"Bren MkI: The Best Light Machine Gun of World War Two" Topic

Could be…?

YouTube link

Armand

Hmmm… Having fired this weapon, and a MG 42 and talked to veteran's of the Second World War, I do not think the Bren quite cut it for that title. It was the veteran's themselves who said that they would rather have had the German weapon than the Bren. The 'tearing paper' rate of fire was 'more useful' than the thump, thump of the Bren and the belt feed was seen as superior. If I remember the quote properly, one veteran said 'Nothing concentrated the mind more than huddling under a hedge row as an MG 42 shredded it over your head'.

Interestingly, the British Army went through the same argument with the SA 80's Light Support Weapon. The weaknesses of a magazine fed light MG were highlighted again with the GPMG being retained and eventually the MINIMI being introduced.

Hmmm… some more… if the Bren was the best why has it been discarded, while the MG42 in rechambered for NATO form (MG3) is still going?

Because we are no longer fighting World War 2?

Is a belt-fed MG really a 'light' MG ? The amount of ammo needed for it to fire continuous bursts of suppressive fire ties down the squad so that it becomes a support weapon team and loses some of its mobility.

Using lower calibre ammo makes the whole system lighter and more portable and thus makes it more practical to have a dual-purpose MG at squad level. Also post WW2 squad transport allows the easier movement of ammo to the battlefield reducing the dependence on man carried ammo.

It all depends upon what you want to use it for. The Bren is the heir to the Lewis gun. It's for fire and movement. The MG42 is for static positional firing, with the squad's role being ammunition carriers. As pointed out. The MG42 isn't really a light machine gun.

Agree that the key word here is "light" – the MG42 was a squad support weapon best used with a bipod and belt fed with a gunner and assistant – not what I would call "light" although I do agree the MG-42 was a superb weapon

The jerries were probably saying how they'd prefer a bren if attacking.
Also agree that the two are in different categories.

The British Army did consider the possibility of a belt-feed Section weapon during the war. From "Progress Bulletin (Infantry)", No.2 of August 1943.

"The question of fitting belt feed to existing .303" Bren guns firing rimmed ammunition has been fully investigated and has been found to be impracticable as it will inevitably cause increase in weight and a bulky component over the magazine opening. This question therefore cannot be further considered except as a long term policy in connection with the proposed change over to rimless ammunition".

Likewise I don't think you can realistically compare the Bren directly with the MG34, or the MG42. The Bren was a 'proper' light machine gun, something that devolved automatic firepower down to Section/Squad level without turning said Section into nothing more than an enlarged MG team with some incidental riflemen.

The MG34 was an entirely new approach, aimed as much at reducing the impediment of a Maxim style machine gun, such as the MG08 or the Vickers, that required at least three men just to carry the gun broken down into three loads, before even considering the ammunition carriers. That approach certainly dominated post-war thinking, at least from the late 1950s anyway, Korea being the last hurrah for the Bren and the BAR and the old style MGs.

I am going from memory because I'm too lazy to look it up, but as I recall while weapons like the FN MAG (L7A2), M60 and PKM all undoubtedly emerged as a direct result of the MG34, no one adopted a weapon with the same RoF of the MG42, apart from the West German Army which simply rejigged the MG42, ending up with the MG3. All the post-war GPMGs I think stayed definitely sub 1000rpm cyclic, and some in the 750-850rpm bracket.

I think the fact that the Bren served without any particular problems in Europe, North Africa and the Far East, and was mastered by conscripts the world over does give it a good claim to being the best LMG of the war, if it's compared against other LMGs, which does exclude the BAR and (probably) should also exclude the MG34 and 42. Had the German Army fought with the MG13 rather than the MG34 the conversation could have been quite different.

Gary

So best LMG in the class that excludes any squad automatic weapons that might be better – then yes definitely the best.

There is a difficulty in comparing all the Sec/Sqd automatics because they were not all created equal.

The direct comparisons for the Bren, based on all having a fixed capacity magazine feed and an air cooled barrel with a change facility;

Red Army DP
Japanese Type 96 (and successor Type 99)
Italian Breda M30

In that grouping I think the Bren stands up very well in terms of firepower, reliability and handling.

The MG34 has a different ability to any of those LMGs because it has to be a capable heavy MG as well as an effective LMG. The fact it can be belt-fed, even if in Rifle Squad usage that likely means a 50-round drum, gives it an advantage over everything with a 30-round box magazine. It could be argued that the best LMG was actually the M1919A4, because it had a 250-round belt and could dominate an area more effectively than a box or short belt LMG. It could also be argued that it wasn't a light machine gun, despite that being its designation.

Different armies and manufacturers went different ways.

Gary

Dad said you could fire out Silent Night on a Bren. It was a more Christmas-y weapon "than a spandau".

And how about the Soviet LMG with the disk-shaped ammo thingy? (I believe they actually called it an automatic rifle.)

That's the DP, Degtyaryev Pakhotnyi (ручной пулемет), with a 47-round drum (OK, so not technically a box). It's not a weapon I've seen much opinion on, but it certainly got the Red Army through the war. It did have a barrel change option but one of the more detailed pieces I've read on it says no spare barrel was actually carried, so kind of a moot point.

There's also the French Modele 1924-9, but that does not appear to have had a barrel change facility, and leant more towards the BAR than the Bren.

Gary

This article is good:

Dr Jim Storr: The Real Role of Small Arms in Combat

During infantry training the GPMG gunners were selected by seeing if they could fire one shot at a time. (Ex Falklands Para and RM instructors.)

Thanks!.

Armand

IIRC, the MG34 could be fired in single shot model.

B

Yes, the MG34 could fire single shots and be fired from the waist using the small drum magazine. I think that when moving the drum magazine was loaded to put the gun into operation more quickly.

I think these type weapons should be judged on their ability to use sustained suppressive fire for a long period.

It really depends on your needs, tactics and the enemy. The Marines use of the BAR in WWII in close assaults against defensive structures worked pretty well. The BAR's enabled the squad to advance and provide immediate cover fire. A platoon could have a tripod mounted M-1919 to cover them with sustained suppressive fire and 60mm mortars to provide suppression and screening. The BAR's could fire single shots and not give away an automatic weapons position. With 3x BAR's in a squad they can take turns shooting having the same or better effect as a Bren and three weapons rather than just one. The BAR is a WWI design and had it's limitations.

A squad has 3x BAR's, 9x M1's, rifle grenades, and WP grenades backed up by 60mm mortars and M1919's you have a very maneuverable and flexable squad for the attack and close combat.
The final assault of the combat engineers with flamethrowers and demo charges could be supplied with auto fire from the BAR's and many semi-auto M1 Garands.

I think the German squads could break down with a tripod MG34 supplying suppressive fire while the other section could advance.

Wolfhag

Yes, I believe you are correct Wolf …

Interesting article @Stoppage.

Particularly interesting is the suggestion that accuracy can be more important than rate of fire in an automatic weapon. This is the exact opposite of what I thought was the case.

MH

If you actually watch the video (shock, horror), he actually addresses the issue by defining the MGs 34 and 42 as "GPMGs," not LMGs, so they're not in the running. One of his criteria for LMG is magazine feed. And, compared to other magazine-fed MGs, one can make a reasonable argument that the Bren was the best of the lot.

And it soldiered on into the 1980s, at least for us rear-area types in R Signals, albeit masquerading as the 7.62 LMG…

Principles of Firepower, we even learned as ROTC Cadets:

To be effective firepower has to be :

Timely
Accurate
Proper Volume

hindsTMP,
There is a paper out there about suppression stating that the round needs to pass within 3 feet of the target to be effective in suppression. The closer it is the more effective. That's where accuracy comes in. Also, the more noise it make increases the chance of suppression (ducking away).

Wolfhag

It is worth noting that, during WW2, the US Army sought to reverse-engineer the MG42 for production purposes – minimum machining, extensive use of inexpensive stamped components, excellent ergonomics, only slightly heavier than a BAR, lighter and handier than the M1919, able to feed from magazine or be belt fed from either side; fast quick-change barrel arrangement.

Sadly ….. (yeah, sure, right) ….. some anonymous ordnance technician failed to take into account a miniscule difference in length between the original German cartridge and the 30-06. Repeated problems appeared in the testing process, cancellation of the project resulted and the US machine gun T24 slid into bureaucratic oblivion never to be seen again.

So far as I know, the world's greatest industrial super-power failed at re-working the MG42 design for own use when at least three or four small European nations succeeded in doing so. Tragic story.

link

B

I've probably linked to this previously, over on germandocsinrussia.com.

link

It's a list of various German Army weapons, from pistol to artillery pieces, along with their standard ammunition allocation. There's an estimated practical 'rounds per minute' for most weapons, and the average amount of firing time that can be obtained from the standard ammn load. There's also a estimate of the number of rounds required to supress an enemy target, which is then worked into the likely number of targets than can be engaged using the standard ammn load again.

The MG34 is shown with 2100 rounds ball, 300 AP and 100 AP tracer. Practical rate of fire is 225 rpm, which is worked to 10 minutes of firing time based on the fairly standard 2500 rpg. 150 rounds are shown as being required to engage a target, which equates to 13 or 14 targets per 2500 rounds. They seem to be basing the figures on the 2100 rounds of ball only, rather than the AP as well.

The Bren had a practical rate of fire of 120 rpm (or four magazines, so technically 112 rpm). With 25 mags in the Section that works out to around 6 mins firing time, with another 300 rounds for refilling circa 10 mags, so close to 9 minutes firing time, using the German calculation.

So even though the MG34 might be expected to fire twice as many rounds as the Bren in direct comparison, the length of time they could sustain firing for on a practical basis was not that much different.

Gary

Thanks!.

Armand

The M60 machine gun began development in the late 1940s as a program for a new, lighter 7.62 mm machine gun. It was partly derived from German guns of World War II (most notably the FG 42 and the MG 42), but it contained American innovations as well. Early prototypes, notably the T52 and T161 bore a close resemblance to both the M1941 Johnson machine gun and the FG 42. The final evaluation version was designated the T161E3. It was intended to replace the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle and M1919A6 Browning machine gun in the squad automatic weapon role, and in the medium machine gun role. One of the weapons tested against it during its procurement process was the FN MAG.

The U.S. Army officially adopted the T161E3 as the M60 in 1957. The decision to adopt the M60 instead of foreign designs, like modified versions of the proven German MG 42 or the still-unproven FN MAG, was largely due to strict Congressional restrictions requiring preference be given to the designs of United States arms manufacturers (even if a superior design was available from foreign sources) primarily out of desire to avoid paying licensing fees, but also out of a strong bias in favor of domestic products.

After watching this video I think the "Pig" is now the "Beast".
YouTube link

Wolfhag

Yeah we'd call the M60 the Pig or the Hog …

Irrespective of whatever disputes might arise between the relative design merits or type classifications of the MG42 versus the Bren, it says a very great deal IMO for both weapons that they continued in production, largely unchanged in design, for years and decades after WW2.

B

hindsTMP,
There is a paper out there about suppression stating that the round needs to pass within 3 feet of the target to be effective in suppression. The closer it is the more effective. That's where accuracy comes in. Also, the more noise it make increases the chance of suppression (ducking away).

Wolfhag

I know; that's the link posted by @Stoppage which I was commenting on: PDF link

It sounds plausible, but what does that imply for supposedly effective historical tactics, such as spraying the next hedgerow with tank and MG fire when fighting in Normandy in 1944? IIRC, they did this prior to detecting enemy positions, so presumably most / all of it was farther than 1 meter away. Maybe it was considered to be better than nothing, and later if something fired back, they could concentrate there?

MH

It sounds plausible, but what does that imply for supposedly effective historical tactics, such as spraying the next hedgerow with tank and MG fire when fighting in Normandy in 1944? IIRC, they did this prior to detecting enemy positions, so presumably most / all of it was farther than 1 meter away. Maybe it was considered to be better than nothing, and later if something fired back, they could concentrate there?

Yes, very common. I think what you are describing is Recon by Fire. It can be effective and is a morale booster for the attackers. It's one reason Sherman's overloaded their tanks with HE rounds and mounted extra MG's on the turret top.

There are many good papers on the suppressive effects of small arms fire. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be on the defines it in war gamer terms.

This is the one I referenced. It downloads a pdf:
link

Wolfhag

Is a belt-fed MG really a 'light' MG ?

Is a magazine-fed MG really a machine gun?

Is a magazine-fed MG really a machine gun?

I bet it sure feels like it when it's shooting at you!

I think from my old reading the limitation of the magazine was what marked it as a light machine gun compared to a belt fed weapon.

"Forgotten Weapons" (an excellent YouTube channel) has a very informative video on the MG42 (as opposed to the millions of full-auto machine gun porn videos out there). The 1500rpm cyclic was actually stipulated by the German Army as a design requirement. Superior suppression capability, high fire density, more effective traversing fire and ease of spotting fire location were all goals being sought after.

The MG42 was considered up to 3x superior to other MG's in these areas.

- – -

An interesting trivia item:
the 250 round capacity of the standard MG42 belt was equal to the maximum amount of ammunition that could be discharged in rapid fire before it was necessary to change the gun barrel.

B

I bet it sure feels like it when it's shooting at you!

Yes, an MG with a magazine is still an MG. E.g. M249 SAW has a, IIRC, 250 round box mag. The M249 is also considered a LMG …

The MG42 tripod also had a mechanism that would distribute the cone of fire:

A unique feature of the German World War II Feldlafette types that was not carried over to the MG3 Feldlafette was the Tiefenfeuerautomat ("in-depth automatic fire"). If selected, this feature walked the fire in wave like motions up and down the range between predefined ranges. This sweeping of a given range (Tiefenfeuer – "in-depth fire") continued as long as the gun was fired.

An MG42 short burst was defined as 20-30 rounds. That's not a fair comparison to a Bren Gun.

Wolfhag

I agree … with that … the MG42 if used properly could be and was deadly. As many of the Allies found out, the hard way. The learning curve was steep …

I have read accounts that the excessive ammunition consumption of the MG 42 and its propensity for the barrel to overheat were very disadvantageous.

There is a tendency among wargamers to always assume that German arms were better: to paraphrase Charlie Partana in 'Prizzi's Honour':

"If the German stuff was so f'n good, how come they so f'n lost?"

IIRC the MG 42 had a spare barrel that could be quickly changed if/when it overheated. Then changed out later, so in fact each MG 42 had two barrels. That was carried with the other MG kit, like Tripod, etc.

Our M60 MG when I was on Active Duty, '79-'90, had two barrels as well. That could be quickly changed out. Also an Asbestos mitten too.

Hi Monophagos,
I think such criticisms as you mention perhaps need to be curated on the basis of their source.

According to the "Forgotten Weapons" YTube video on the MG42, a 1500 rpm cyclic rate was actually specified as a design parameter by the German Army, which was apparently very interested in enhancing the gun's suppressive fire capability. And, as L4 points out in his above post, the MG42 was also provided with an extremely fast and efficient means of quick barrel exchange to deal with the barrel overheating associated with such a high cyclic rate of fire.

I think the final verdict regarding the MG42 design must rest in the fact that it still remains in service eighty years after its introduction to the battlefield. Precious few weapons can make such a claim.

FWIW.

B

The M60 MG took some features from the MG 42. The US Army and USMC, AFAIK no longer uses the M60 MG. IIRC it was replaced by M240B MG, manufactured by FN …

The M60 is still around: link

The M60E6 is an improvement on the M60E4 and the latest M60 variant. It won against the HK121 in the Danish Army's GPMG replacement program to replace the M/62 in March 2014. The weight has been reduced to 9.27 kg (20.4 lb), 2.23 kg (4.9 lb) lighter than the M/62. Its rate of fire of around 500–650 rounds per minute (RPM) is significantly less than the M/62's 1,200 RPM, but it allows for better control, greater accuracy, more conservation of ammunition, more versatile firing positions, and less risk of collateral damage from losing control while shooting. The M60E6 features a redesigned quick-change barrel assembly with an offset barrel handle, which is also used to carry the weapon and allows for the replacement of a hot barrel without using protective gloves. Changes to the rail system and bipod have been made, and a significant number of internal improvements have also increased reliability.

The Navy SEALs have continued to use and upgrade the M60E3, (which came out in the 1980's), because of its portability and low weight for its caliber. The MK43 Mod 0 is an improved model that was developed for the U.S. Navy SEALs in the 1990's to replace their existing stock of M60E3 machine guns fitted with shorter "assault barrels". It has extra rails for mounting accessories, and a quick-change barrel. The M60 machine gun is gradually being phased out (2003) in favor of the heavier M240 machine gun, which is more reliable.

In the later versions, if you are going to fight in a jungle or urban environment you can take off the butt plate, bipod, and sights to make it lighter and more compact. The SEALs like it because it is lighter and can be fired from the shoulder. A friend of mine was responsible for testing these for the SEALs.

Wolfhag

Did not know that, but IIRC the US ARMY does not use the M60 as I believed the same about the USMC. Replaced by the M240.

Wolfhag,
Re adoption of German design features for the M60, was they taken from the MG42 of the FG42? I thought it was the FG42, but might well be wrong.

B

Blutaarski,
It appears to be from the MG42 but there may be some features from the FG22 but I'm not sure.

MG42 diagram: link

The bolts used different locking systems. Under certain circumstances during the extraction phase, the bolt cam on the M60 could bend the cam feed mechanism and jam the feed cover closed. That happened to me once and I had to take it to the armory to get it repaired. The underside of the M60 receiver mechanisms are made from soft stamped metal and are subject to deforming and jamming. You also had to close the feed cover when the bolt was forward, not back or you could bend the mechanism. The improvements on the M60 were mainly the internals of the feed cover replacing stamped parts and nickel plating areas that would get the most wear making it more reliable.

The MG42 was mostly stamped but I'm not familiar with its malfunctions, it had a roller block cam system. The M60 has a rotating bolt like the M-16. I think these are the two biggest differences in the receiver of the M60 and MG34. I think the MG42 roller block system is one reason for the higher rate of fire as there is less movement of the bolt in feeding and extraction than the M60 rotating bolt.

The action of the MG42 was actually patterned after an industrial pile driver. The gun is recoil-operated (the M60 is gas-operated) via an ingenious roller-locking mechanism. The bolt incorporates a pair of roller bearings that cam into slots in the breech and lock the barrel and bolt together for the critical first few moments after firing. As the bolt/barrel assembly recoils, a cam releases the roller bearings and allows the bolt to travel rearward and cycle the action. Another interesting attribute of this novel design is it produces a truly phenomenal rate of fire.

As far as a squad support weapon I think the Bren is more than adequate, especially if you have assistant changing magazines. Ideally, an infantry squad should not get tied down to an extended firefight as historically they did not produce good results unless using fire & maneuver. If you need additional support or firepower a Vickers would in my opinion actually be better than an MG42 for sustained fire.

Wolfhag

Wolf +1

Part of the theory behind the mg42 high rof was related to fleeting targets.
Once your target is aware and hits the deck then your chances of hitting anyone go way down.
Or as the enemy dash between cover.

Lots of bullets in the air gives you more chances of a hit for that moment in time.

"An MG42 short burst was defined as 20-30 rounds. That's not a fair comparison to a Bren Gun."

Defined where? I was trained on the bipod MG3 and if you squeezed off more than 3-5 in a burst you got a talking to. My understanding is that this was the same 45 years earlier.

All the best

Andreas