Assaulting/Advancing with the Bren LMG

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Mace:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sand digger:

[qb]

"........we trained them all to be very accurate shots from the hip or on the move. The Bren gun had to be, was never fired from the ground, always fired from the hip. Hang onto the strap on the shoulder and always fire, never fire bursts, just one or two shots......"

From what I recall from the one time I actually got to fire a Bren while in army cadets, the thing used to pull forward after recoil and drift slightly to the left, even from a prone position.

So I think it'd be a bit of bugger to hip fire.

</font>

[melb_will]

Bren's were fired extensively from the hip and shoulder in the New Guinea Campaign by Australian troops.

There are many stories of enterprising company officers, finding Bren Guns for their company's before heading up the Owen Stanley's to the Kokoda Track.

Somewhere I have references about firing from the hip but because of my equity assignment i've only managed to dig out one.

'one of a few survivors of a Platoon which had been overrun and severely cut about by the enemy, [Kingsbury] immediately volunteered to join different platoon which had been ordered to counterattack. He rushed forward firing the Bren gun from his hip through terrific machinegun fire and succeeded in clearing a path through the enemy. Continuing to sweep enemy positions with his fire and inflicting an extremely high number of casualties.'

Citation for VC

I also have several pictures of brens being used from the hip and shoulder but I don't know how to post them,

Cheers

Will

[Bannon DC]

I recently received a copy of "World War II Infantry Tactics." An Osprey publication. Stephen Bull author.

The Bren is described as "the heart of the section, around which much of the action would revolve." All very similar to the German and American squad composition.

The author quotes the "Infantry Training" manual of 1944. Much as you expect, for an advance, the squad is split in two section with the Bren team laying covering fire. In theory and common practice, the Bren's role was to lay covering fire.

However, the author also states "Fired from the should and bipod the Bren was accurate and pleasant to shoot, and with its weight of just over 22lbs a practised man could deliver effective fire from the hip in an assualt."

The Germans used the LMG as the spearhead of the assualt. From the 1941 manual "German Infantry in Action: Minor Tactics," quoting the author: "The section works it way forward in a loose formation. Within the section the LMG usually forms the spearhead of the attack. The longer the riflemen follow the LMG in narrow, deep formation, the longer will the machine guns in the rear be able to shoot past the section.... The LMG No. 1 takes part in the assualt, firing on the move."

Interestingly, the Bren was an adaption of the Czech Zb26 LMG. Adapted to take the British .303 ammo which was the mainstay of the British small arms arsenal.

As I recently just bought CMAK, believe it or not... I've only played two games with Brit forces as yet. What is the real issue? Brens can fire on the move? What about BAR's... can they assualt and fire on the move?

A patch? Unlikely.

[Wartgamer]

Did the CW not use Sherman tanks with 30 cal and 50 cals? They must have had an ammo supply for these?

[flamingknives]

And .30 cals and .50cals on halftracks and white scout cars (M3 scout cars)

Organic belt fed weapons were not, apparently, deemed necessary for the PBI, although motorised rifle units apparently had two platoons of Vickers MMGs in carriers per battlion.

What CW infantry battlions did have was a half dozen anti-tank guns, a half dozen excellent medium mortars and numerous smaller mortars, plus a goodly number of armoured runabouts to carry it all. On top of this there is the well documented CW artillery system.

[Wartgamer]

My understanding of the initial fighting in france is that the CW were really the 'panzer' units and the US the 'grunts' (in a very broad sense).

I just find it hard to imagine a CW infantry company operating in any 'lone' sense (JUST its organic weapons only) and taking on even an isolated German platoon.

They would need to use the BRENs as suppressing weapons and endangering any, like assaulting with them, could deplete the firepower of the unit.

[flamingknives]

Don't forget that CW units fought in the Far East as well, where they would be more likely to fight unaided.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Did the CW not use Sherman tanks with 30 cal and 50 cals? They must have had an ammo supply for these?

They belonged to armoured regiments, in armoured divisions. Unlike the US Army, Infantry Divisions did not have organic tanks.

Some infantry units may have had Browning MGs on vehicles, but I don't think there was any official chain of supply of Browning ammo in either .30 or .50 within an infantry division.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I just find it hard to imagine a CW infantry company operating in any 'lone' sense (JUST its organic weapons only) and taking on even an isolated German platoon.

I'd suggest some reading then.

Try BLOODY BURON by Snowie, a detailed look at a battalion action between the Highland Light Infantry of Canada and the II Bataillon of SS Panzergrenadierregiment 26 at Buron in July 1944.

They had a squadron of Sherbrooke Fusiliers in support, but IIRC, no MG units deployed in support. I'd have to take another look.

Regimental histories will do in a pinch, also.

[Wartgamer]

And the book has examples of single infantry companies, using just its won organic weapons taking on the enemy?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

And the book has examples of single infantry companies, using just its won organic weapons taking on the enemy?

You apparently are unaware of a single detailed treatment of how a Commonwealth infantry company/battalion/brigade went into action, and yet you continue to make sweeping generalizations about what is possible and what was not.

Why not just go to the library, get a book out, and try some research?

I've suggested Snowie. For organization try Jean Bouchery, either THE BRITISH SOLDIER volumes I and II, or THE CANADIAN SOLDIER, same author.

Infantry companies in the CW had support from

Support Company of their battalion (3-in mortars, 6 pounder AT guns, Carrier Platoon (including WASPs by 1944)

Engineer Field Squadrons of the RE or RCE

Tank regiments (battalions) - independent or from armoured divisions

Machine Gun Battalions, one per division

Anti Tank Regiment, one per division, usually towed 17 pounder guns

Field Regiments of the RA or RCA, usually 24 guns per brigade, but FOOs could call down the entire divisional, corps or army artillery on priority targets within minutes

Tac Air (Jon S is the expert here)

Check the detailed historical info at www.calgaryhighlanders.com for detailed look at how the battalion was organized, also notes on the brigade and division. (Click on DETAILED HISTORY) in the left hand frame, then check out the links on unit org.

All this support, and you seem to think it "impossible" that the CW infantry company had no heavy support. It did, it was just organized differently than in the US Army, as you've been told several times now. Stop being so lazy and do ten minutes of research on the internet and all your questions will be answered and doubts erased.

[Wartgamer]

The German MG34 could certainly be fired from the hip/slung. I would imagine that its semiauto feature would allow someone to put a fast string of single shots during a short rush.

The MG42, with its terrific rate of fire and full auto-only 'feature' looked to be a hand full to fire while not on the ground. It would not allow very accurate firing on the move like a MG34 or a BREN.

The BAR could be fired from the shoulder on the move and many took the bipod off also.

[Wartgamer]

Yes I feel that the CW infantry org is a little odd (or WWI-headed). The option for a belt fed MG is not at the platoon or company level and when available, its a water cooled fixture from a divisional unit.

I don't need to read a book unless it can describe how a lone company WITHOUT non-organic weapons, could fare either attacking a platoon or defending against a multicompany attack.

I would guess that they could not.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Did the CW not use Sherman tanks with 30 cal and 50 cals? They must have had an ammo supply for these?

They belonged to armoured regiments, in armoured divisions. Unlike the US Army, Infantry Divisions did not have organic tanks.

Some infantry units may have had Browning MGs on vehicles, but I don't think there was any official chain of supply of Browning ammo in either .30 or .50 within an infantry division. </font>

[Wartgamer]

The CW infantry certainly were bled in the Bocage they had to fight through. The vickers, while an excellent weapon for many defensive situations, is not very useful in this situation.

Having a light belt fed weapon like many armies had would have helped them.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Did the CW not use Sherman tanks with 30 cal and 50 cals? They must have had an ammo supply for these?

They belonged to armoured regiments, in armoured divisions. Unlike the US Army, Infantry Divisions did not have organic tanks.

Some infantry units may have had Browning MGs on vehicles, but I don't think there was any official chain of supply of Browning ammo in either .30 or .50 within an infantry division. </font>

[JonS]

wartgamer - as mike said, stop being so fraking lazy and pulling things out of your ass. read, amongst all the other suggestions you've been give, "18 pn" by jary. it's only 180-odd pages, so it shouldn't take your index finger more than a month or so to follow along all the words.

[Wartgamer]

Nah, they probably just have accounts of CW infantry companies with all kinds of weapons cross attached.

I bet a German two company attack could easily defeat a CW inf company. One attacking company pins the british easily and the other attacking company closes.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

The CW infantry certainly were bled in the Bocage they had to fight through. The vickers, while an excellent weapon for many defensive situations, is not very useful in this situation.

Having a light belt fed weapon like many armies had would have helped them.

The Canadians never fought in the bocage and I'm led to believe many British battalions never did, either.

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

The German MG34 could certainly be fired from the hip/slung. I would imagine that its semiauto feature would allow someone to put a fast string of single shots during a short rush.

The MG42, with its terrific rate of fire and full auto-only 'feature' looked to be a hand full to fire while not on the ground. It would not allow very accurate firing on the move like a MG34 or a BREN.

The BAR could be fired from the shoulder on the move and many took the bipod off also.

Belt-fed MGs were and are often fired from the hip and shoulder. Indeed one of the Australian Army's firing details for the GPMG is from the shoulder and the hip. Your assumptions are, I would suggest, based more upon ignorance than reality.

[melb_will]

Ahh, ignorance must be bliss. The first part of your reply would probably make me break out in a rash, had I been kind and patient enough to direct you to a resource that would answer your question.

As to your second point, a German two company attack may well defeat a CW infantry company. However the point is that this would not often occur. (as it may have done in the books pointed out to your which you churlishly refuse to even contemplate reading) as CW infantry company was designed in contemplation that it would never meet an attack on it's own. Therefore, for organisational and logistical reasons it was decided that support weapons would be allocated from a higher level.

Cheers

Will

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer:

The CW infantry certainly were bled in the Bocage they had to fight through. The vickers, while an excellent weapon for many defensive situations, is not very useful in this situation.

Having a light belt fed weapon like many armies had would have helped them.

The Canadians never fought in the bocage and I'm led to believe many British battalions never did, either. </font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer:

[snips]

Having a light belt fed weapon like many armies had would have helped them.

The Canadians never fought in the bocage and I'm led to believe many British battalions never did, either. </font>

[Wartgamer]

http://home.freeuk.net/henridecat/bluecoat/bluecoat.htm

I meant Operation Bluecoat. I suppose that someones tag here stuck in my mind.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

http://home.freeuk.net/henridecat/bluecoat/bluecoat.htm

I meant Operation Bluecoat. I suppose that someones tag here stuck in my mind.

And the belt fed LMGs....any other thoughts on that?