Assaulting/Advancing with the Bren LMG

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Tero:

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.

Quite. Tactical innovation was encouraged in the British infantry.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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...

Heh. I want to win the Iron Cross.

[Wartgamer]

I have read that Rocking BREN gunners could put indirect fire into German trenches while using advancing fire. They took Berlin with screaming foot races firing BRENs at full gallop.

Why have belt fed guns? (shrugs) You would have to carry ammo!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I have read that Rocking BREN gunners could put indirect fire into German trenches while using advancing fire. They took Berlin with screaming foot races firing BRENs at full gallop.

Why have belt fed guns? (shrugs) You would have to carry ammo!

More to the point, the rest of the squad would have to carry ammo - the German squad focussed its attention on supporting the machine gun, the British/CW did it the other way round, with the Bren supporting the riflemen.

[Simon Fox]

"A single well-aimed rifle shot is to be regarded as more worthwhile than a badly placed burst of machine-gun fire."-German company co in Italy

So even the Jerries were learning that blazing away indiscriminantly in the general direction of the enemy while cowering in your foxhole is not only cowardly but also ineffectual.

[Andreas]

I guess that one should not confuse the weapon and the training. When the Commonwealth forces got round to kicking German rear, quality standards had dropped considerably already. So assume that a badly trained squad is not going to be rescued by its SAW, regardless of wether it is belt-fed or not, while a well-trained squad can overcome the drawbacks of its weaponry through leadership, competence, and tactics. That could explain a lot, couldn't it? And it would work nicely with first-hand accounts such as Jary who had a lot of respect for the MG42, but very little for most of its users, IIRC.

There is no law that says you have to blaze away indiscriminately with a belt-fed weapon, but it encourages badly trained squaddies to do that. Guns don't waste ammo, German conscripts do.

[Andreas]

Harrison-PLace

[JonS]

A rather longer, and impartial, review including a bit more from Hargest bagging the Poms

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

The inclination to any BREN-head is to ignore all arguments and try to steer a conversation towards the squad automatic.

The fact is, the BREN is the squad/platoon/company automatic.

And the MG34/42 is what then?

That the Bren was used at multiple levels is essentially meaningless. It was and remains primarily an LMG. An excellent one. Arguebly perhaps the best of the WWII period IMHO.

Damn good weapon to fire too, from my experience.

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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.

It is also easier, in some ways to carry. In addition, because it is quite possible to link belts, to essentially have an endless supply (as long as the logistics bods can keep pushing it forward) of ammunition for each weapon.

HOWEVER! There are downsides! Belt-fed weapons are much more prone to stoppages - primarily because of rubbish ingested into the feed mechanism by the belt(indeed, anybody who does a "Rambo" and festoons themselves with belts of link is a fool for that very reason).

Further, link must, because of its very nature, be supplied as a seperate line item, whereas a magazine fed weapon can make use of either loose or clipped rounds as can the rifles of the section (although, as a caveat, it must be pointed out, with link you merely open the container, with loose or clip you must load the magazine).

Finally, perhaps the one thing against a full powered rifle chambered belt fed MG is the weight of the ammunition. While 100 rds of link is lighter than 100 rounds of magazine, carrying 100 rds on the gun is bloody heavy, whereas on the magazine fed weapon, the load is more evenly distributed around the person and then around the section. Which is why you'll generally see belt-fed MGs on the advance only carrying ~25 rds in a short helt or a snail drum/bag.

Which in the end means there isn't all that much difference - on the advance between the two weapons. On the defensive however, the difference is obvious (do you need it spelt out Wartgamer? ).

[RMC]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

Further, link must, because of its very nature, be supplied as a seperate line item, whereas a magazine fed weapon can make use of either loose or clipped rounds as can the rifles of the section (although, as a caveat, it must be pointed out, with link you merely open the container, with loose or clip you must load the magazine).

In the case of the germans, however, they had this thing:

Which allowed boxes of rifle ammo to be dropped into the hopper to build belts of non-disintegrating link. I don't know how common this was in the Wehrmacht or how far forward it would be found. It can make the standard 50-round belts in short order.

When I was firing the MG3 with the Bundeswehr, I didn't see any pre-linked ammo being used. Everything was linked right there at the range.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Harrison-PLace

Oh HIM - that one is already on my amazon wish list. Next to the real Amazons, of course.

[YankeeDog]

If you can get past all the mud-slinging, there's actually some interesting points being made here.

I don't think this as an issue that can be quantitatively proven. MG42s and Brens (or BAs or DPs, for that matter) didn't duke it out in isolation anywhere. They were used in concert with other weapons, by armies with different doctrines, with different supply and logistics situations, etc. Separating out the intrinsic value of the weapons from the overall environment is probably impossible.

And I'm not sure comparisons to modern TOE are really valid, because, as noted, doctrine & related equipment have changed. For the big industrialized nations, modern small arms infantry equipment and doctrine is mostly focused on a very fast, highly mobile sub-300m firefight. This was already largely true in WWII, but dramatic advances in, for example, Artillery and Air Support accuracy & response time have made it even more true today.

Nevertheless, personally I find it very hard to believe that, in totem, the Wehrmacht wasn't better off with their MG34s & 42s than the CW was with their Brens.

IOW, in some hypothetical wargame where I control the weapons development and purchasing of a WWII combatant nation, given the choice between developing along the MG34/42 line, or developing along the Bren line, I would definitely choose the former.

To my mind, it's just too important to have a lightweight, air-cooled, belt-fed MG for firepower at the company and platoon level. Indeed, the lack of such an MG is IMHO the biggest weakness in the WWII commonwealth kit. The Amis are a bit better off with the M1919A4, but it's still far inferior to the MG42.

However, this doesn't necessarily mean I think the MG34/42 was the best SAW of the war. Speaking as a complete armchair soldier, they both seem a bit too heavy, and a bit too ammo-hungry, for a squad-level weapon.

So, hypothetically, if you gave me a option of using *both* the Bren *and* the MG42 in my TOE, I would probably put the MG42s as a Platoon or Company-level support weapon (either 1-2/platoon, or 2-6/company), and the Brens as my SAWs. IMHO, this gives me the best of both worlds -- a light, mobile automatic weapon with my maneuver-element squads, but with the backing of a belt-fed, but still reasonably mobile weapon close behind.

Interesting to note that, the Germans actually could have done exactly this, since, as noted, the Bren was basically a copy of a Czech design which they certainly had access to.

In summary, IMHO, Bren wins as best SAW for best balance of firepower & mobility (until assault-weapon caliber SAWs come along). MG42 wins as best Company and Platoon-level GPMG. But since I also think the MG42 does a better job of making do as a SAW than the Bren does as a GPMG, if I have to choose one or the other, I take the MG42.

I've often wondered myself why the CW stuck with the Vickers for so long. I definitely think the water-cooled Vickers were dinosaurs by 1939. There's a reason no-one uses water-cooled MGs anymore. Anything a water-cooled MG can do direct fire, an air-cooled MG with a QC Barrel can do nearly as well, and the air-cooled weapon is lighter and more flexible. Anything water-cooled MGs can do indirect, light/medium mortars can do just as well, usually better.

But why the CW held on to their Vickers and their rather unique ideas about indirect MG fire, I don't know. The Brits especially were pretty strapped in all areas of weapons procurement and design, and I think infantry small-arms was pretty far down the list in terms of priorites -- weapons systems like tanks and aircraft taking precedence. So this may be a case of doctrine following economic realities -- they may not have had the time or the resources to develop a good air-cooled belt design.

They did have air-cooled .303 MG designs that they were using on aircraft and on AFVs, but I don't know how easily these could have been adapted for ground infantry use. It might have also been possible to license and adapt the Browning M1919A4 to .303 and produce it in lieu of the Vickers. But even just re-tooling factories would have taken time and effort. Besides, IIRC they had considerable numbers of Vickers lying around from WWI -- they were a 'freebie', so to speak.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

But in totem the CW had scads of 25 pounders to rock the world of any of their enemies...

How many Vickers soldiering in 1944 do you honestly believe were from the 1914-18 production run?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

But in totem the CW had scads of 25 pounders to rock the world of any of their enemies...

How many Vickers soldiering in 1944 do you honestly believe were from the 1914-18 production run?

1. Absolutely, and certainly relevant to the question, "how did the CW forces beat the Wehrmacht?", but not really relevant to the question, " in totem, which is the more useful small arm, the MG42 or the Bren?", which is what I was trying to get at.

2. I honestly don't know. However, I've spoken to current US Army soldiers who've seen M2 receivers still in service stamped with production date from the early 1950s, so I don't see why a Vickers made in, say 1916, might not still be in service in 1944. But I've never seen details on when, and how many, Vickers were built. I also imagine the Brit lost a fair number at Dunkirk, so perhaps most of the stock present in 1944 was built during the war.

Different barrel, certainly. But as I understand it, if they're well cared for, receivers can last a very long time.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

And I'm not sure comparisons to modern TOE are really valid, because, as noted, doctrine & related equipment have changed.

Not by much, I don't think. The basic business of infantry close combat remains remarkably similar to the way it was in 1916.

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

IOW, in some hypothetical wargame where I control the weapons development and purchasing of a WWII combatant nation, given the choice between developing along the MG34/42 line, or developing along the Bren line, I would definitely choose the former.

...as practically every army in the world did after 1945, when they'd seen the MG-42 in action.

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

To my mind, it's just too important to have a lightweight, air-cooled, belt-fed MG for firepower at the company and platoon level. Indeed, the lack of such an MG is IMHO the biggest weakness in the WWII commonwealth kit. The Amis are a bit better off with the M1919A4, but it's still far inferior to the MG42.

In many ways the Americans are worse of, as at section (squad) level you're likely to see only the BAR. Presumably, Anglo-American "weakness" is shared by the Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Italian and French armies, to name but a few.

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I've often wondered myself why the CW stuck with the Vickers for so long.

I'm guessing "because it worked".

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I definitely think the water-cooled Vickers were dinosaurs by 1939.

But can you name any army in the world that did not field them in 1939? Or for that matter in 1945? There are plenty of British eccentricities it is possible to pick on, but I think that using water-cooled MMGs is not one of them.

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Anything a water-cooled MG can do direct fire, an air-cooled MG with a QC Barrel can do nearly as well, and the air-cooled weapon is lighter and more flexible.

In what sense "more flexible"? If you can't fit a dial sight to it, it can perform fewer missions, which makes it less flexible, surely?

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

The Brits especially were pretty strapped in all areas of weapons procurement and design, and I think infantry small-arms was pretty far down the list in terms of priorites -- weapons systems like tanks and aircraft taking precedence. So this may be a case of doctrine following economic realities -- they may not have had the time or the resources to develop a good air-cooled belt design.

BESA on a ground mount. It was available; but people decided to stick with the Vickers instead. What advantage would it have conferred? The idea of an MG is to chuck bullets. The Vickers could chuck bullets just fine. That's why almost every army in the world used a gun like it, and it's hard to see how the French and Japanese were much better off with Hotchkiss-pattern air-cooled guns in the MMG role.

All the best,

John.

[YankeeDog]

[Of Modern vs. WWII doctrine] Not by much, I don't think. The basic business of infantry close combat remains remarkably similar to the way it was in 1916.

Once it gets down to the squad-on-squad, section-on-section & soldier-on-soldier stuff, not all that much, though the ubiquitousness of full-auto weapons has made things deadlier, faster now. But in terms of how you get to that point, and when you decide to go there, I think there have been pretty radical changes.

...as practically every army in the world did after 1945, when they'd seen the MG-42 in action.

My point exactly.

In many ways the Americans are worse of, as at section (squad) level you're likely to see only the BAR. Presumably, Anglo-American "weakness" is shared by the Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Italian and French armies, to name but a few.

Overall, yes. The Bren was a better SAW than the BAR. IMHO, the Garands and Brownings compensated for the Americans. As to who (Brits or Amis) was better overall for platoon-level firepower, I'm not sure. And yes, most other WWII combatants were in more or less the same place. Germany is the major exception.

I've often wondered myself why the CW stuck with the Vickers for so long.

***

I'm guessing "because it worked".

"Working" is a relative thing. Sure, it "worked." But that doesn't necessarily mean the CW wouldn't have been better off with something else. Hell, the Model T "worked" as a car, but overall I'm much happier in a Lexus LS400.

I definitely think the water-cooled Vickers were dinosaurs by 1939.

But can you name any army in the world that did not field them in 1939? Or for that matter in 1945? There are plenty of British eccentricities it is possible to pick on, but I think that using water-cooled MMGs is not one of them.

Well, AFAIK the Japanese never fielded a water-cooled MG in any significant numbers in WWII. But it is true that almost everybody was using a Maxim-type water cooled MMG in 1939. But most of the other major combatants at least began replacing the water-cooled MG before, or during WWII -- Germans the earliest w/ the tripod-mounted MG34s, Americans next with the M1919A4 (present at the start of the war, and progressively a higher percentage of rifle caliber MGs fielded as the war progresses), and the Russans with the SG43. To my knowledge, the Brits never made a significant effort to replace, or even supplement the Vickers during the war.

Anything a water-cooled MG can do direct fire, an air-cooled MG with a QC Barrel can do nearly as well, and the air-cooled weapon is lighter and more flexible.

In what sense "more flexible"? If you can't fit a dial sight to it, it can perform fewer missions, which makes it less flexible, surely?

Who's to say you can't put a dial sight on an air-cooled MG? Didn't the MG34/42 in its tripod form have one? In any event, IMHO, lighter and more mobile opens up more practical functionality (i.e., more "flexible") than a dial sight. Dial sights only allow the MMG to do a job (indirect fire) that can be better performed by mortars most of the time anyway.

BESA on a ground mount. It was available; but people decided to stick with the Vickers instead. What advantage would it have conferred? The idea of an MG is to chuck bullets. The Vickers could chuck bullets just fine. That's why almost every army in the world used a gun like it, and it's hard to see how the French and Japanese were much better off with Hotchkiss-pattern air-cooled guns in the MMG role.

If the only option was a Hotchkiss-pattern air-cooled gun, then by all means I would stick with the Vickers. But the Hotchkiss a slow ROF, heavy WWI dinosaur. The Browning is substantially better, and the MG34 is exponentially better. As for the ground-mount BESA, it would seem to be a good choice, but isn't it 7.92mm? IIRC, there's something about the action of the BESA that made it's design difficult to adapt to .303, too. Having your MG a different caliber than your standard rifle cartridge is definitely sub-optimal.

It's overly simplistic to think MG design is just about "chucking bullets". By that standard, the Germans should have stuck with the Schwartzlose/MG'08, which "chucked bullets" just fine -- no reason to develop the MG34 & 42. The best MG is one one that lets you not only "chuck bullets" but do it when, where and how want to. IMHO, the Browning M1919A4, while it does have its drawbacks, was on average a more useful weapon in 1944 than the Vickers, and the Commonwealth would have been better off with something like it.

The Vickers was a great gun for its time, but the entire weapon class of heavy, water-cooled rifle-caliber MGs was on its way out by 1939. They still saw plenty of action on both sides, and in all theatres, but they were previous-generation technology. Certainly by mid-war, I think there were better options available.

Cheers,

YD

[ March 22, 2005, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I guess that one should not confuse the weapon and the training. When the Commonwealth forces got round to kicking German rear, quality standards had dropped considerably already.

Yet there is ample evidence that the preferred British infantry weapons to accomplish the task were tanks and artillery, not SAW's and bolt action rifles.

So assume that a badly trained squad is not going to be rescued by its SAW, regardless of wether it is belt-fed or not, while a well-trained squad can overcome the drawbacks of its weaponry through leadership, competence, and tactics. That could explain a lot, couldn't it?

The British army did not have or use, for intents and purposes, any coherent small unit tactics.

And it would work nicely with first-hand accounts such as Jary who had a lot of respect for the MG42, but very little for most of its users, IIRC.

On the receiving end the first-hand accounts show a similar respect for the MG-42, often without any undue scorn for the users.

[Tero]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

In many ways the Americans are worse of, as at section (squad) level you're likely to see only the BAR. Presumably, Anglo-American "weakness" is shared by the Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Italian and French armies, to name but a few.

Lets not forget their aversion to use SMG's at squad level. Such "ganster weapons" were better used in the hands of the tank crews and truck drivers. A "weakness" not shared by the Russians, and the Finns.

I'm guessing "because it worked".

But can you name any army in the world that did not field them in 1939? Or for that matter in 1945? There are plenty of British eccentricities it is possible to pick on, but I think that using water-cooled MMGs is not one of them.

Why didn't they switch from the canvas belt to (non-)disintegrating metal belt ?

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Tero:

The British army did not have or use, for intents and purposes, any coherent small unit tactics.

Care to explain why George Forty and the battlion war diary of the 1st Bn, the Royal Berkshire regiment think that they did?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tero:

a) The British army did not have or use, for intents and purposes, any coherent small unit tactics.

On the receiving end the first-hand accounts show a similar respect for the MG-42, often without any undue scorn for the users.

a) define coherent. otherwise (and probably even then) rubbish. You are confusing doctrine and tactics.

Jary was on the receiving end. He explains in quite some detail about the MG42 and its effects. I have not seen other 1st-hand accounts that do it so well, but you are welcome to provide them.

[Tero]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Originally posted by Tero:

The British army did not have or use, for intents and purposes, any coherent small unit tactics.

Care to explain why George Forty and the battlion war diary of the 1st Bn, the Royal Berkshire regiment think that they did?

More to the point (and more relevantly): HOW did they come up with the methods they used ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

a) define coherent.

Comprehensive, universal.

otherwise (and probably even then) rubbish. You are confusing doctrine and tactics.

I think not. If you have read your Harrison Place he at least states in no uncertain terms the British High Command did not deem infantry small unit tactics as being important enough to be stadardized and any "lessons learned" on any given aspect of tactics and doctrine were learned all over again time after time. The same mistakes made in the Western Desert were replicated in Normandy.

Jary was on the receiving end. He explains in quite some detail about the MG42 and its effects. I have not seen other 1st-hand accounts that do it so well, but you are welcome to provide them.

What do you mean by "doing so well" ?

[Michael Dorosh]

Incidentally, ask the RCRs in Korea about Vickers guns; it was their Vickers platoons that kept them from being overrun.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/johnson.htm

Another picture of Vince Ciccini. During an enemy attack on the night of 2/3 November 1951 on "A" Company, 2 RCR, two Vickers (including the one shown above) fired for several hours, starting at about 21:00 or 22:00 and firing into the wee hours of the morning without stopping. Art Johnson recalls "They were my most vivid memory of that night. Though Bercuson doesn't even mention them in his account they laid down a rain of fire on each side of the spur and allowed 2 platoon to withdraw into the main company position unmolested by the enemy bringing 15 wounded with them"

How many barrel changes would a Browning have had to go through? A watercooled Vickers could fire continuously for several hours, so the story goes. RCR may have proved it that night.

[flamingknives]

Well, Forty describes 'Battle Drill' as being developed following the BEF's action in France.

IIRC, The small unit tactics covered in the Royal Berkshire's War Diary were developed from experience in the jungle. They were, after all, in the Far East for four years.