shot."

The Bren and Sten were fired at 100, 200 and 300 yards, and the equivalent 90% zones, in inches, calculated at 25 yards.

Single shot

Automatic

Bren

Sten

Bren

Sten

100 yds

2.4

4.3

3.8

4.6

200 yds

2.0

5.2

4.4

5.0

300 yds

2.0

5.4

3.8

5.6

Mean

2.2

5.0

4.1

5.0

Shooting was done lying with weapon rested; an improvised backsight was fitted to the Sten for shooting at 300 yards. An extra trial to confirm the lethality of Sten bullets at 300 yards was performed with ¾" deal targets covered in two thicknesses of webbing. All hits were "throughs".

Another set of trials, each of 20 rounds, was shot on a 30 yard range, and the following results obtained. It was noted that "the average firer has a higher overall chance of hitting an enemy at 200 yards with a Sten than with a rifle."

Note that on the above, the British feel 1,2 and 4 were correct.

Just some interesting documentation...

Rune

Thanks Rune

Lewis

[Username]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Username:

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

Lewis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Brianed

You do know that I am refering to motion when I say 'moving'? Then you go on about standing fire. Sounds like not moving. Looking at a BREN, there doesnt seem to be a way not to burn your fingers standing or moving.

I wouldnt fire an M60 from the shoulder while moving. Thats for sure (and where does the all-important belt boy go? Does he run alongside keeping busy?) and I have fired M60 btw. I have fired M60 from the hip with pretty good results with just loose belt feeding in.

For a FNG, you sure are especially contradictory.

Lewis

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

[JonS]

IIRC the LMG42 (or maybe it was the 34 ... maybe both?) used a conical drum magazine, in addition to belted ammo.

Did this go out of service early in the war, or continue until the end?

If it was used during the timescale of CMBO, how would that affect the comparative performance?

[Andrew H.]

I've seen pictures of drum magazines on MG34s early in Russia. I don't know if they were used on MG42s or were used later.

I think that the use of these drums is relevant for comparison with the Bren, as I believe that they only held 50 rounds. This is still more bullets than a 30 round clip, but not 5 times more.

I'm not sure how these were employed, either. They don't look like they would be as easy to reload as a clip, for example. But it's also possible that belts would be fed into the MG after the drum ran out.

[Triumvir]

The assault drums for the MG34/42 are based on the same principle as the assault magazine for the FN MAG; a snail drum which holds a few ready rounds so that the GPMG gunner can fire on the move. Once a good position is found, the GPMG gunner drops down, opens the bipod and lets the loader join rounds from the box to the rounds coming out from the drum.

Like the drum for the MAG, the MG42 drums seriously affected the weight distribution of the MG, dragging it to the left. The MG34 had an evenly distributed 60 round dual-drum, but that was never converted for use with the MG42.

Source -- some book I recently read on contemporary live firing of German automatic weapons. Pretty good read, covering all the auto weapons from the Mauser Schnellfeuer to the MP-44.

[ASL Veteran]

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

I've seen pictures of drum magazines on MG34s early in Russia. I don't know if they were used on MG42s or were used later.

I think that the use of these drums is relevant for comparison with the Bren, as I believe that they only held 50 rounds. This is still more bullets than a 30 round clip, but not 5 times more.

I'm not sure how these were employed, either. They don't look like they would be as easy to reload as a clip, for example. But it's also possible that belts would be fed into the MG after the drum ran out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is my understanding that the drum was used when the weapon was moving - much more handy than having a 250 round belt flapping around. Once you have established your firing position you would switch to the belt feed.

[Herr Jung]

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

The assault drums for the MG34/42 are based on the same principle as the assault magazine for the FN MAG; a snail drum which holds a few ready rounds so that the GPMG gunner can fire on the move.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MG34, designed to do just about everything possible with a machine gun, came with all sorts of adaptors and interesting accessories (some not used all that often). The following is a quote from:

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust5.htm#mg34

The MG 34 could use both magazine-fed and belt-fed ammunition (the above-mentioned 7.92mm standard infantry ammuntion). Available were Doppeltrommel ("double drum") saddle drum magazines of 75 rounds and gegurtete Munition ("linked/belted ammunition") belts of 50 rounds (weight: 1.5 kg) and 250 rounds (boxed; weight of a filled 250-round belt box: 8.35 kg). The single belts of course could be connected to make an endless belt. In the role as a light machine gun with bipod the weapon often was used with 50-round Gurttrommel, a small drum magazine containing the 50-round belt. To prepare the weapon to fire the drum magazines - by default all later produced models of the weapon were set to fire belted ammunition - the top cover part of the casing housing the breech mechanism had to be changed to a cover part that could accomodate the saddle magazine ammunition.

Note that different feed cover was necessary to use the non-belt, double "saddle" drum magazine -- a completely different set up in the LMG configuration only but with pretty good 75 round capacity. Loading on the field may have been a problem. It is also my understanding the ROF increased for MG34 when you used the magazine feed using springs.

MG42, which was to be the cheaper substitute, did away with all the fancy accessories of MG34, and thus did not have the "saddle" drum magazine (Doppeltrommel). But it did retain the regular assault drum carrying the 50-round belted ammunition (Gurttrommel), and to the best of my knowledge it was used throughout the war. The Gurttrommel drum itself is just a hollow can housing the rolled up 50-round belt, and the fully loaded assault drum set up really unbalances the weapon, so I don't think the gunners would've liked to have it on all the time. I'm not sure how the assault magazine for the FN MAG works, but the same type is used for MG3.

It is almost impossible to fire the MG34/42 from the shoulder because it is very front heavy (you have seen the picture of poor fellow holding up the barrel). But you can use the sling hung around the neck and the bipod as the fore grip to fire it from the hip (as in the FM) for assaults. A veteran Gebirgsjaeger once said this was not even possible with MG42 because of the strong recoil.

As for the fire on the move argument, you are just trying to suppress the enemy in front of you, right?

Herr Jung

[Brian]

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

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Username:

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

Lewis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Brianed

Lewis, for a FOG you sure are into pointless ad hominem, aren't you?

You do know that I am refering to motion when I say 'moving'? Then you go on about standing fire. Sounds like not moving. Looking at a BREN, there doesnt seem to be a way not to burn your fingers standing or moving.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis, its increasingly obvious you've never served in the military, nor fired an LMG like the Bren.

Take it from me, there are ways and means of firing the Bren, on the move. Usually its fired from the hip, when moving, not the shoulder and aim of shot is estimated. However, it can be fired from the shoulder, without too much trouble.

As for burning your fingers, there is a carrying handle attached to the barrel which can be utilised to steady the weapon when firing. The preferred method though, is to use the sling over the shoulder to carry the weight and hold the bipod to steady it when firing, leaning into the weapon to control it. The bipod is designed to fold quickly and easily on tbe Bren without, as on the M60, having to first pull each leg to unlock it, and then fold it individually.

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

I wouldnt fire an M60 from the shoulder while moving. Thats for sure (and where does the all-important belt boy go? Does he run alongside keeping busy?) and I have fired M60 btw. I have fired M60 from the hip with pretty good results with just loose belt feeding in.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is a "belt boy"? Your inexperience betrays you - the correct term is No.2 and you've identified one of the inherent problems with a belt-fed MG - it is difficult to use on the move. However, those canny fellows the Germans came up with the perfect solution - the "snail drum" as its known - it holds a relatively small number of rounds but allows the gunner to move and fire without the No.2 being in close attendance. Alternatively, he can as was done, move with a short belt of rounds - usually about 25-50, on the gun and carry more in his webbing, in short belts to reload with if a lot of movement is likely.

However, what was not done, was that the gunner would festoon himself with long belts of ammunition and run around the countryside. Weight was one problem, the other was that he'd more than likely cause a stoppage because of fouling from litter picked up off the ground or twisting of the belt.

The No.2, no matter what though, should be always close to the LMG, ready to resupply it with more ammunition whether its moving or stationary.

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

For a FNG, you sure are especially contradictory.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Username ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YAWN at least I know how to put my name in the user field when registering.

[Username]

I vote for Brian as the most annoying new guy.

I think others here have already pointed out your lack of reading and following the thread, so I will skip that part and just reiterate the points you missed.

1. I said the BAR can be fired from the shoulder while moving.

2. You go on about standing and firing while not-moving

3. And now you are going on about firing from the hip.

Most games, like ASL, note that the US squad, built around mobile semi and full auto single man weapons, has superior firepower on the move.

But lets not get sidetracked by all this. The game doesnt allow non-belted infantry weapons to be bought as seperate units. Thats the way I like it and lets hope it stays that way. In any case, it wouldnt be changed till CMII and the engine rewrite (long time). I dont see the point in any of this since the game allows squad splitting and the bren will end up in a small infantry group.

Most people here, if they despise me or not, know that I have a military background, have worked on weapons development and hold an engineering degree.

So why dont you think about that next time you are taking a 'Number 1 and/or 2'.

Lewis

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

[JonS]

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

Most people here, if they despise me or not, know that I have a military background, have worked on weapons development and hold an engineering degree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's what we've been told. Knowing it is another matter entirely...

[Priest]

Lewis I thought you told me change is always good, allowing the Bren would be change would it not?

Watch what you say it could come back and get you!

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I vote for Brian as the most annoying new guy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your vote has been noted. Personally I can think of quite a few who are streets ahead of him. He has a heck of a long way to go before he can aspire to the giddy heights of annoyingness embodied by yourself.

Anyone who can get under your skin can't be all bad.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But lets not get sidetracked by all this. The game doesnt allow non-belted infantry weapons to be bought as seperate units. Thats the way I like it and lets hope it stays that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, let's not get sidetracked. You are wrong. The game does not allow non-historical unit organisations to be bought has units. The fact that they are belt fed is purely coincidental. As far as I know the principle criteria employed by BTS to determine the presence or absence of a particular unit is the extent of it's historical existence. The most likely explanation for the absence of a bren team unit is ignorance on their part not a "belt fed weapons policy".

[Stalin's Organ]

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

So why dont you think about that next time you are taking a 'Number 1 and/or 2'.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL!!

Thanks Lewis - I shall most cerainly think of you next time I'm taking a #1 or #2!! :eek: :eek:

[Username]

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

Lewis I thought you told me change is always good, allowing the Bren would be change would it not?

!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTS is changing the MGs effectiveness in the game in general. The rate of fire (mostly due to belt feed), going for broke, covered arcs, etc, will all have major effects on the infantry game. I will wait to see the effects of this before deciding. This whole thread is just a big waste as I have stated before.

Dont hold your breath laddies. It aint happening any time soon. So split your squads and dream on.

Lewis

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

This whole thread is just a big waste as I have stated before.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

duly noted, your Eminence. In fact, i feel a sudden enlightenment... all points of contention are worthless if not in accord with YOUR opinion.

You have vanquished your foes - those who besmirch this Forum with their insolent demands for separate Bren teams - and the CM world is free of their tyranny.

[Brian]

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

I vote for Brian as the most annoying new guy.

I think others here have already pointed out your lack of reading and following the thread, so I will skip that part and just reiterate the points you missed.

1. I said the BAR can be fired from the shoulder while moving.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I said it could be fired from the shoulder. I did not mention moving, you did.

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

2. You go on about standing and firing while not-moving

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. Tell me, do you fire a rifle from the shoulder whilst you're moving?

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

3. And now you are going on about firing from the hip.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. I think you'll find is that what I'm saying is that moving and firing are exclusionary activities, unless you want to fire from the hip. You can fire from the shoulder whilst moving if you desire but you won't hit anything.

Are you always this clueless or do you really work really, really, hard at it, Lewis?

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

Most games, like ASL, note that the US squad, built around mobile semi and full auto single man weapons, has superior firepower on the move.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firepower is king, hey, Lewis?

Pity you won't hit anything while you're blazing away at the sky. But as I've noted elsewhere, US fire discipline isn't/wasn't terribly good.

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

But lets not get sidetracked by all this. The game doesnt allow non-belted infantry weapons to be bought as seperate units. Thats the way I like it and lets hope it stays that way. In any case, it wouldnt be changed till CMII and the engine rewrite (long time). I dont see the point in any of this since the game allows squad splitting and the bren will end up in a small infantry group.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So whats all your whinging about, Lewis?

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

Most people here, if they despise me or not, know that I have a military background, have worked on weapons development and hold an engineering degree.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooh, credentialism. What service did you serve in, Lewis? For how long, what rank did you attain? What weapons development did you work on?

One suspects the answers will be quite entertaining, if you answer.

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

So why dont you think about that next time you are taking a 'Number 1 and/or 2'.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Que? I'm sorry, that doesn't translate to English from USspeak very well.

Lewis

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

[Username]

Yeah. Its a dead end thread.

Notice that I suggested that a course of action could be to argue for the inclusion of soviet LMGs based around the drum fed weapon. I am pretty sure that BTS has firmly stated that CMBO is done. In other words, they aint putting no more time into it. So, what exactly is this thread about? CMBO? CMII?

Notice also that I have repeatedly pointed out that there is a CHANGE coming in the form of machinegun firepower effectiveness. How will that effect your cheery plans for separate BRENs? Again, falling on deaf mob ears because of all the experience we have here. Is the MG firepower effectiveness linked to the use of belted weapons?

You havent heard one thing from BTS about this. Ever occur that they are the ones who will supply your answer? Calling them ignorant isnt a very productive approach.

I think the handling of Maxim HMG will show what the Vickers will be like in the future. Same with the sov LMG.

Good luck

Lewis

[David Aitken]

I would advise anyone against wasting their time replying to the previous post by Lewis, as everything he says, he has already said, and we have already answered in no uncertain terms. He does not care what we have to say.

[Marlow]

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

What is a "belt boy"? Your inexperience betrays you - the correct term is No.2 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As much as it truely pains me to defend username, the term "No. 2" is probably nation specific. In the U.S., the second member of the MG crew is the "assistant gunner" or "AG." The third member of the crew (if there is one) is the "ammunition bearer."

[IPA]

Life was tough as a No.2....

[Geier]

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

As much as it truely pains me to defend username...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do not be pained no more, Lewsi isn't the only one on this thread talking out of his butt. We called them "Loaders" btw. If anyone is taking notes. I'm headin off for that thread with "Simon Fox" in the title.

He is a myth btw, and I'll prove it.

[CMplayer]

What would be really great is if a scenario

designer could do customized squads/teams.

This would be a great feature to have

in the editor (some time in the distant

future, I suppose)

For instance a team of 6 guys who all

have Brens (but not much ammo). This

has no relation to historical setups,

but could exist in a historical or

fictional setting where troops have formed

an impromptu team with scrounged equipment.

Then it would be great if these customized

units could be added to what is available

for purchase in a QB... as a kind of mod.

(subject to both players' agreement of

course)

Just as certain types of units are available

in different time periods, and for different

nationalities, one could design custom

availability profiles for QB's including

these modded units.

This way, the players could decide for

themselves what they consider to be

historically viable, or just fun to play

with. This would be a fantastic set

of tools for gamers, IMO.

just my 2pfennigs

--Rett

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

[Username]

I had mentioned a similar idea in the "Fox" thread. Have a BREN squad of 8 men with two BRENS and split it. Having all BRENS seems "a bit much" as you all say.

Still, noone here has really said what they want. They think CMBO is going to be reworked?

Lewis

[David Aitken]

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

Have a BREN squad of 8 men with two BRENS and split it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are you offering completely ahistorical alternatives to a straightforward solution? Allow the Bren to be employed as it historically was, as a LMG, just like the MG42 (comparisons of the two aside).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Still, noone here has really said what they want. They think CMBO is going to be reworked?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We set out to establish a principle which hopefully BTS will take into account for future CM releases featuring British forces. That was all fine and well until you hijacked the thread with your bizarre argument that on no account should BTS allow us to use the Bren in one of its historical roles.

You say:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Its a dead end thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main reason it's still on page 1 is because you won't let it go until you have convinced everyone that the British forces were inferior and the Bren shouldn't be properly modelled in CM because it doesn't matter.

[Username]

"We set out to establish a principle which hopefully BTS will take into account for future CM releases featuring British forces. That was all fine and well until you hijacked the thread with your bizarre argument that on no account should BTS allow us to use the Bren in one of its historical roles."

Lets repeat this again like a Mantra.

The game will be changing how it handles support MGs. I dont believe that the use of the BREN compares with other belt fed weapons. Particulary the ability to go-for-broke, continuous fire and switching targets.

BTS has said some of these effects will be given to squad weapons in the squad. But at a reduced rate. Thats where the BREN should be. In a squad element.

So the prudent thing to do is see how the new weapons effectiveness plays out, how the game handles other examples like the soviet LMGs and also how support weapons are EVEN purchased in the future (which is also going to CHANGE).

One step at a time chaps. Then see what happens after that.

David. You are the weakest (MG) link. Good Bye.

lewis