Assaulting/Advancing with the Bren LMG

[Melnibone]

lol....or search engines.

[Wartgamer]

LOL..or keeping belt fed weapons out of the hands of CW troops...LOL.

Tired of words? Information too much for you? Here's some moving pictures.

http://www.stormthewalls.dhs.org/MG42/Machinengewehr%2042%20-%20Videos.htm

The video of the 'German' using the MG42 from the hip (I am assuming it is using the origional ammo) shows that this weapon could be controlled if the bipod was held in one hand and the correct posture is used. But firing while actually moving may have been another thing.

I have only fired a M60 while prone and used the BFD while using assault type training.

[ March 23, 2005, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Melnibone]

Surely to LOL you first require a sense of humour.

[Wartgamer]

To discuss weapons with CW types necessitates a sense of humor.

The sMG tripod video from that website is a good download. It also shows a hip/bipod shot in addition to the tripod shot.

The MG42 seems to actually move backwards within the stationary tripod. That is, the tripod stays in place and the MG slides back against some spring? It does not 'bounce' back and forth but rather is taken up during the initial burst.

[ March 23, 2005, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[flamingknives]

That would be a recoil attenuator of some description. A spring attached to a damping element, not unlike those fitted to artillery pieces or, for a more recent application, mountain bike suspension.

Wartgamer, do you think that the reaction you've garnered from the CW mafia (you'll have a sheep's head in your bed any day now. If I can get the sheep away from Mace) is anything to do with your assertation that the British Army Organisation was 'retarded' compared to, say, the Germans or, for that matter, the Italians?

A possible reason for keeping the MMGs at battlalion level or higher is the way the units were employed. CW units, AFAICT, rarely fought 'all up'. Rather, two of four companies would form the attack, with all of the Battalion's assets providing support. The other two infantry companies would be kept in reserve. Support organic to these units would have to be cross-posted or remain out of the action. A higher level unit is easier to switch around and is more used to working with its separate elements.

It's worth noting that British infantry still has no support platoons in its companies.

[Wartgamer]

I believe that it is not an assertion as much as a percieved weakness on others part that they need to be in a state of denial about.

I believe the MG42 tripod may be doing something a bit more clever. The MG42 has an internal spring within itself. The spring within the tripod may actually slow the initial rate of fire of the whole weapon system till the rearward position is reached. In other words, it may ramp up the rate of fire, thereby reducing muzzle rise and keeping the rounds all 'parralel' to the ground. The video shows a remarkably stable weapon. Teh lack of muzzle flash and the quick dispersion of smoke is also evident.

[ March 23, 2005, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[cassh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

It's worth noting that British infantry still has no support platoons in its companies.

Although not on their TO&E you'll notice that when they go to war the rifle companies 'acquire' additional firepower - sometimes this is de-mothballed gear, other times buckshee and 'found' equipment/weaponry (i.e. M2 .50 cals, SF GPMGs, 40mm GL have all recently shown up with a variety of infantry units in the gulf when these are not to be found on their company TO&E).

[Wartgamer]

I have a question for any one that can support the BREN with data; Given a BREN with unlimited magazines with ammo, and one spare barrel (or whatever they really carried in an attack), what rate of fire could they sustain at a maximum (1 spare barrel)? Without the extra barrel?

Ammunition wise, each Bren was provided with twenty five magazines, one with the gun and the rest carried in two boxes holding a dozen each. In the Rifle Section the boxes were not taken into action. Instead, each of the six men in the Rifle Group carried two magazines, and each of the three men in the Gun Group carried four. Two magazines could be held in a single webbing pouch. It was quickly found that the only real flaw concerned the magazines, which if loaded to capacity would jam. The maximum load was therefore reduced to twenty eight rounds each, 700 rounds for a full complement of magazines. This was rounded up to 1000 rounds with loose ammunition, carried by its vehicle, or distributed as an extra fifty rounds for each man in the Rifle Group.

[ March 23, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

[snips]

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.

My Italics.

Advanced Definition

Opposite of Advanced is Retarded.

So your argument appears to claim that armies without company-organic belt-fed weapons are retarded. (In fact, this has been the tone of your posts for the last week or so)

That's a pretty strong comment to throw at a nation's armed forces, as they embody a fair amount of national pride.

The heat that you get from deriding things is in part due to people being aware that, unchallenged, such things gradually become the truth, and the CW forces are relegated to comic relief in the history books.

No doubt I'd garner an equally strong reaction if I were to state that the US army was run by a bunch of vainglorius pillocks and bureaucrats to the extent that the fighting man was often reduced to a disorganised rabble.*

Regardless of what the MG42 tripod is actually doing, it's still going to be a spring and damper arrangement and a recoil attenuator

*Note that I'm not claiming this as, while it may contain elements of truth it's unnecessarily overblown.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by cassh:

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

It's worth noting that British infantry still has no support platoons in its companies.

Although not on their TO&E you'll notice that when they go to war the rifle companies 'acquire' additional firepower - sometimes this is de-mothballed gear, other times buckshee and 'found' equipment/weaponry (i.e. M2 .50 cals, SF GPMGs, 40mm GL have all recently shown up with a variety of infantry units in the gulf when these are not to be found on their company TO&E). </font>

[Andreas]

The Wehrmacht an 'advanced' army. That still makes me giggle. What next? Charles Manson a friendly neighbour? The Concorde an efficient plane? Quentin Tarantino a highbrow movie director? South Park skillfully done animation?

Wartgamer an oxymoron?

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The heat that you get from deriding things...

Has always been what Lewis's posts were all about.

Heat is what he's after, not illumination.

[flamingknives]

What, no sarcasm? No inane verbosity to no discernible point?

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH SEANACHAI?!?!?! :mad:

[Wartgamer]

Here we see a BREN gun being used as a counterbalance so that a 50 cal can face the enemy.

[Wartgamer]

I just think the CW TO&E is like a woman. It needs to accessorize.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

What, no sarcasm? No inane verbosity to no discernible point?

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH SEANACHAI?!?!?! :mad:

I haven't been feeling well. I have a note from home, if it helps?

[Wartgamer]

Has rough-house turned to tears?

Why is it that the CW mafia can dish it our but can't take it? They feel perfectly chipper about jumping into a thread about US Infantry and mucking about but start to cry foul when they are the recipient. Not a good showing in my book.

[Private Bluebottle]

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?

Actually, you're incorrect. German link came in both disintegrating and non-disintegrating form. They actually invented the modern disintegrating link for MGs. Reference - p.51, Barker, A.J., German Infantry Weapons of World War 2, Arms and Armour Press, London, 1969 (if my scanner was up and working I'd show you the picture he has of both types, side-by-side).

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

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

</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

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

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).

And all are poorly controlled, directed and their users lack discipline in how they are fired. Therefore, its supposed superiority is largely wasted. </font>

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

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

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).

And all are poorly controlled, directed and their users lack discipline in how they are fired. Therefore, its supposed superiority is largely wasted. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Good man! CW roolz!

Michael

[flamingknives]

It's worth noting that, in his treatise on weapons and tactics of the Korean war, S.L.A. Marshall notes that company MGs were frequently poorly deployed and, while they delivered short, controlled bursts, this fire wasn't really at anything

[Michael Dorosh]

Bonus points to anyone that can name the type of vehicle shown in this photograph.

[RMC]

Isn't that a Browning carrier?