Bren vs BAR

Deanimator · Jul 1, 2009

Soren said:
Not sure about wether the Garand was designed after the "one shot, one kill" line of thought either, this seemed to be more along the German line of thought which stretched all the way back to the 1700's, hence why they retained the K98k as their main service arm for so long.

The reasons why the Germans kept the Kar98k were 50% interminable bureaucratic noodling (incessant changes of requirements) and 50% meddling by Hitler, who was an "expert" on infantry weapons based on his time as a junior NCO in WWI.

The book "Sturmgewehr!" goes into great detail concerning the long and tortuous path which German ordnance officials took toward replacing the Mauser rifle, which of course never happened. There was less bureaucratic wrangling, changes of vision, and changes of requirements in the decision to select the Me262.

gjs238 · Jul 1, 2009

Deanimator said:
Not unlike what happened in the US Army and Marines with the M14, albeit the FG42 was somewhat easier to control in full-auto due to design. Both the FG42 and the full-auto capable Garand offshoots culminating in the M14 are far too light for truly effective full-auto fire.

The average infantryman can't hit much of anything with the M16 on full-auto. Anybody who's shot an M1903, M1, Kar98k or G43 can tell you the difference in recoil impulse between them and an M16 chambered for 5.56x45mm.

Guns like the BAR, Bren, Chatellerault, etc., are heavy enough for reasonably accurate full-auto fire, especially from a bipod.

Well, yes and no.
This is apples oranges.
The M-14 M-16 are "assault rifles."

Assault Rifles in general are too light, uncontrollable, and overheat too quickly to replace the SAW.
Their full auto mode is more useful for situations when a SMG is desired, but not available.
So one could say the assault rifle replaces the MBR and SMG for a rifleman.
The FG-42 was not intended as such.

The FG-42 was heavier and would replace the MBR and SAW.
When used as a SAW, it would be fired rested, from a bipod, or perhaps from the hip.
From the shoulder it would be fired semi-auto, from a closed bolt, as the MBR.

Deanimator · Jul 1, 2009

gjs238 said:
Well, yes and no.
This is apples oranges.
The M-14 M-16 are "assault rifles."

Assault Rifles in general are too light, uncontrollable, and overheat too quickly to replace the SAW.
Their full auto mode is more useful for situations when a SMG is desired, but not available.
So one could say the assault rifle replaces the MBR and SMG for a rifleman.
The FG-42 was not intended as such.

The FG-42 was heavier and would replace the MBR and SAW.
When used as a SAW, it would be fired rested, from a bipod, or perhaps from the hip.
From the shoulder it would be fired semi-auto, from a closed bolt, as the MBR.

Neither the M14 nor the BM59 are "assault rifles". Neither fires an intermediate cartridge.

gjs238 · Jul 1, 2009

Deanimator said:
Neither the M14 nor the BM59 are "assault rifles". Neither fires an intermediate cartridge.

Then don't call them assault rifles - call them widgets.
The FG-42 is not a widget.

Amsel · Jul 1, 2009

The M-14 is not a widget, it is a MBR.

gjs238 · Jul 1, 2009

Amsel said:
The M-14 is not a widget, it is a MBR.

This is a distraction from the point.
The FG-42 should not be compared to the poor historical performance of the M-14 M-16 fired full auto.

The M-14 M-16 were not successful in performing the role of SAW.
The FG-42 was designed to function as MBR and SAW.

Amsel · Jul 1, 2009

gjs238 said:
This is a distraction from the point.
The FG-42 should not be compared to the poor historical performance of the M-14 M-16 fired full auto.

The M-14 M-16 were not successful in performing the role of SAW.
The FG-42 was designed to function as MBR and SAW.

Oh I agree. Except that an M-14 is not an assault rifle.

Soren · Jul 1, 2009

Deanimator said:
The reasons why the Germans kept the Kar98k were 50% interminable bureaucratic noodling (incessant changes of requirements) and 50% meddling by Hitler, who was an "expert" on infantry weapons based on his time as a junior NCO in WWI.

The book "Sturmgewehr!" goes into great detail concerning the long and tortuous path which German ordnance officials took toward replacing the Mauser rifle, which of course never happened. There was less bureaucratic wrangling, changes of vision, and changes of requirements in the decision to select the Me262.

Yes but there was a reason for why Hitler argued for the continued use of the K98k. The reason was: He wanted his soldiers to be able to consistently hit a human sized target beyond 1,000 meters, often using the 1,200 meter effective range of the K98k as the main reason for why it should stay in service as the main service arm. Hitler however still lived in the trenches of WW1 in regards to his preference on this matter. The G43 StG.44 should've both replaced the K98k in 1943 as the main service arm. (The StG.44 could've entered production as early as mid 43 [MP-43])

gjs238 · Jul 1, 2009

Deanimator said:
Not unlike what happened in the US Army and Marines with the M14, albeit the FG42 was somewhat easier to control in full-auto due to design. Both the FG42 and the full-auto capable Garand offshoots culminating in the M14 are far too light for truly effective full-auto fire.

The average infantryman can't hit much of anything with the M16 on full-auto. Anybody who's shot an M1903, M1, Kar98k or G43 can tell you the difference in recoil impulse between them and an M16 chambered for 5.56x45mm.

Guns like the BAR, Bren, Chatellerault, etc., are heavy enough for reasonably accurate full-auto fire, especially from a bipod.

Well, yes and no.
This is apples oranges.
The M-14 M-16 (assault rifles and selective fire MBR's in general) are too light, uncontrollable, and overheat too quickly to replace the SAW.
Their full auto mode is more useful for situations when a SMG is desired, but not available.
So one could say the assault rifle replaces the MBR and SMG for a rifleman.
The FG-42 was not intended as such.

The FG-42 was heavier and would replace the MBR and SAW.
When used as a SAW, it would be fired rested, from a bipod, or perhaps from the hip.
From the shoulder it would be fired semi-auto, from a closed bolt, as the MBR.

gjs238 · Jul 1, 2009

Looking at some video of these guns being fired, from the shoulder and from a rest:

From the shoulder full auto, the BAR appears to be WAY more steady than the FG-42, BREN and Johnson M1941 LMG.
Fired from a rest full auto, the BREN and BAR appear more steady than the FG-42.

So I suppose one has to decide what is preferable in most situations...
BAR: Less weight, more accurate from the shoulder (and on the move.)
BREN: From a rest, greater magazine capacity and quick change barrel.
FG-42: Compromise combo of MBR and SAW.

Deanimator · Jul 2, 2009

gjs238 said:
Looking at some video of these guns being fired, from the shoulder and from a rest:

From the shoulder full auto, the BAR appears to be WAY more steady than the FG-42, BREN and Johnson M1941 LMG.
Fired from a rest full auto, the BREN and BAR appear more steady than the FG-42.

So I suppose one has to decide what is preferable in most situations...
BAR: Less weight, more accurate from the shoulder (and on the move.)
BREN: From a rest, greater magazine capacity and quick change barrel.
FG-42: Compromise combo of MBR and SAW.

BAR: Controllable in full-auto fire, especially from the bipod. Serviceable SAW. Relatively low rate of fire due to small magazines. Far too heavy to replace the rifle. No sustained fire capability in common US versions. "Machine rifle"/SAW.

BREN: Controllable in full-auto fire, especially from the bipod. Serviceable light machinegun with easily changeable barrels, albeit with somewhat limited rate of fire due to magazine feed. Excellent for the time as a SAW. No possibility to replace the rifle due to weight.

FG-42: Less controllable than the two above in full-auto fire, even from a bipod. Low firepower due to small magazine. Barrel not changeable, so not usable as LMG. Passable as SAW. Just light enough for general issue. A compromise that's not an optimal rifle or SAW, but consolidates scarce resources.

timshatz · Jul 2, 2009

Slight hijack of the thread.

Use of the three weapons above in the movies. My favorites.

BAR- Steve McQueen in "Sand Pebbles". He makes the thing look soooo cool.
Bren- "Lock, Stock and Three Smoking Barrels". When the three guys are in that cage, trying to get into the Apartment and some pinhead is shooting at them with a pellet gun. The guy in the back steps up with a Bren and lets off a magazine. Funny scene, Everyone just freezes because of the power.
MG42- Never seen a movie/show (from "To Hell and Back" to "Band of Brothers") where that thing didn't steal the show. The sound and muzzle blast are awesome.

Amsel · Jul 2, 2009

The MG42 in "Saving Private Ryan" Omaha beach scene is also terrifying.

gjs238 · Jul 2, 2009

timshatz said:
BAR- Steve McQueen in "Sand Pebbles". He makes the thing look soooo cool.

For a hi-jack post, an interesting point
Steve gives an excellent demonstration of the portability, handiness, and ease of shooting from the shoulder of the BAR.

glennasher · Jul 4, 2009

I'd think the Bren was somewhat better than the BAR, at least from the prone position. It's a lot easier to load a fresh magazine in from the top, than the bottom, when using them prone. That's important, MUCH more so than whether or not it can be used like a rifle, IMO.
Peter Kokalis, who wrote for the defunct "Soldier of Fortune" magazine back in the '70s and '80s, knew his automatic weapons pretty well, and didn't much like the BAR, for that reason and others. The quick-change barrels also favor the Bren, which was a derivative of a Czech machine gun, with some alterations for the rimmed .303 cartridge.
While the BAR is a sentimental favorite of mine, objective thought shows the Bren to be better.

Deanimator · Jul 5, 2009

glennasher said:
Peter Kokalis, who wrote for the defunct "Soldier of Fortune" magazine

When did "SoF" get "defunct"? I'm pretty sure I saw a new issue a couple of weeks ago.

It's ok, although I prefer "Smallarms Review", a truly professional journal of NFA and other firearms.

gjs238 · Jul 6, 2009

gjs238 said:
Is a belt-fed gun really as mobile as a magazine fed gun?
Can a belt-fed gun truly be a one-man weapon?

For a SAW, might the BREN (or to some extent the BAR) have an advantage over a belt fed gun (MG34, MG42, M1919, etc) in terms of mobility?
Every squad member can carry a magazine or two.
And there needn't be a dedicated "crew" for the gun.

On the other hand, US Rangers and Airborne used M1919's in lieu of BAR's.

Anyone know what the Marines used for SAW's?

Deanimator said:
A proper belt pouch/box setup is only marginally less convenient over the long haul than magazines, with the added advantage that belted ammunition is FAR lighter for the same quantity of ammunition than ammunition in magazines. Magazine fed weapons are usually at least somewhat handier in the moment, especially compared to belt fed weapons using NONdisintegrating feed links as the Germans did. A number of weapons have had the provision to use both magazines and belts, including the current FN Minimi/M249, the Czech Vz52 and the Stoner 63.

Rangers and conventional airborne units used both BARs and M1919s.

Re: SAW magazine vs belt feed:

The US M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) has been renamed the M249 light machine gun (LMG).
The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) is considering designs for an infantry automatic rifle, which is planned to complement and partially replace the M249 in their service.

It appears the opinions of magazine vs belt feed swing back and forth.

renrich · Jul 7, 2009

If Hitler thought that a soldier could consistently hit a man sized target at 1000 meters with any rifle with iron sights, he was even crazier than I thought he was. I qualified as Expert with the Garand. We fired on the KD (known distance) range and at 500 yards we used a 30 inch bull. That is wider than the average man and at 500 yards with iron sights that bull is tiny and in those days I had much better than average eyesight. At around 500 yards a deer is small though a 7 power scope. Using volley fire on a formation of troops, I can see hits at 1000 meters. The early British troops(The Old Contemptibles) in WW1 were trained to get hits at 800 yards on groups of men with volley fire but I don't believe that a soldier can consistently hit a single man at 1000 meters(or much less) with a service rifle and iron sights. If the US Army had thought there would have been an overall advantage to it, they could have very simply increased the magazine capacity of the BAR to 30 rounds or so.

Glider · Jul 7, 2009

I totally agree that its impossible to consistently to hit a man sized target at 1000 yards with iron sights. I used to fire at up to 900 yards using an Enfield target rifle with peep sights. At this range the aiming mark was 4 ft wide and the lowest scoring hit was a lot bigger.
Simply spotting a man in camo at this range would be quite a feat

parsifal · Jul 7, 2009

I would argue that even hitting a man over open sights at even 300 yards under combat conditions is optimistic

Bren vs BAR

Airman

Tech Sergeant

Airman

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Airman

Chief Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Airman

Tech Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Captain

Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads