Assaulting/Advancing with the Bren LMG

[flamingknives]

Oh no! Researched and relevant numbers!

I'm not sure I know how to deal with that.

Lot's of MGs would be nice. I wonder why the CW didn't have them?

As a side note, I see (in 'The British Army Handbook', where else?) that the motorized battalion of an armoured Brigade has 8 MMGs all to themselves. In carriers. Not to mention anything that happened to be on the troop carriers they were riding in. but then, those units tended to be smaller than their infantry compatriots, and more reliant on firepower.

[Andreas]

Since they were more mobile, there may also have been a realisation that they would not be able to call on centralised assets as easily as infantry battalions.

It would be interesting to know however how outraged the Vickers types were at this sacrilege of treating them just like any other weapon.

Maybe it was made easier by knowing they were with the armour?

[Michael Dorosh]

It's interesting to me that the Canadian armoured division in Italy rerolled their Motor battalion in a major reorganization in the summer of 1944 with the creation of a new infantry brigade. They were officially double hatted - I wonder what they did with their MMGs? The other two battalions in the brigade were regular infantry, not motorized.

Each armoured division also had a Machine Gun detachment (as opposed to the divisional MG battalion of the infantry divisions.)

[Wartgamer]

The US 60mm mortar was issued at platoon level in arm inf because they had a vehicle to carry the ammo. The more mobile nature of halftrack infantry allowed better dispersion of weapons.

In some leg inf units, only 2 of the three 60mm mortars would be fielded and the third mortar-less crew was used as ammo carriers/resupply. This was because the terrain was too tough for the jeep/trailers. Mortars just use ammo too quickly and it is better to have more ammo than tubes.

The range of the 60mm mortar over many 50mm class weapons makes it a company weapon system.

[cassh]

Knowing how tight the UK MoD is with the tax payers' money with anything remotely useful to operations and warfighting, and how much they waste on peripheral bolloxs (ceremonials, 'adventurous training' holidays, Health & Safety compliance etc etc) I can easily deduce the cause of the lack of organic MMG in British Inf. Bn cira 1939-45.

Some accountant/analyst in the War Office obviously calculated .303" ammunition production for the next 4-6 years and realised that the scales of ammunition required for an MMG/Heavy Wpns Coy were not feasible without delaying the second front by a further two or three years.

So someone important (Churchill, Dill, Brooke, Cary Grant, David Niven or Mrs. Miggins) must have put the kybosh on the MMGs.

Damn you accountants and your dastardly abacuses!

[Kanonier Reichmann]

My money's on Mrs Miggins...the tea lady in the War Office.

Regards

Jim R.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

So you can either have 114 sMGs, close to the line of command you need them at, or 42, and hope that some are cross-attached. Thank you, I know what I would choose.

Cold, ruthless Kraut.

Michael

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

So you can either have 114 sMGs, close to the line of command you need them at, or 42, and hope that some are cross-attached. Thank you, I know what I would choose.

Cold, ruthless Kraut.

Michael </font>

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Can't have a real party with less than 100 sMGs in the division.

just wondering sMG = sub machine gun?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

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

Can't have a real party with less than 100 sMGs in the division.

just wondering sMG = sub machine gun? </font>

[The_Enigma]

ah thanks for that

[Michael Emrys]

Heh. That threw me the first time I read it, then suddenly it clicked in what Andreas was saying.

Michael

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Buq-Buq:

Ahhhhhh . . . yes, Cromwells, would be correct . . . DOH!!

I had to look up the B Squadron part, and looked right at the Cromwells . . . which obviously went right past me.

:-[

About ten years ago from . . . well, from right now, I worked on a project using "No Triumphant Procession". I found John Russell's book to be a riveting tale, and still revisit it from time to time, dreaming away the hours, thinking about scenarios for CMAK. Much to my chagrin, most of the good stuff (Comets, Challengers, Cromwells, Locusts, etc.) got left out of CMAK, it being the Mediterranean Theater and all.

I'm looking forward to CMX2 . . .

Mark

Normally I would hate you and Dandelion for making me get another book, but since 'No triumphant procession' has some fairly detailed information about the war's end in the area where I come from (Loccum, my grandparents lived 2km from Husum, went to school in Petershagen), I won't.

You were lucky this time.

[Guest Mike]

My 2 denarii:

Having played with both Brens and FN-MAG's as squad weapons, and FN-MAG's in the sustained fire role (Tripods, dial sights), I'd take teh Bren any day in a squad, and the MAG any day for anything else.

The MAG is heavier & clumsier, and the belts get in the way and catch dirt (hence the German 50 rd can's for their MG's??) when used at squad level.

As for German sMG's vs Vickers - whow do you define a sMG for a German division when every MG can be tripod mounted?? Is the definitions of a sMG including the squad level weapons too??

And why include fortress units and acknowledge elite troops with different TO&E's in the first place? It's like comparing a soviet Artillery Division with a Whermacht infantry one and complaining the German Infantry doesn't have enough artillery!!

[v42below]

Why didn't you play crackdom, Mike? We missed you!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mike:

The MAG is heavier & clumsier, and the belts get in the way and catch dirt (hence the German 50 rd can's for their MG's??) when used at squad level.

ISTR the Germans also had a 75 round saddle drum for the lMG.

...how do you define a sMG for a German division when every MG can be tripod mounted?? Is the definitions of a sMG including the squad level weapons too??

No, it only counts those units with tripods and telescopic sights. Obviously any MG34 or MG42 could be picked up and used as an sMG if the tripod were available for it, but only those MGs so equipped were thus counted. Also, the sMG squads were differently manned and usually had a larger ammunition supply available, so the definition is also a functional one.

Michael

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by JonS:

FWIW:

No.36 = Mills Bomb, defensive grenade

No.69 = Offensive grenade (kinda similar to a flash-bang)

No.77 = Smoke grenade

No.74 = 'Sticky' bomb (a.k.a. 'Arrgh! Get it away from me! Get it away! Get it away!')

No.75 = Hawkins A-Tk grenade/mine

No.77 = Smoke (phosphorus) grenade

very popular with Tommy

very unpopular with Jerry

If you've read Jary there's a very chilling anecdote about this grenade.

3" mortar smoke was phosphorus as well apparently and a mixed smoke/HE barrage was found to be quite efficacious.

[JonS]

"Not there, Sir."

[Ardem]

I think the doctrine of british and CW forces goes a lot deeper pychological then what equipment they have.

The idea of blazing away into trees where you expect the enemy is a normal idea for US forces, take for instance the amount of ammo expended by the US in Vietnam.

To a British army officer it is horrifying and more then likely would dock your pay for using up so much ammo on a hunch, or educated guess.

British and CW doctrine is about controlled and well aimed supression compared to using up a supression by number of rounds.

The bren is a perfect example of how to achieve this, the 303 rifle is one of the most accurate rifles in its era.

It comes down to the way british forces are trained even to how they march, precision and complete disipline. There weapons tend to reflect that attitiude, especially of that time and era.

This is not saying they are a superior soldier, this is just a reflection on how they approach situations, they spend that extra second pullng the trigger compared to pressing it a second time

[ April 09, 2005, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

[Wartgamer]

They need to work the bolt action before they fire a second time anyway.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Mike:

1) As for German sMG's vs Vickers - whow do you define a sMG for a German division when every MG can be tripod mounted?? Is the definitions of a sMG including the squad level weapons too??

2 ) And why include fortress units and acknowledge elite troops with different TO&E's in the first place? It's like comparing a soviet Artillery Division with a Whermacht infantry one and complaining the German Infantry doesn't have enough artillery!!

1) Because all the other MGs are not labelled as sMG by the German TO&E, and therefore have a different tactical role. That they can be used as one (if you have a spare tripod, and a crew, and the ammo), does not make them one.

2) I specified this because there is no such thing as 'the Wehrmacht infantry division'. 'Elite' was probably the wrong choice of term, seeing how many people think of special forces immdiately. In the early war Wehrmacht context it means comparatively more motor vehicles, better trained men, fewer reservists, good artillery. These were the 21 first-line divisions that existed under the 1935 rearmament plan. They were the elite of the Wehrmacht infantry, in the sense of being the best equipped, best manned divisions. That would be noticeable throughout the war, when these divisions would generally perform quite well, from what I have read. They were still standard infantry divisions though, in terms of their OOB, and to a large extent their equipment.

[cassh]

To qualify as an SF-GPMG in addition to a tripod and optical sight unit you would also need:

1) Spare barrels (2 rather than 1) and preferably 'heavy' barrels (FN GPMG has these) don't know whether MG-42 had these, but it would be logical as FN pretty much lifted all the basic concepts of the MG-42 for each role into the FN-MAG design.

2) Aiming laps, marking pegs and triangle (used to record tripod position for returning the gun to a site where target registration has already been undertaken), spares and toolkits.

3) Soldiers trained in sustained fire methods and techniques. Yes any soldier trained in the light role could probably set the gun on the tripod and lay and fire the gun over iron sights. However, to use the weapon at night or on any co-ordinated defensive fires it would have to be operated by a team who had at least the basic skills required.

Just a note on Gimmpy in the light role and ammo belts getting in the way and snagging in terrain features - SOP when we used them was a modified 58 webbing ammo pouch that was affixed into the feed tray which held 50 rounds of link. This was meant to give you enough to get going with until your No.2 got a 200 round belt queued-up.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Ardem:

I think the doctrine of british and CW forces goes a lot deeper pychological then what equipment they have.

The idea of blazing away into trees where you expect the enemy is a normal idea for US forces, take for instance the amount of ammo expended by the US in Vietnam.

-snip-

Instead of the "blazing away" that you seem to think was common for U.S. forces, officers and NCOs in WWII bemoaned the fact that new soldiers generally refused to pull the trigger without a good, aimed target, so used to range marksmanship were they. Apparently it took time and probably some kicks in the pants before a U.S. soldier got comfortable with firing his rifle at an enemy position instead of an actual sighted enemy.

I have no idea if this was common to other forces. I assume that that habit waned as the (hateful) rush to personal automatic fire waxed in the post-war and Cold War years.

-dale

[JasonC]

Pure myth, dalem. Sorry, anecdotes may suggest it but rounds expended and men hit are not so forgiving. If they actually marked their targets, the Germans would have run out of men with a hundredth the ammo actually expended. Even at a tenth of range accuracies. Ergo, they fired to suppress just fine.

[dalem]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Pure myth, dalem. Sorry, anecdotes may suggest it but rounds expended and men hit are not so forgiving. If they actually marked their targets, the Germans would have run out of men with a hundredth the ammo actually expended. Even at a tenth of range accuracies. Ergo, they fired to suppress just fine.

No no, I didn't mean to argue that Green U.S. troops

a) were "better", or even "good", marksmen because of their training.

or that they didn't unlearn what they were taught.

I only wanted to balance the claim of "spray & pray" being a unique and ubiquitous U.S. army characteristic at that time.

-dale