The Bren LMG: Not Sold Separately...

[David Aitken]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you are talking about is a fundamental, across-the-board change in the way CM handles machineguns. It is nothing to do with the real-world capabilities of individual weapons, as though all those meeting particular criteria are modelled exactly the same in the game.

The fundamental changes in the game will allow the Bren, MG42 and every other machinegun to be handled more realistically. But they do not suddenly cease to be modelled individually, which is what you are suggesting. Last time I checked, each weapon in the game had its real-world capabilities. How does this suddenly cease to be when the fundamental realism of all machineguns in CM is enhanced?

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

The Bren is in a squad. It was also historically used outwith the squad, because it is a LMG. I fail to see your problem with allowing the Bren to be used as it historically was. You seem to think that if BTS model it in its historical standalone role, they will simultaneously bestow upon it unrealistic powers. I'm not sure why you think they would break from credibility to do this.

[Username]

Right. Lets wait and see.

[Andrew H.]

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

The Bren is in a squad. It was also historically used outwith the squad, because it is a LMG. I fail to see your problem with allowing the Bren to be used as it historically was. You seem to think that if BTS model it in its historical standalone role, they will simultaneously bestow upon it unrealistic powers. I'm not sure why you think they would break from credibility to do this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm in favor of having separate Bren teams if they were a normal thing historically (altough I will add, based on my usage of LMG teams, that they will be pretty useless). But there hasn't really been any evidence in this thread showing that there were standalone Bren teams, other than very unusual situations that the game need not model (i.e., the first squad across the Albert Canal).

Possibly there is such evidence, but it didn't make it into the thread because of the meandering path this thread has taken (including the exciting "cite" discussion). But we should find some such evidence before suggesting that BTS do something ahistorical.

[Brian]

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

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."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was under the impression we were discussing the Bren. However, I'm willing to accept the correct American terminology rather than "belt-boy". I suppose Lewis could always have called him "gun-buddy"!

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

Obviously CMBO is a closed book, but maybe for the North African/Med theatre this could be considered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Lew, this was stated in the original post (page 1...?). I know it's terribly burdensome to actually read the posts of the weak & infirm, however - this thread was started with the hope that CM3 might acknowledge the dedicated Bren team. Assuredly, I will pay close attention to machine guns (light & otherwise) in CMBB and, after the engine rewrite, i'll be even more interested.

I'm sorry you were forced to read and respond to this thread. Certainly, your time could have been better spent shooting small children & fluffy kittens out of tree-houses with a BAR.

Thanks for your (much needed) vitriol.

[Username]

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

I'm in favor of having separate Bren teams if they were a normal thing historically (altough I will add, based on my usage of LMG teams, that they will be pretty useless). But there hasn't really been any evidence in this thread showing that there were standalone Bren teams, other than very unusual situations that the game need not model (i.e., the first squad across the Albert Canal).

Possibly there is such evidence, but it didn't make it into the thread because of the meandering path this thread has taken (including the exciting "cite" discussion). But we should find some such evidence before suggesting that BTS do something ahistorical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a foregone conclusion cause all the people here say it was so. The BRENs even had their own mini-APC all to themmselves to facilitate going about the battlefield independantly like taxis looking for fares.

The really funny part is that support MGs are subject to JAMMING. As it is modeled now, squad based autos arent. The german LMGs that are support weapons are almost useless and if there was a BREN support weapon, it would suffer alot worse if reduced to one man.

Again, I will wait and see what CMBB is like before counting my chickens.

Lewis

[David Aitken]

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

(altough I will add, based on my usage of LMG teams, that they will be pretty useless).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTS modelling the capabilities of machineguns more accurately will probably make LMGs significantly more useful as well as MMGs and HMGs. This does not, as Lewis believes, mean that magazine-fed LMGs will suddenly gain superpowers, it just means they can do their job properly, as they do in the real world.

[Username]

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

Hey Lew, this was stated in the original post (page 1...?). I know it's terribly burdensome to actually read the posts of the weak & infirm, however - this thread was started with the hope that CM3 might acknowledge the dedicated Bren team. Assuredly, I will pay close attention to machine guns (light & otherwise) in CMBB and, after the engine rewrite, i'll be even more interested.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and my point was that all the discussion was in light of the present system. I was the first to point out:

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.

Its on page 4.

The discussion is about a game two iterations into the future and was using the present form as the basis for arguments. Excuse me for trying to get the conversation on track!

For all we know LMG42 might be sh*tcanned and NO-ONE could get them.

I am not the only one coming up with valid reasoning why this class of weapon should be the cutoff. read through the thread again.

There have been lots of other things discussed here (ignoring the horror of reading page 2) that are interesting. Squad splitting being interesting.

Perhaps squad split penalties should only affect one half of the squad. Perhaps split should be replaced by two choices:

Recon: Small lightly armed element detaches (example:sten and 3 riflemen or M1carbine and 3 garands) leaving the rest. These recon boys get the morale hit only.

Deploy: Automatic weapons in one group and rifleman in the other. Fractions depending on the size of auto group. So if a squad has 2 BAR maybe it 'splits' 5+remainder. If it has 1 Bren then its 3+remainder.

just trying to get some reality into the discussion. And I am part of the discussion and have contributed useful info.

Lewis

[Username]

Michael, Platoon HQs did indeed have a MG42. This was, however, mostly used as a spare for the platoon. They probably had a belt or two of ammo for the thing, but that is really only good for about one turn's worth of combat Michael, Platoon HQs did indeed have a MG42.

Steve

..and..

BTW, we only included the LMG42 as a seperate unit because they were assigned to some formations, such as the AT Company of certain division types. Generally they have no place in a CM battle since they correct numbers are found already in the squads.

Steve

This is Steve from BTS a year ago (almost to the day).

A case could be made that LMG42 (or LMG34 since they may be modeled also as well as all the others) should be replaced by half squads of sorts. The game will change on how to purchase units also. Lets call that a big CHANGE.

Examples are the need to purchase units as entities etc.

I really would like to see some BTS input here but again, its the weekend and I dont have enough bucks to go out.

Lewis

[Username]

BTW, German ammo boxes were specially designed so that two could be carried in one hand. That means a single soldier could carry (with some difficulty, like we simulate) 1,000 rounds all by himself. If three men in a HMG42 Team carried such a load you get 3,000 rounds right there.

I posted a pic of the bren box earlier. Wonder what the weight could be and how it would compare to the above quote?

Lewis

[Andrew H.]

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

BTW, German ammo boxes were specially designed so that two could be carried in one hand. That means a single soldier could carry (with some difficulty, like we simulate) 1,000 rounds all by himself. If three men in a HMG42 Team carried such a load you get 3,000 rounds right there.

I posted a pic of the bren box earlier. Wonder what the weight could be and how it would compare to the above quote?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know the weight of the Bren boxes, but I think four MG 42 boxes weigh around 70 lbs total. No wonder my HMG teams are so slow.

CAVEAT: I think I remember reading that one of those 250 round ammo boxes weighed 8.4kg. That seems about right, but I'm not sure if I'm remembering it correctly.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

[QB]

I don't know the weight of the Bren boxes, but I think four MG 42 boxes weigh around 70 lbs total. No wonder my HMG teams are so slow.

[Username]

OH! I dont know if these are the correct answers?

According to my sources, each clip weighs 2 3/4 lbs each. A box with a dozen would weigh 32 lbs plus the weight of the box itself.

OH! OH! Can anybody hep us PLEEEEZ? Ive always relied on the charity of strangers in times like this.. (bats eyebrows)

Thanks

Lewis

[ASL Veteran]

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

OH! I dont know if these are the correct answers?

According to my sources, each clip weighs 2 3/4 lbs each. A box with a dozen would weigh 32 lbs plus the weight of the box itself.

OH! OH! Can anybody hep us PLEEEEZ? Ive always relied on the charity of strangers in times like this.. (bats eyebrows)

Thanks

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously the fact that the Bren magazines have their weight distributed differently from the weight of the MG 34's is beyond your understanding. However, since I am in a charitable mood .... the thrust of the original question regarding a comparison between the weight of an MG34's ammo 'box' and the Bren's ammo 'box' was to compare the bulk / weight of the boxes in action. The question was posed in such a way that it implied that the ammo was carried in a similar fashion between the Bren and the MG34. It was correctly pointed out that the ammo is not carried in a similar fashion, therefore a comparison between the weight of a MG34 ammo box and a Bren ammo box was irrelevant to the weapon's weight in action - since the ammo for a Bren was not carried in a box in action (did you get that last part?).

Just in case you are still confused I will spell it out even more plainly. With an MG34 (early war) Gunner One carried a 50 round drum, Gunner Two carried four 50 round drums as well as one ammo box carrying 300 rounds, and Gunner Three carried two ammo boxes of 300 rounds. Later, the other two boxes were split between the other squad members, but two boxes are two boxes. Even if you want to say they are carrying more than two boxes - the odds of every single squad member carrying a box is pretty low as it would impair their ability to move quickly on the battlefield. With the Bren, however, each man takes a few magazines - the weight is not concentrated in a few boxes carried by one or two men. In this way the squad is able to stay light and maintain its ability to move quickly. I don't know how many magazines each man carried, but I have my doubts that they carried as much weight as one MG34 ammo box would. Plus the method of carrying would be different as the weight of the magazines would be carried by the body while the weight of the boxes would be carried by the hand, arm, shoulder. Lewis, since you profess to be an 'engineer' I am stunned that you haven't grasped this simple weight distribution concept. Should be basic stuff for smart whippersnapper like you.

[IPA]

I'm pretty certain that in the field, at least one Bren "ammunition" box was carried by the number 2 in addition to the spare ammunition distributed to the rest of the section. In their basic chest pouches, the three members of the Bren group would carry 4 mags each, the other members of the section would carry 2-4 magazines each (as well as 2" mortar bombs and grenades).

So number crunching, the average 10 man section would probably carry around 26 Bren magazines plus an ammo box of 10-12 magazines.

For sustained fire a large pool of ammunition would have had to remain with the Bren, which also had to remain mobile. As has been discussed, a lot of the posters advocate that the Bren was used as a separate fire group within the section, meaning that the two fire groups at times operated at distance from each other. In such a situation the Bren would run low on ammunition pretty fast if the ammo box was absent (the 12 mags carried by the Bren Group in their basic pouches would not last long).

[Slapdragon]

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

Obviously the fact that the Bren magazines have their weight distributed differently from the weight of the MG 34's is beyond your understanding. However, since I am in a charitable mood .... the thrust of the original question regarding a comparison between the weight of an MG34's ammo 'box' and the Bren's ammo 'box' was to compare the bulk / weight of the boxes in action. The question was posed in such a way that it implied that the ammo was carried in a similar fashion between the Bren and the MG34. It was correctly pointed out that the ammo is not carried in a similar fashion, therefore a comparison between the weight of a MG34 ammo box and a Bren ammo box was irrelevant to the weapon's weight in action - since the ammo for a Bren was not carried in a box in action (did you get that last part?).

Just in case you are still confused I will spell it out even more plainly. With an MG34 (early war) Gunner One carried a 50 round drum, Gunner Two carried four 50 round drums as well as one ammo box carrying 300 rounds, and Gunner Three carried two ammo boxes of 300 rounds. Later, the other two boxes were split between the other squad members, but two boxes are two boxes. Even if you want to say they are carrying more than two boxes - the odds of every single squad member carrying a box is pretty low as it would impair their ability to move quickly on the battlefield. With the Bren, however, each man takes a few magazines - the weight is not concentrated in a few boxes carried by one or two men. In this way the squad is able to stay light and maintain its ability to move quickly. I don't know how many magazines each man carried, but I have my doubts that they carried as much weight as one MG34 ammo box would. Plus the method of carrying would be different as the weight of the magazines would be carried by the body while the weight of the boxes would be carried by the hand, arm, shoulder. Lewis, since you profess to be an 'engineer' I am stunned that you haven't grasped this simple weight distribution concept. Should be basic stuff for smart whippersnapper like you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magazine distribution by Bren gunners is the same as that by BAR gunners. The weapons were the sectional automatic firepower for their teams, and their ammunition was split up between all members of the group in the form of charged magazines, which could be passed to the main gunner in breaks. Of course, when the **** hits the fan, this breaks down because you may not be close enough to pass a mag to a gunner, but it works during lulls, and is how all full sized ARs handle the problem of ammunition distribution in the age before assault rifles.

With a heavier weapon that has more sustained capability, larger capacity, and the like (such as the MG42 LMG, the DP, and possibly with some charity the M1919A6) less ammunition is spread through the team (not everyone will have a belt except maybe in an assault) and more concentrated in the assigned assistants. Maybe spare ammo goes to one or two people in the squad, but that ammo is incidental to the ammo carried by the 3 man gun team (assuming one has not bought it -- in Vietnam the M-60 rarely got a three man gun team because platoons rarely had all the people they needed.)

[Username]

I am obviously making a point that for an independant BREN team to have enough firepower, it would have to have a means to move ammo IN MAGAZINES. For a 3 man team, the weight is begining to add up.

What people (in this thread) are telling me, is that the portage of this ammo is a distributed function across the squad. Hence the reason it is a squad automatic.

For some independant role, this then becomes an issue. 12 clips, even in a sandbag, would weigh over 30 pounds for 340 rounds or so. Belted ammunition is lighter. I forget what M60 boxes weigh but will dig it up the info. Also, people have been saying that the team will be using a tripod, this also hefts about 30 pounds. The BREN would not then be available separately without buying a BREN gun carrier.

In the squad, the BREN could RUN with the others (in real life, it would be at the back of the pack). In a separate role, the BREN would be limited to MOVE and maybe not ASSAULT. I am not sure if support weapons will be ASSAULTing in the new movement commands.

All things to ponder. Perhaps I will cut and paste this also in the other thread.

Lewis

[ 08-26-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Username]

just thought of something. Do support weapons like the german LMG ever abandon their weapons and become a crew? Most of the time they just die to quickly to do anything.

[Username]

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

I don't know the weight of the Bren boxes, but I think four MG 42 boxes weigh around 70 lbs total. No wonder my HMG teams are so slow.

CAVEAT: I think I remember reading that one of those 250 round ammo boxes weighed 8.4kg. That seems about right, but I'm not sure if I'm remembering it correctly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I remember reading 50 rounds was 5 lbs but am having no luck getting any info. I dont remember M60 boxes weighing all that much either.

[Brian]

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

[QB]I am obviously making a point that for an independant BREN team to have enough firepower, it would have to have a means to move ammo IN MAGAZINES. For a 3 man team, the weight is begining to add up.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That depends, Lewis on what the function of the group is. If when seperated from the section, the MG group is placed in a defensive position, then the ammunition weight is immaterial. If they are advancing, then they would carry less ammunition or perhaps less other equipment in preference for ammunition for the Bren.

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

What people (in this thread) are telling me, is that the portage of this ammo is a distributed function across the squad. Hence the reason it is a squad automatic.

For some independant role, this then becomes an issue. 12 clips, even in a sandbag, would weigh over 30 pounds for 340 rounds or so. Belted ammunition is lighter. I forget what M60 boxes weigh but will dig it up the info. Also, people have been saying that the team will be using a tripod, this also hefts about 30 pounds. The BREN would not then be available separately without buying a BREN gun carrier.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bren tripods were pretty rare beasts after about 1940, primarily because of the weight. They also were designed for long-range firing, which you won't see in something like CM. Indeed, this one of the major points against the way the Vickers MMG is portrayed (I'd much rather see them deployed to the rear and handled as a sort of artillery weapon).

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

In the squad, the BREN could RUN with the others (in real life, it would be at the back of the pack). In a separate role, the BREN would be limited to MOVE and maybe not ASSAULT. I am not sure if support weapons will be ASSAULTing in the new movement commands.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder how you'd handle a Fighting Patrol which was usually about 1.5-2 times the size of a normal section and contained multiple Bren's, Lewis. Their role was to specifically seek contact with the enemy and conduct a quick assault.

There are numerous other examples of where sections were given extra Brens for specific tasks (primarily assault).

According to you, this would be impossible.

Yet once more reality intrudes on your rather narrow minded ideas of how the British/Commonwealth armies used to operate.

[Michael Dorosh]

Brian is correct. By 1944, tripods were issued 1 to every platoon - ie every third gun. And they were usually left on the platoon truck. In fixed positions (ie Nijmegen salient, Arielli River front) they were used to fire on fixed lines at night, for example. The tripod could convert (as the photos Fairbairn posted shows) to an AA mount relatively easily and without any extra equipment (except an AA sight and maybe the drum magazine) needed. Again, this wasn't of much use since by 1944, most German airplanes were defending the Reich, and even so, it would be hard to imagine shooting down an airplane with a Bren. (It was easier for the Aussies who got the Red Baron since a Dr.I goes a bit slower than an Me 109).

But I digress.

Interesting that a drum mag did exist for the Bren, but apparently - gasp - the Brits and Canadians liked the box mags so much that they rarely used the drum.

They must have thought the Bren was a pretty good weapon. I've talked to vets that still swear by it. I'll bet they didn't care if it was an LMG, GPMG or automatic rifle - it saved their lives.

[Slapdragon]

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

Brian is correct. By 1944, tripods were issued 1 to every platoon - ie every third gun. And they were usually left on the platoon truck. In fixed positions (ie Nijmegen salient, Arielli River front) they were used to fire on fixed lines at night, for example. The tripod could convert (as the photos Fairbairn posted shows) to an AA mount relatively easily and without any extra equipment (except an AA sight and maybe the drum magazine) needed. Again, this wasn't of much use since by 1944, most German airplanes were defending the Reich, and even so, it would be hard to imagine shooting down an airplane with a Bren. (It was easier for the Aussies who got the Red Baron since a Dr.I goes a bit slower than an Me 109).

But I digress.

Interesting that a drum mag did exist for the Bren, but apparently - gasp - the Brits and Canadians liked the box mags so much that they rarely used the drum.

They must have thought the Bren was a pretty good weapon. I've talked to vets that still swear by it. I'll bet they didn't care if it was an LMG, GPMG or automatic rifle - it saved their lives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is most interesting is that the British could have had belt feed, but chose not to even after the war.

[Username]

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

I wonder how you'd handle a Fighting Patrol which was usually about 1.5-2 times the size of a normal section and contained multiple Bren's, Lewis. Their role was to specifically seek contact with the enemy and conduct a quick assault.

There are numerous other examples of where sections were given extra Brens for specific tasks (primarily assault).

According to you, this would be impossible.

Yet once more reality intrudes on your rather narrow minded ideas of how the British/Commonwealth armies used to operate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would asign them into the squad like the german squads with extra MGs. Since you dont give exact numbers, I will make them up. 2 squads with 3 BRENS? easily done with the ideas already expressed.

Recon: Small lightly armed element detaches (example:sten and 3 riflemen or M1carbine and 3 garands) leaving the rest. These recon boys get the morale hit only.

Deploy: Automatic weapons in one group and rifleman in the other. Fractions depending on the size of auto group. So if a squad has 2 BAR maybe it 'splits' 5+remainder. If it has 1 Bren then its 3+remainder.

This is me from the same page of this same thread. Please read the thread page you are on. And please address the ammo and stoppages issues if you would. The hardliner here (not you) strikes me as someone with no experience.

Lewis

PS question to those that actually fired BREN. Since the weapon had to be cocked, how would you know when the last round was fired from a magazine? Is it entirely possible that a gunner could fire a burst and not know that he was out?

(h) Stoppages and immediate action.

1. A well cared for gun with the gas regulator set at the correct hole (normally No. 2) will rarely stop except on account of an empty or a badly filled magazine.

2. In all cases of a stoppage the Immediate Action is:

(i) Pull back cocking-handle.

(ii) Remove the magazine.

(iii) Press the trigger.

(iv) Examine magazine; if empty or badly filled change it.

(v) Put magazine on and cock gun.

(vi) Continue firing.

Note. Possible causes: empty magazine, badly filled magazine, missfire, bad ejection, hard extraction.

from the link I posted..Any BREN gunners here?

I repost this because it seems there isnt a difference between stoppages. In a belt fed weapon, it is quite clear whether you have ammo or a jam.

I dont even think that the BREN team has been properly spelled out for what it consists of. Is it tripod mounted? Have 2000 rounds of ammo? 3 man minimum?

[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

It occured to me that to answer the question of whether the Bren could be considered a proper LMG you might want to investigate how the Germans and satellite countries deployed the original Czech designed equivalent in their squads. Did they treat them as a substitute to the redoubtable MG42 or would they simply add them to a squad in addition to the MG42 to boost firepower? Or was it more a case of making do with what one had and although an MG42 would be preferable, if nothing else was available then the Czech weapon was better than nothing?

Any grogs out there know how these weapons were deployed in the German/Axis countries armies?

Regards

Jim R.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

PS question to those that actually fired BREN. Since the weapon had to be cocked, how would you know when the last round was fired from a magazine? Is it entirely possible that a gunner could fire a burst and not know that he was out?

<snip>

from the link I posted..Any BREN gunners here?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but it was over 20 years ago now, so this is a bit hazy......

The Bren fired from an open bolt - so if you had a misfire the bolt would be forward, whereas if you had an empty mag it would be back as the Mag had a projection in it that stopped the bolt moving forward when empty.