Bren Tripods Redux

[John Kettler]

While watching part of "Reptilicus" on the Sci Fi Channel earlier, I thought I saw Brens on tripods.

Careful checking of Ezell's SMALL ARMS OF THE WORLD, though, revealed the weapons to Madsens. I did find this pearl, though, on page 331:

The Bren Tripod Mark 2 and 2/1

A tripod was issued for use with the Bren light machine gun. Approximately one tripod was issued

for every three guns. The tripod is of Czech design

and is basically the same as that used with the Czech ZB26 and ZB30 machine guns.

The page has a picture of the Bren on a tripod and another of the antiaircraft mount, the latter so tightly cropped as to be almost useless. The other surprise is that the following page lists the Mark 1 and Mark 2 Brens as having either the familiar 30-round box or 100-round drum, the drum being something I never heard of and which is regrettably

not shown.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kanonier Reichmann]

This is your cue Brian.

Regards

Jim R.

[Brian]

Very tempting, Jim, very tempting. However, I won't grasp the thorny nettle again, quite yet.

John, BTW, the 100 round drum was issued for AA work. My understanding is that it wasn't well liked, being prone to stoppages. Its featured actually in quite a few pictures, usually on obviously, AA mounts for the Bren, particularly the quad AA mount.

[Michael Dorosh]

John, see the page on BREN guns, including tripods, at my site at http://www.canadiansoldiers.com - click weapons in the left hand frame.

[Slapdragon]

When this issue originally appeared, I did quite a bit of research on the subject, including speaking to several people who used them in WW2 (or who where the offspring of such people) and talked to a large group of people who own functional versions of this weapon (mostly living in the US because of obvious legal restraints in other nations, but a surprising number did indeed live in other countries.)

A couple of months later one gentleman helpfully pointed out to me to a conversation at a Bren website that covered a topic of interest. This conversation consisted of a "Brian Ross" (possibly no relation to our Brian) asking how common tripods where at the front. The answer he received was the same one that this forum discovered in its extensive research into the subject -- the tripods existed but were not used very extensively.

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=73719&messageid=1003797394

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=73719&messageid=1009805614

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=73719&messageid=1008029057

Most interesting is the response from Donald, whose father cannot remember having a spares kits for the tripod, only used a tripod once in combat (to clear beach obstacles). This titally mirrors the work Micheal Dorosh and other did on this subject.

So most likely, the dead issue of Bren tripods is still dead. However, there is one solution to the tripod question.

The use ofr a tripod on a magazine fed weapon would be unlikely to increase the FP rating of that weapon or make it any better at firing through a covered arc, which is probably why in real life they were not even carried by the troops and were just left behind, except when they used them to mount the Brens to vehicles as AA mounts. The best solution therefor would be to just assume the presence of the tripod in the game for those who desire it. Then no ahistorical inclusions will be needed for it, and everyone would have what they want on the contentious matter.

[Aunty Jack]

I am unfamilar with the discussion that you're alluding to and the URL you provided are down for maintenance at the moment so I'm not even sure what their inclusion is there for, except perhaps in an effort to try and bait?

However, from my personal experience, using Bren tripods with Berthier LMG's is that their purpose was not to increase the firepower of the weapon but rather their accuracy. While I am unfamilar with the game still, I do note that the firepower rating of various weapons changes with range. I also assume that the accuracy of weapons decreases with range, although this appears to be one of those hidden pieces of the game which are not visible nor documented. Therefore, if a tripod was to be included in the game for the Bren, I would assume that the decrease would be less at longer ranges where the tripod's effects would be most felt as compared to the bipod mounted version.

One should be very careful about confusing firepower and accuracy in the manner that you have.

My question though, is why isn't the ZB26 included in the game? Indeed, why is it assumed that the German side will only ever be equipped with German infantry weapons when history indicates that more often than not they were equipped with captured weapons like the ZB26.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Aunty Jack:

One should be very careful about confusing firepower and accuracy in the manner that you have.

One should be careful about making distinctions that the game designers may neccearily have not, too....

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aunty Jack:

One should be very careful about confusing firepower and accuracy in the manner that you have.

One should be careful about making distinctions that the game designers may neccearily have not, too....</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

If I remember previous discussions correctly, the fact that a Bren was on a tripod did not give it a precise zero at, say, 500 yards or so (bear with me - I always feel it inaccurate discussing distances in metric when referring to British, American or Canadian weapons in WW II, because they didn't do it that way). I can't remember the term for it, but the Bren gun firing from a stabilized mount had a certain degree of inaccuracy inherent in it - in other words, you could put the Bren on a stabilized mount and fire a 5 round burst - it would not put all five bullets through the same hole in the paper. While it is obvious the tripod would never be that stable as to allow such a feat, even if it was (and to do that it would have to be set in concrete with all moving parts welded shut and the gun permanently attached) - and this is what I remember from past conversations, correct me if I'm wrong - the variables of projectile spin, barrel wear, etc. would still conspire to make the bullets fly differently - and this would be especially noticable at medium to long ranges.

Have I gotten that right?

In any event, it would be easier to hold the Bren onto a particular target, but the effect would still be suppression, not marksmanship like accuracy. Besides which, the tripod does act as a restriction on rapid and minute changes to the point of aim - meaning tracking of individual targets would have been more difficult.

So if CM's firepower rating actually represents the ability to suppress, with the random chance of actually hitting someone, I am not sure how the tripod has any advantages over the plain bipod mounted piece. Especially if the Bren tripod did not have optical sights like its German cousin - which allowed the operator to see targets at longer ranges than was permissible with the naked eye of a British gunner.

Huh....I think I just answered my own question as to why the Bren tripod was not included in Squad leader while the German one was.

[ April 15, 2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Slapdragon]

The primary reason for tripods on support weapons, according to Hogg, was mass of the weapon and recoil in sustained fire (or rapid burst), not accuracy or increased suppressive ability. If a weapon was too massive to be hand held in fire, or if it fired ammunition from links and the gunner wanted to get the most out of this system, in terms of feeding ammunition into the weapon, then the tripod became the best way to mount the weapon.

The Bren in and of itself does not have the mass to need a tripod, it is actually easier to use from the bipod for most missions (as is the M-60, the FN-MAG, the MG-3 and the MG34/42). In the squad it was employed just like the BAR (except in practice the assistant gunner for the Bar was rarely used so the Bar team was more like a rifle team with an automatic), which was the trend setting weapon in terms of putting an automatic rifle inside of the squad.

Although the original ZB design which became the Bren used disintegrating links, following the theory of the time developed by US military thinkers with the BAR, the British (and other) governments had the weapon reengineered to accept magazines to slow ammunition consumption. ZB responded by dropping the ZB-23 model with linked belts. That model had a tripod because like most weapons with linked ammunition there was the possibility of using it in a sustained or rapid fire mode, in which a tripod was a boon since it allowed better control of recoil and a more stable platform for feeding of ammunition.

Thus, the tripod was like an appendix -- built for when the ZB was a belt fed weapon, that survived just because it was around. During the first two years of the war in Europe, British forces were issued with Bren tripods, and apparently used them in the phoney war (mostly it seems to keep the Bren out of the mud, since no shooting was going on) and for a short time after. Then, they went the way of the gas mask. It was carried in the trucks, it found use once or twice in special situations, and was otherwise not important. The Bren just did not have the characteristics that needed or benefitted from the tripod.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

The primary reason for tripods on support weapons, according to Hogg, was mass of the weapon and recoil in sustained fire (or rapid burst), not accuracy or increased suppressive ability.

How curious. In which of his numerous books does Hogg say this?

There can be few air-cooled MGs that are so massive they need a reipod to support them. The main motive for tripod mounting, surely, is to hold the weapon securely for firing on fixed lines, and, especially, to enable it to be re-laid on different targets using a dial sight.

[snips]

the FN-MAG, the MG-3 and the MG34/42). In the squad it was employed just like the BAR (except in practice the assistant gunner for the Bar was rarely used so the Bar team was more like a rifle team with an automatic), which was the trend setting weapon in terms of putting an automatic rifle inside of the squad.

[snips]

The BAR can hardly be described as "trend-setting" in any sense, and the tactical style of employment was in fact rather different from that expected with the Bren, as you imply in mentioning the habit of not using a no. 2 ("assistant gunner" in American English) on the BAR.

On the simple question of historical precedence, the BAR was not by any means the first gun to put automatic firepower into the section (American "squad"), being beaten into production by a few years, and into action by a few decades, by the Lewis and the Chauchat.

The British style of use, with the Lewis (originally an American design), was similsr to what we would now expect universally for LMGs, served by a two-man (at least) team and firing from the prone position while the accompanying riflemen advance and assault. Although the lightened MG08 was a much inferior weapon (I believe captured Lewis guns were preferred), German LMG tactics followed much the same line of development, soundly grounded in the fundamental idea of fire and movement.

The French style of use, with the Chauchat, envisioned that the gun should habitually accompany the skirmish line of riflemen, the gunner firing from the hip. This evidently made the use of a no. 2 problematic, and militated strongly against features such as belt feed and changeable barrels. The difference in style was reflected in the different in terms: While the British and Germans spoke of light machine guns, the French called their weapon a "fusil-mitrailleur", or machine-rifle.

Both the tactical style and the linguistic difference can be seen in American usage. The BAR was visualised as being used Chauchat-style, and, with Patton's "Marching Fire", in practice it sometimes was (though the "book" tactics had become F&M based, albeit with undie complication). For many years after WW2, the habitual American term for an LMG was "Automatic Rifle", a more-or-less straight translation of "fusil-mitrailleur". The parallel wholesale adoption of French artillery tactics by the Americans in WW1 is commented on in Gudmunsson's "On Artillery".

The BAR, then, was not so much a tactical "trend-setter" (though elements of the mechanical design were widely copied) so much as the last weapon in service to embody an obsolete conception of the role of the LMG on the battlefield (as far as I'm aware the French had adopted tactics on the Anglo-German model by the time the Chatellerault was adopted). Nobody would these days take the idea of "marching fire" seriously for trained troops (although I seem to remember reading something by Edward Luttwak that indicated he thought it was still a valid idea).

Some of the oddities of the French heritage of US LMG policy lingered on long after the BAR disappeared; the issue of 5 M-60 GPMGs to a 1970s USA mech inf pl can be explained by the 3 of those M-60s in the squads replacing the BAR, and the 2 issued to the platoon replacing the cumbersome "light" MG, the Browning M1919A6. I believe that this strangeness still persists in the US habit of teaching the "hip assault" position for LMG fire, a pointless frippery the British Army has not bothered with for at least the past 20 years, if it ever did, and which I doubt is taught by many other armies.

Of course, the weakness of US LMG equipment and tactics did not cause as much trouble as it might have done during WW2, as the US Army had the countervailing advantages of suberb MMGs and HMGs (also the handiwork of John Moses Browning) and a superb standard-issue rifle, the Garand.

All the best,

John.

[Aunty Jack]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Most interesting is the response from Donald, whose father cannot remember having a spares kits for the tripod, only used a tripod once in combat (to clear beach obstacles).

No, Slapdragon that is not what Donald said. Would you care to go back and reread what he said and then reassese what you claim he said? There appears to be rather a large discrepancy between what you claim he said and what he actually said.

[flamingknives]

The Bren in and of itself does not have the mass to need a tripod, it is actually easier to use from the bipod for most missions (as is the M-60, the FN-MAG, the MG-3 and the MG34/42)

Oops. All of the guns in brackets are GPMGs, and as such gain benefits from tripods. The main point here is that the British army use of the FN-MAG is usually on a tripod for sustained fire out to ~800m.

Comparing the Bren to a GPMG is misleading, as the Bren is a precision fire support weapon. A contemporary comparison would be the British LSW and the FN-Minimi (SAW)

The gist of your comment is that only .50 cals and water cooled MGs should be tripod mounted for most situations, which most modern armies seem to disagree with.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

The Bren in and of itself does not have the mass to need a tripod, it is actually easier to use from the bipod for most missions (as is the M-60, the FN-MAG, the MG-3 and the MG34/42).

While not well versed in the arcane mysteries of the bren tripod, I will say that in my experience, a tripod mounted machine gun is considerably more effective than one on a bipod, particularly on the defensive, where a gun with a tripod and traverse and elevation equipment can be preregistered (I don’t recall if this is the correct term or not) on expected enemy areas of enemy activity. Even when not preregistered, the tripod increases the effectiveness of the gun. A few examples: the tripod mounted gun can fire a longer sustained burst on target. This may not be all that important when firing suppressive fire at an unseen target, but when firing at a visible target in the open, the increase in firepower is dramatic. Use of a tripod also increases effectiveness of subsequent shots. If the first burst is on target, the gunner with a tripod has a much easier time of putting subsequent bursts on target as well (particularly if T/E equipment was used. Further, if the first shot missed or the target has moved, the tripod mounted gun is better equipped to make minor targeting adjustments.

Originally posted by John Salt:

I believe that this strangeness still persists in the US habit of teaching the "hip assault" position for LMG fire, a pointless frippery the British Army has not bothered with for at least the past 20 years, if it ever did, and which I doubt is taught by many other armies.

You have bad information. Hip fire (at least with the M60) was actively discouraged in any normal combat situation. I was never taught that hip fire was anything other than a Rambo move. Also, the M60 is more accuratly characterized as a General purpose machine gun, with the M249 being the standard U.S. LMG.

[edited to fix a bad cut and past job. Sorry about that Slapdragon]

[ April 16, 2002, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Slapdragon]

Please note Marlow, I never said what you have me quoted as saying. I think you are placing John Salt's quotes in my mouth by accident.

[ April 16, 2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Aunty Jack]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Please note Marlow, I never said what you have me quoted as saying. I think you are placing John Salt's quotes in my mouth by accident.

Funny, the quote attributed to you by Marlow appears in your message of April 15, 2002 02:00 PM, in the second paragraph Slapdragon. John quotes it in his message of April 15, 2002 06:42 PM. Perhaps you should be more careful about checking your sources (again)?

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Aunty Jack:

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

Please note Marlow, I never said what you have me quoted as saying. I think you are placing John Salt's quotes in my mouth by accident.

Funny, the quote attributed to you by Marlow appears in your message of April 15, 2002 02:00 PM, in the second paragraph Slapdragon. John quotes it in his message of April 15, 2002 06:42 PM. Perhaps you should be more careful about checking your sources (again)?</font>

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Marlow:

While not well versed in the arcane mysteries of the bren tripod, I will say that in my experience, a tripod mounted machine gun is considerably more effective than one on a bipod, particularly on the defensive, where a gun with a tripod and traverse and elevation equipment can be preregistered (I don’t recall if this is the correct term or not) on expected enemy areas of enemy activity. Even when not preregistered, the tripod increases the effectiveness of the gun. A few examples: the tripod mounted gun can fire a longer sustained burst on target. This may not be all that important when firing suppressive fire at an unseen target, but when firing at a visible target in the open, the increase in firepower is dramatic. Use of a tripod also increases effectiveness of subsequent shots. If the first burst is on target, the gunner with a tripod has a much easier time of putting subsequent bursts on target as well (particularly if T/E equipment was used. Further, if the first shot missed or the target has moved, the tripod mounted gun is better equipped to make minor targeting adjustments.

Exactly.When I was in the german Bundeswehr we were trained to fire short bursts of 3-5 rounds when using the MG3 on bipod and longer bursts (20-50 rounds) when firing from a tripod.

It's actually very difficult to fire longer bursts with an MG on bipod and try to keep on target.

The effective range also greatly increases wuth the use of a tripod.

With MG3 on bipod max effective range was 600m, on tripod 1200m.

And to the "Rambo"-technique of firing from the hip:

Lol!

I once saw a sergeant trying to fire a 20 round burst from the hip. The recoil actually knocked him off his feet!

And where the bullets hit only god knows...

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Marlow:

[edited to fix a bad cut and past job. Sorry about that Slapdragon]

Thanks Marlow, figured it was just a mistake.

[Slapdragon]

First off, we need to look a little more carefully at the concept of automatic weapons. The BAR was not the failed last gasp of a dead design concept, but the innovative first useful weapon of a new class of designs, that because of its innovation was not as successful as later weapons, but which called the tune of later weapon development and was influential on weapon designers. The BAR had its start right after Browning finished the M95, or the “Potato Digger”. The M95 was far advanced for its day, and proved the concept of the machine gun in the Boxer rebellion (although earlier “proofs” exist going back to the Napleonic wars, such proofs were not dug back up until after WW1, when everyone knew the machine gun was a major factor in warfare)

The reason why it is innovative is the same reason the model T was innovative – it took all of the concepts that came before it and put it in an original package that was useful. The mentioned Chauchat was the right concept, but a failed design. The Lewis was not designed to follow the concept of a man portable automatic weapon, it was just a lighter version of the standard machinegun that found a use on the ground.

The BAR design went through a wide range of designs, some commercial, some military, but in its early design was mostly ignored by everyone. Browning could not even get a showing for it with most militaries, and the US, his home country, saw the mechanism and was impressed, but worried about the ammunition expenditure. Meanwhile the French had produced the Chauchat M/15 along a similar concept, but it was a dog. So in 1916, the US accepted the BAR on a low priority, and by 1918 is was standardized with 40,000 reaching France for combat.

The Germans wanted a man portable automatic also, but they wanted the firepower of the 08, which they got by sticking a stock and a bipod on this Maxim design. The result was the 15/08 machine gun.

The BAR came through WW2 as a unique weapon, the only really reliable man portable automatic weapon. While designed for advancing fire, this was dropped in 1919 by the US Army as a concept, with the weapon designed to support the advance of the squad with covering fire (a concept that was still evolving by WW2). The BAR was light enough to travel with the squad on foot, had good firepower in the day of bolt action rifles, and was easier on ammunition than the German 15/08 (as well as lighter).

After the war several countries adopted versions of the BAR, but many countries started looking for a weapon to function in a similar manner – act as an automatic weapon for the squad or section, but with improvements based on experience. These included ability to change the weapon’s barrel, better prone firing capability, and better route carry. To fill this design need, a Czech designer at the Brno Arms Factory, designed the ZB24 LMG. It fired from a belt feed, had a choice of either bipod or tripod fire, a light mass barrel, and while heavier than the BAR was designed to handle a wider range of situations.

The ZB24 though could not sell. Most nations except for Germany (which was developing its own set of weapons in secret) were concerned about controlling ammunition expenditure by front line infantry units and saw the machine gun as a support weapon to facilitate the advance of the infantry. Belt feeding was a non starter, so the 24 was modified into the ZB26, magazine feed replaced belt feed, and it was offered for sale in a variety of calibers. This weapon turned into the Bren.

[Battlefront.com]

Just a note...

We looked into this ourselves and, oddly enough, came up with the same conclusion that many of the "anit-Bren Tripod" folks did. And that was the tripod was issued for AA defense. One source (was it Hogg?) specifically stated, in no uncertain terms, that it was a AA tripod. The Germans also issued AA tripods for the MG34 and MG42. I have also seen... wait for it... a picture of a... wait for it... Bren gun on this same mount The differences between the AA and HMG tripod mounts was night and day.

Anyhoo, even if we did see convincing evidence that they were used for a HMG ground role, we still wouldn't include them. Here is why:

They were issued 3 per Company (1 for every 3 Brens). Even if they were used in a ground role, it is highly unlikely that they would be used for an OFFENSIVE role. That would mean needing to have different TO&E for offensive and defensive actions. This is not possible to do with the CM game engine.

Further, the Germans also issued 3 HMG tripods (not AA!) to each Company. Unlike the disputed Bren tripod, the German tripod was absolutely, 100%, no question at all used for a ground fire role. The tripod is also considered one of the best firing platforms ever made for a belt fed MG (light, compact, easy to set up, amazing recoil absorbtion, provision for optics, etc.) A similar tripod exists for the current MG3. These tripods, issued to standard rifle companies, were intended to be used on the defensive for prepared positions.

So... what we have here is:

1. 3 Bren tripods issued to a Commonwealth rifle company. They were most likely only for use in a AA role. Even if used in a ground role, we have no idea how effective they would be and would only be used for defensive missions.

2. 3 MG34/MG42 tipods issued to a German rifle company. They were absolutely used for a ground role. We have ample evidence about how effective they would be, but they would only be used for defensive missions.

Now, as it happens we did not include these three tripods for the Germans even though we know they were used for ground role only and were highly effective. The main reason why is that the game system can not handle offensive vs. defensive TO&E. So, how can anybody gripe about a likely AA tripod for the Bren's not being included when the far more obvious thing to include (German tripods) has not been?

Honestly, I think the whole Bren tripod thing is probably wins the BBS' "Much Ado About Nothing Award" hands down

Steve

P.S. points about CM's modeling of firepower and accuracy adequately address by others.

[ April 16, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Not really. The L4 LMG (Bren) and the L7 GPMG (FN-MAG) were both used in exactly the same role in rifle section in the British Army for quite a time.

Curiously, the rate of issue for SF kits for the GPMG (which include tripods) when I was in the TA was supposed to be 3 per coy, same as we have been told for the Bren tripod in WW2.

I don't recall seeing many people actually using the SF kit, either... although it was great fun when you got to do so.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

First off, we need to look a little more carefully at the concept of automatic weapons.

Somebody certainly needs to look a great deal more carefully, I agree.

The BAR was not the failed last gasp of a dead design concept, but the innovative first useful weapon of a new class of designs, that because of its innovation was not as successful as later weapons, but which called the tune of later weapon development and was influential on weapon designers.

Well, you have agreed that the concept of "marching fire" quickly became defunct (apart from Patton's resurrection of it in 3rd Army during WW2). How a weapon designed to fulfil a defunct role could possibly "call the tune" of later development is a bit hard to see.

The action of the BAR was imitated in such designs as the Chatellerault, certainly. The idea that the BAR was influential on the development of LMG tactics, however, would be the utter tosh. The only class of weapons since the BAR to use fixed barrels and bottom-mounted magazines -- and after a time-lag of about half a century, which suggests that the BAR was not a great influence -- are those SAWs that are heavy-barrelled versions of existing assault rifles, and a collection of bastardised crossbred nonsenses they are.

The BAR had its start right after Browning finished the M95, or the “Potato Digger”.

Really? The Browning company web-site seems to think that the patent for the BAR was filed on 01 Aug 1917.

The reason why it is innovative is the same reason the model T was innovative – it took all of the concepts that came before it and put it in an original package that was useful. The mentioned Chauchat was the right concept, but a failed design. The Lewis was not designed to follow the concept of a man portable automatic weapon, it was just a lighter version of the standard machinegun that found a use on the ground.

I'm not sure what bizarre set of conditions you are intending to specify to show that the BAR was in some way a "first", but the Lewis was in action with the BEF by 1914, and the Chauchat by 1915. The Mondragon -- clearly an automatic rifle rather than an LMG -- predated both by several years.

If, as you claim, the BAR was standardised (before it was even patented!) in 1916, it still fails rather to be a first, either as an automatic rifle or as an LMG. The true trend-S(a)etter {<-- obscure machine-gun joke} was the Madsen, which saw action in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, and continued in service one way or another for 50 years or so despite never being "standardised" by anyone. The Madsen, like most successful LMG designs, had a top-mounted mag.

[snips]

concept, but it was a dog. So in 1916, the US accepted the BAR on a low priority, and by 1918 is was standardized with 40,000 reaching France for combat.

The Browning company web-site claims that the BAR was used in action in 1918, which is news to me. I doubt that it was used in great numbers, though.

[snips]

The BAR came through WW2 as a unique weapon, the only really reliable man portable automatic weapon.

Claiming that the BAR was the only reliable man-portable automatic weapon all the way through WW2 seems so badly out to lunch that I assume that was a mis-type for "WW1". Even if it is, it's not true.

While designed for advancing fire, this was dropped in 1919 by the US Army as a concept, with the weapon designed to support the advance of the squad with covering fire (a concept that was still evolving by WW2).

People are forever fiddling with minor tactics, but the basic principles of fire and movement had been established at the turn of the century, and only fell into temporary disuse during WW1 because of the perceived difficulty in training vast conscript armies in them. The fire and movement tactics the British Army used in 1918 were fully developed and would still work well today (and, indeed, have been shown to do so in experiments such as Exercise Sea Wall). They do, however, rely on having a proper LMG, and not just a heavy-barrelled auto rifle.

After the war several countries adopted versions of the BAR, but many countries started looking for a weapon to function in a similar manner – act as an automatic weapon for the squad or section, but with improvements based on experience. These included ability to change the weapon’s barrel, better prone firing capability, and better route carry.

Apart from the quick-change barrel, the Madsen embodied all those features years before the BAR.

FN modified the BAR after WW2 to include a quick-change barrel. For some reason I don't understand, American neglect of this feature continued with the M-60, which requires tools for the barrel to be changed.

The ZB24 though could not sell.

I've never heard of this ZB24 before, and cannot find it in Hogg's Encyclopedia of Military Small-Arms (where, interestingly, the BAR is not classified under machine-guns at all) or by a web search. Could you give a reference to your source for this, please?

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Marlow:

You have bad information. Hip fire (at least with the M60) was actively discouraged in any normal combat situation. I was never taught that hip fire was anything other than a Rambo move.

Are you saying that the "hip assault" position is not taught?

Also, the M60 is more accuratly characterized as a General purpose machine gun, with the M249 being the standard U.S. LMG.

Yes, thank you, I'm aware of that, I just can;t be bothered to type out "...or GPMG in the light role" every time I type LMG.

To reinforce the point I made about different American terminology for this kind of weapon -- although the Minimi is, clearly, an LMG, and a very good one too (what else do you expect from FN?), the US Army calls it a SAW. Indeed I wonder if any US Army weapon was ever officially designated as an LMG -- the Johnson gun, perhaps?

All the best,

John.

[Traject0ry]

Okay, this Bren thing is getting out of hand. As far as I know Bren tripods were issued for troops in order to be used for long range fire (source: British Army Infantry Training Manual 1942) but the tripod featured rised position for AA work. Bren itself could be used with at least four different AA mounts, both single and twin - one of them is actually a different tripod than the one issued to regular infantry. The fact is that Bren is robust and reliable but it is not meant to be fired on long bursts. As it is not made by clocksmiths it gives wild scatter while fired upon targets further than 300 yards away even when mounted on tripod. As some1 already stated the use of tripod is to kill recoil thus adding accuracy. Since Bren is not inaccurate due to recoil but due to design tripod does not fix this. it's comfy to shoot though and trained man can get excellent results on ranges between 150 and 250 yards. The one I fired back in 1998 was fed from a 200 round drum magazine (not 100) which was (so I heard) issued during WWII but was prone to jam if abused. Thus troops dashing on the field suffered fatal rates of misfeeds and as far as I know it was not used at all by field troops. On small patrol boats and such when the weapon (and the magazine) get less pounding it was more common. What can I say, a tru guerilla weapon but for surgical work buy Austrian or Swiss

Thus irrelevant feature (as the drum) on battlefield of men and armour it is easier to toss it from the game or some1 is bound to use it in an otherwise good scenario thus ruining the atmosphere. FORGET IT!

Please stop all the GPMG and SAW talk here, mail or ICQ, it does not concern a WWII game.