English BREN gun Vs american B.A.R

[purple]

Indeed. This whole business of too much accuracy seems wrongheaded to me. I don't think a Bren gun (or anything else) firing bursts is going to be making tiny little groups at any distance.

There's a bit of the old soldier's tale in this. I served with many WW2 and Korea vets and used to hear the same thing. But in the next breath they would express an affection for the BREN like nothing else.

It's too bad that the bureaucrats put an end to getting an ATT to take your BREN and other CA/FAs to the range. I used to really enjoy shooting mine. And yes, it was/is pretty damned accurate.

 

[dirtytwo]

I have reported what I was taught at the School of Infantry by instructors from the Small Arms School Corps of the British Army.

+1

We're talking over 20 years ago here, but I recall from the advance-to-contact tactics and the Shoot-to-live program that the actual role of an LMG was to keep the enemy pinned down to allow for our riflemen to move and get into range for accurate fire (i.e. leapfrogging towards contact). If you killed someone with an LMG or GPMG, hey bonus, but the snap of a bunch of .30cal slugs zipping near their heads without necessarily hitting them was intended to be enough to keep them from returning effective deliberate fire. So the larger the beaten zone, the better; and, IIRC, spraying fire from side to side like a garden hose does have its place when called for.

My $.02!

 

[vandoo66]

Shepherd & Turpins testimony to IIRC the "patent & inventions board" c.1945,46,49

I'll reread the book and get the dates correct for you.

Am also anxiously awaiting confirmation of this as my 23 year marriage to Mrs. MKII may turn out to be fraudulous

 

[Mike Webb]

They are really comparing apples and oranges, I think. The BREN was a section light machine gun and the BAR was an automatic rifle designed at the time when U.S. infantry were equipped with bolt action rifles. The advent of the Garand infantry rifle made the squad BAR somewhat redundant.

 

[ATOM]

TheTooner - It would appear that Canadian tactics instructors were working off different song sheets than your British ones.

I agree that belt-fed is the way to go for MGs. Magazines are more convenient for riflemen, but sustained fire (even in bursts) is easier with belts. That has little do do with accuracy, however. Accuracy and volume of fire are in two separate columns on the menu.

The Bren was brilliant in its day, but it was very heavy, required far more raw materials and machining than current LMGs and was probably overpowered by today's thinking for a section weapon.

 

[Hawkshadow]

The Bren was brilliant in its day, but it was very heavy, required far more raw materials and machining than current LMGs and was probably overpowered by today's thinking for a section weapon.

While you're right that it has nothing on the ridiculously light and compact C9A2 (FN Minimi) LMG, I would argue that there are far more small machined parts with them, and more to go wrong.

It is remarkably close in feel, and weight, to the current C6 (FN MAG) gpmg.

 

[NavyShooter]

The Bren was a fine gun, but VERY complex to manufacture.

Someone mentioned that there were over 250 machining operations to make the upper receiver portion alone.

The C-6 is similar in feel, but simpler in manufacture.

NS

 

[fugawi]

They are really comparing apples and oranges, I think. The BREN was a section light machine gun and the BAR was an automatic rifle designed at the time when U.S. infantry were equipped with bolt action rifles. The advent of the Garand infantry rifle made the squad BAR somewhat redundant.

Keep in mind too that the BAR was designed when the Americans were fighting during the First World War. The type of warfare and infantry weapons/tactics changed by the time of the adoption of the Garand and the BREN.