Bren guns abandoned in France, May 1940

[lister]

I have never heard of the enigma story and doubt its veracity. A radar station outside Dieppe was raided by Canadians in the company of an RAF sergeant who was a radar expert. He was to examine or bring back German radar apparatus. The Canadian soldiers were told unofficially they were to kill the RAF man before allowing him to be captured. There was a book written called Green Beach on the topic.

Agreed, that part of Dieppe is true.
I also agree that stealing a Naval Enigma would may have been handy to get some settings or whatever but would have alerted the Germans to the fact that the Brits. had one. It would have blown a lot of the intel. they were getting at Bletchley.
Dieppe was mostly a political operation to appease Stalin and get the Americans to back Operation Torch (North Africa) instead of Operation Sledgehammer, a limited invasion of NW Europe. The Brits knew a 1942 D-Day would most likely have failed and lost them more men and equipment than they could afford, so they went with a large, badly planned raid.

 

[XRCD011]

I would go with the Bren being an LMG.

Prior to WW2 or at the beginning the Polish military had already passed an early enigma machine to the British.

Subsequent captures of enigmas machine was more for the placement of the current rotors and the days books for using the machines.

You are correct, the Bren is a Light Machine Gun, even the wartime manual has in big bold and indisputable block letters BREN LIGHT MACHINE GUN. the Vickers would fill the role of a Medium Machine Gun (MMG) and a M2 would obviously be a HMG. The wartime Bren regardless of what AP hammers endlessly on about is and was a great section level LMG and gave stellar performance. No doubt that other guy will come hopping along shortly to dispense some "Sunray" level insight.

 

[tjhaile]

I would call the Bren an LMG. Compared to automatic rifles like the BAR, C2, or FN FALO, it is heavier and has a quick-change barrel. That said, it can be difficult to draw a line between LMG and automatic rifle in some cases.

Belt feed should not necessarily be considered the defining characteristic of a machine gun. To name one example, a Hotchkiss M1914 is strip-fed, but it is definitely not just an automatic rifle.

 

[flying pig]

Bren is definitely an LMG, BAR is an automatic rifle. Brens were used to ground and pound to allow a flanking action by riflemen. BAR and other automatic rifles were meant to give riflemen more firepower.

The Enigma story makes sense if you read O'Keefe's argument. But I believe there were a few different reasons all adding up to the raid going ahead. Appeasing Stalin was one, just another raid to keep our troops active and boost morale at home was another. Radar parts also makes sense as the land war was not a major concern yet but air and the Atlantic were as Britain was starving. The Enigma machine does make sense. Bletchley had lost their ability to read German code because the Germans were by then using a four rotor machine, which made all their previous three rotor decifering obsolete. They needed a four rotor and day book desperately. The plan was to hit the hotel, steal the machine and level the hotel to make it look like a casualty of the raid. We obviously will never know for sure, but I for one would like to believe they didn't just use our men for German target practice.

 

[HeadDamage]

The Bren has an excellent quick change barrel system, the BAR does not. It also has better mag changes than a BAR.

 

[green]

Indeed, you can jiggle the gun to increase the beaten zone.

With the Vickers it was "tapped" right or left for dispersion.

 

[green]

Bren is not a light machine gun. It's a automatic rifle or squad support rifle, true machineguns are belt fed.

All the Commonwealth users called the BREN a light machine gun.
Automatic rifle examples are BAR, Chautchaut CSRG and FN C2.

 

[fraserdw]

this I getting old fast ..you may recall what the CF call the 'C2'???? I sure don't recall any belts and it most certainly was our 'LMG'!

BUT I do agree with you.... a proper LMG should have the capacity to provide reasonably sustained suppressive fire...particularly to support a section or platoon assault ...and small capacity 'box' magazines aren't always the most useful for this purpose.

Yup, I was a C2 gunner my first two years, we did indeed call it an LMG but as you noted neither the C2 or the Bren are capable tactically in the LMG role.

 

[fraserdw]

I would call the Bren an LMG. Compared to automatic rifles like the BAR, C2, or FN FALO, it is heavier and has a quick-change barrel. That said, it can be difficult to draw a line between LMG and automatic rifle in some cases.

Belt feed should not necessarily be considered the defining characteristic of a machine gun. To name one example, a Hotchkiss M1914 is strip-fed, but it is definitely not just an automatic rifle.

It is if you are trying to suppress an MG42.

 

[tatou]

One other thing to take into consideration why some might have dropped their Bren... ammo, why carry the thing if you cannot carry or are out of ammunition. The thing is heavy enough as it is, i cannot imagine carrying it into combat plus all the rounds needed for it to be effective.

Of course O'keefe is going to push his argument up front, he's an historian but he also wants to sell books
Like flying pig i believe all of the reasons invoked led to going ahead with Dieppe (to please Staline, boots morale, radar information, enigma information and sadly, yes to see what would work and what wouldn't in a landing). I like to believe that by 1942 the mentality of WWI was gone and no major offensive without am objective was conduct. Radar and Enigma information gathering gave that raid a real objective.
Also just because we know something or we dont know something bout WWII doesn't mean it's facts. I choose to believe facts, too easy to make up things especially after 70+ years.
O'keefe did dig up real classified documents about the raid and to me, now, it does make sense.
There's no doubt the raid was poorly planed and pushed ahead when it should have been cancelled... but why ?? That raid never made any sense to me until you add this last piece of the puzzle.
If any would like to see the discovery channel, david O'keefe story, go on YouTube and look up ''Dieppe Uncovered'' and make up your own mind, at the very least its entertaining

 

[plinker 777]

Bren is definitely an LMG, BAR is an automatic rifle. Brens were used to ground and pound to allow a flanking action by riflemen. BAR and other automatic rifles were meant to give riflemen more firepower.

The Enigma story makes sense if you read O'Keefe's argument. But I believe there were a few different reasons all adding up to the raid going ahead. Appeasing Stalin was one, just another raid to keep our troops active and boost morale at home was another. Radar parts also makes sense as the land war was not a major concern yet but air and the Atlantic were as Britain was starving. The Enigma machine does make sense. Bletchley had lost their ability to read German code because the Germans were by then using a four rotor machine, which made all their previous three rotor decifering obsolete. They needed a four rotor and day book desperately. The plan was to hit the hotel, steal the machine and level the hotel to make it look like a casualty of the raid. We obviously will never know for sure, but I for one would like to believe they didn't just use our men for German target practice.

I agree. There would have been several strategic and or political reasons for carrying out a raid, and not everyone involved would have been versed to these several reasons. In 1940 Britain was in desperate measure and on the downward trajectory of starvation and an inability to turn threads on a bolt let alone keep up war production (the latter being exacerbated by the bombings {arguably}). Despite some naysayers here, neither the British nor Canadian command have thrown lives away needlessly (Then, {before then}, or now.).
A beach landing with paratroop insertion prior to the landing, could have been an instructional test to learn the German communications and logistics capabilities (one would think London would be well versed in German Blitzkrieg capabilities though so...? And if true, why no escape plan?) I believe O'Keefe has reveled something. Only time will tell.

 

[Mike Webb]

I agree. There would have been several strategic and or political reasons for carrying out a raid, and not everyone involved would have been versed to these several reasons. In 1940 Britain was in desperate measure and on the downward trajectory of starvation and an inability to turn threads on a bolt let alone keep up war production (the latter being exacerbated by the bombings {arguably}). Despite some naysayers here, neither the British nor Canadian command have thrown lives away needlessly (Then, {before then}, or now.).
A beach landing with paratroop insertion prior to the landing, could have been an instructional test to learn the German communications and logistics capabilities (one would think London would be well versed in German Blitzkrieg capabilities though so...? And if true, why no escape plan?) I believe O'Keefe has reveled something. Only time will tell.

ON THE CONTRARY!!! British, Canadian and American commands all threw away lives needlessly in WW2. Read some history not propaganda.

 

[plinker 777]

Ok. I've misspoken. All lives taken in armed conflict are lives lost needlessly. That isn't propaganda.

However, if you believe that during war there are cases where decisions must be made to ultimately become successful for the survival of your nation, cast, ethnicity what have you, and that soldiers lives will be lost in the execution of those plans...those lives are not thrown away needlessly. Rather very necessarily. (Grow up. )

 

[flying pig]

I still believe we are and were on the just side. For that reason our command wouldn't throw lives away...or would they? Honestly I think our sides take was a little more mechanical than that. Your available soldiers take 18-20 years to replace. If your industry has survived bombing etc then ammunition, arms and supplies can be replaced much faster. Russia had much more manpower, and they used their people much more freely as fodder than we did. What's valuable is always most protected.

 

[TheTooner]

OK, but it doesn't begin to make the slightest bit of sense whatsoever, since the Germans would know it was gone, and change the rotors the next day. A pinch would involve removing a machine from a sinking ship. Ian Fleming want to crash a captured bomber in the channel, wait for the German rescue ship, go Steven Seagal on the crew, grab the Enigma, scuttle the ship and escape on the lifeboat. That makes a 100 times more sense than raiding Dieppe.

The Dieppe raid wasn't planned to provide cover for the snatch of an Enigma but since it was on for other reasons a team was assigned to raid a German naval HQ and try to recover an enigma and/or any other coding material. Thorough demolition of the HQ by explosives and fire was intended to try to lead the Germans to think a lost enigma was totally destroyed rather than taken.

The operation had been discussed and planned and the plans changed and the operation postponed and recast and after so much of that concern for security ought to have argued for its cancellation but there were political as well as military reasons why some sort of engagement of ground forces had to be sought. The Government of Canada and the Canadian Army were among the proponents of doing something largely for the sake of doing something. With hindsight we can analyse the mistakes and criticize but it is easy to overlook that due to the lack of experience at all levels there was a tendency for them (not just the Canadians) to fail to appreciate how much their lack of experience was handicapping their judgement.

 

[sail32]

The design of the BAR by Browning was during a time when the theory of, " Marching Fire ", was popular.

The concept was that as the troops advanced across open ground, the advancing troops would keep up continuous
firing and force the opposition to keep their heads down and render then unable to shoot at the advancing troops.

Early pictures shown Browning's son demonstrating the BAR standing up and the BAR supported by a strap over his shoulder.

It is later that the BAR was modified by such countries as Sweden, Poland and the firm of FN to include bipods and detachable barrels.

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/light-machine-guns/fn-model-d-bar/

The Pedersen device was also designed with the " Marching Fire " theory in mind until it was noticed that the bullet lacked the super sonic crack of the .30-06.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=Pede...X&ved=0ahUKEwiz8PbZ-prMAhVNymMKHSuJDTwQsAQIHQ

 

[tjhaile]

It is if you are trying to suppress an MG42.

First of all, if firepower was the only measure of a machine gun, then water-cooled guns would still be the norm. A Vickers has the MG 42 beat in sustained fire; keep feeding it ammo and water and it can operate at its cyclic rate indefinitely, with no need to take a break to change barrels. MG design ultimately has to strike an appropriate balance between firepower and portability for the intended role. A Bren gun is arguably more optimized as a squad automatic weapon than an MG 42 (or any other GPMG) fills all roles. A belt fed gun chambered for a full power cartridge can be cumbersome for a rifle squad. This is why many armies do not use GPMGS in the SAW role, but rather as a more portable MMG.

Second, any automatic weapon that is primarily crew-served and intended to be deployed from a bipod, tripod, or mount is a machine gun. There are many examples of machine guns that are not belt fed, yet are not just some sort of overgrown rifle that can fire full auto. I am unaware of any doctrine that applies a "trying to suppress an MG 42" test to the definition of a machine gun.