Bren guns abandoned in France, May 1940

X

x westie

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
East Central Alberta
i recently purchased the book, "The Bren Gun Saga", written by Thomas B Dugelby, and sold through Collector Grade Publications,

On page 150, titled " Aftermath of Dunkirk", the author writes the following....

By the time of the Dunkirk evacuation in June 1940, some 30,000 Brens had been produced, of these 27,000 were lost in action by British Expeditonary Force,

The truth is that many of the Brens that were "lost" during the Dunkirk evacuation were more or less purposely abandoned as their gunners had found them so prone to stoppages due to fouling build up, and wear as to be virtually worthless in combat,

I was very surprised about this, as just about everything i have read or heard , was that the "BREN" was a very reliable and durable weapon,.always hear or see the phrase "finest light machine gun of the second world war"
 
No match for the belt fed MG34 or 42. I like the Brens but far too complicated and hard to make compared to the MGs. Personally I just cannot image having 1100 to 1300 rounds of 8 mm coming my way......
 
I don't think that's the whole story. He probably forgot to mention that they were in a hell of a hurry to get out of there because the Wehrmacht were pushing them off the continent fairly aggressively. I don't imagine there was a lot of time to stop and clean your weapon. Also I don't think they would have had room for the weight of the weapons when they were cramming the small vessels used with as many men as possible. Six Brens weigh as much as a man.
 
34s were expensive to build too, that's why the 42 was made. The 42 required minimum 2x the ammunition of the Bren. Obviously the Brits felt the Bren fit their tactics well, it remained in service until the end of the last century.
 
Comparing a MG-34 or 42 to a Bren isn't a accurate comparison. A Bren is a light machine gun, much like the BAR, Breda model 30, German FG-42s or Japanese Type 96s and 99s. The MG-34s and 42s are General purpose MGs/Medium MGs more accurately compared to things like the Vickers, Browning 1919, though realistically they created a whole new class of MGs which combined the role of LMG like the Bren and Heavier MGs like the Vickers (which are currently filled with things like the M60 or FN-MAG).

Brens are meant for light support, and they are extremely effective at that role, especially when you compare them to other LMGs of the time period. MG-34s and 42s are meant for sustained fire which is also still capable of being mobile. It is not a fair comparison as they had two different roles. The Bren is better than the MG-34 or 42 as a LMG (remember they only carried a 50rd basket on the MG when in the light role, and the amount of time it took to change the basket and belt was more than it took to change the mags for the Brens), however for sustained fire and defensives the MG-34 and 42 would have a significant advantage.

Like everything, it is all about how it is being used and what it was intended to do. I wouldn't room clear with a sniper rifle, just as I wouldn't try to take 1000m shots with a SMG.
 
Good points regarding roles Eagle. But it doesn't answer the original assertion. Flying Pig's explanation sounds realistic. But the weight is how high - 6 to a man?
 
x westie said:
i recently purchased the book, "The Bren Gun Saga", written by Thomas B Dugelby, and sold through Collector Grade Publications,

On page 150, titled " Aftermath of Dunkirk", the author writes the following....

By the time of the Dunkirk evacuation in June 1940, some 30,000 Brens had been produced, of these 27,000 were lost in action by British Expeditonary Force,

The truth is that many of the Brens that were "lost" during the Dunkirk evacuation were more or less purposely abandoned as their gunners had found them so prone to stoppages due to fouling build up, and wear as to be virtually worthless in combat,

I was very surprised about this, as just about everything i have read or heard , was that the "BREN" was a very reliable and durable weapon,.always hear or see the phrase "finest light machine gun of the second world war"
Click to expand...

They had gas fouling issues due to some oddities, look at an early MkI barrel flash hider cone, note the 2 angles, this created a location for carbon fouling build up.

The real issue however was a "bright idea" to eliminate carbon fouling from the gas cylinder.

Under the bipod, there are holes in the gas cylinder for fouling to collect. The idea was that rotating the bipod would break up fouling, this worked, but no one realized that the carbon fouling would wear the bipod sleeve and stop it from gas sealing , leading to insufficient gas to operate the gas piston.

I doubt that the problem would have been serious that early in the war, as Inglis Canada used the original gas cylinder design until the end of mkIM production in 1943 and Mk2 in 1945.

All British Mk1 (production ended when Mk3 production started) and early Mk3 Brens used the MkI type gas cylinder in 1944.

All British Mk2 Brens (production started in 1942) and (all but the first 100 or so) mk3 Brens used new design gas cylinder without holes under the bipod.

All Lithgow produced Brens (MkI and MkIM though they didn't call them that) used MkI gas cylinders.

FTR'd Brens were fitted with Mk2 type gas cylinders.

Wartime 8mm Brens have Mk1 gas cylinders, post war Clandestine 8mm Brens are reported as being fitted with Mk2 gas cylinders.

MkI and Mk3 gas cylinders are threaded.
Mk2 gas cylinders are press fit and taper pinned.

British Mk2 gas cylinders and Canadian gas cylinders are different, the British solved the loss of gas problems in 1942 and for some reason did not share with Lithgow and Inglis...but having said that, they continued using the MkI gas cylinder in their MkI Brens until 1944 end of production.

By the way, current research seems to indicated that they didn't lose quite that many Brens in Dunkirk.
 
Last edited:
Lee Enfield said:
They had gas fouling issues due to some oddities, look at an early MkI barrel flash hider cone, note the 2 angles, this created a location for carbon fouling build up.

The real issue however was a "bright idea" to eliminate carbon fouling from the gas cylinder.

Under the bipod, there are holes in the gas cylinder for fouling to collect. The idea was that rotating the bipod would break up fouling, this worked, but no one realized that the carbon fouling would wear the bipod sleeve and stop it from gas sealing , leading to insufficient gas to operate the gas piston.

I doubt that the problem would have been serious that early in the war, as Inglis Canada used the original gas cylinder design until the end of production in 1945. British Mk2 Brens and mk3 Brens used new gas cylinder.

Current research seems to indicated that they didn't lose that many Brens in Dunkirk.
Click to expand...

thanks, a very informative post
 
I used to own a Bren when we could still shoot them and I can't say it fouled much but I was only shooting semi as it was past the point in time when I could have it in the original configuration. It would still go through a pile of ammo in semi when you had a crate of 30rd mags :)
 
I talked to a lady a few months back that worked at the Inglis factory making Bren Guns in Toronto. Interesting to hear her stories.
 
One of my best school memories is being 15 years old and given Bren gun training in the cadets. The regulars would leave a couple of crates of 303 and tell us not to bring any ammo back because the paperwork was terrible. 15 years old with a machine gun and unlimited ammo (and I thought it was normal...). Have woken up now....
 
VanIsleCam said:
Good points regarding roles Eagle. But it doesn't answer the original assertion. Flying Pig's explanation sounds realistic. But the weight is how high - 6 to a man?
Click to expand...

Well, off the top of my head, and forgive me if my number is a pound or two off, but an unloaded Bren runs about 26lbs if I'm remembering correctly. 26x6=156lbs or an average sized 18-20 year old man in good shape.

Trust me when I say that I'm sure the BEF would have loved to have kept their Brens except that the men take 18-20 years to replace and the LMGs could be replaced in under a year in good conditions.

Tell Cpt Laidler that the Brens were junk and prone to stoppages and see what he tells ya. Best have your helmet on! I'm sure it was like all firearms, condition determines everything. Under those panic conditions, with no time to stop and clean your weapon I'm sure things could go wrong. The Germans had troubles with their 34s and 42s in Russia due to temps and oil used, too. I've read that they would sometimes put the entire frozen brick of an mg right in the fire to thaw it.

The 34 and 42 were the first true GPMGs. The Brits did attempt to keep the Bren by converting it to a belt fed design at the end, but they gave up as everyone else was going to or had already gone to the FN-MAG.
 
Last edited:
VanIsleCam said:
Good points regarding roles Eagle. But it doesn't answer the original assertion. Flying Pig's explanation sounds realistic. But the weight is how high - 6 to a man?
Click to expand...

I know, it was to answer the second post. Besides the weight you also have the size to consider as well, 6 Brens would take up a fair bit of space and it would be awkward space as well.
 
The 1st Canadian Division left a lot of their equipment in France as well...mind you they were still in France almost 2weeks after the Brits bailed at Dunkirk and things were getting pretty hot by then. The early Brens were said to have a very small beaten zone... and were not as effective in the lmg role as the mg 34/42 were.
 
The L4 Light Machine Gun was popular in Northern Ireland for border patrols, it was well liked. They brought them to the Falklands.
CE6foyuUIAAx0HJ.jpg

brits05fd-239494.jpg
 
AP said:
The 1st Canadian Division left a lot of their equipment in France as well...mind you they were still in France almost 2weeks after the Brits bailed at Dunkirk and things were getting pretty hot by then. The early Brens were said to have a very small beaten zone... and were not as effective in the lmg role as the mg 34/42 were.
Click to expand...
Vehicles where left behind but the troops returned to England with their small arms and all artillery and as such (less the vehicles) where the most equipped Division in the UK summer 1940. I think you are getting confused between cone of fire and beaten zone and the Brens legendary accuracy is certainly not a shortcoming, if you had to put fire down into a trench, into a doorway or window or shear off a tank commanders head I would be more then happy to have a Bren to do it with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom