Rifles and Machineguns of WW2

[stug3]

A Bren gunner and rifleman take up defensive positions on the beach during combined operations training in the Gulf of Aqaba, 1943.

 

[stug3]

German infantry manning a trench on the Eastern Front, 1942, with anti tank rifle centre.

I cant imagine that AT rifle being very effective on anything larger than the engine block of a truck if it got lucky.

 

[dutchman]

Granted you don't want to square off against a heavy tank, but you can "play the edges". Look for targets that are vulnerable to your weapon. If they were facing US equipment, (I say that because I'm more familiar with that then Russian) It could handed any truck or jeep a halftrack out to 500 meters at least. Armoured cars or light recon tanks would be possible as well. Another application that might have been tried was the ability to engauge a machine gun position with the ATR. much like our troops do today with the 50 cals. Many of these guns could go through 30mm of plate at 500-1000 meters, if you can get a side shot even a medium tank is at risk. They won't do the work of an anti tank gun, but having a couple in a unit of infantry makes the troops feel better. Moral booster!

 

[Shortround6]

By 1942 they were almost a morale drag. Somebody had to cart the thing around (and it was heavier than a machinegun) and when used it was almost worthless.

The Russian 14.5mm gun barely makes through 30mm of armor at 500meters. It may work against armored cars or halftracks but against medium tanks is was way too "iffy". It is not enough to make a small hole (German gun makes tiny hole) in armor, you have to kill/wound the crew behind the armor or destroy mechanical parts/set fire to the vehicle.

Most WW II AT rifles had crap sights which makes long range precision shooting a joke. many had a single elevation setting or two elevation/range settings. good enough for aiming at a tank but lousy for aiming at a "MG" position.

Normal WW II rifle rounds will punch holes in engine blocks and transmission cases, maybe they won't bring the the engine to a screeching halt but with the coolant and/or oil gone the engine won't last long.

Most were replaced by Grenade launchers, rocket launchers or in the case of the British the PIAT.

 

[dutchman]

A friend and I have discussed this for some time. He makes the point that the Bren is easier to load dure to the top mag. I favor the BAR pointing out that of all guns developed the top mag has shown not to be a great advantage. I'd love to get a fresh set of eyes on this one. What do you think. I would call them about even with no clear advantage to set one above the other.

 

[stug3]

Top loading was one of the reasons the Bren was so reliable. They both got the job done. I dont think you could go wrong with either one. BAR was a bit lighter, Bren had greater magazine capacity. They still should have just copied the MG42.

 

[Shortround6]

A friend and I have discussed this for some time. He makes the point that the Bren is easier to load dure to the top mag. I favor the BAR pointing out that of all guns developed the top mag has shown not to be a great advantage. I'd love to get a fresh set of eyes on this one. What do you think. I would call them about even with no clear advantage to set one above the other.

No contest. the Bren gun wins six ways til Tuesday.

But then they weren't really intended to do the same job.

The BAR was what is name said. Browning Automatic Rifle. It was NOT a light machine gun even if some nations tried to use it as one. It was well built, it was reliable, it fired a powerful cartridge. However it was too light for good automatic accuracy, most versions did NOT have a quick change barrel (or even a barrel that didn't need an armorer to change) which limited it's actual rate of fire. The Bren gun could fire 4 magazines per minute (120rpm) changing the barrel every 10 magazines until the ammo ran out. The BAR firing the 30-06 round was good for about 75 rounds per minute if you didn't want to wreck the barrel.
The Bren could be fitted with a 100 round drum for anti-aircraft work ( it also had a 4 position gas regulator and was often run with the biggest opening for a higher rate of fire for AA work) and in some cases there were reserve tripods for firing on "fixed lines" (night work in defensive positions).

But the Bren is a heavier gun and needs more support from the squad to do it's best work.

 

[fastmongrel]

But the Bren is a heavier gun and needs more support from the squad to do it's best work.

Depends which model Bren your talking about. We used the Bren L4A2 (rebarreled MkIII) which empty weighed iirc 19 pounds and 21.5 pounds loaded. A 1918A2 BAR weighs according to wiki 19 pounds empty.

Lumping round the Bren wasnt much fun but it was a featherweight compared to the FN GPMG that the infantry carried.

 

[Shortround6]

You are right, the early Brens ( MK I II) were 2-3lbs (?) heavier than the later ones. The Bren was also issued with 25 magazines which, when full, went about another 85lbs. I believe some of them were spread around to other squad members besides the gunner and his assistant, at least in WW II or until some magazines were lost? Add the weight of the spare barrel (around 6lbs depending on model) and parts kit and the load on the squad was somewhat higher than the load imposed by one BAR ( I doubt the BAR had 35 magazines issued for it for even 700 rounds in magazines).

 

[Glider]

I think I am right that every member of the platoon carried 2 mags which eased the load

 

[parsifal]

You are right, the early Brens ( MK I II) were 2-3lbs (?) heavier than the later ones. The Bren was also issued with 25 magazines which, when full, went about another 85lbs. I believe some of them were spread around to other squad members besides the gunner and his assistant, at least in WW II or until some magazines were lost? Add the weight of the spare barrel (around 6lbs depending on model) and parts kit and the load on the squad was somewhat higher than the load imposed by one BAR ( I doubt the BAR had 35 magazines issued for it for even 700 rounds in magazines).

It was still standard Infantry training even as late as the 60's, when the squad came under fire for every man in the 12 man squad, to pass magazines they were carrying to the Bren. the Bren was seen as the main firepower of the squad. this was not always the case before the war the British tended to think of the MG as a support weapon, with the rifles providing the main firepower. They had some very unfortunate encounters with the Germans early on, which clearly showed this doctrine to be a very faulty concept. As a result, during the war, the Bren tried to fill a number of roles. It was used as designed...a squad weapon supporting the squad Infantry and providing the squad with most of its firepower. it was used as a support gun, providing suppressive fire at a more removed level 9it was not ideal at this, given its limited ammunition supply, but it could do the job. But it also was used at times as an assault weapon, particulalry in the jungle, where it was often used to fire from the hip as the Infantry advanced. This was similar to the role for which the BAR was designed and used.

All in all, I would contend the Bren was a more verstile design than the BAR, though only marginally so. The BAR realy could not undertake the support gun role, and as a squad weapon was more limited than the Bren. Matter of opinion of course.

 

[Shortround6]

I am not so sure about "marginally". The Marines wound up with 3 BAR's per 12-13 man squad at the end of the war.

The BAR simply cannot provide high volume fire without wrecking the weapon. Not only does the BAR provide only about 60-65% of the fire of a Bren in a measured sustained fire role ( not really done in combat?) but should a high volume of fire be needed for several minutes (say 200 rounds per minute or more) the BAR's barrel can be destroyed or the gun itself and not just the barrel can overheat. Melvin Johnson destroyed one in a test in about 700-800 rounds. Fore end on fire (visible flames and not just smoking but it may very well have been one of the older ones with the big fore-end) and main spring (in the butt) lost it's temper and the gun stopped functioning. Very extreme to be sure, but a Bren even if the barrel is not changed according to the book/drill and the barrel ruined can be "fixed" by the squad in about 10 seconds. The BAR equipped unit needs to draw a new gun from supply.

 

[fastmongrel]

Did the USMC ever ask for a Bren equivalent they seem to have been ideal users. A 30-06 version should have been easy to aquire Inglis were building them in 7.92 for China.

 

[MacArther]

So here is a question from left field, why didn't more weapons (during and after WWII) use the reliable top feed method that the Owen SMG and Bren LMG employed? Was it just because of the hassle of mounting the sights correctly on the sides?

 

[Shortround6]

Well, for light machine guns you had the French Mac 1924/29. The Danish Madsen ( used by several dozen countries) the Vickers Berthier, The Mexican Mendoza, the Bren's daddy the VB 26 and it's decedents including several Japanese machine guns.

Then you have the question of some of the drum fed guns like the Lewis and the Russian DP. they used a drum to present the ammo into an upward facing feed way. Since the Bren could be feed from either the box magazine or a drum one wonders if some of those drum feed guns could have been feed from a suitable box magazine ?

 

[dutchman]

I would think that a top loading mag, would stick up too high for comfort. It has to make the weapon visable in the prone position? It also could create a blind spot for the shooter that would cover several degrees in his field of fire.

 

[Shortround6]

You have choice, large magazine sticking-up (and not really that far):

Large magazine sticking down and hitting the ground keeping the whole gun and gunners head up in the air.

Small magazines requiring more frequent changes, smaller target but less firepower.

The Bren gun was a two-man gun (or more) like any proper light machine gun. Loader and extra rifleman can cover and blind arcs besides which, the squad commander is best employed directing the Bren guns fire (picking targets/threats)

 

[parsifal]

there is one other option, and this is the one generally adopted after the war..belt fed MGs similar to the German GPMGs

 

[Shortround6]

These bring a few of their own problems, weight for one, and in the movies Rambo (or Arnold) never have the dangling belt catch on the shrubbery

The Australians came up with two solutions for that for the M-60. A sheet metal ammo holder that would hold about 40 (?) rounds of belted ammo just below the feed way for assault or fire while moving and a fabric sleeve that would hold a short length of belt and be laid on the ground next to the gun and keep the belt clean and free of debris.
Most other armies tended to ignore the problem although the Germans had used the 50 round can on the Mg 42 back in WW II.
Trying to put 100-200 round belt boxes under the GPMGs tends to run up the weight on the guns using full power ammo. (add 12-14lbs to the weight of a GPMG, now run with it with box sticking out each side).

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

Hi,

You are right: the main difference between the MG42 and the new MG3 is the rate of fire. The WWII gun was capable to fire at 1.200 rpm rate.

Douglas.

I believe the main reason for the high rate of fire of the MG-42 was the brilliant German design of having the bolt run on rollers, perhaps the first usage of that design. I do not know if it was continued on the MG3-had to involve more machining costs on the MG-42. Did the Germans use Stellite barrel linings on either of these WW11 MG's- as America did later on with its 1959 developed "clone" which was the MG-60 (in 7.62x51 NATO cal.)