The Bren LMG: Not Sold Separately...

[Slapdragon]

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

According to Ezell, the ZB26 (MG26c) was part of the equipment of 15 divisions set to invade Russian on the eastern front. It was assigned to squads carrying bolt-action rifles. Platoons and companies used the ZB37 HMG as a continious fire machinegun. All weapons used the German 7.92mm round. I am not sure if this helps one way or another because while the ZB26/30 was used in squads, it was apparently not used in higher organizations (which used the MG34 or the mentioned ZB37) while the MG34 was used both in squads and at the platoon and company level.

Security platoons also carried various weapons related to the 26/30 series of weapons.

[Herr Jung]

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

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MG 26(t)/ZB 1926 and MG 30(t)/ZB 1930 were LMGs which have seen quite a bit of action early the early war at the hands of the German Army and especially the Waffen SS - which initially had some problems procuring weapons. Other major customers were the armies of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. The weapons were almost identical to the Bren in design, but normally used a straight or curved 20-rd magazine. (Other sources claim that up to 40-rd magazines were available as well.) The following is a quote from -- http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust5.htm

When Germany occupied Czechoslovakia in March 1939, the ZB 1926 was incorporated into the German army under the designation MG 26(t), the suffix (t) denominating a captured weapon of Czech ("Tschechisch") origin. Together, the Germans acquired 31,204 machine guns of the types ZB 1926 and it's successor, the ZB 1930. Another source for these weapons were those captured in Yugoslavia that had originally bought 1,500 ZB 1926, although it is unknown how many of these exactly were captured by the Germans.

With the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1939 the Germans captured 31,204 machine guns of the types ZB 1926 and ZB 1930, mostly the latter. From these, 1,500 were sold to Bulgaria. The ZB 1930 was integrated into German army service under the designation MG 30(t). Production of the weapon was continued under German occupation for the German forces: 10,430 were produced for the SS. In 1941 production was switched over to the German MG34 and production of the MG 30(t) / ZB 1930 ceased.

It is said the ZB26 and ZB30 were slow and expensive to manufacture, and required complicated machining from large steel blocks much like MG34, which probably lead to its early cease of production. So what happened to these Czech weapons later in the war? My guess is they were mostly sold off to German allies and/or redistributed to second line units, fixed defenses, anti-partisan patrols, etc. I¡¯ve seen a photo of one being used by the SS against captured enemies/partisans cut loose (maybe a doctored propaganda). I¡¯ve seen a footage of them being used for the French coastal defense around the time of Normandy invasion. The Bren is an excellent LMG and maybe an MMG on a tripod, but not a GPMG which the Germans preferred.

As for the weapon system weight issue, different sources give slightly different numbers:

Belt of 50-rd (7.92mm) --- 1.5kg

Box of 4 x 50-rd belt --- 8.35kg

MG34 w/ bipod --- 12.1kg

MG42 w/ bipod --- 11.6kg

Lafette34 tripod --- 23.6kg

Lafette42 tripod --- 20.5kg

MG30(t)/ZB 1930 --- 9.65kg

Magazine of 20-rd --- 0.8kg

Source http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm

Herr Jung

[Brian]

<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?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. However the time it took to perform the IA was so small that it made little difference to the rate of fire, Lewis.

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

(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.

Basically correct, except you wouldn't pull the trigger after removing the magazine. If it was a misfed round, it would fall to the ground through the ejection port. If a misfeed had occurred in the magazine, then that would be obvious from examination of the magazine, and the same for an empty magazine.

If you pull the trigger, you have to recock the weapon a second time, which is unnecessary. In reality, what would occur would be that you'd cock the weapon, remove the magazine, check to see if rounds remained, if not, place a fresh magazine on the weapon, pull the trigger. If there was a misfed round in the magazine it was handed to the No.2 to fix, while firing continued.

If the weapon stopped a second time, it was more than likely a fouled gas regulator, which you'd turn one notch clockwise (if memory serves me correctly, its been 20 years since I did this), using the nose of a spare round. You'd then go on.

[Brian]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no holding open device for the Bren. When the magazine was empty, the bolt could and did return forward if the trigger was pulled.

[Username]

quote:

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

Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

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.

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

There was no holding open device for the Bren. When the magazine was empty, the bolt could and did return forward if the trigger was pulled.

This is what I question.

In a M16, after the last round, the difference is felt in recoil and sound the weapon makes. The condition of the weapon on the last round indicates its state. The bolt is back. After minimal training, you learn to release the clip off the weapon, insert a new clip and release the bolt (inserting a new round in the chamber in the process).

It isnt the same for the BREN. It would need anticipation from the crew.

When firing M60s, or any belt weapon, this isnt an issue. A quick glance at the belt assures that ammo is present. A good assistant will tell you when to slow up so he can put another belt on to the existing one. The potential for a holdup is minimalized by a belt fed weapon.

I have never fired the BREN but from what I read and hear here, I think that I would be constantly 'topping up' in a battle situation. By that, I mean that if there were ever a lull in firing, I would immedietly want to pull the existing clip off and put on another full clip.

Brian, since you probably have experience with both BREN and belt fed weapons, What would you rather have? Given the weight of the early Marks of BREN it would probably mean a few pounds more to portage a belt but whats your honest opinion?

Thanks

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

The 1924 design that would lead to the Bren massed the same as its magazine fed sister, but was belt fed. The barrel of this Bren was relatively light for this, and added mass would have been needed to handle the higher heating load.

The postwar ZB52 was a Bren that could feed either belts or magazines.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

There was no holding open device for the Bren. When the magazine was empty, the bolt could and did return forward if the trigger was pulled.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's in direct conflict with the on-line info at The Bren Gun on-line manual. I quote:

"Condition of breech on:

(a) Cease fire. Open.

( Empty magazine:

(i) Box. Open. Moving parts held back by projectors on rear of magazine platform.

(ii) Drum. Closed"

[Stalin's Organ]

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

quote:

I have never fired the BREN but from what I read and hear here, I think that I would be constantly 'topping up' in a battle situation. By that, I mean that if there were ever a lull in firing, I would immedietly want to pull the existing clip off and put on another full clip.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you wouldn't.

This would lead you to carrying aronud a bunch of partly used magazines that yuo didn't know how many rounds weer left in.

Instead you counted the rounds as you fired, and retained the partly used mag on the gun, unless you had time to remove and refill it, or it was down to just 1 or 2 rounds and you were expecting to hav eto go into action straight away.

I'm not sure what your point is here Lewis. Certainly the ammo indication from a belt feed is easier to eye-ball than any magazine feed - I don't know anyone who is argung otherwise.

[Username]

I find it hard to count rounds when firing on full auto. More than likely, a gunner would count bursts. If he was around 5-6 bursts, he would get a feeling the mag was low.

Anyway, there hasnt been much in tha way of documentation shared as to the BRENs extra-squad activitys. The only issue about the BREN gun carrier is actually part of the problem shared by halftracks of all nationalitys in the game. MGs and mortars cant be offloaded, forcing players to fight these vehicles like AFVs.

The initial claims about commando type units was made. Was there ant TOEs or any references that showed these extra weapons?

Lewis

[Stalin's Organ]

Err...well couting bursts is a subset of "counting raounds" in my book.

Either way you'er keepign track of how much ammo yuo think you have left - one is easier, the other sacrifices ease for accuracy.

I distinctly remember counting rounds - but then that was only on the range.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

That's in direct conflict with the on-line info at The Bren Gun on-line manual. I quote:

"Condition of breech on:

(a) Cease fire. Open.

( Empty magazine:

(i) Box. Open. Moving parts held back by projectors on rear of magazine platform.

(ii) Drum. Closed"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup - I disagree with it. Having fired the Bren Mk1 and the L4A4 many times - the magazine did not hold back the working parts when empty in either weapon.

In the latter case it could not because the 30 round mag for the 7.62x51mm cartridge was interchangle with the L2A1 or C2A1 (depending on which Army you were in - grin)and by implication L1A1/C1A1 and this would have interferred with the operation of the weapon - it was just not fitted to allow the platform to rise that high !

[Brian]

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

When firing M60s, or any belt weapon, this isnt an issue. A quick glance at the belt assures that ammo is present. A good assistant will tell you when to slow up so he can put another belt on to the existing one. The potential for a holdup is minimalized by a belt fed weapon.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the only possible stoppage under consideration is running out of ammunition, then you're correct. However, there were and are several other types of stoppages that can and do occur in both types of weapons - misfeeds, misfires and fouled gas regulators (if a gas-operated weapon). Doesn't matter if its belt or magazine fed. You still have to either remove the magazine or open the feed cover plate.

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

I have never fired the BREN but from what I read and hear here, I think that I would be constantly 'topping up' in a battle situation. By that, I mean that if there were ever a lull in firing, I would immedietly want to pull the existing clip off and put on another full clip.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite. Usually you'd take the magazine off and weigh in the hand and glance at it. If you think its less than a quarter full, you might remove it and hand it to the no.2/no.3 and have them refill it. Otherwise, you'd just put it back on and continue firing - however that is very much a value decision made by the gunner at the time and the place.

BTW, as I keep pointing out, the name is not capitalised - its Bren, not BREN.

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

Brian, since you probably have experience with both BREN and belt fed weapons, What would you rather have? Given the weight of the early Marks of BREN it would probably mean a few pounds more to portage a belt but whats your honest opinion?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends upon the situation, the doctrine and whom I'm facing.

I'd rather have a belt-fed weapon in Korea or on the Eastern Front - where I can utilise its high ROF and range to full advantage and I have targets worth using it on. Otherwise, despite what you appear to believe, the Bren was more than adequate for the task demanded of it, in the situations it was used.

My impression of the M60 GPMG was that it was a cumbersome, heavy and uncomfortable beast to use. It was difficult to conduct fire and movement with it, because of the belt and the need to have a no.2 in very close to help it feed properly. It was difficult to keep clean, at the best of times.

However, my impression of the Bren was the reverse - it was well designed, it was easy to use and it could be operated by one man, if necessary. Your no.2 only had to be nearby, to hand over fresh magazines as required, once you'r exhausted what you carried in your own pouches. It was very easily cleaned and pretty much idiot proof.

The interesting thing is that the Bren actually weighs more than the M60, if memory serves me correctly. It was just that the Bren was a much better thought out design IMO. The bipod could be flipped open and shut with the flick of a hand. The barrel could be changed easily and did not necessitate the use of an asbestos mitten, nor did the Gunner have to try and hold the reciever up while a new barrel was fitted (the bipod was fitted to the reciever, not the barrel as on the M60). The only problem was the lack of a foregrip but that wasn't that serious, once you learnt the lesson not to burn your hand on the gas-cylinder.

The FN-MAG and the Minimi came in just at the end of my service and both were good designs from the short exposure I had to them.

I think though the main point which is being made throughout all this is that the game designers believe that "this is how its done" when they only have limited experience and understanding of how it was actually done. They've used one model, as you do, in the mistaken belief that it can be applied to all armies. It cannot. Each had its own doctrine - some were bloody awful (Japanese/Soviet) some were damn good (Commonwealth and most were in the middle which meant that weapons were used differently.

Thanks

Lewis