Assaulting/Advancing with the Bren LMG

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Andreas:

a) define coherent.

Comprehensive, universal.

Coherent means something quite different.

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Andreas: 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" ?

Understandably, accessibly explaining how, why, and when or when not they could defeat the German squad and the MG42, without tanks and artillery. Using coherent tactics, even if these were not universal.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 ? </font>

[YankeeDog]

*Sigh*

Look, I don't think anybody would disagree that, in some specific situations, the endurance a watercooled MG was VERY handy.

But I don't think fending off human wave attacks in Korea is a good example of typical WWII infantry combat.

Like I said, *on average*, over a broad spectrum of combat situations, in my opinion a more mobile, air-cooled MG was more useful than a big, lumbering water-cooled MG in the WWII setting. Sustained, human-wave attacks were almost unheard of in the ETO, and they didn't even really happen much on the East Front after 1943.

Nevertheless, I'm sure there were times when the water-cooled variety was very nice to have, even in the ETO. But to have ONLY a water-cooled MG, and NO lighter belt-fed, man-portable option, was a distinct disadvantage for Commonwealth units, I think. To a degree, they made up for this by having the (IMHO) the best magazine-fed LMG of the war, the Bren, but that's only a partial substitute.

In case anybody's feelings are getting hurt, I'm not trying to pick on the CW here. Elsewhere, they had much better ideas and weapons than the Amis, or even the Germans. And as I said, I don't think they had a good belt-fed, air-cooled MG ready in 1939 (unless you count the BESA, whose widespread deployment on the ground woudl have raised supply headaches due to the different caliber), so their decision to stick with the Vickers is, in some ways, understandable.

Cheers,

YD

[Andreas]

YD - couldn't agree more.

Tero - I really think you are using Harrison-Place for something that he should not be used for. His book has a title - closer reading reveals that the title is not 'Battletactic implementation by British infantry sections in a real combat environment, 1944-45'.

If he had meant to write about how things were really done, he would presumably have done different research, chosen another title, and another focus.

[Wartgamer]

Many BREN guns were mounted on the tripods that had the three wheel 'tricycle' setup. The BREN-TRIPODCycle would be rolled down a highway with the trigger depressed by using some yarn. This way, no CW soldiers were endangered.

Several German Panzer Divisions would then surrender along with whatever Corp level artillery and Luftwaffe squadrons that were in the vicinity.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Like I said, *on average*, over a broad spectrum of combat situations, in my opinion a more mobile, air-cooled MG was more useful than a big, lumbering water-cooled MG in the WWII setting. Sustained, human-wave attacks were almost unheard of in the ETO, and they didn't even really happen much on the East Front after 1943.

I don't think anyone is seriously disagreeing with you, but perhaps I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you arguing that had the Commonwealth had an aircooled Medium/Heavy machinegun on inventory, rather than the Vickers, it would have made a large tactical difference?

Because as we discussed, doctrine was artillery based; the Vickers was most often employed as light artillery, be it direct or indirectly firing. In the open spaces of Normandy wheat fields or Dutch polders, it could be used as such. Perhaps in the bocage or the Ardennes or Huertgen areas, that the Americans operated in, things might have been different?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to grasp your point. I would argue the Vickers was not a dinosaur at all; I mention Korea because - in those circusmtances, against that enemy, in that terrain, it was effective. I would argue the same held true for NW Europe.

[YankeeDog]

Hell, in the mess that is this thread, even I've lost my point. :confused:

I guess the reason I see the Vickers as a dinosaur is that it was a weapon type on its way out -- eventually nobody saw the point of having both water-cooled "artillery" MGs like the Vickers -- from mid-WWII on, the trend has been towards GPMGs that QCBs, and optional tripod mounts for long-range fire when the need arises.

Kind of like infantry support tanks. They're a nice idea, and they are pretty good at what they're spefically designed for. But eventually, the MBT doctrine won out, partially because the the MBT functions as heavy DF infantry support pretty well, but slow, howitzer-armed support tanks do not function well in tank vs. tank fights. So everybody dropped the idea of heavy infantry support armor.

Similarly, lighter air-cooled MG can't do everything that their sluggish water-cooled cousins do, but they do it well enough that it's well worth the loss of long-range interdictive firepower to gain the additional mobility. At least, that seems to be what most armies have concluded post-war.

But you're right, I don't think were really disagreeing. The Vickers was very good at what it was designed for, probably the best. But, as I see it, the long-range fire role of the Vickers could have been handled just as well, if not better, by medium mortars (of which the CW 3" was an excellent design), so on the WWII battlefield I see the Vickers as largely redundant and taking up manpower and resources that could have been better used elsewhere, perhaps in a more mobile air-cooled MG.

Cheers,

YD

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

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

The US air cooled 30 cal was just advancing the idea of a belt fed tripod weapon. It only did this with a heavy barrel by the way (and lowering the cyclic rate also). The US was locked into a bullet design, and weapons had to evolve around it.

Charactaristics of the .30-06 Cartridge

As issued in 1906 the rimless cartridge held a 150-grain spitzer, flat-base cupronickel jacketed bullet with 2700 fps muzzle velocity. In 1926, to improve machine gun effective range, the bullet was replaced by a 172-grain 9-degree boattail design with the same 2700 fps at the muzzle, designated the "Ball, caliber 30, M1." The velocity was reduced for a time to 2640 fps, but in 1938, as the gas-operated Garand came into service, the specs returned to the flat-base 150-grain loading, called the "Ball, caliber 30, M2" round. It was the M2 that accounted for most of the ammunition expended in World War II.

The German innovation of a belt fed GPMG (tripod or bipod really) was a leap forward in some ways was in others lacking. As a tripod weapon, it was fearsome. But as a squad LMG (the MG42), it was too much to handle and its appetite for ammo a burden.

The German weapon had a lower velocity and perhaps this allowed a more innovative approach than the US 30 cal. The quick change barrel and multiuse (GPMG) being its highpoints.

The Germans did some rather sophisticated experiments with rates of fire and overheating. They determined that cyclic rate does not matter but actual rounds spent per minute matters.

So a MG34 and a MG42 that both fired a total of 200 rounds (total of all bursts) in one minute would heat up the same (given barrels of identical thickness) even though they had different cyclic rates.

The MG34 to 42 evolution , to me, actually evolved that the MG42 was a 'platoon' MG and better off having 2-3 grouped in a 'weapons' squad with the other squads having assault rifles, etc. but no LMGs.

The US air cooled 30 cal was a company weapon and was much more mobile than any water cooled MG. Taking ground, and holding it, helps when you have a belt fed MG that can keep close to the attacking infantry.

[ March 22, 2005, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

But you're right, I don't think were really disagreeing. The Vickers was very good at what it was designed for, probably the best. But, as I see it, the long-range fire role of the Vickers could have been handled just as well, if not better, by medium mortars (of which the CW 3" was an excellent design), so on the WWII battlefield I see the Vickers as largely redundant and taking up manpower and resources that could have been better used elsewhere, perhaps in a more mobile air-cooled MG.

Cheers,

YD

I think the nature of conflict changed after 1953 and this went hand in hand with the new technological changes. By that, I mean smaller forces fighting along less "conventional" lines and in more inhospitable terrain ie Vietnam, Falklands, etc.

Had a non-nuclear war broken out on the North German Plain, and the large mech forces smashed each other to pieces, then ran out of money and replacements, one might imagine a return to 1916 style warfare. That hasn't happened, and combat has largely been either irregular, or between forces of widely varying abilities. The exceptions are notable for their use of older equipment (check out the Balkans where I wouldn't be surprised to hear of water cooled MGs being used, alongside MG-42s and M36 tank destroyers etc. and et al). Also the Arab-Israeli wars.

[cassh]

Some brief points.

1) I went to the same university as Tim Harrison-Place and finished my undergraduate dissertation on British Army Doctrine 1940-44 at the same time he was finishing his PhD. We both were under the tutelage of Prof. John Childs, Department of War Studies.

2) I have served as an infantry-section commander in the British Army during the period we lost our beloved Gimpies for LSWs.

3) I have experience with FN GPMG (M240), FN Minimi (M249), LSW and Bren (7.62mm).

4) The bren can be fired from the hip with ease. I have done so myself on many occasion (FIBUA assaults, clearing trenches etc).

5) The bren was often used in the assault phase of a deliberate attack. Two brens acting as fire base as third bren went in with the assaulting element on the objective.

6) The British Army's reverting to the light role Gimpy at the platoon level, as a fire-support weapon, and the adoption of the Minimi over the LSW is the wisest move possible, and long overdue.

7) WW2 British and Canadian infantry in the ETO from 1944 onward very rarely fought unsupported without AT weapons, MMGs, mortars and FOO parties, all of which were organic or near organic on what seems to have benn permanent attachment:

1 MMG platoon per rifle battalion

1 FOO party per rifle battalion (The FOO was technically 2iC of the battalion should the CO come a cropper).

8) Suppressing an MG-42 with a bren gun is entirely possible if you have located its position! The Wehrmacht's use of smokeless ammunition, their good fieldcraft, reverse slope and depth defences often made this pin-pointing the MG nests very difficult.

9) Suppressing an enemy whose position you are unsure of is better handled by a sustained fire area weapon. Hang on, didn't the CW forces have something called a Vickers Machine-Gun, that had sustained fire (water cooled to boot), fired a decent sized beaten zone, and wasn't to bad at engaging enfilade targets on the other side of the hill... hmmm

10) Burn me!

[Michael Dorosh]

cassh, you were supposed to support those assertions with a data dump of google searched links.

Experience in the military, with the weapons in question, and a scholastic background to boot just simply isn't on.

I am sure Wartgamer will be along to refute your points (which the reasonable members of the CW Mafia have already agreed with, though not presented in anything like the same coherent, concise and infallible form you have) with some irrelevant stats on ammunition.

[Wartgamer]

6) The British Army's reverting to the light role Gimpy at the platoon level, as a fire-support weapon, and the adoption of the Minimi over the LSW is the wisest move possible, and long overdue.

Yes, belt fed weapons. And this supports exactly what I have been saying.

8) Suppressing an MG-42 with a bren gun is entirely possible if you have located its position! The Wehrmacht's use of smokeless ammunition, their good fieldcraft, reverse slope and depth defences often made this pin-pointing the MG nests very difficult.

Yes, funny how the enemy won't cooperate with some of the silly suggestions that have been proposed here. Also, the German tracer ammo did not light off immediately, thereby not showing exactly where it came from.

Also, water cooled MGs are just mortar magnets. No one is just going to let a stationary weapon operate unhindered.

7) WW2 British and Canadian infantry in the ETO from 1944 onward very rarely fought unsupported without AT weapons, MMGs, mortars and FOO parties, all of which were organic or near organic on what seems to have benn permanent attachment:

1 MMG platoon per rifle battalion

1 FOO party per rifle battalion (The FOO was technically 2iC of the battalion should the CO come a cropper).

Yes, it was a silly TO&E. And having just a platoon of belt fed weapons for a Battalion was very light.

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by RMC:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

The US air cooled 30 cal was a company weapon and was much more mobile than any water cooled MG. Taking ground, and holding it, helps when you have a belt fed MG that can keep close to the attacking infantry. [/QB]

Only if you ignore two factors. The effective range of the US .30 cal air-cooled MG was substantially shorter than the Vickers, therefore it had to be closer to the troops. Secondly, because of that shorter range and inadequate sights, it was not possible to fire against defiladed targets.

[Michael Dorosh]

German link was non-disintegrating, incidentally, and came in 50 and 75 round lengths IIRC. The links could be joined to make longer ones. I believe starter tabs came with a 5 round link on it as well?

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

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

The US air cooled 30 cal was a company weapon and was much more mobile than any water cooled MG. Taking ground, and holding it, helps when you have a belt fed MG that can keep close to the attacking infantry.

Only if you ignore two factors. The effective range of the US .30 cal air-cooled MG was substantially shorter than the Vickers, therefore it had to be closer to the troops. Secondly, because of that shorter range and inadequate sights, it was not possible to fire against defiladed targets. [/QB]</font>

[Private Bluebottle]

Wartgamer, if anybody is guilty of "confusing the issue" its yourself. You made an observation, claiming the supposed superioty of the air-cooled .30 cal Browning over the Vickers, because it was used "closer to the troops". When I pointed out the superficial nature of that statement, you're now decided to introduce a completely different weapon into the discussion.

On many websites, such behavior would be construed as trolling.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

Mmm, an interesting piece of kit. I've never seen one before. One suspects it wouldn't have been used further forward than perhaps the Company or Battalion level. I can see where the hopper is for the rounds, where do you put the links? Are they fed in one at a time or automatically from somewhere else?

I can't remember exactly, but I think the belt feeds from the left exactly like the actual MG. The hand crank feeds the round and pulls the belt to the right. The belt then ends up hanging out to the right as shown. Note that as Dorosh pointed out they weren't inserting individual links because the belts were non-disintegrating.

I've surprised that loose rounds were de rigeur in the German Army. One suspects in wartime, link would be supplied made up, rather than as loose rounds, needing linking.

I am not making any claim about the lack of link in wartime service. I was merely reporting on what I saw at the range in 2000 in response to your statement about the ability of magazine-fed weapons to accept rounds from riflemen. I have no idea how common this may have been in the Wehrmacht, but it was a capability they had.

I suspect that at least in the Bundeswehr this is a peacetime practice and that only training ammo allotments come unlinked. This was a marksmanship range. I would be willing to bet that they used factory linked belts for actual live fire maneuvers since the unlinked rounds don't include any tracer.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

German link was non-disintegrating, incidentally, and came in 50 and 75 round lengths IIRC. The links could be joined to make longer ones. I believe starter tabs came with a 5 round link on it as well?

I know the snail drums had 75-round capacities, but I don't think they had 75-round belts. I think a can came with 5 belts linked together making one big belt of 250. A 75-round belt doesn't seem to fit.

[Michael Dorosh]

It's quite possible that they had unlinked ammo at the range on purpose; they call it "concurrent activity" here. If you have four relays on the range, say, then you have one in the butts (now that we have some computerized ranges, no more butts), another on the firing points, another doing TOETs (Test of Elementary Training - ie in this case rifle drills) and another doing the ammo. Gotta keep the troops busy. On our range days, if we have a lot of relays, they'll bring out other stuff to do - map and compass work, TOETs on the support weapons, lectures on stuff, etc., rather than just sitting around.

Linking MG ammo is a good way to keep troops busy on the range, too.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

Wartgamer, if anybody is guilty of "confusing the issue" its yourself. You made an observation, claiming the supposed superioty of the air-cooled .30 cal Browning over the Vickers, because it was used "closer to the troops". When I pointed out the superficial nature of that statement, you're now decided to introduce a completely different weapon into the discussion.

On many websites, such behavior would be construed as trolling.

Actually you are forgetting about your claim about the 1919a4 M2 tripod not having any fixed adjustment. It did have 1 mil adjustment vert and horiz.

But you seem to think you can bully the discussion with an outlandish 'trolling' claim. Its evident you do not want to compare the US and CW use of belted weapons in WWII.

The US use of Battalion MG and Rifles is different and more powerful than the CW structure. Its also better suited for offensive operations. The use of water cooled belt fed weapons is held at battalion, the use of a lightened air cooled belt fed weapon is held at company (and often assigned to a platoon on occasion) and the US squad is built around a semiauto rifle that is supplemented by a magazine fed SAW (BAR).

[Melnibone]

"Outlandish" to you...obvious to me.

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

The US use of Battalion MG and Rifles is different and more powerful than the CW structure. Its also better suited for offensive operations.

Could you provide me with some more googled links to back all of this up - I can't be bothered to do it myself. Thanks.

[Michael Dorosh]

Melnibone, your sig line is seeming particulary apt these days. Think Mr. Short also had computer keyboards in mind?