Picture of the day

That is some serious old-school engineering know-how right there.

Preparations for righting the overturned hull took under eight months to complete. Twenty-one derricks were attached to the upturned hull; each carried high-tensile steel cables that were connected to hydraulic winching machines ashore. The righting (parbuckling) operation began on 8 March and was completed by 16 June 1943. Teams of naval specialists then entered the previously submerged ship to remove any additional human remains. Cofferdams were then placed around the hull to allow basic repairs to be undertaken so that the ship could be refloated; this work was completed by November. On 28 December, Oklahoma was towed into dry dock No. 2 at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. Once in the dock, her main guns, machinery, and remaining ammunition and stores were removed. The severest structural damage on the hull was also repaired to make the ship watertight.
Click to expand...

NASPH_%5E118506-_19_March_1943._USS_Oklahoma-_Salvage._Aerial_view_toward_shore_with_ship_in_90_degree_position._-_NARA_-_296975.jpg


When folks talk about "American can-do-attitude", this is the sort of thing they're talking about.
 
Wow. As a millwright,my hat off to the skilled sailors and civilians for the rigging,etc that had to be completed. Wow.For some strange reason this salvage stuff interests me.
 
I always wondered exactly how the US Navy managed to refloat all the sunken battleships (with the notable exception of USS Arizona) after the Pearl Harbor attack.
 
AP said:
Not quite the same but I was always intrigued by a Cdn Infantry officer, who served in France and Holland, explaining how desirable they found the US BAR and would 'adopt' them whenever they came across one without an 'owner'.
Click to expand...

funny, I recall the Canadians from the 1st Special Service Battalion referring to the BAR as meaning "B"loody "A"wful "R"ifle and wishing they could have their BRENs back....
 
Donny Fenn1 said:
funny, I recall the Canadians from the 1st Special Service Battalion referring to the BAR as meaning "B"loody "A"wful "R"ifle and wishing they could have their BRENs back....
Click to expand...

The BAR was a retrograde step compared to the BREN; no quick change barrel, smaller mag, bottom feed mag, tougher to strip and clean. The BAR was a product of 1917/18, while the BREN represented the next generation in LMGs.

The US infantry made do with the BAR. To some extent its limitations were offset by having every soldier in the squad armed with an M1 Garand. OTOH, we really needed the BREN to compensate for the lack of firepower from troops still cranking away with 1890 design Lee-Enfields.

Our firepower disparities really became obvious in Korea where they were issuing extra BRENs to fill the need. In the post war era we should have re-jigged our BRENs to 7.62 like the Brits did. It would have been much better than the FNC2.
 
The BAR was an automatic rifle not a light machine gun. It was meant to replace the Chautchaut. It was a C2 equivalent.
 
purple said:
The BAR was a retrograde step compared to the BREN; no quick change barrel, smaller mag, bottom feed mag, tougher to strip and clean. The BAR was a product of 1917/18, while the BREN represented the next generation in LMGs.

The US infantry made do with the BAR. To some extent its limitations were offset by having every soldier in the squad armed with an M1 Garand. OTOH, we really needed the BREN to compensate for the lack of firepower from troops still cranking away with 1890 design Lee-Enfields.

Our firepower disparities really became obvious in Korea where they were issuing extra BRENs to fill the need. In the post war era we should have re-jigged our BRENs to 7.62 like the Brits did. It would have been much better than the FNC2.
Click to expand...

when i joined the Militia, or now Army Reserve, in 1971, we trained on the FNC2 , older troopies that were former Reg Force,and later joined the Militia and had cut their teeth on the Bren, didnt have too many nice thing to say about the FNC2, and after i heard about the Canadian Army in Korea, facing mass Chinese infantry, they were very appreciative of the Bren's quick change barrel feature, if they had the FNC2, it could have been another Ross rifle bungle in the jungle mess, overheated barrels, and all that good stuff, and no quick barrel change feature
 
x westie said:
when i joined the Militia, or now Army Reserve, in 1971, we trained on the FNC2 , older troopies that were former Reg Force,and later joined the Militia and had cut their teeth on the Bren, didnt have too many nice thing to say about the FNC2, and after i heard about the Canadian Army in Korea, facing mass Chinese infantry, they were very appreciative of the Bren's quick change barrel feature, if they had the FNC2, it could have been another Ross rifle bungle in the jungle mess, overheated barrels, and all that good stuff, and no quick barrel change feature
Click to expand...

What did it take to convert the BREN to 7.62x51? A new bolt, barrel, and magazines?

IIRC the Brits converted their BREN's to use L1A1 (FN-FAL) 20 and 30 rnd mags so that section riflemen could supply the BREN gunner with ammo if necessary.

I wonder why the Canadian Army didn't do the same?
 
I was a member of the Militia in the late sixties and early seventies. I shot the C2 occasionally and I liked it well enough. Later I had the opportunity to do a comparison of the Bren and the BAR. I am no authority on these firearms but, hands down, I really liked the Bren. Of course we also shot the Sterling in those days. Stories abounded about what a piece of crap a Sten was (and how much better the new Sterling was) so you can imagine my chagrin when I finally was able to try a Sten and actually liked it. Sterling was probably the "better" gun but like all submachine guns their days were numbered.
 
shredder said:
What did it take to convert the BREN to 7.62x51? A new bolt, barrel, and magazines?

IIRC the Brits converted their BREN's to use L1A1 (FN-FAL) 20 and 30 rnd mags so that section riflemen could supply the BREN gunner with ammo if necessary.

I wonder why the Canadian Army didn't do the same?
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct about the Bren needing a barrel, mag, and mag,to convert to 7.62 mm NATO... im' of the same opinIon as you, why the Canadian Army dumped the Bren, in favor of the FNC2, it was lighter, weighted, if i remember 15 lbs as compared to the Bren's 25 lbs,but the no quick change barrel, was a huge step back,... one would have to talk to some of the old troopies that were involved with the reasons for the Army getting the FNC2 back in the mid 50's, same time the FN C1 rifle and 9mm SMG started being produced
 
Magnum PI said:
I was a member of the Militia in the late sixties and early seventies. I shot the C2 occasionally and I liked it well enough. Later I had the opportunity to do a comparison of the Bren and the BAR. I am no authority on these firearms but, hands down, I really liked the Bren. Of course we also shot the Sterling in those days. Stories abounded about what a piece of crap a Sten was (and how much better the new Sterling was) so you can imagine my chagrin when I finally was able to try a Sten and actually liked it. Sterling was probably the "better" gun but like all submachine guns their days were numbered.
Click to expand...

We shot the 9mm Sterling alot in my Militia days,i got to shoot a Sten at a Las Vegas gun range, and , like you liked it, but it in no way compared to combat conditions, i know my dad who served in WW2, told me the Sten had a bad reputation, of a accidentel discharge, he said there were several guys in his battalion, in Normandy, shot themselves in the foot, mostly jumping into a trench, there was a rumour floating around that there might be a court martial if the authorities could prove it was for SIW, "Self Inflected Wound"
 
The C2 was not a very great rifle. I was an armourer in the late sixties to seventies. The thing had a bad habit of falling apart. It was a lot lighter than the Bren but in no way was it better other than that. I fired the Bren and loved it. The C1 has always been my all time favorite rifle. The Sterling was good for what it was but I was never a fan. The only casualty during the FLQ affair was an artillaryman shot himself with one when he jumped off the back of a truck. The smg came to our shop to see if it was defective but we could find no defect. It was then sent to Ottawa where they determined that the selector spring was too weak and changed out every one of them in the army.
 
Inglis produced the BREN in 8x57 Mauser for the Nationalist Chinese during WW2 and the Chicoms got a lot of them as well as Thompson SMGs when they defeated Chiang kai Shek and the Nationalists.A lot of this weaponry was turned back against our people in Korea.

The last BRENs I saw in use were by the Nepalese bn in South Lebanon inthe late 80s.
 
I own a C2 and had a Bren (and a Sten and Sterling, for that matter.)

The C2 was a noisemaker good for converting good ammo into scrap brass.

The only way to hit anything was to shooting it semi. On FA the first shot went where you aimed, the send into the dirt and the third way over the target.

The Bren could be fired like a Thompson. Short bursts went where you aimed. All of the shots.

Sterling was nicer than a Sten, but both worked well - for a light SMG.
 
The Bren is still being manufactured and marketed by India


Gun Machine 7.62 MM '1B'



PRINT DOCUMENT

A light machine gun capable of delivering a high volume of fire and engaging moving ground targets. It is air-cooled gas operated and magazine fed for fully automatic or semi automatic fire. It can be fired from a bipod/tripod. The gun is supplied with two barrels, which may be quickly changed in the event of overheating. The barrels is fitted with flash eliminator and gas regulator.

SPECIFICATION :
Calibre
7.62 mm
Length of Weapon
1130.30 mm
Weight of Weapon with Loaded Magazine
10.35 Kgs
Weight of weapon with Empty magazine
9.64 Kgs
Type of Magazine
Box
Magazine Capacity
30 Rounds
Weight of Empty Magazine
0.40 Kgs
Weight of Loaded Magazine
1.11 Kgs
Type of Sight used with Range Setting :
- Fore Sight
Adjustable Blade Type
- Back Sight
Adjustable Aperture Slide and Leaf Type
Range Setting
182.8 meters to 1828.8 meters
Effective Range
457.2 meters
Maximum Range
1828.8 meters
System of Operation
Gas Operated, Positive Locking
Ammunition
Cartridge SA 7.62 mm Ball 'A'
Cycle Rate of Firing Per Minute
500 Rounds
Rate of Firing Single Per Minute
60 Rounds
Total Number of Components
143
Total Number of Assy/Sub Assy
23
BARREL :
Length of the Barrel
538.48 mm
Bore Diameter
H 7.595 mm/ L 7.544mm
Number of Rifling Grooves
6
Twist of Rifling Grooves
Right Hand
Lead of Rifling Grooves
304.8 mm
#
PERFORMANCE:
With standard 7.62 mm ball NATO ammunition the dispersion area will be 38.1 mm x 38.1 mm at 22.86 meters and 152.4 mm x 152.4 mm at 91.44 meters with a series of 5 shots with one elimination each in both the cases.

Contact :

Marketing & Export Division
Ordnance Factory Board
Ayudh Bhawan
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
10A, S. K. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 001, India.

Tel: 0091-33-2248 9027 / 2248 2103 / 2248 5077-80
Fax : 0091-33-2248 1748/2210 8235
Mail : ofbtrade@dataone.in
http://www.ofb.gov.in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom