So many times you hear: this weapon was better than that weapon because blah, blah, blah and start quoting overall performance factors and firepower without looking at the big picture.
Historical things like:
Why didn't the Germans and Allies just build T-34s?
Why didn't the British just buy M1 Garands?
Why did the Germans not build jets earlier in the war?
Etc.
"Why were these countries so stupid?" says the novice war gamer.
Hey, I was guilty of that in the past. However, in my old age I've become wiser and look at the overall picture and why.
As an American, Marine and my family owning the BAR my Grandpa used, I tend to get my temperature up when comparisons are made about the BAR, which while not a perfect weapon in every way, was not replaced by the US until the late 1950s and serving with other militaries until the late 1960s. As with the Bren Gun.
So I did a deep dive into a comparison between the Bren Gun (excellent weapon) and the BAR almost universally deemed inferior to the Bren because of firepower.
So I took a deep dive into all of the cost, logistical, realistic firepower, TO&E, and tactical factors and included many of the sources. Enjoy:
1. Cost of equipping American vs British squads (production/manufacture cost)
We have some data on unit-costs of small arms during WWII, though it's patchy and inconsistent. One summary list gives approximate wartime unit cost as: Forces News+2warhistoryonline+2
• The Bren gun (British light machine gun) — about US $180 USD (1941, for the gun). warhistoryonline
• The M1 Garand rifle — ~US $83 USD in 1942. warhistoryonline+1
• The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR, M1918A2) — listed as US $319 USD (1945) in one source. warhistoryonline
For British bolt-action rifles (e.g. Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk I), a contemporary cost figure is ~ £17.00 GBP 15s per rifle. Forces News+1
Historical currency conversion is tricky — but using the Bren cost in dollars (~$180) gives a rough baseline.
Hypothetical squad-equipment cost (guns only):
• British squad (assuming 1 Bren + 9 bolt-action rifles):
o Bren: ~$180
o 9 × Lee-Enfield: there is no direct dollar-cost but if you equate roughly to rifles at the same era, perhaps similar to Springfield-class rifles; but using the data above, even if we approximate each at, say, $30 USD–40 (note: this is speculative), the total cost might be on the order of $180 USD + 9 × ≈$35 = ~$500–$550.
• American squad (assuming 3 BARs + 9 M1 Garands):
o 3 × BAR: 3 × $319 USD = ~$957
o 9 × Garand: 9 × $83 USD = ~$747
o Total: ≈ $1,700 USD
o For sustained fire the Americans had a Weapons Company that normally has 2 or more belt fed M1919 machine guns mounted on a tripod that could be attached to a platoon with a sustained fire rate of 400-600 rounds per minute and barrel changes. These guns could advance with the rest of the platoon, tripod mounted water cooled machine gun could not. The Marines also had in their TO&E M1918 water cooled machine gun that were set up in defensive positions.
o Conclusion (with caveats): According to these rough figures, it cost substantially more to equip a US squad (with semiautos + BARs) than a British squad built around a single Bren + bolt-action rifles — perhaps 3× as much. However, these are very rough estimates, based on partial data; they exclude ammunition, spare parts, barrels, magazines, and all support equipment (web gear, optics, etc.), which could change the balance. Also wartime procurement contracts, economies of scale, lend-lease issues etc. complicate simple comparisons.
________________________________________
2. How many men did the Bren-gun crew normally have? — Two? Three?
The standard wartime doctrine for the Bren was that it was operated by a two-man crew: a "Number 1" (gunner) who carried and fired the weapon, and a "Number 2" (loader/assistant) who carried extra magazines, spare barrel, and toolkit, reloaded the gun, replaced overheated barrels, and spotted targets. Toys for Boys+2Owen Guns+2
Some sources note that in practice, especially under combat conditions, the weapon might sometimes be handled by a single soldier — but the ideal and doctrinal standard remains two-man. Firearms+1
So: two-man crew. I'm sure it could be fired by one man for a limited period of time with reduced firepower changing magazines. The BAR was a one man weapon. Everyone in the squad normally carried additional magazines for the automatic weapons.
________________________________________
3. How easy is it to fire a Bren gun while walking?
The Bren was primarily intended to be fired from a bipod (or tripod), in prone or supported positions. Owen Guns+1
However — and importantly — on occasion it was fired "on the move," using a sling, from standing or kneeling, or even hip-level positions. This was especially common in jungle or close country by Commonwealth forces (for instance, Australian troops used "marching fire" with the Bren from the hip during advances). Encyclopedia Britannica+2Athlon Outdoors Firearm Updates+2
So while firing on the move was possible and did occur, it was not the standard mode — aiming was harder, accuracy reduced, and magazine-changes or barrel-changes could complicate matters. In short: it was feasible, but not easy or ideal; better used from position.
________________________________________
4. How many rounds would the Bren normally fire in controlled bursts for 3 minutes sustained fire without the barrel overheating?
Here we must distinguish cyclic rate from practical/sustained rate. The Bren's cyclic (theoretical max) rate was about 500–520 rounds per minute. Encyclopedia Britannica+1
But real combat doctrine limited sustained fire to much lower rates. One source notes that a "practical sustained rate" was about 120 rounds per minute (four magazines per minute), with a barrel change after ~10 magazines or when overheating — roughly after ~2.5 minutes of firing at that rate. Owen Guns+2Tombstone History Pages+2
If one sustained fire at 120 rpm for 3 minutes, that would be ~ 360 rounds. However, that is near the limit — after roughly 2.5 minutes a barrel change would normally be required. If no spare barrel was available, firing would have to be significantly curtailed or risk damage/"cook-off."
In practical combat, units rarely burned full 3-minute strings of sustained fire — doctrine emphasised short bursts (4–5 rounds) to control fire, conserve ammo, and avoid overheating. Wikipedia+1
So a more realistic sustained output might be much lower — perhaps a few hundred rounds over several minutes (with pauses, barrel changes, etc.).
________________________________________
5. How many rounds would one BAR normally fire in controlled bursts for 3 minutes sustained fire without the barrel overheating?
The BAR (M1918A2) had a cyclic rate of approximately 550–650 rounds per minute. Warfare History Network+1
However, it suffers from limitations that make sustained automatic fire problematic:
• It had a fixed barrel: no quick-change barrel, unlike a true light machine gun. Warfare History Network+1
• It used a 20-round magazine, which is small for a sustained-fire weapon, meaning frequent reloads. Warfare History Network+1
• In short, while it could be fired in bursts or semi-auto, sustained full-automatic fire rapidly caused overheating, and magazine capacity limited continuous fire. Warfare History Network+1
I found no credible primary-source figure that says "X rounds in 3 minutes sustained fire" without overheating for the BAR. Many historians argue that the BAR was not truly suitable as a squad-sustained-fire weapon — rather it was intended more as an "automatic rifle," providing walking fire or short bursts to suppress while maneuvering. Reddit+2Warfare History Network+2
Therefore the idea of sustained full-auto fire with a BAR for 3 continuous minutes is unlikely, and would most likely result in overheating or at least unacceptable accuracy loss, stoppages, or barrel wear.
________________________________________
6. Tactical comparison: British squad (Bren + bolt rifles) vs. US squad (3 BARs + Garands) in a fire & maneuver assault on an enemy position 50 yards away
Here's an evaluation based on doctrine, weapons characteristics, and likely combat dynamics:
• Volume & control of fire: The British squad with one Bren could lay down more sustained, controlled suppressive fire than a BAR-equipped American squad — because the Bren was a purpose-designed light machine gun with a (relatively) quick-change barrel, magazine-feed, and doctrine optimized for bursts. The BAR, being magazine-fed and with a fixed barrel, would likely overheat or require frequent reloads — making continuous suppression difficult.
• Mobility & flexibility: The American squad has an advantage in mobility and fire dispersion. With 9 Garands, every rifleman can engage targets individually. The three BARs, while not ideal for sustained lay-down fire, provide mobile automatic fire capability. For a short-range assault at 50 yards, the American squad's semi-autos give high volume of aimed shots as they advance.
One advantage the Americans had was the auto fire weapons were distributed giving additional targets for the enemy. Squad Leaders could use the "Barking BAR" tactic where all the BARs were grouped together and took turns firing short bursts giving the same performance as the Bren Gun.
• Accuracy at short range: In a 50-yard assault, aimed semi-automatic fire from rifles (Garands) could be very effective. The Bren might be heavier to maneuver, slower to reposition, and more cumbersome if moving, though a trained Bren crew could still deliver bursts.
• Suppressive vs assault mix: The British arrangement may offer more suppressive fire from the Bren, allowing riflemen to maneuver. The American arrangement offers more balanced fire across many riflemen — perhaps more effective in close assault with multiple shooters.
Conclusion: For a 50-yard assault on an enemy position, the American squad (BAR + Garands) likely had an advantage in mobility, flexibility, and volume of aimed fire, especially in rapid, aggressive assaults. The British squad, however, could deliver controlled suppression — but might struggle to maintain that suppression during dynamic movement or rapid assaults.
________________________________________
7. Evaluate the tactics the British and American squads used — which was better for attacking vs defending, and why
British (Bren + bolt-action rifle sections):
• Doctrine emphasized the Bren as the main fire-support base for the section, with riflemen providing covering or aiming fire. Owen Guns+2Warfare History Network+2
• For defense, this setup is strong: a single Bren can lay down suppressive or defensive fire, riflemen can pick targets, and light support weapons can be employed effectively from fixed positions or prepared lines. The British often used the Bren in bipod or tripod mode, or even vehicle/Carrier-mounted configurations for static defense or support. Owen Guns+2Warfare History Network+2
• For attacking, especially under modern fire & maneuver tactics, the limitations are more apparent: only one automatic support weapon per squad; reloading and magazine capacity may slow fire; squad rate of fire depends heavily on a single gun.
American (BAR + Garand squads):
• American doctrine with BARs was somewhat hybrid: the BAR provided automatic fire, but the squad still relied heavily on Garand riflemen. Wikipedia+1
• For attacking, this was advantageous: the mixture of semi-auto rifles and some automatic weapons gives flexibility, volume of aimed shots, and redundancy (if a BAR gunner is down, riflemen still fire).
• For defense, it's inferior to a dedicated light or medium machine gun-based squad — the BAR's limited sustained fire capacity and small magazine means suppressed fire or area denial is harder compared to a Bren or belt-fed MG.
Conclusion on which is "better":
• For defense — the British approach with a Bren gives concentrated and sustainable automatic fire, beneficial for holding a position, supporting interlocking fields of fire, and managing ammo & crew.
• For attack, the American BAR + multiple riflemen approach offers greater flexibility, redundancy, and distributed firepower, which tends to better support maneuver and assault. Also, attached M1919 machines guns could advance with the platoon.
________________________________________
8. Evaluate whether US Marine/Army BAR-armed squads (Europe) gave the squad leader greater tactical flexibility
Yes — in many respects, the BAR-equipped squad gave squad leaders greater tactical flexibility, particularly because:
• The squad did not rely on a single support weapon; multiple riflemen with semi-automatic rifles meant that suppression, aimed fire, or suppressing fire could come from various individuals, not just one gunner.
• The BARs, though limited for sustained fire, could provide bursts of automatic fire during assault or movement, supporting "walking fire" or bounding maneuvers.
• Loss or disablement of one BAR did not degrade the squad's overall firepower as drastically as losing the only Bren in a British squad might.
Therefore, for dynamic battlefield conditions — fluid front lines, assaults, rapid movement — American squads likely had more resilience and flexibility.
________________________________________
9. Evaluate the tactics the US Marines and Army used with their BAR-armed squads in the Pacific / jungles; which configuration was more effective there?
In the Pacific and jungle environments:
• The mobility and lighter weight (compared with heavier tripod-based or belt-fed MGs) of the BAR + Garand squad offered major advantages. Dense terrain, close combat, and frequent movement meant a heavy machine-gun setup would be less practical.
• The BAR's portability allowed automatic fire support without the logistical burden of heavy ammo belts, spare barrels, or tripods — advantageous in jungle patrols, amphibious landings, and small-unit tactics.
• However, the BAR's limited magazine capacity and lack of quick-change barrel meant its ability to deliver sustained suppressive fire was lower. In long firefights, that could be a disadvantage compared to a purpose-built light machine gun.
Overall, I'd argue the BAR-armed squad was relatively well-suited to Pacific/jungle warfare: the trade-offs (less sustained fire, more mobility) aligned well with requirements for fluid, small-unit, dispersed operations, quick movement, and close-range engagements.
________________________________________
10. Which one (British Bren-based or US BAR/Garand-based) had more tactical flexibility in WWII — why?
Overall, the American BAR + Garand squad likely had more tactical flexibility, because:
• It was less dependent on a single automatic weapon.
• It balanced automatic fire (BAR) with rifle fire (Garands), allowing varied responses — suppressive bursts, aimed rifle shots, maneuver, etc.
• It was more resilient: loss or disabling of a BAR gunner did not cripple the squad.
• It was more adaptable across different combat environments — from open fields to urban fighting, jungles, and amphibious landings.
The Bren-based squad, on the other hand, while delivering higher quality sustained automatic fire, was more rigid: the whole squad's automatic fire support rested on a single weapon and its two-man crew.
The later WWII Marine Squad was composed of three 4 man teams each with an BAR automatic rile that accompanies the team. This gives the squad leader the ability to conduct a fire maneuver with two teams laying down cover fire and one team doing a 5 meter rush and alternating. The final assault is controlled by the squad leader. All three teams get online and reload. On the squad leaders command, after a few grenades, they all rise up and conduct walking fire across the enemy position. I think the best WWII weapons for this were the BAR and M1 Garand and was used throughout the entire war except at Guadalcanal where the Marines had Springfield 1903 rifles, not M1s
________________________________________
11. Which one performed better in poor weather and sandy / dirty conditions?
This is more nuanced. Some relevant points:
• The Bren was well regarded for reliability and accuracy, and its magazine feed (vs belt-feed) meant fewer complications with sand and mud — provided rounds were loaded carefully and magazines kept clean. Firearms+1
• However: the Bren's top-mounted magazine and magazine feed could be vulnerable to dirt; early versions could jam if magazines were overfilled or cartridges were loaded poorly (rimmed .303 rounds needed careful stacking). Tombstone History Pages+1
• The BAR, being a relatively simpler automatic rifle (magazine-fed, no quick-change barrel), was simpler to maintain under field conditions, but its fixed barrel made it prone to overheating. Soil, sand and grime could also affect magazine feeding or ejection, but its simpler design might mean fewer moving parts to clog — though I found few authoritative sources on BAR performance in sand/dirt.
Given what we know, I'd say the Bren likely had a slight reliability advantage in adverse conditions, assuming proper maintenance and trained crew; but both systems had vulnerabilities — and BAR's simplicity might make field maintenance easier, trading sustained-fire for robustness.
________________________________________
12. Which one was easier to maintain under combat conditions?
• The BAR's simpler design, fewer moving parts, fixed barrel (no spare-barrel to carry/maintain), and widespread rifle-type maintenance culture likely made it easier to maintain on average under combat conditions.
• The Bren, being a more specialized weapon, required more maintenance discipline — ensuring magazines loaded correctly, keeping dust/sand out, carrying spare barrels, magazines, toolkits, and having a dedicated assistant.
Thus for "ease of maintenance under combat conditions," the BAR + rifle squad probably had an edge — especially in large-scale, prolonged operations or in harsh terrain (jungles, islands, amphibious landings) where logistical simplicity mattered.
________________________________________
13. Could one Bren put out the same amount of sustained fire rounds as three BARs? Which more effective — why?
Given the technical and doctrinal limitations:
• Three BARs cannot sustain continuous automatic fire for long without overheating (fixed barrels) and are limited by 20-round magazines — meaning frequent reloads, pauses, and risk of stoppages.
• One Bren, with its quicker barrel change capability (and assuming spare barrel + magazines available), is intrinsically better suited for sustained automatic fire. Realistically, over a few minutes of engagement, one well-handled Bren could likely outperform three BARs in terms of sustained suppressive fire.
Therefore, one Bren is likely more effective for sustained fire than three BARs — though the three BARs + riflemen may offer more flexible and distributed firepower overall. The Bren's strength is concentrated automatic support; the BAR-Garand squad's strength is flexible, mobile, and resilient fire from many shooters.
________________________________________
14. Summary — what you can use in your presentation (with caveats)
• Equipping a US squad with 3 BARs + 9 Garands probably cost significantly more than equipping a British squad with 1 Bren + 9 bolt-action rifles (guns only).
• The Bren was normally operated by a two-man crew, but could be (and sometimes was) used by one man.
• The Bren could be fired on the move with a sling, but was most effective when deployed from bipod/tripod and in controlled firing positions.
• For sustained fire, the Bren could deliver maybe 300–400 rounds over 2–3 minutes (with barrel change), but doctrine preferred short bursts, not continuous fire.
• The BAR was not well suited to sustained automatic fire — fixed barrel, small magazine, overheating — so sustained 3-minute bursts would be unrealistic.
• For a short-range assault (e.g. 50 yards), a US BAR + Garand squad likely had the advantage in mobility, volume of aimed fire, and flexibility; the British Bren-based squad had the advantage in controlled suppressive fire and fire support.
• For defense or suppressive fire, the Bren-based section outperformed a BAR-based squad; for assault, maneuver, and varied terrain (jungles, urban, islands), BAR-based squads arguably had an overall edge in flexibility and resilience. However, for defensive sustained fire the Marines had M1918 water cooled Brownings.
• Maintenance and logistic simplicity also favored the BAR + rifle squad, though the Bren could be reliable if properly maintained.
• In sustained suppression over time, a single Bren probably outclassed three BARs; but in overall tactical flexibility, the BAR-Garand squad likely had the broader advantage.
________________________________________
15. Important caveats & limitations The "cost" figures are very rough estimates. They don't include ammunition, spare barrels/magazines, webbing, training, transport or logistic overhead. Use them only as illustrative, not definitive.
• Many real-world factors (crew training, terrain, mission type, morale, ammunition supply, weather, leadership, logistics) affect combat performance more than just weapon technical specs.
• The doctrine of a given unit (how they were trained to fight) often mattered more than pure firepower. For example, how aggressively a squad moves, how well they coordinate suppressive vs flanking fire, how ammo discipline is maintained, etc.
• Comparing a "semi-auto + automatic rifle" squad to a "bolt-action + magazine-fed LMG" squad involves tradeoffs — one is not strictly "better" in all conditions; each has strengths depending on mission, terrain, and tactics.
• For sustained fire the Americans had a Weapons Company that normally has 2 or more belt fed M1919 machine guns mounted on a tripod that could be attached to a platoon. These guns could advance with the rest of the platoon, tripod mounted water cooled machine gun could not. The Marines also had in their TO&E M1918 water cooled machine gun that were set up in defensive positions. It had a sustained fire rate of 400-600 rounds per minute.
________________________________________
16. Conclusion
The comparison shows there is no absolute "winner." The British Bren-based squad offered more sustained and controlled automatic fire power, appropriate for suppression and defense; the American BAR + Garand squad offered greater tactical flexibility, distributed firepower, mobility, and resilience, especially useful for aggressive assault, maneuver warfare, and varied combat environments (Europe towns, Pacific jungles, amphibious operations).
________________________________________
17. What remains uncertain or contested
I found no authoritative primary-source data giving a precise number of rounds fired by BARs in "sustained-fire mode" over 3 minutes without overheating. Most literature agrees that BARs were not ideal for sustained automatic fire. Warfare History Network+2WW2Aircraft Forums+2
If an enemy defensive position cannot be suppressed in a few minutes with BARs and Garands, heavier weapons would be brought forward.
• Similarly, while the Bren's "practical sustained fire rate" is sometimes given as ~120 rpm, the real-world rate depended heavily on conditions (availability of spare barrels, magazines, ammo, the loader's efficiency, etc.).
• Many post-war assessments and anecdotal veteran reports differ, depending on theater, unit, supply situation, and mission.
Other conclusions:
One of the key factors is gaining immediate fire superiority in a firefight or in a close range ambush. This is about the only time cyclic rates may come into play.
13 man Marine Squad:
9x M1 Garands = 72 rounds
3x BAR = 60 rounds
Total: 132 rounds
10 man British Squad:
1x Bren Gun (two man) 30 rounds
7x SMLE = 70 rounds
Total: 100 rounds
I did not include the squad leaders firepower. In this example, each SMLE is firing more rounds than the Garand. However, the Garand is quicker to reload. The Bren Gun team had two men accounting for 30 rounds. With two BARs two men account for 40 rounds.
So in a "Mad Minute" type scenario the Marine squad has 32% more firepower.
The Bren is better at long range fire but you don't fire & maneuver against a defensive position 500 yards away so the Marine Squad does not need it. But if they do call in an M1919 which is even better than one Bren for long range accurate fire or 60mm mortars.
One factor normally overlooked was the fact that the Bren gunner had a higher profile and the magazine could be spotted by the enemy or a sniper. Personally, I don't like standing out and being shot at. Both can fire single shots as to not give away their auto fire position.
I think this clearly shows that showing a 1:1 comparison does not tell the entire story, it's just not that simple. Understanding the reason, limitations, economics and tactics gives you a better historical picture of how and why. Sometimes you just have to go with what you have and make the best of it.
Well, there are the facts. Come to your own conclusion and form your own opinion.
Wolfhag
