Jump to content

Assaulting/Advancing with the Bren LMG


Recommended Posts

Yes my thought was, and still is, a belt fed weapon. Not sure why its now a LMG. The US air cooled 30 cals are much lighter than a water cooled weapon or even a tripod MG34 or MG42. The fact that belt fed weapons were being used by advanced armies at squad/platoon/company levels, as organic arms, seems to have been the trend. Seems to have been the trend after the war. Seems to still be a good idea. I guess thats just ignorance on everyones part now according to some people here.

I know that everyone is proud of their armies and arms but a CW inf company is just a fat platoon in some regards. Perhaps a German company is just a skinny battalion to others

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

The fact that belt fed weapons were being used by advanced armies at squad/platoon/company levels, as organic arms, seems to have been the trend.

Besides the Germans, no one else had yet designed a belt fed weapon for use at the squad level, so the point about 'advanced' armies is rather silly. Advanced armies such as the Red Army, the British Army, the Canadian Army, and the US Army had no such weapons at the squad level (though the US gamely tried with a bipod and butt for the Browning M1919).

As for the German Army being "advanced", the German Army in WW II was essentially the same army that sallied forth under von Kluck in 1914 - largely footbound and horsedrawn, with the same inelegant design of boots, equipment, and personal weapons (P-08 pistol, K-98 rifle, stick grenade), and many of the same guiding strategies (the encirclement battle, the battle of annihilation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In practice a Bren gun had no problem suppressing an MG42 (once it was located). Accuracy rather than weight of fire were more important in suppressing such a point target. Since the rest of the German squad were essentially ammunition carriers once the MG was suppressed they were largely ineffective.

A cumbersome belt-fed MG would be more of a hindrance in the bocage more than compensated for by a few Mike targets and cold steel for which the the Jerries had an aversion (they don't like it up 'em).

Anyway it's currently impossible to fight a CW platoon or section properly in CM, either by the book or any of the tactical variations employed at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Yes my thought was, and still is, a belt fed weapon. Not sure why its now a LMG. The US air cooled 30 cals are much lighter than a water cooled weapon or even a tripod MG34 or MG42. The fact that belt fed weapons were being used by advanced armies at squad/platoon/company levels, as organic arms, seems to have been the trend. Seems to have been the trend after the war. Seems to still be a good idea. I guess thats just ignorance on everyones part now according to some people here.

So I will not be taken out of context, I will quote myself. And explain it for the hard-of-reading.

1. Belt fed weapons, post WWII, were not replaced by magazine fed weapons. Live in a fantasy land about 28 round BRENs defeating belt fed weapons but at least realize that post WWII, most armies moved towards GPMGs. And these were belt fed weapons.

2. My argument is that advanced Armies started using belt fed weapons (any type for those especially hard-of-reading) at Company or Platoon or even at the squad level (notably Germany). Most kept 'Heavy' Machine guns at the Battalion level. The US and Germany are good examples of Heavy Weapons Companies within Battalions using a tripod mounted HMG. Some US platoons, the arm inf, used belt fed MGs at the platoon level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

BREN guns have now defeated the German Army single handed? How many were issued to the Soviet Army?

They used the drum fed DT. Which does not differ from Bren, BAR, LS-26 or any other magazine fed SAW in use in armies other than the German army (which itself used magazine fed SAW's as well as belt fed MG's as SAW).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

In practice a Bren gun had no problem suppressing an MG42 (once it was located). Accuracy rather than weight of fire were more important in suppressing such a point target. Since the rest of the German squad were essentially ammunition carriers once the MG was suppressed they were largely ineffective.

How does the fact the Germans kept increasing the number of automatics in the squad tally with your statement here ? Not to mention the fact that even after heavy barrages and prolonged bombardment the Allied infantry had a rough going taking the positions held by German infantry.

A cumbersome belt-fed MG would be more of a hindrance in the bocage more than compensated for by a few Mike targets and cold steel for which the the Jerries had an aversion (they don't like it up 'em).

So it was the bocage terrain, not the defending infantry, which stopped the Allies from advancing for so long ?

Anyway it's currently impossible to fight a CW platoon or section properly in CM, either by the book or any of the tactical variations employed at the time.

Have you tried using for example Red Army methods to see if they work ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Simon Fox: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Anyway it's currently impossible to fight a CW platoon or section properly in CM, either by the book or any of the tactical variations employed at the time.

Have you tried using for example Red Army methods to see if they work ? </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

1. Belt fed weapons, post WWII, were not replaced by magazine fed weapons. Live in a fantasy land about 28 round BRENs defeating belt fed weapons but at least realize that post WWII, most armies moved towards GPMGs. And these were belt fed weapons.

Well, in the British army at least, you'r right. The belt fed weapons were not replaced with box fed automatics.

But the Bren was kept on as a squad automatic until the 1980s, when it was replaced by... another box fed weapon. GPMGs were experimented with at the section level, but subsequently discarded as too cumbersome.

2. My argument is that advanced Armies started using belt fed weapons (any type for those especially hard-of-reading) at Company or Platoon or even at the squad level (notably Germany). Most kept 'Heavy' Machine guns at the Battalion level. The US and Germany are good examples of Heavy Weapons Companies within Battalions using a tripod mounted HMG. Some US platoons, the arm inf, used belt fed MGs at the platoon level.

So, by inference, advanced armies were everyone bar the CW, if one goes for company level belt-fed weapons, and Ze Germans* and certain US units at the platoon level?

In fact, the upshot, AIUI, is that the only 'backwards' armies were those organised along CW lines, neatly avoiding all the benefits of the rest of the features of CW lower level organisation, like useful organic platoon mortars, plentiful battalion level anti-tank weapons, armoured, tracked carriers to cart everything about in and conduct reconnaissance with.

Belt-fed weapons are not without their faults - for a start, they're a great deal easier to spot - fire a Bren in one or two round bursts and it will be nigh on indistinguishable from the rapid-firing (for bolt action rifles, anyway) Lee-Enfields. Compare an MG 42 with kar98s and you'll spot the automatic much more easily. Then they munch though ammunition faster, and when you've got a supply line like the Germans had, you don't need that. Finally, they're heavier.

It's worth noting that some studies conducted in the Korean war noted that light automatic weapons like the BAR were frequently more useful than tripod mounted weapons in company/battalion defences, as the BARs were

1) Harder to pick out and thus not targeted as much

2) More mobile and better able to react to changing attacks.

As many of the battles under consideration were fought mostly with small arms, it raises a serious question about the usefulness of dedicated SF MGs under the control of the generic infantry.

The changing face of warfare alters the usefulness of weapons - as artillery became more powerful , units become more spread out, and need more firepower to maintain presence on the battlefield.

*Ze Germans, AFAICT, were entirely separate from the historical Wehrmacht, as the former only ever fought in tactical battles and live in a world where rounds downrange was the only important factor in firepower. Bizzarely, Ze Germans transmuted into another world of impractical inventions, and never suffered the ignomy of defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bren was replaced in Canada with the FNC2 - box fed - and soldiered from 1958 to about 1988. The beltfed Browning, rechambered to NATO, was not a section weapon in Canada.

When did the Soviets move to a belt-fed section automatic?

Emrys - see my webpage on the evolution of section tactics at

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/section.htm

Even the Minimi - while ostensibly "belt fed" - can be box fed and the 220 round belt comes in boxes clipped to the weapon. At a variable rpm of 800-1100 rpm, I wonder what the difference is between that and a Bren with a dedicated number two reloading the 28 round box after 500 rpm.

As Simon says (always wanted to say that!), the skill of the gunner was what counted, not the number of bullets he could put downrange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by flamingknives:

[snips]

But the Bren was kept on as a squad automatic until the 1980s, when it was replaced by... another box fed weapon. GPMGs were experimented with at the section level, but subsequently discarded as too cumbersome.

Mmm, not quite. The GPMG was not merely "experimented with", it was the standard issue section automatic weapon throughout the Army from 1961 to 1983.

That the "other box fed weapon", the LSW, was a bad idea poorly executed has been tolerably obvious to most infantrymen since that time, and the belated realisation that belt-fed weapons are what the platoon needs to produce fire has been acknowledged with the reintroduction of the GPMG in the light role into the platoon maneouvre support section, and the emergency procurement of the Minimi for fireteams.

Not that this should have come as much of a surprise; D(Inf) had decided that a belt-fed weapon was the right thing to issue at section level in 1944, and OR studies from that time confirmed the decision.

Personally, I think the clinching argument in favour of belt-fed weapons is one that one seldom hears, viz. that a hundred rounds of disintegrating link weighs less that a hundred rounds plus the mags to carry them in.

All the best,

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feh. My nemesis strikes!

How about 100 rounds in a single box mag?

OR studies? Official Reports?

I think modern fireteams are somewhat different in role and expectations than a WWII section. The improvements in other arms (artillery being the obvious one) means that concentration of troops is suicide. Infantry must therefore disperse in space and make up for it in firepower. It's worth noting that the Minimi has not replaced the LSW in British service, but has augmented it. The LSW provides long range fire while the Minimi (as a short barrelled weapon) provides closer range suppressive fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

1) What exactly were the differences in squad (section) tactics between the USSR and the UK/CW/BE forces?

If we are to believe in the BFC canon there was no differences. ;)

Having said that, I think the first stop would be to ascertain what can be used as a source. I have Harrison-Place who says that basically the British infantry had no fixed small unit tactics.

2) Assuming Simon desires to play a historically accurate game, why should he have to use CW troops the way the USSR used theirs?

The problem is the RKKA and CW infantry is modelled the same way in the game. IMO the only real issue is how heavy casualties is he willing to accept playing with CW troops as opposed to RKKA troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

[snips]

Having said that, I think the first stop would be to ascertain what can be used as a source. I have Harrison-Place who says that basically the British infantry had no fixed small unit tactics.

[snips]

Interesting, as Forty, 'Handbook of the British Army' describes a slew of standard tactics for section and platoon. Additionally, I've read a standard tactic for patrolling which I believe was disseminated to Battalions serving in Burma.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

1) What exactly were the differences in squad (section) tactics between the USSR and the UK/CW/BE forces?

If we are to believe in the BFC canon there was no differences. ;)

Having said that, I think the first stop would be to ascertain what can be used as a source. I have Harrison-Place who says that basically the British infantry had no fixed small unit tactics.

2) Assuming Simon desires to play a historically accurate game, why should he have to use CW troops the way the USSR used theirs?

The problem is the RKKA and CW infantry is modelled the same way in the game. IMO the only real issue is how heavy casualties is he willing to accept playing with CW troops as opposed to RKKA troops.

Again, I'll point you to my link on infantry section tactics, up above. The WW II bit is scant, but basically, the section divided into two - a Bren group and a rifle group. However, that was in theory; in reality the section usually fought at 50 to 60 percent of full strength. Who is Harrison-Place and what else does he have to say?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the clinching argument in favour of belt-fed weapons is one that one seldom hears, viz. that a hundred rounds of disintegrating link weighs less that a hundred rounds plus the mags to carry them in.

All the best,

John.

Related down-sides is maximum 'ready' ammo is magazine limited. Magazines are bulkier also. Reloading mags during a battle being more akin to riflemen than a machinegunner. And the interruption of final protective fire by magazine change.

Having a belt fed weapon at company or platoon was the advanced nature of the weapon during and after WWII.

Till the advent of smaller/HV ammo like the 5.56mm, the squad based belt fed MG was a bit of a pig.

Its amazing how this concept can not sink into CW types here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Personally, I think the clinching argument in favour of belt-fed weapons is one that one seldom hears, viz. that a hundred rounds of disintegrating link weighs less that a hundred rounds plus the mags to carry them in.

All the best,

John.

Related down-sides is maximum 'ready' ammo is magazine limited. Magazines are bulkier also. Reloading mags during a battle being more akin to riflemen than a machinegunner. And the interruption of final protective fire by magazine change.

Having a belt fed weapon at company or platoon was the advanced nature of the weapon during and after WWII.

Till the advent of smaller/HV ammo like the 5.56mm, the squad based belt fed MG was a bit of a pig.

Its amazing how this concept can not sink into CW types here.

Funny how you still aren't defining "advanced". What exactly is your point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by flamingknives:

OR studies? Official Reports?

Though I'm loath to speak for John - lord knows he can speak well enough for himself - I'm fairly sure he means Operational Research. Or, more specifically in this case, the work of Army Operational Research Section 6 (Infantry Weapons and Tactics), under one Capt Michael Swann (REME), records to be found in PRO WO 291 (esp PRO WO 291/128, /150, & /153), and the Swann Papers, held by Swann, with copies in the Shephard Archives LCMSDS (Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies).

Regards

JonS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Advanced Definition

Opposite of Advanced is Retarded.

I didn't think you would be able to articulate it with reference to your "argument". Nor did I think you had a point.

Allow me to put it into words for you. You prefer the company of men in any and all circumstances, isn't that right, Trieb...

err...

Let me start again.

Belt-fed LMGs good, CW bad, every "advanced" Army (whatever that means) had a belt fed SAW, except in WW II, when no one had them but the Germans, and they were one of the least progressive armies with regards to such thing as mechanical transport or artillery co-ordination.

Feel free to put it into better words of your own choosing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...