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

AndreasB,
Ok, so that's me you are calling out.

The MG42 firing at 1200 rpm is 20 rounds per second (could it be tuned down to less than 1200 rpm?). A 1-2 second burst is 20-40 rounds. That's basic math. If you were trained to fire 3-5 round burst I'm not going to argue and agree the best tactic in most sustained fire situations. However, in a Human Wave attack what would the MG42 gunner do?

In the discussion, we were comparing the Bren and MG42 which I still think is an unequal but interesting comparision.

I've only fired an M60 at about 550 rpm. Personally, I agree that with a bipod a 3-5 round burst is most effective because you can only effectively engage one target per burst using a bipod or or even tripod (I'm modeling that in my game). Maybe someone really experienced gunner could engage more than one target, not me. I was never formally trained on the M60 so I'll defer to your MG3 formal training as it's more pertinent.

The MG42 with a tripod does have an advantage because it can automatically adjust the area of impact at longer ranges. However, at those longer ranges, a Bren would not be used to support a squad performing fire & maneuver. As a squad support weapon, the Bren suffices.

Would crews always adhere to the manual in combat and in dire situations? I don't think so. Should players be forced to comply with stated training standards? I don't think so as there is always a Risk-Reward Decision involved that should be left to the player depending on the tactical situation. In terms of game rules, what should it be?

Much depends on controlling a burst if the gun is firing on a bipod or tripod and unfortunately I'm not sure if the 20-40 rounds were which one, most likely on a tripod.

link

From the above:
The Germans are instructed to fire bursts of from 5 to 7 rounds when they employ the MG 42 as a light machine gun, since an operator cannot hold his gun on the target for a longer period.

That sounds like your training. The gun must be re-aimed after each burst. To enable the bursts to fall in as rapid a succession as possible, the Germans try to cut the aiming time to a minimum.

Under battle conditions, the MG42 can fire about 22 bursts per minute—that is, about 154 rounds. Under the same conditions, the MG 34 is capable only of about 15 bursts per minute, at a rate of 7 to 10 rounds per burst, totalling about 150 rounds (I think the M1919 and M1917 are about the same). Thus the MG42, used as a light machine gun, requires a slightly higher ammunition expenditure. Although the Germans believe that when the weapon is properly employed, the compactness and density of its fire pattern justify the higher expenditure, recent German Army orders have increasingly stressed the need of withholding machine-gun fire until the best possible effect is assured. Although the German defensive trick of "lying in wait" has been adopted partly to gain the tactical advantage of surprise, it also fits in with recent German efforts to conserve, not only ammunition but all other matériel manufactured by the hard-pressed industries of the Reich and the occupied countries.

Just as always, it depends on the tactical situation, deployment, training, and "Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions" of the crews.

My comparison was in relation to stated ideal cyclic rates. Personally (and if I have to amend my statement) the Bren and MG42 appear to almost equal if both are on a bipod adhering to stated cyclic rates of 3-7 rounds per second burst and about 150 rounds per minute. The MG42 has an advantage of a more stable firing tripod platform and telescopic sight enabling more effective long-range firing.
The Bren better on the attack displacing and firing from the waist.

The Bren and MG42 may be equal in regards to sustained firing (3-7 rounds per minute) considering barrel and magazine changes but I have no personal experience. I'd be interested in what you think as your experience is greater than mine?

Wolfhag

I recall reading (please don't ask me where – I don't remember) that the Germans specifically designated the high RoFs of the MG34/MG42 GPMGs as a design parameter for the purpose of delivering enhanced suppressive fire effect. The MG34 was considered to be 3x better than the MG08/15 and 2x better than the MG08 in that respect.

FWIW.

B

I think it's important to not consider the Mg34/42 on tripod, a battalion-level support weapon as the same weapon as the MG34/42 on bipod, a section-level weapon. They served fundamentally different roles, and I would expect training of gun teams to be fundamentally different too. It's like comparing the Vickers and the Bren.

The advantage of the MG42 is that it could put, on a single doctrinal burst, put 3-5 rounds into a location where the Bren struggles to put 1.5-3 rounds. So the likelyhood of actually hitting your target is substantially increased. This comes with disadvantages, of course.

As always the question is about the trade offs and whether they are worth it. The post-WW2 move to fully automatic weapons in the hand of every soldier combined with belt-fed section MGs indicates in my view that, other than nostalgia on the British side and the ability to play silent night on it (however useful that actually is in a pitched firefight), the Bren approach had little to recommend itself. The ability to generate firepower rules.

I say that as a long-time sceptic of the MG42, but have finally come around to that view. If I ever would have the misfortune to end up in a firefight, I'm going to be on team fully-auto, and not team Lee-Enfield rifle/Bren.

All the best

Andreas

fired an M60 at about 550 rpm. Personally, I agree that with a bipod a 3-5 round burst is most effective because you can only effectively engage one target per burst using a bipod or or even tripod (I'm modeling that in my game). Maybe someone really experienced gunner could engage more than one target, not me.

We were generally taught 6-9 rd bursts and everyone in the Fire Tm, Sqd, Plt, & Co. were cross trained in all weapons in our TO&Es. We rarely used the Tripod, usually only the collapseable bipod, which is part of the M60's design.

In a Deliberate Defense, we may us the Tripod for the M60. And in a Mech Co., even dismount and dig in the M2 .50 Cal from the Track/M113.

The thing about faster rate of fire is that, if you hit you may hit with more bullets but if you aren't aimed at the target all you do is miss with more bullets. The first round was the critical one if you are looking for hard kills. Tripod-mounted weapons were useful for suppressing the enemy and channeling an attack, LMG's were equally useful at suppression, not so great at channeling. And the range they were accurate was curtailed. (at least that's my take on it)

Agreed … plus higher ROF requires more ammo on hand. Which may be telling if there is a resupply problem, etc. And in many cases MGs, SAWs, etc., are used for suppression.

Another unintended result of the MG42's high ROF was to discourage German riflemen from participating in firefights. This tendency was noted by the British in NW Europe. The attitude of the German riflemen was that they were ammunition mules for the MG, and their rifles were for close-in defense of same. It was also noted that once the MG broke or ran out of ammo, the rest of the squad would tend to pack it in.

Mserafin,
Yes, I've heard the same thing, it makes sense too.

The MG42 is unique in many ways, especially its use of a tripod, telescopic sight, a firing handle that allows the shooter to be almost hidden from view, AA fire, and this:

Another unique feature of German World War II machine guns was the Tiefenfeuerautomat feature on the Lafette 42 tripod. If selected, this feature mechanically controlled the rise and fall of the gun, elevating the gun for five rounds and then depressing it for four rounds. It lengthened the beaten zone by walking the fire in wave-like motions up and down the range in a predefined area. The length of the beaten zone could be set on the Tiefenfeuerautomat. E.g., being unsure whether the real distance was 2,000 or 2,300 m (2,187 or 2,515 yd), the gunner could make the mount do an automatic sweep between the elevations for 1,900 to 2,400 m (2,078 to 2,625 yd) and back. This sweeping of a selected beaten zone continued as long as the gun fired.

I think all of us were trained to fire 3-7 round bursts as AndreasB stated. I know we were too.

The German military instructed that sustained fire must be avoided at all costs. They ruled that the results of sustained fire were disappointing and that the expenditure of ammunition involved was "intolerable." In the bipod-mounted light machine gun role, MG 42 users were trained to fire short bursts of 3 to 7 rounds and strive to optimize their aim between bursts fired in succession. For its medium machine gun role, the MG 42 was matched to the newly-developed Lafette 42 tripod. In the tripod-mounted medium machine gun role, MG 42 users were trained to fire short bursts and bursts of 20 to 50 rounds and strive to optimize their aim between bursts fired in succession. As a consequence of factors like the time spent reloading, aiming, changing hot barrels if necessary to allow for cooling, the MG 42's practical effective rate of fire was 154 rounds per minute, versus 150 rounds per minute for the MG 34.

I wonder how they defined "sustained firing".

There's a big difference between bipod and tripod firing which can lead to confusion. Using the Tiefenfeuerautomat feature a 2-second burst would not necessarily be a waste of ammo for interdiction fire.

The US BAR is much maligned when compared to other squad automatics for reasons we already know. However, look at how tactically flexible it was for a 13-man Marine Squad with 3x4 man teams and a SL. Each four-man team with an 3x M1 and 1x BAR and maybe a 1x grenade launcher for the squad. The BAR can fire single shots to conserve ammo.

First, you have three maneuver elements, each with an automatic weapon and 3x semi-automatic rifles. Losing 4-5 men still gives you two elements and 3x BAR's. Their missions are normally short-range assaults using combined arms and F&M to assault normally with a Combat Engineer attachment (demo charge and flamethrower). For sustained fire, you attach a tripod-mounted M1919. At night in the defense, you bring up the M1919 browning water-cooled guns that can fire all night and 60mm mortars for FPF. Later in the war, each platoon had a demo expert to make C4 charges for the other squads. WP grenades were a force multiplier too.

That gives a lot of small-unit tactical options that the Germans did not have. One trick they did use was to have a mortar sighted in on chokepoints the enemy would move through. The MG42 opens up and pins the unit and the mortar takes over.

Wolfhag

Interesting DTIC document on US Army evaluation of foreign infantry weapons, "US Army Special Forces Handbook on Foreign Weapons".

Go here – PDF link

One can trace the line of development of light machine guns from the WW2 period through to the postwar NATO/Warsaw Pact years – from a WW2 practical rate of fire of 120-200 rpm in WW2 to 350-450 rpm in the postwar period. US testing credited the MG42 with a practical rate of fire of 450 rpm.

This says something, IMO, about the evolving view of the "end-user" community as to what was seen as important/desirable in a light machine gun.

FWIW.

B

Good posts guys …

Wolf says with the M60 he was taught 3-5 rd. bursts, while I remember being trained 6-9 rd. bursts … 🤔 I'll freely admit I may just be getting old and forgetful.

Or I/we just liked firing on full auto … I am willing to say that too …
😎
Where is my 'n M60 MG FM ?!?!? 🤩

Don't worry about it Legion, you know those Marines have a hard time counting to 10.

Wolfhag

LOL ! 😆😁🤩

Well I don't doubt you were taught 3-5 rds., Wolf ! I doubted if I properly remembered what I was taught … 🗿 waaaay back when🦖🦕 …

However, I did find a very dusty with a few spider webs covering my old SOLDIER'S MANUAL OF COMMON TASKS – SKILL LEVEL 1 ; OCT 1990

Pg. 267:
Fire six to nine-round bursts until you hit the center of mass of the target area.

So I may be slipping 😳 … but I still remember some stuff from the "days of Yor" ! 🤯🧟‍♂️💀

Fire six to nine-round bursts until you hit the center of mass of the target area.

That sounds like ranging shots. How many rounds in a burst after on target? I'd say "it depends" as there are so many variables.

Wolfhag

Oh I agree … That FM generally says 6 rd. bursts. But as always it is situational, etc. I just wanted to see if I was remember those figures correctly …

I won't quote the entire page, just the important points. So it also says:

Engage three types of battlefield targets: area, point and moving.

To engage an area target : Fire six to nine-round bursts until you hit the center of mass of the target area.

To engage a point target: Fire six to nine-round bursts to obtain accurate range and deflection.

Etc., etc., etc., etc.

Again this was more for me to see if I remembered being taught 6-9 rds correctly … not questioning any other comments. The Army & Marines don't always do things the same way as we know.

I found that out when with the 101. When we crossed-trained at Little Creek, NAB in '82. Attending Basic Amph Training there. Similar but some tactics, etc., varied …

Legion,
I think using a machine gun has a much different application of firepower tactics of which I didn't train on but you and AndreasB probably did. That aspect is hardly covered in games.

The rates of fire that can be used with the machine gun are sustained, rapid, and cyclic. These rates enable leaders to control and sustain fire and prevent the destruction of barrels. More than anything else, the size of the target and ammunition supply dictate the selection of the rate of fire.

(1) Sustained Fire. Sustained fire for the M249 is 85 rounds per minute in bursts of 3 to 5 rounds. The M60 and M240B are 100 rounds per minute in bursts of 6 to 9 rounds. The gunner pauses 4 to 5 seconds between bursts. The barrel should be changed after firing at the sustained rate for 10 minutes. This is the normal rate of fire for the gunner.

(2) Rapid Fire. Rapid fire for the M249, M60, and M240B gunner is 200 rounds per minute in bursts of (6 to 8 M249) 10 to 12 rounds. The gunner pauses 2 to 3 seconds between bursts. The barrel should be changed after firing at a rapid rate for 2 minutes. This procedure provides for an exceptionally high volume of fire, but for only a short period.

(3) Cyclic Fire. Cyclic fire uses the most ammunition that can be used in 1 minute. The cyclic rate of fire with the machine gun is achieved when the trigger is held to the rear and ammunition is fed into the weapon uninterrupted for one minute. Normal cyclic rate of fire for the M249 is 850 rounds, M60 is 550 rounds, and for the M240B it is 650 to 950 rounds. Always change the barrel after firing at cyclic rate for 1 minute. This procedure provides the highest volume of fire that the machine gun can fire, but this adversely affects the machine gun, and should only be fired in combat under emergency purposes only.

Cyclic rate could probably only effectively be achieved with a tripod. This is what you'd use for FPF.

Historically, I think more rounds were fired from machine guns in WWII for suppression and area fire than aiming at an exposed individual target. I think that would give the Bren a slight advantage because you don't need the higher ROF but the MG42 may have a demoralizing effect too, especially if the guy next to you got hit by 6 rounds at once.

Something else not considered for German MG's is the use of flashless and smokeless powder that made the guns much harder to detect over 200m. Another German trick (from an intel report) was to have one MG fire tracer just over the head of the defenders. When they feel safe and start exposing themselves to fire back another MG without tracers targets them.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag wrote -
" Another German trick (from an intel report) was to have one MG fire tracer just over the head of the defenders. When they feel safe and start exposing themselves to fire back another MG without tracers targets them."

True, and it goes back to WW1 with the Germans. HMGs (Maxim 08s) were typically deployed in two gun sections positioned to deliver flanking/enfilade fire at 800-1000 meters. Although the pairing of guns was intended to ensure continuity of fire in the event of one gun suffering a breakdown or stoppage, it was not unknown for both guns to engage simultaneously, with one gun intentionally firing high with tracer in the belt, while the second gun fired with no tracer at the correct elevation.

I have a couple of translated WW1 German MG manuals in my library. They were very scientific in their approach to MG gunnery, to the point of seeking target ground whose slope approximated the ballistic drop of the MG fire in order to maximize the beaten zone.

FWIW.

B

Modern tactics emphasise suppression of areas rather more than ww2 practice. But firing on "lines" and areas was common for tripod mg.
Most mg42 and almost all bren would be bipod and more usually shooting at specific areas or movement. Or specific people. There's a rather morbid analysis of wound placement and hits of casualties. Iiirc this was western allies as a whole. But there were quite a few kia with 2 or 3 rounds in the body. I interoreted that as 3to 5 round bursts from an mg34 or 42 at a specific man.

The germans certainly seemed to have respected effect of the bren. One officer described what he saw as a common pattern. Jerry woukd fire several mg42 and the british side woukd be still. Then several brens would open up and the mg42 would go quiet. And so on.

There's another officer described mg42 fire. He said you'd keep on thinking they'd run out of ammo and stop shooting. That never happened though. Not in his experience.

On the scouts thread i posted a quote. This was about the non use of able, baker, charley teams in us ww2 squads.

Here it is again.

Additionally, based on their World War II experience, the participants at the Infantry Conference believed the smallest unit capable of organic fire and maneuver was the platoon. Proponents of the new squad—who were in the majority in Committee B—argued that during World War II "the rifle squad almost never employed tactical maneuvers in the attack, i.e. the Able, Baker, and Charley elements of scouts, base of fire, and maneuver."14 In his lecture on infantry organization, Connor stated that "wars are won by platoons" and added that "in combat, fire and movement is a platoon job."15 Subsequently, conference participants saw the squad as capable of fire and maneuver only at the platoon level—either establishing a base of fire to support the maneuver of other squads within the platoon, or maneuvering as a single unit while another squad provided supporting fire. Many of the conference participants, especially those in Committee B, did not believe that the squad was capable of fire and maneuver at the squad level (one fire team supporting the maneuver of the other fire team with fires). Thus, they reasoned it was unnecessary to keep the twelve-man infantry rifle squad for its greater capacity for fire and maneuver.

"nother unintended result of the MG42's high ROF was to discourage German riflemen from participating in firefights. This tendency was noted by the British in NW Europe. The attitude of the German riflemen was that they were ammunition mules for the MG, and their rifles were for close-in defense of same. It was also noted that once the MG broke or ran out of ammo, the rest of the squad would tend to pack it in."

The tendency was noted by who? The only evidence I can think of is Jary, and that needs to be taken with a grain of salt as he was extrapolating from his experience.

That the squad packs it in after its main weapon is gone shouldn't be a surprise. How many British squads kept at it when the Bren went u/s? This is getting into far more complex territory, you are now talking also about the availability of fire support and communications etc.

All the best

Andreas

Thanks Blutarski,
My German grandfather was a Captain of a Machine Gun Company for the US 79th Div at the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. He had 12x tripod-mounted M1917's and described the various ways of setting them up and even using them for indirect and interdiction fire behind the German trenches. Each gun would take turns firing at different time intervals. He was able to keep a water well behind German lines under fire day and night. A POW said they lost many guys attempting to get to the well.

Wolfhag

Hi Wolfhag,
Your grandfather was pretty much on the cutting edge of machine gun tactics if he was conducting precision indirect interdiction fires. From what I have read of the development of machine gun tactics by the Entente in WW1, MGs ultimately progressed well beyond their traditional role as infantry support weapons, with specially organized MG units adopting many of the aspects of artillery – massed indirect fires, area suppression and denial, walking barrages, interdiction of chokepoints, etc.

Have any WW1 wargames covered this?

B

Andreas,
My reading suggests that the riflemen of a German infantry squad, when in defense, had two principal functions:

> ammunition bearers for the squad's GPMG;

> defenders of the GPMG's position if attacked.

Nicht wahr?

B

Blutarski,
The M1917 had a rear sight out to 2800 yards. My grandfather (Otto) was an engineer so could figure out the math. Also, John Browning's son Val showed his unit all of the features of the gun in France. Browning also brought some BAR's with him and my grandfather brought one back to the states. My mom said on the 4th of July he'd fire a full magazine into the ground in the backyard. My cousin now has it. Yes, it's functional.

I'm pretty sure the British used Vickers for indirect fire in WWI. They had 7 of them fire 1,000,000 rounds in 12 hours.

As a side note, my grandfather had six of his German cousins killed early in the war fighting against the French, and two of his uncles were bodyguards for the Kaiser. When his unit went to war they had a parade down his street (Sharon Hill, PA) and his grandmother (born and raised in Germany) hung a German flag out the window as he passed by. Her cousin fought on the German side in WWI and WWII and was killed outside Saarbrucken near the end of the war. I have a cousin in the German Navy. I guess I come from a pretty dysfunctional family.

This is my ancestral home town: sanktingbert.de

Wolfhag

Andy,
Thanks for the Committee B info about WWII tactical maneuver, I was not aware of it. Also, I'm not that familiar with US Army TO&E either.

"the rifle squad almost never employed tactical maneuvers in the attack, wars are won by platoons. In combat, fire and movement is a platoon job.

Evidently that was their experience. I can tell you that in the early 1970's we (Marines) were mostly conducting squad F&M. When my son was training in 2012 they were still doing small unit and even two-man "buddy rushes". The Marine Platoon TO&E has pretty much remained the same since 1943 but now it appears they will be changing it.

IIRC the level of F&M depended on the terrain and range to the objective whether it was squads or fire teams. I'd agree that wars are won by "platoons", the tactics could differ.

My opinion: It would depend on the objective and terrain, supporting assets available, and what tactics the local leaders used and their experience.

Wolfhag

Again from that same link.

"based on their World War II experience, the participants at the Infantry Conference believed the smallest unit capable of organic fire and maneuver was the platoon."

"Though considered immaterial at the 1946 Conference, squad-level fire and maneuver is an integral part of infantry maneuver today"

Has anyone seen that document referenced in Andy's post above, "Report of Committee "B" on Tactics and Technique"? There are a few items of that nature on CARL from a 1946 conference but I couldn't see anything on Committee B.

Gary

Hi Wolfhag,
My dad's father served in the Greek Army on the Bulgarian front. He grew up an orphan in a small village (Petra) on the island of Lesbos – lesvos.com/petra.html. I have a formal photo of his company with their French Chauchat LMGs laid out in front of the men.

After WW1, his regiment was sent to invade Turkey (Greco-Turkish War 1919-1922. He met and married my grandmother, deserted the army and opened a boot-maker's shop in Smyrna (now Izmir, Turkey), which had at the time the largest Greek-Hellenic population in the world (50pct greater than Number 2 Athens!). Thanks to friendships he had developed with some French naval officer customers, he and his wife escaped from Smyrna (evacuated by the French navy) a day or two before the Turkish army overran the city, burned the Greek Quarter to the ground and murdered about 150,000 ethnic Greeks. Note – Asia Minor (i.e. western Turkey) had a huge ethnic Greek population dating back to classical times.

Several years after he passed away, I had occasion to go up to the attic of his home, where I found his WW1 military sergeant's uniform still hanging up in a closet complete with cap and Sam Brown belt ….. an interesting thing to ponder: why did he keep it for 60+ years?

B

Legion,
I think using a machine gun has a much different application of firepower tactics of which I didn't train on but you and AndreasB probably did. That aspect is hardly covered in games.

Yes you are probably correct. And the FM I was quoting from has similar drawings to the one you posted there, Figure 5-6.

specially those in Committee B, did not believe that the squad was capable of fire and maneuver at the squad level (one fire team supporting the maneuver of the other fire team with fires).

We were taught fire & maneuver within the Sqd, i.e. "one fire team supporting the maneuver of the other fire team with fires". But that was in late '70s after Vietnam.

squad-level fire and maneuver is an integral part of infantry maneuver today

Yes again by the Fire Tms within the Sqd.

Our Squads were two Fire Tms armed by the mid'80s as this:

SL M16

1st Fire Tm :

1 M60 MG
1 M203 GL
1 M249 SAW
2 M16s

2d Fire Tm :

1 M47 MAW
1 M203 GL
1 M249 SAW
2 M16s

This organization shows it was designed for "(one fire team supporting the maneuver of the other fire team with fires)" …

It would depend on the objective and terrain, supporting assets available, and what tactics the local leaders used and their experience.

Terrain & situation has to always be taken into consideration, etc. Well trained & experienced Cos., Plts, Sqds, Fire Tms, and the individual soldier under good leadership makes the difference between obtaining your OBJ or not, etc.

Blutarski,
Damn! You need to write a screenplay about him. How did he get to the US? I'm intrigued.

One good friend of mine had a similar story about how his mother made it out of a German Stuka factory in Yugoslavia to the US. I love hearing stories like this.

I had a neighbor that fought with the Greek resistance in the mountains against the Nazis. Looking back there were so many of my parent's friends and people in the neighborhood that served. One friend of my dad was a Marine Corsair pilot. I remember him telling my dad that this guy "Pappy Boyington" was a real ass----. I found out later who Pappy was. I had an Ace Mustang pilot on my paper route and a Brit Lancaster pilot that lived across the street from me. We used to run around the neighborhood and play "army" with real Japanese, US, and Russian bolt action rifles (war souvenirs), minus the ammo of course. No one called the cops.

Thanks for letting me reminess.

Wolfhag

It usually took more Allies to take out a German position. Easy to figure out why! ;)

Downside of it was that a LMG can only fire in a certain arc. Which is why the ideal German squad had two of them. Four guys manning those two guns, two more riflemen. One squad leader …

In contrast the GIs had 9-12 men in a squad … usually one .30 caliber MG. A BAR man. 6-8 riflemen. Squad leader with tommy gun. It always varied of course.

ROF was king in combat but when the ammo ran out … lug lug lug … that German squad configuration became 5-6 riflemen with 1 guy with an SMG.

Squad Leader game highlighted the differences well I always thought.

Yes, I thought Squad Leader was pretty well done. With a good level of "accuracy" over all.

Do any WW2 rules use "bursts" of MG fire as a mechanism, with the number or effectiveness varying from one weapon to another? I haven't come across a set that does, but it is how the naval PC game Harpoon handled guns alongside missiles on aircraft. Your Harrier (or whatever) had 2 missiles plus 3 bursts.

4th Cuirassier,
The infantry rules I'm working on the player can choose to use sustained, rapid or cyclic rate of fire but with some limitations and depending on the MG type and bipod/tripod.

Generally, rapid-fire is used to obtain firepower superiority or at moving targets. Sustained fire is used to keep the enemy suppressed or firing at longer ranges. Cyclic would be for FPF from a tripod or against a massed infantry attack.

I'm sure there are some other rules that use the same idea.

Wolfhag

Your History Book Lies: Your World War II Ideas Are

… Likely Wrong

"Here's What You Need to Remember: Rather than the David-vs-Goliath fight as commonly depicted, the war was far more even, thanks to Great Britains' sheer maritime power.

The Second World War remains an enduringly fascinating subject, but despite the large number of films, documentaries, books, and even comics on the subject, our understanding of this catastrophic conflict, even seven decades on, remains heavily dependent on conventional wisdom, propaganda and an interpretation skewed by the information available. In my new book The War in the West: Germany Ascendant 1939-1941, first in a three-volume history, I am challenging a number of long-held assumptions about the war, many of which are based on truth by common knowledge, rather than through detailed and painstaking research. My Damascene moment came some years ago when I was being given a tour of the Small Arms Unit at the British Staff College at Shrivenham. I was glancing at a German MG42, known as a "Spandau" by the Allies. "Of course, that was the best machine gun of the war,' I commented, relaying what I'd read in many books.

"Says who? Says who?" retorted my guide and head of the unit, John Starling. In the next few minutes, he proceeded to deconstruct everything I thought I knew about this infamous weapon: that its phenomenal rate of fire caused massive problems of over-heating, that it was widely inaccurate (for which having since fired one, I can now vouch), that is was incredibly expensive to manufacture, massively over-engineered and lacked certain simple additions that would have made its handling so much easier. The men supporting this weapon not only had to carry vast amounts of ammunition to feed this thirsty beast, they also had to lumber around six spare barrels because of its readiness to over-heat. And each barrel bore multiple inspection stamps. "Which were," John told me, "an utter waste of time in the middle of total war."…"
Main page
link

Armand

"History is written by the victors."

Tango

Can we now assume that this posting beat the "Four Hour Rule"? It generated discussion (and how), it will not disappear into Limbo (only those of an RC faith will have any idea what that means and even we will not believe one word of it) and is one of your more valued contributions.

Congratulations.

The Bren gun could be fired by a skinny 17 year old with hair not then yet shoulder length. Whose Rifles Green beret badge had been replaced by a brass star (that got me into trouble at college). But I found it was dead accurate and beat a Mk4 Lee Enfield any day (No bloody bolt to work). An MG42 could put out X million rounds to turn any single enemy to pate and then needed a new barrel and some ammo also. A Bren fired three rounds and he dropped, then the next guy fell and then etc etc…..

Repeating some posts from a previous discussion here:
TMP link

"Crews would often fire off a belt of 100 rounds in one screaming burst. This produced tremendously effective suppressive fire, but its weapon-push effect could be felt way beyond fall of shot.

Sydney Jary, a platoon commander we will meet again later, recalled how fire from an MG42 'would rip the air with the most terrible screech. Even those outside the beaten zone would go to ground whenever they heard it. We estimated one MG42 to be worth nine Brens or three Vickers.'"

Brains & Bullets: How Psychology Wins Wars by Leo Murray, page 173.

"The barrel would typically require changing after every 250 rounds of rapid fire, but a single barrel could take up to 400 rounds of firing in an emergency before a serious danger of malfunction arose."

MG34 and MG42 Machine Guns by Chris McNab, page 42.

Germany, by 1938, had come into possession of the BRNO firm that played the major role in the design ultimately adopted as the Bren gun.

Therefore, German weapons technologists of the day must either have been prodigiously stupid in failing to grasp the manifest advantages of the Bren gun

….. or …..

they chose to emphasize different but also perfectly valid features in their standard infantry GPMG.

Considering that the MG42 and its descendants have long outlived the Bren in terms of active service, I'm guessing that the second case is probably correct.

FWIW.

B

Even those outside the beaten zone would go to ground whenever they heard it.

That could also be true because the smokeless/flashless powder makes it hard to locate where the fire is coming from.

The squad automatic weapons are going to be selected on what determines the platoon's functions and tactics. There must be a reason not everyone is using the M3 today.

How many single targets could an MG42 engage per burst? More then one?

Wolfhag

Targets per burst would depend on situation.
A group or line of targets walking about would he a tempting target for a long burst.

Several body wounds was a fairly common pattern in allied wounds though. That and an interview with a german mg42 gunner led me to the conclusion a fair bit of fire would be a burst at an individual.

@ Wolfhag

My reading about MG fire suggests three things. One is that by WW2 the number of rounds required to make troops in the open hit the dirt was one. The second is that the 50-calibre was every bit as impressive to the Germans as the MG42 was to the Allies. The third is that stopping to replace box magazines made your MG a lot less effective whether it's a Brent, a Nambu or a Breda.

So I'm interested in how people's rules reflect this…

My good deadhead… pure lucky chance… (smile)

Mostly of them disappear almost immediately and go to the "Phantom Zone"…(smile)

Armand

4th Cuirassier,

My reading about MG fire suggests three things. One is that by WW2 the number of rounds required to make troops in the open hit the dirt was one. The second is that the 50-calibre was every bit as impressive to the Germans as the MG42 was to the Allies. The third is that stopping to replace box magazines made your MG a lot less effective whether it's a Brent, a Nambu or a Breda.

I totally agree. The .50cal would be even more demoralizing as it would negate most of the cover you'd be hiding behind. In fact, it may not even be one round as just the sound may force the unit to hesitate, hit the dirt or drop to a knee.

As Andy O'Neil stated: the smallest unit capable of organic fire and maneuver was the platoon.

Blutarski stated: Even those outside the beaten zone would go to the ground whenever they heard it (MG42).

So if one squad took fire and hit the deck what would be the chances that the rest of the platoon, seeing them do so and hearing the sound do likewise? There are accounts of a single sniper holding up an entire Company. Why?

A study was done by "experts" that concluded that it takes one round every 3 seconds coming within one yard of an individual to keep his head down AFTER hitting the dirt and seeking cover.

I'd expect that a single burst of 5-7 rounds would only be able to target a single individual unless using flanking fire. That would be more than enough to get him to flinch, duck, move to a new position, etc. What would the effect be on the guy to each side who is not targeted?

An MG42 could rip off a 10-second burst engaging multiple teams and probably force all of them to hit the deck. Could a Bren do the same and have the same effect?

It's really hard to quantify all of this and take into account the human factors, leadership, and motivation. How easy would it be to suppress the MG or Bren team? The idea of sustained fire is to put out just enough rounds to keep return fire to a minimum, anything over that is wasteful. In that respect, they both may be fairly equal.

Generally, when a firefight starts it's the initial volume of fire that will decide who is going to have the upper hand and to what degree they are seeking cover and returning fire. An MG42 would have a clear advantage in that respect. After that, with both sides engaged they are normally firing at a sustained rate of fire. According to the manuals that's 100-150 rounds per minute in short bursts targeting single spots or individuals. The Bren may have an accuracy advantage but the MG42 a psychological advantage in addition to being harder to spot if over 200 yards away. At 100 rounds per minute who would have the endurance advantage?

I already had a discussion on Immediate Action Drill or Battle Drill that I've been working on:
TMP link

Wolfhag

A point to consider with regard to the Bren was that its heyday did not end with Korea (where doubtless the RoF of an MG42 might have been welcome on the Hook) but continued to serve in Malaya where there had been a state of Emergency since 1948 which lasted until 1960. The merits of the accurate, magazine-fed LMG in the hands of young National servicemen on jungle patrol with a fraction of the logistical support available in Vietnam a decade later would have been apparent.

It is perhaps not entirely coincidental that the FN (MAG)GPMG was introduced shortly after the end of the Emergency was declared and as National Service came to an end.