Bren vs....

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Me no understand.
Which is better? excellent gun v an excellent gun? Which is most excellent?
Penty of flag-waving in the video, culiminating with equation 'Allied victory' = 'British have had Bren guns'. German infantry not knowing what to do if MG is somehow incapacityted, even retreating??? MG-42 inacurrate so much that it could not kill a person??
Germans did the clearing of houses with grenades, submachinegins and yes, MG-34s/42s. British army adopted to belt-fed FN MAG once available, thus the much-touted lower ammo consumption was not seen as factor with MGs. Beyond the British empire, there was no license production of Brens, and magazine-fed MGs were quickly discared after ww2 by anyone capable to produce MGs. Statement hat MG-42 was not produced anywhere in the world after ww2 does not hold water either, it was produced in ex-Yu as M53 machine gun for decades, while West Germany made the MG-3, the MG 42 re-chambered to 7.62 NATO round, widely exporting it and selling production licenses in several countries.
MG 42 was used as tank/AFV gun, both as coax, hull and AA weapon, it was used in single of multiple AA mounts, the Bren was not suitable for this*. German gun was also used as basis for turret- or hand-held aircraft wepon, the MG 81.
BTW - MG 34 or 42 might've been called Spandau by British troops. US, Soviet, French troops, plus Greek, French, Albanian and Yugoslav partisans certainly did not.

*yes, I know that it was jury-rigged as AA gun on some tanks
Box fed machine guns were certainly produced and used post war.
The rate of fire of the MG-42 was considered too high so any clones made post war fired slower.
The Bren was used post war and did even get to the Falklands war but they were not converted to 5.56mm so were phased out.

The video is poor and I don't buy what this guy is selling. So I would take this video with a large dose of salt
Box fed machine guns were certainly produced and used post war.
The rate of fire of the MG-42 was considered too high so any clones made post war fired slower.
The Bren was used post war and did even get to the Falklands war but they were not converted to 5.56mm so were phased out.

The video is poor and I don't buy what this guy is selling. So I would take this video with a large dose of salt

Rate of fire was considered too hig - by whom (as they say in Wikipedia)?
The post-war MG-3, produced in several countries, and used by many more, featured the same RoF as the MG-42. Granted, the RoF could've been reduced with replacing the bolt with with a heavier type. Clones of the MG 42 are used even today, even the 7.92mm versions.
I'm not sure that converting the Bren to 5.56 would've been such a great idea.
Box feed MGs were indeed produced after the war, that being Bren in India. All major and vast majority of minor armies made a switch to belt-fed MGs soon after ww2 ended.

I cannot agree more with last sentence quoted.
To be honest the video is absolute garbage. To take one story out of context and to base judgement on that single story is a joke.

the Americans when making the M60 deliberately slowed down the rate of fire and that was based on Germanic technology. The Germans themselves lowered the rate of fire because of firing out of battery issues.

The Soviet RPK and the British LSW are examples of light machine guns with magazines.

There were other famous non belt machine guns like the Soviet DP or the BAR or the Japanese type 96 or 99 used in ww2 and the Germans themselves used the ZB-26 which is the daddy of the Bren
Last edited:
The Bren was still in service (just) when I joined up. One of the complaints about it was that it was too accurate for a support weapon. One of the functions of a machine gun team is to dominate ground and prevent enemy movement. You need at least some bullet spread from a support machine gun to increase the chances of hitting numbers of advancing troops. If the machine gun is too accurate, you'll actually hit fewer of the enemy...or you'll have to do more manual sweeping of the weapon to change bullet direction.
Surely the feed system depends on usage. The number of fixed gun emplacements to prevent attack from air ground and sea dropped rapidly in 1944/45.
Can't really compare the Bren (CZ) with the MG42, or MG34 - the Bren was a section LMG, whereas the MG42 and MG34 were (and are) a GPMG.
Better to compare the MG42 to the Bren's successor, the FN MAG GPMG.
The Bren, converted to 7.62mm as the LMG, was still in British service with some units in the 1980's, alongside the GPMG, until replaced by the current LSW in 5.56mm.
Both the Bren and the MG42 were very good weapons, which served their purpose at the time, but both had drawbacks, some already mentioned.
Note - I haven't watched the video. Can't abide armchair 'warrior experts', with their opinions very often formed from video games !
I would recommend not watching the video.
I learned nothing about the Bren or the MG-42 but did learn that the guy knows diddly squat about nothing.
That's a few minutes of my life I ain't getting back.

I have no problems comparing the MG to the Bren as they are contemporary and used in same way. And if the assistant can get them mag changes sorted then the Bren will get plenty 303 downrange.

Both weapons are excellent and any serious criticism can be saved for the Breda 30 which was worthy of criticism
Rate of fire and the the 1200 rpm is a big deal? Not really as aircraft guns fire much faster. Cooling less of an issue at 300mph in the cold sky.
Faster the rpm the quicker you will burn through the barrels and ammo.
There were only two aircraft machine guns that beat 1200rpm by much.

One reason the MG 42 was popular post war was that, given a decent industrial base, it's stamped sheet metal receiver was cheap to build. You do need a certain amount of heavy machinery (hydraulic stamping presses) and a certain amount of knowledge to get it to work. It isn't quite as easy as making submachine guns.

My experience with the MG 42 is limited to one 50 round belt but I doubt very highly that a decent gunner (not close to great) is going to be spraying a whole field at 200-400 yds. It could very well be much less "accurate" than the Bren but not to the extent the video claims.

I would also note that there is a difference between WW II LMGs and post war LMGs. Very few wartime guns had either chrome lined barrels or stellite inserts, so barrel changing was much more important. Many but not all, post war guns got the lined barrels, in fact the British Bren guns in 7.62 NATO had chrome lined barrels and the supply of spare barrels was much reduced if not eliminated. Of course the troops had shifted from Lee-Enfields to the FAL so the squad wasn't quite as dependent on the LMG for firepower.
That and the "official" position was that the "Line infantry" got the FN MAGs and the Brens went to the "support" units like mortar batteries, AT gun batteries and the like for local protection. What the Royal Marines and Paratroopers used was a bit looser.

Most LMGs (and even tripod mounted guns) were usually fired in short bursts. Even the Vickers gun was "rated" at 200rpm even though it cycled at around 500rpm. 4-5 rounds per burst with very short pauses in between.
My vote is for the MG42, much as it pains me. The MG42 used modern production techniques, and could be used as both the squad weapon as well as a more GP support gun. both were mobile fairly light weight and reliable. MG42 gets some small marks as a belt fed weapon . both had easy quick change barrels.

both weapons were good for their time, but in concept the MG42 was a slight head in front.

Note that I don't include the much quoted rof as any real advantage for the MG42. In a real battle, such an ammunition eater, if used incorrectly could be a liability in a normal battlefield where logistics is an issue. IJA "woodpeckers" in this regard. were a better option, at around 150 rpm and muzzle velocities so slow they could be used as plunging fire weapons, mortar style into allied trenches.
Last edited:
An aircraft gun like the MG 81 needs high rate of fire because time on target could be snap shots so getting metal downrange was vital.
Not so for a ground based machine gun. You can either miss firing a lot of bullets of miss firing a few bullets. As noted the Vickers had a low rate of fire but it filled the graveyard well enough. In my view the rate of fire for the MG 42 was too high.
why reduced rof is an advantage not a disadvantage, if you are trying to hit something.....

Japanese Woodpecker Machine Gun - Bing video

The very next video, showing a demonstration of the IJA Type 99. Still an overall unsatisfactoey weapon, but with the added problem of a higher rof, making control of the weapon more difficult than need be. more shots needed to hit something, more ammunition, more down time due to excessive ammunition expenditure.

IJA woodpecker mgs in action - Bing video

A modern demonstration of the MG42, operating at around its max rof. As a support gun, it was relatively stable as well, but far less controllable when used in the section or platoon based weapon, firing from the hip, or with a monopod.

IJA woodpecker mgs in action - Bing video

A video which I found quite interesting

Bren Gun Operating - Bing video
Last edited:
The high rates of fire for the MG 34 and MG 42 were as much or more for the AA role than for ground combat.

I would note that the Bren was supposed to get to 900-1000rpm IF the gas regulator was put on the #4 position and the gun was clean.

The Bren being used in a lot of pre-war/early war AA set ups.

The German guns, being recoil operated could not be adjusted as easily. You can get the MG 42 to fire at different rates by varying the weight of the bolt and I believe the Italians may have used a removable weight (or issued two bolts?) for some of their guns in the 1950s so the gunners could pick the rate of fire for the purpose.

Yes you can get recoil operated guns to adjust their rate of fire (dates back to the Maxim gun) but it requires more parts and complication than moving the gas port on the Bren. If you are trying to make a cheap gun, rate of fire adjustment devices are usually among the first things to go.
The Japanese Type 99 machine gun is ok. They term woodpecker is normally for the type 92.
The Coke v Pepsi debate of belt fed v magazine fed is not one I want to get too deep into. Also labels for a machine gun are often arbitrary and not follow a set logic. I certainly wouldn't say the MG-42 is better than a Bren because it's not. Better than the Breda 30....
Odd how "Spandau" has become the default term for the 42.

Anyway: Got quite a bit of trigger time with the family Bren, which had the 7.62 conversion kit. I liked it for its controllability with .303 or .308 though the offset sights took some getting used to. We patterned 4-5 round groups at various distances, and dang if I can remember, but they were decent. Youngest brother, who wrote for Jane's/IDR, kept all rounds on an E silhouette at 100.

The 42 required some technique on the bipod. Natural tendency was to lean into the gun but I (and a coupla others) found that a semi-neutral pressure seemed to produce best results. One of the guys who worked with me at the museum was a huge Class III fan and invited newbies to occasional events. Our secretary had never touched a gun before but wanted to try the go-fast gadget. She came up grinning--looked as if she had a physiological response....

Users who are viewing this thread