PDA

View Full Version : WHICH LMG? BREN, DP, MG34, MG42, BAR?



Hosenfield
10-08-2005, 01:12 AM
which lmg would you carry, western front 1944? You have only 500 rounds.

bren 30 x 17

DP 47 x11

mg34 , mg42 250x2

bar 20x25

10-08-2005, 01:50 AM
A bren!

FW-190 Pilot
10-08-2005, 01:57 AM
MG-42 for sure, high fire rate and long range (some version is up to 1800 bullets per minute), which is much faster than bren. and consider the german would have tank support, i wouldnt mind having short of magazine

Hosenfield
10-08-2005, 05:11 AM
given the small ammo supply, i would probably use a weapon that was more conserving of ammunition like the Bren.

Iron Yeoman
10-08-2005, 06:16 AM
I agree, if short of ammo use the bren. If you've got a fair stack of rounds go with the MG42 every time.

Mars
10-08-2005, 06:33 AM
Am MG 34,Not so much amo waste as the 42.
And I'm not sure,but it could fire also single shoots also?

Hosenfield
10-08-2005, 06:35 AM
the mg34 could fire single shots if properly controlled. so could the mg42!!!

actually, come to think of it, i'll change my pick to the mg34. Fast barrel change, the ideal fire rate, and good accuracy.

Firefly
10-08-2005, 09:30 AM
MG-34 for me, drum Mag of course....

Charles
10-08-2005, 12:47 PM
i doubt on MG 34 or 42 but deffinitely not a BAR, 20 rounds s**k in this type of weapon. The BAR also is very old it was used during WWI

Cuts
10-08-2005, 02:32 PM
which lmg would you carry, western front 1944? You have only 500 rounds.

bren 30 x 17

DP 47 x11

mg34 , mg42 250x2

bar 20x25

Not wishing to rain on anyone's parade, but you're comparing different types of weapons here.

The Degtyarev and BREN as LMGs I can understand, but the 34 and 42 are GPMGs while the BAR was not designed for either role.

Firefly
10-08-2005, 02:50 PM
What did the Germans classify the Squad MG-34 and MG-42's as? I dont think they called them GPMGs? Not sure though? Apart from the BAR, werent they all designed for the same purpose?

I need to know more about this I think.

Cuts
10-08-2005, 02:57 PM
What did the Germans classify the Squad MG-34 and MG-42's as? I dont think they called them GPMGs? Not sure though? Apart from the BAR, werent they all designed for the same purpose?

I need to know more about this I think.

No they didn't, GPMG is a more modern term that (nearly) adequately describes the type.

Some countries class (or have classed) MGs in the SF role as 'heavy' - but this does clash with M2s, DShKs and KPVs that fire what we would consider heavy rounds.

As the 34s and 42s can be used in both the light and SF roles and are belt-fed they are a slightly different kettle of fish to the others - even though they all fire rifle carts.

Firefly
10-08-2005, 03:18 PM
Apart from the SF role, didnt the Germans use their MGs the same as the other allies LMGs then?

I have read up a wee bit now. German Rifle Squad of 1941 (typical) is equipped with 8K98, 1MP40 and 1MG-34. This is infantry, the Paras had 2 x MG-34 per squad.

Did the MG-34 affect the way they operated vis-a-vis an Allied squad?

King_Nothing
10-08-2005, 06:44 PM
The BAR also is very old it was used during WWI

The A2 model used in the war was only barley 2 years old, by the time of their entrance into the war.

DerMann
10-08-2005, 08:42 PM
I would have a BAR, the version that allowed the shooter to choose between fast and slow auto. Not having ammuntion in magazines makes it a little easier to fire it because you don't have to have some guy loading you as you go. The BAR could also be fired standing up without a bi-pod which makes it more of rifle than a machine gun. I find it much more useful when compared to a MG-42 or something like that because it has several roles (rifle or machine gun). It's also a good deal lighter than a '42.

My next choice would be the Bren. The only bad thing is the magazine being on top, so you have the sights on the side. But the 30 round magazine is a major plus.

Cuts
10-08-2005, 10:07 PM
I would have a BAR, the version that allowed the shooter to choose between fast and slow auto. Not having ammuntion in magazines makes it a little easier to fire it because you don't have to have some guy loading you as you go. The BAR could also be fired standing up without a bi-pod which makes it more of rifle than a machine gun. I find it much more useful when compared to a MG-42 or something like that because it has several roles (rifle or machine gun). It's also a good deal lighter than a '42.

My next choice would be the Bren. The only bad thing is the magazine being on top, so you have the sights on the side. But the 30 round magazine is a major plus.

While I'm still of the opinion that the question is a little skew, the BREN could also fire at two rates - semi-auto, (plus double tap,) and full-auto.
Having a top mounted mag does mean that the opr can go lower prone.






Edited to add the 't' to the word 'that.'
:oops:

Charles
10-09-2005, 06:22 AM
The BAR also is very old it was used during WWI

The A2 model used in the war was only barley 2 years old, by the time of their entrance into the war.

Didn't know that :oops:
thanks :wink:

DerMann
10-09-2005, 04:38 PM
Cuts, you can still go prone with a BAR, the magazine is short enough to allow the shooter to do so. And if you really just needed to get down completely, just turn the gun sideways.

bas
10-09-2005, 04:45 PM
Couple of answers re the MG34 and MG42; the Germans described them as universal machineguns but also had different desinations for them depending on their role (ie heavy with tripod and light without).

The MG34 is select fire, on the trigger there is a "full-auto" trip leaver. Pull on the top half of the trigger for single shot, bottom half for full-auto.

Between them, the barrel change on the MG42 is faster.

Both the MG34 and MG42 use the same "assault drum" which was nothing more than a belt bag. They are not magazines as such.

My preference? MG42 hands down, better reliablity and functionality than the MG34

Cuts
10-09-2005, 06:11 PM
Cuts, you can still go prone with a BAR, the magazine is short enough to allow the shooter to do so. And if you really just needed to get down completely, just turn the gun sideways.

You are on drugs, aren't you ?

StalingradK
10-10-2005, 05:54 PM
I'd go with the MG-42... It's still considered one of the best Machine Guns till this day.

DerMann
10-10-2005, 06:10 PM
Cuts, you can still go prone with a BAR, the magazine is short enough to allow the shooter to do so. And if you really just needed to get down completely, just turn the gun sideways.

You are on drugs, aren't you ?

Ok, I'm getting visuals.

The Trench magazine on my gun is about the same as a BAR's magazine. It hold 20 shots of about the same calibre (don't get pissed at me, 7.92 and 30-06 are about the same). The only difference is that my magazine is curved a little bit.

Me laying on the ground with the magazine touching the floor.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b67/DerMann3/100_3612.jpg

Me laying on the ground with the gun sideways.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b67/DerMann3/100_3613.jpg

(I adjusted the brightness and contrast on them to make them easier to see them)

Blackdaddy
10-10-2005, 07:24 PM
Wow Dermann Just Owned you Cuts. :lol:

bas
10-10-2005, 07:28 PM
DerMann, I think Cuts is assuming you intend to shoot from that position. Certainly that is the assumption I got from reading your post.

Iron Yeoman
10-10-2005, 08:13 PM
Me laying on the ground with the gun sideways.


AAAH! Scary image of man with sideburns that flashman would be proud of!

But seriously, there's no way you could hope to be effective firing with the weapon titlted sideways. For starters you can't aim properly and also the bolt mechanism is at a funny angle. Good weapon though fella, is it still working?

DerMann
10-10-2005, 08:49 PM
Well what I meant is that If you absolutely needed to get down, you could turn the gun sideways. I didn't intend that you could still shoot it. I think I might have been a bit vauge on what I meant. My apologies, next time I'll try to be a little more specific

And my Mauser still works.

Cuts
10-10-2005, 09:08 PM
Wow Dermann Just Owned you Cuts. :lol:

If you're who I think you are you should know better than to troll mate ! :D

Blackdaddy
10-10-2005, 09:10 PM
Well if I was who thought I was and I knew what you meant by "troll" then ...I still don't know what I would do.

Cuts
10-10-2005, 09:31 PM
Well what I meant is that If you absolutely needed to get down, you could turn the gun sideways. I didn't intend that you could still shoot it. I think I might have been a bit vauge on what I meant. My apologies, next time I'll try to be a little more specific

And my Mauser still works.

No worries, apologies accepted.

Your earlier post did seem to indicate that the wpn would be fired from the 'Hollywood gangster' psn, which as we all know is about as much use as tits on a fish.

I've never carried a BREN as a job, only for range work, however I have carried the L4 which is for these purposes the same.
It is a supremely useful piece of kit which doesn't have a belt slapping around during fire & movement. Further, if we're looking for a mag fed wpn the best place to locate it is on the top, reasons including, but not limited to moving through the bush, gravity assisted feed and profile/capacity.
The BAR, (which I like on the range,) is not as well balanced and has less rds available in the mag. I've just missed out on buying one but hopefully this will be remedied in due course.

Man of Stoat
10-11-2005, 03:54 PM
Another humongous advantage of the Bren over the BAR (aside from it actually being a PROPER LMG), is that the top-mounted magazine gives you a super-slick mag change, one that only has to be done every 30 rounds.

A Bren gun team was a pair: the number 1 who fired the gun and the number 2 who loaded it. When the magazine was exhausted, the number 1 would remove it with his left hand iirc and place it under the gun. As he's doing this, the number 2 slaps a new one on and retrieves the empty. Since the bolt remains to the rear when the magazine is exhausted, all the number 1 has to do now is pull the trigger. Firing is essentially uninterrupted.

Do that with a BAR!

Edit: it's a humongous advantage

2nd of foot
10-11-2005, 04:08 PM
My recollection of firing/using the bren/L4 is vague, did it have last round hold open? As generally the drill is not to put a mag on a gun with the working part to the rear. And I seem to remember removing the mag with the right hand as the No 2 is on the left and the gun would stay in the shoulder if the left hand remained on the gun.

Man of Stoat
10-11-2005, 05:50 PM
The .303 Bren certainly did have a last round hold open. There's a GBFO lug on the back of the magazine follower which prevents the bolt going forward when the magazine is exhausted.

Twitch1
10-12-2005, 11:14 AM
I'll take a BAR due to the fact the high rate of fire is not a plus with 500 rounds only. Forget the ridiculousness of belt fed or drum as a truly mobile squad fire supression weapon too. And top fed mags that can interfere with you view are out for me too. Everything beside the BAR are too cumbersome given any scenario with 500 rounds in 1944 western Europe combat. The BAR would be best for what we used to call shoot 'n scoot tactics.

Cuts
10-12-2005, 01:28 PM
I'll take a BAR due to the fact the high rate of fire is not a plus with 500 rounds only. Forget the ridiculousness of belt fed or drum as a truly mobile squad fire supression weapon too. And top fed mags that can interfere with you view are out for me too. Everything beside the BAR are too cumbersome given any scenario with 500 rounds in 1944 western Europe combat.

...
Have you fired a BREN or L4 ? Come to that an F1, Owen, or Madsen ?
They don't obscure vision to any noticeable extent, certainly not as much as the current CQB optics.




...

The BAR would be best for what we used to call shoot 'n scoot tactics.
Are you a vet ? There are a number of serving soldiers that read this site too, where did you serve ?

bas
10-12-2005, 04:27 PM
Has anyone here actually tried to carry one of the mentioned MGs and 500 rounds of ammunition?

Good luck!

Hosenfield
10-12-2005, 07:13 PM
a mg42 with 500 rounds of ammo, or 1 and 2/3s of an ammo box weighs around 26+16+10= 52 pounds

also, magazines tend to double the weight of the ammo.

Bladensburg
10-12-2005, 07:22 PM
Yes but that weight would be split between the gunner, the no2 and possibly the rest of the section.

bas
10-12-2005, 07:48 PM
a mg42 with 500 rounds of ammo, or 1 and 2/3s of an ammo box weighs around 26+16+10= 52 pounds

also, magazines tend to double the weight of the ammo.

Someone once asked me what the weight of 250 rounds 8mm mauser actually was.

In linked belts, including the 2 cans it's just shy of 9.5kg a can. Each can holds 250rounds only so thats a 12kg machinegun and 19kg of ammo for a nice total of 31kg...

Try lugging that around in combat situations along with the rest of your battle kit.

Edited to add pretty picture of Kar98k and 250 rounds of 8mm mauser:
http://www.gunpics.net/bullets/bullets3.JPG

Hosenfield
10-13-2005, 12:28 PM
well, actually, the cans could carry 300 rounds.

ammo allocation:

gunner- mg42 with loaded drum for quick firing. I've seen many photos with the gunner carrying the mg42 and one can though.

assistant- pistol, two cans, 2 spare barrels


all other riflemen (except for rifle grenadier and scoped rifleman) in the gruppe- one can.

Cuts
10-13-2005, 01:15 PM
...

gunner- mg42 with loaded drum for quick firing.

...

Belt box, right ?

mike M.
10-13-2005, 02:12 PM
I haven't fired any of the weapons on this list :cry: but I would vote for the MG 34 or 42 as the best. BUT if I could buy any of the above weapons I would buy a 1918 BAR, I love the looks of that weapon.

Hosenfield
10-13-2005, 02:53 PM
...

gunner- mg42 with loaded drum for quick firing.

...

Belt box, right ?

there was a 50 round drum or a 75 round saddle magazine that could be carried.

Cuts
10-13-2005, 03:22 PM
...

gunner- mg42 with loaded drum for quick firing.

...

Belt box, right ?

there was a 50 round drum or a 75 round saddle magazine that could be carried.

Aye, the 'drum' is actually a belt box which can hold one section of link, and clips easily onto the feed tray of either the 34 or 42.

The saddle drum on the other hand needs a different top cover to permit use and as far as I'm aware was not fitted to the 42 due to the double pawls.
That said, it's not beyond the bounds of credibility to think that one or two might have been produced in prototype form, as the Germans were quite famous for letting their engineers have a fiddle. ( :shock: )

bas
10-13-2005, 04:06 PM
No modification was ever made to the MG42 to accept the saddle drum which was withdrawn from infantry service in 1941.

Hosenfield, ammo cans came with 250 rounds to a can, 5 belts linked into 2 belts one 150 rounds the other 100. Because there is a taper on the 8mm case to fit them in the can the 2 belts lay in different directions one facing forward and the other facing back.

You can argue this all you like, this will not change the fact that I have several belts of 8mm mauser at home, along with WWII German ammo cans. I have tried to load 300 rounds into one and it is too cumbersome to manage. If you have any links that contridict my actual experience and research, please provide them.

Also in your first post you did not specify who was carrying the ammo leaving the assumption that the gunner would need to as you make no mention of squad mates.

With regard to the gunners assistant, he was armed with a rifle, not a pistol and probably had one of the heavest loads in the squad. The pistol was issued to the machinegunner.

Cuts
10-13-2005, 06:08 PM
No modification was ever made to the MG42 to accept the saddle drum which was withdrawn from infantry service in 1941.

...

Thanks, I was sure they didn't use saddle drum mags on the 42.

I mentioned the possibility of prototypes because I have seen a Madsen Rekylgevær modified by the Germans to use DM1 link ! :shock:
The mechanical equivalent of getting two lifts to operate simultaneously in opposite directions using the same shaft !

Hosenfield
10-13-2005, 09:56 PM
right, my fib. i went from 250 to 300 to 250!

well, according to the german army handbook published by the US govt., the second man in the gruppe had a pistol during the early war years )1939-1941)

however, he was officially given a rifle on paper.

But, in reality, by 1944 there were shortages of everything, and if there weren't enough carbines in a division (which was often the case), the assistant would go rifle=less and compensate for this by carrying extra belts.

the assistants were usually the gruppe's worst shot with the rifle, so not giving him one for the benefit of carrying an extra two belts was clearly worth it.

If you want to see this in action, there are photos of monte cassino paratroopers with gunless assistants carrying 3 cans of ammo.

many officers also had a disfavorable view of any rifle; they knew that it was mostly mgs doing the killing. Thats why some officers often ordered that the assistants go in with only pistols.

This way of acting was expecially prominent amoung elite truppes, like panzergrenadiers and parachutists, most of which carried two mg42s per gruppe.

bas
10-13-2005, 10:13 PM
Hosenfield I'm not saying you are wrong, but I would really like to see some links backing up the claims you've made.

Yes there were shortages of materials, however the Germans got around that by issuing 2nd line troops with captured weapons so that all the standard issue German manufactured guns were available for the front.

They also stripped police and guard units of their rifles to pick up the shortages at the front.

I can not fantom why a officer would prefer that his men go into battle with a pistol over a rifle. It is a well established fact that the pistol has next to no use on a modern battle field, certainly none as an attacking weapon.

With reference to the paratrooper photos you also need to take the situation in context, I too have seen ammo carriers hauling 4 cans of rounds. But these guys are feeding fixed HMG nests and not in a squad on manuvers.

Hosenfield
10-13-2005, 10:31 PM
Hosenfield I'm not saying you are wrong, but I would really like to see some links backing up the claims you've made.

Yes there were shortages of materials, however the Germans got around that by issuing 2nd line troops with captured weapons so that all the standard issue German manufactured guns were available for the front.

They also stripped police and guard units of their rifles to pick up the shortages at the front.

I can not fantom why a officer would prefer that his men go into battle with a pistol over a rifle. It is a well established fact that the pistol has next to no use on a modern battle field, certainly none as an attacking weapon.

With reference to the paratrooper photos you also need to take the situation in context, I too have seen ammo carriers hauling 4 cans of rounds. But these guys are feeding fixed HMG nests and not in a squad on manuvers.

if you pick up Hurbert's Meyer's 12th SS volumes 1 and 2, there are shortages in carbines amoung even among the elite SS-panzergrenadiers. there are also photos of HJ troopers that you can find online of mg assistants armed with nothing but a pistol, 2 cans, belt ammo, and spare barrels.

it wasn't so much that germany wasn't producing enough rifles, it was that many times enough rifles didn't reach the front; (especially if the troops were committed to retreats and lost weapons)

My grandfather's panzergrenadier unit also had a shortage in carbines that was addressed in a similiar fashion.

Cuts
10-14-2005, 07:24 PM
My recollection of firing/using the bren/L4 is vague, did it have last round hold open?

...

Sorry, must have missed this earlier.
The short answer is yes, both the BREN and the L4.

Twitch1
10-17-2005, 02:02 PM
Yeah, 500 rounds of .30-06 in 20 magazines for the BAR is a bulky load more than heavy besides all you other gear for one man to carry.

Cuts- yep, I was a recon Marine in country 69-70.
Semper Fi!
http://1stbn4thmarines.com//Military-flags-animated/usmc.gif

Timbo in Oz
11-04-2005, 09:59 PM
Having passed for Marksman and Coach, in the 1970's - and on foreign weapons - at the Infantry Centre, Singleton, Australia. I think it might help if I give my perspective.

Weapons fired and field stripped (and hot-barrel changed) in this class on the course - included; the 303 and 7.62 Bren, a Vickers MMg, the M60, the FN-MAG, the RPD in 7.62X39, the DP in 762 x 63R, the BAR with a bipod.

At that time all 7 RAR battalions, and other infantry, had just re-equipped with the L4A4 Bren, to sighs of relief from all quarters.

Remaining GPMG M60's were at coy/battalion for MMG duties. I never liked the M60 as a squad gun. And I still hate that 50/50% risk gas piston.

My perspective stems from a deep interset in our and the world's military history. My Grandfather served on the Western front in the Artillery Ammunition train, of the 3rd Divison AIF. These are the guys who brought up the ammunition, and anything else, on wagons, right in to the front line.

And my Father served in the RAAF in the Western Desert in wwII. The ground component of all RAF and RAAF squadrons much preferred the Bren as an LAA LMG, and local defence weapon, to anything else - despite the ready availaibility of lots of the high cyclic rate VGO* observer's gun on adapted Bren LAA tripods. Let alone all the captured Eytie and German stuff/

[ 'Downed and scrounged' 0.50 Browning aircraft guns were very popular from '42 on, as well. ]

and they were even more keen - after experiencing just ONE 'Benghazi Handicap'!

Why, because it was accurate#, and reliable, (and didn't move about a lot#). Apart from the Vickers Berthier (*related) and the ZB's themselves, and the DP, few LMG's or GPMG's of this period were without serious flaws.

Next up - the BAR just is NOT within a bull's roar of a proper LMG.

The originals didn't even have bipods. It was meant to be fired from the hip while supported on a sling - in the advance, standing up!!!?????.

Just one of those weird ideas stemming from the Frog's reigning obssession with 'le attaque'. And, adopted without much thought by the Yanks.

So, the bipod is an afterthought. Okay?

In the Pacific War, and in Korea many BAR's had their bipods taken off, 'cos they didn't help much.

Just 20 rounds in the magazine???? @

It has no changeable barrel, which means that sustained fire rates will destroy the barrel in a very few minutes. The chamber also over-heats leading to cook offs. Let alone jams, separated cases and just failure from heat. Replacement rates in service were VERY high.

Viz. The action is quite violent - even when the damper is up to OEM standard.

And, so, it isn't particularly accurate.

The idea that a top-mounted magazine is a 'BAD idea' - for an LMG - trying to store 30 rds minimum - is just silly. No it does NOT affect your 'sight-picture', or your ability to see the wider gun-crew / squad picture, and it keeps you and the gun lower down to boot. It is also ergonomically more efficient, - fast - when changing magazines.

Watching Regular infantry 'gun crews' at Bren drill is a revelation. You just can't do any task as quickly on an M60, which is slow and a fiddle by comparison.

The Bren isn't a really 'easy' carry even with the strap, no LMG can be, but it is a LOT easier than the M60 GPMG.

The Bren simply works, makes the gunner and the number 2's life easier. The gas adjust - with the tip of a round - is another aspect of the thought that was built into it.

The low cyclic rate of fire (400-450 IME) is NOT a drawback, the concentration of rounds in a given volume of space, in a given period, is pretty close to that of the spray gun MG34 or 42, because the Bren's beaten zone was only 1/3rd as wide. More effective, bearing in mind that you emplace* LMG's for enfilade fire if you have any brains. *You do this lying on the ground, mind - orificers tend to forget this necessity.

So the Bren's barrel also doesn't get as hotin a given period, yet barrel changing is easier than most others, encouraging the crew to change barrels regularly and extend the life even more. And the crew are less tired and unstressed about burns.

Has anyone here actually changed a HOT barrel on any MG!? Fast?!

It just cannot be done quickly with an M60, not unless you like spending weeks in hospital with your hands bandaged. Jumping into the air while blowing on your hand, and screaming, isn't recommended during a fire fight.

On the Bren, once you are across the drill, it is easy, safe, and is taught, lying down. Takes no more three times longer than changing mags.

It is a great pity that no-one ever thought of a '30-06 Bren, it couldn't have been hard, as the cartridge is almost a copy of the 8mm Mauser, internal ballistics wise, which was the base design cartridge for all the ZB's!

To sum up

any of the Brens/ZB's, or the VB, were the finest LMG's in traditional loadings ever, with Russia's somewhat older DP close behind. and,

the BAR is more of an anomaly, than an LMG.

there it is.

Timbo

Cuts
11-05-2005, 08:26 AM
Can't say fairer than that Timbo, you've summed up the BAR/Bren discussion quite effectively.

IronFist
11-07-2005, 06:18 PM
Short supply of ammo so i would probably go with a Bren. But if i had to i would take a BAR

Cuts
11-07-2005, 06:43 PM
Why's that IF ?

ss-standartanfuhrer
11-09-2005, 02:01 PM
i;d hav the BAR as a machine pistol wud any1 hav a MP40?

Bladensburg
11-09-2005, 02:15 PM
But the BAR is patently NOT a machine-pistol or anything of the sort, it is as long if not longer than the Garand. :?

Twitch1
11-11-2005, 02:05 PM
And when we compare the old with the new we have the M-14 as a reincarnated BAR without a bipod. Both .30 caliber. Before the M-16 replaced it you had a squad full of LMGs with the M-14.
:shock:

Man of Stoat
11-11-2005, 02:22 PM
And when we compare the old with the new we have the M-14 as a reincarnated BAR without a bipod. Both .30 caliber. Before the M-16 replaced it you had a squad full of LMGs with the M-14.
:shock:

Err, a full-auto M14 is in no way, shape or form an LMG. And in any case most of them were locked at semi-auto only. Ever fired 7.62mm full-auto in a 9-10lb rifle? If you're interested in killing large areas of sky it's a great idea, otherwise it's the old tits-on-a-fish again.

Timbo in Oz
11-11-2005, 09:45 PM
The m14 is the Garand M1 design restocked and converted to a 20 round mag feed in 7.62 Nato, is all.

Not an LMG by any measure, which is why the auto option was
'dropped'.

same with the FAL or 'Slurr' as we knew it.

'kay?

Timbo in Oz

Twitch1
11-12-2005, 03:58 PM
The .30 caliber cartridge in the BAR or the M-14 has the same power is my point. And since both weapons are fully automatic the squad with M-14s had no need for a weapon like a BAR since the squad's firepower is quite adequate. Doesn't matter how the M-14 came to exist and that the M-1 is it's grandfather. In most real world combat the squad's M-14s were ample as a heavy enough automatic weapon so as to preclude the need for a similar-calibered, magazine-fed weapon such as a BAR.

Timbo in Oz
11-12-2005, 05:59 PM
Sorry twitch, this is absolute twaddle

it is NOT the volume of rounds fireable, but the weapon as a whole as a (ballistic) system.

If the round doesn't hit anything, or at least go real close, (crack!.... thump!) IE near enough to keep you still and not firing back, what use is it?

spraying ammunition around may be what we saw the yanks in 'Nam doing, but it ain't what properly trained and commanded infantry do. BIONot - TV viddie - of the fighting at the old capital Hue was used to emphasise our training - in aimed fire ONLY. Yes, even for 'nam, which was not always jungle fighting, now was it?

Yes, I know all about the 'Salvo' research and its points, BUT all armies still train you to AIM, no?

An LMG is used to provide accurate fire support to the squad - bursts of 3-10 rds minimum. An M14 would be all over the shop, as it is a LOT lighter, the recoil force is the same, but the movements will be greater, ask Newton.

If you have fired an m14 on full auto from the hip, did you hit the target, at all, and how far away were you from it?

Now, I have seen very fit and bulgingly muscled instructors fire the M60 on auto - one handed - and hit the 50 meter targets easily. Though heavy the m60 is a straight-line reaction weapon, it doesn't rise at the muzzle much, which the M14, manifestly, will.

But are you really THAT fit? And if so do you think you're typical of a US infantryman's skills and fitness during the m14's service?

The barrel of an M14 fired regularly on full auto use would wear out in a few days! Apart from ammunition supply versus effectiveness issues, this was the other reason that most armies with ARs in traditional loadings allowing for auto fire usually dropped it in production and modded issue weapons.

A possible reason for the confusion about this - in 'US Army' circles - is the long delay in replacing the BAR, which wasn't within a bull's roar of an LMG, and the M14 is even further away.

The 'MG42 post wwII copy' project failed for poor management review of of the drawings, and another 2 decades later you got the 'flawed but acceptable' GPMG-M60, like we did, but when we got the L4A4 Bren back we all were relieved.

Persistence by the USA - in retaining 'military 30-06' exterior ballistics, in a shorter case - IMO delayed rational development of infantry weapons in the West. And by a much longer time, if not for Stoner.

2nd of foot
11-12-2005, 06:16 PM
I would not disagree with you on the M14 squad not requiring the BAR, but to say that they did not require section level fire support I would disagree. Although the M14 could fire auto it would not be effective in that roll over 200m. The ability to hit or give effective fire would not be possible. To reach out and affect the enemy would require an LSW of what ever flavour you prefer.

I think from reading most of what has been said this relates to a cultural difference. I liked to have my gun and my gunner could double tap very quickly all day provided we gave him ammo. Brits prefer point, accurate fire as opposed to area suppressing fire. This is not to say that one is better than the other, it’s just a different way of looking at it.

I have an article from a British Army Review (BAR to really confuse things) about the crossing of the Rhine. The soldier talks about how effective the MG 42 was and that the sole use of the other section members was to feed the gun. The suppressive fire kept his troops down and caused a lot of problems.

I have never quite understood why the US kept the BAR for so long. I can understand the inter war years and also the war but to keep it into Korea and beyond is baffling, unless they had shed loads of them left over.

Topor
11-12-2005, 07:56 PM
The Aussies DID make one big mistake though & that was in accepting the L2A1 HB FAL as an LMG; too light for an LMG & too heavy for an IW.
Plus; how the hell are you supposed to keep a low profile with a 30rd magazine stuck in the dirt?
The Canucks made the same mistake - just 'cause it was new didn't make it better than the Bren in the intended role.

Timbo in Oz
11-12-2005, 11:29 PM
Topor,

the heavy barrel FAL was never adopted as an LMG by the Australian Infantry.

It was mainly used by Engineers, Cavalry, and services units like transport etc, to provide some measure of automatic fire capacity.

No it isn't a suitable LMG, though it's rate of fire is reasonably low.

The parachute training base, AND the RAAF's own Airfield Defence guys, were equipped with the L2A1, for a while. But the Infantry always brought their M60's or L4 Brens. Later when there were sufficient m60's, or later when the Brens were reissued - they got them too.

In 'Nam, the sappers seemed to have obtained M60's anyway!

And JBTW Topor me old maaate, do please learn to read the headings of people's posts, on Pattle f'rinstance but as a general rule as well.

'kay?

;-)!

Topor
11-13-2005, 07:14 AM
I didn't just read it, I quoted it in full - no sign of the word "Hurricane".

I also said nothing about Infantry & the L2A1, merely that it was neither fish nor fowl so to speak.

:roll:

Firefly
11-13-2005, 07:28 AM
And JBTW Topor me old maaate, do please learn to read the headings of people's posts, on Pattle f'rinstance but as a general rule as well.

'kay?

Ive read it too. No mention matey. Also I think interaction works best when condescention isnt in every post. It gets my back up straight away. Oh and by the way, you cant spell Australia!

Twitch1
11-13-2005, 02:55 PM
Hey all I can tell you is volume of fire was paramount in Vietnam. 2nd of Foot has my same question in mind- why did the BAR live so long after WW2? By the time a magazine-fed 30 caliber automatic rifle was available to all squad members the BAR concept was obsolete. I never said a squad shouldn't have had another superior, true LMG for use. For all intent the name says it all Browning Automatic RIFLE. It was a crossover weapon that foretold of the M-14 but was not anywhere as effective as a true belt-fed LMG. And BTW, the M-14 had a bipod- just like the BAR that increased it accuracy! Most certainly no one would be using an M-14 on full auto enough to warp a barrel in a few days of operation.

Guns like the MG 42 were superb but as you mentioned they require dedicated assistance. But so do almost every belt-fed in static position. But that's fine for the firpower produced.

My squad's M-16 usage yeilded extremely short bursts in the bush. We got to where we could control 2-3 round shots. I was a ammo hoarder. We fired lots of round in semi-auto mode too. I counted my rounds like they were gold but when the squad firepower was brought to bear in fully automatic supression use the point was to waste the enemy not be thrifty with the government's $$ ammo expenditure. But at a fire base with a ton of ammo stores no one, no one is conserving ammo when the perimeter is breached. Sorry if the company's concentrated barrage of full auto fire lacing the surrounding tree stands don't coincide with the rules of engagement in someone fantasy world.

In training it was emphasized that these weapons were accurate at 100 meters with 300 being an real extreme. We trained on M-14s at Pendleton and they had a far greater hit-producing range in semi-auto fire. They could at least produce large area results at 400+ meters. On auto they fired about the same rate as the M-16. What we used them for in the real world made the M-16 a better weapon.

All the clinical talk in comparison is silly. The M-16 was lighter and for the same weight in ammo we could tote nearly twice as much. It was the M-1 carbine to the Garand on the WW2 Pacific islands. IE., you don't need text book long range capability when you perpetually engage at less that 100 meters. There are weapons for every purpose so no serious sniper depends on an M-16 with a scope, right? YOU saddle up with all the extra weight of your M-14 and ammo but don't complain that you have almost no opporyunity to use its superior range in a limited visibility field of combat.

Anyone that has ever been shot at knows that there are no long aimed bursts of full auto fire unless you enjoy the idea of being a head shot for Charlie. Training to aim on the range is altogether different that snapping off 3 rounds in the area you think your target is firing from and ducking down. The distances you can hit on the range and the accuracy you encounter when your breathing heaves like a steam engine as your heart races and your mouth is like cotton while you're crawling through water buffalo shit trying to lay in a couple rounds is completely alien in comparison!

I just want to laugh cause I've heard so many misguided concepts for decades from armchair soldiers who compare ballistics and think they know about combat. Ballistics don't kill anything but time. This whole line of talk about picking off individual enemies at 5-600 meters is pure bull crap invented by the Lazyboy crowd as they mull around FPM ratings with their equally deluded buddies. You can do that on a windless day with perfect light firing on a bigass target while controling your breathing with no incoming. Try it in rain after spinning around to a kneeling position, snap shooting 150 meters up a ravine attempting to zero in on a 1/10th of a second muzzle flash you think you saw before you drop down flat to avoid incoming. Yeah, right.

Every engagement doesn't require a texbook example of deployment and weapon placement. There's time when you don't even want the M-60s to get involved. We had .45s and there were times in which THAT was the best weapon for the job at hand given the logistics of the terrain and positions of the enemy. I guess someone will now begin the usual, predictable tirade of how much better the 9mm is in some lofty, clinical universe where statistics are more important than actual events.

The armchair tacticians all seem to know exactly what a squad should be armed with and how they should engage and under what circumstances. Every "expert" has had some idea of what was needed for the next war and they were all dead wrong. Or should I say us grunts were dead due to this penchant for antiquated "rules" being followed that applied to the last conflict.

These comparison polls are fun in the general sense until someone starts taking it seriously that some SS sergeant with an MP-38 and flip up sights could regularly pop off GIs from 300 meters. :D

Man of Stoat
11-13-2005, 04:41 PM
And BTW, the M-14 had a bipod- just like the BAR that increased it accuracy! Most certainly no one would be using an M-14 on full auto enough to warp a barrel in a few days of operation.


(puts telescope to GOOD eye):

I see no bipod:

http://www.softair.arcoefrecce.it/fotosoft/12609.jpg

M14A1, yes, but the M14 itself has no bipod...

Timbo in Oz
11-13-2005, 07:17 PM
Topor and others, see above in the Subject box - for my apology.

But when you (Topor) copied and pasted the 'Message body' of my reply to your question - to which the answer is Pattle and a Hurricane you did not copy OR read the subject box.

so, once again, do please go and read the 'Subject' box of my first reply, above the message body and you'll find 'HurricaneI' in there.

it is there.

And you do owe me an apology because you persaist in refuisng to read it or acknowledge it.

Okay?

Timbo in Oz

Timbo in Oz
11-13-2005, 07:22 PM
DO read the line above here, in the subject box, which IS part of my reply to you.

Then go to the quiz thread and read my subject line of my first reply.

Okay?

Timbo in Oz
11-13-2005, 07:33 PM
Post subject: Pat Pattle? In a Hurricane Ialmost certainly, hard to know.
he did well on Gladiators before that, too.

I know he's NOT the RAF's official highest scorer, Johnnie Johnson is IIRC.

But Pattle is reliably known to have shot down a lot of aircraft in Greece.
_________________
Skeptical mensurer, and audio scavenger.

Okay?

Topor
11-13-2005, 10:25 PM
Timbo
I certainly don't owe an apology - it was you who put the answer in the wrong place. Once I noticed this I posted a reply, which for some reason failed to appear :?
Pattle is now accepted by most RAF Historians as being the most successful fighter pilot of WWII, though Johnson remains the official highest scorer.

Timbo in Oz
11-13-2005, 11:03 PM
After I told you where the first part of my answer was, you did not bother to look for the additional text.

You simply proceede to 'prove' your initial reaction that I had not answered your question, despite my pointing your error out more than once.

What is the subject heading for? why not go and ask the maintainers to drop it so you don't have to use it.

IME on the web - given that topics and thread shift in coverage, it is common for people on web forums to use the subject line or heading - to identify the shift when responding or to begin their responseOR even to answer in the subject heading and put <nt> ie. not USE the message body at all!

Yes, some people never do this, even when they've taken the thread way off the original topic.

I still feel owed an apology - for your refusal to look where I had suggested, and another for trying to duck it by suggesting that I had put it 'in the wrong(?) place'. Where else but in my answer was it?

If when I pointed out your error you got your back up, that was not something I did, but a choice you made.

This point would apply even were we in the same room, because I am not responsible for what you do.

I do hope you will accept that I did have the answer correct first up, that you have wasted my time and others, and created tension that could have been avoided, if you had simply taken me at my word.

NB I will continue to use the subject/haeding box and wille xpect you to read it along iwth the rest of each message, sometimes if I can fit an answer in it that is all I will use.

it is quicker after all.

Timbo in Oz
11-13-2005, 11:31 PM
IME on the web - given that topics and threads shift in coverage, it is common for people on web forums to use the subject line or heading - to identify their shift when responding - in the subject heading box.

OR to begin their answer there,

OR even to answer in the subject heading only, ending with <nt> in the heading block ie. they don't use the message body at all.

That is where I'm coming from, and is my experience on most of the fora I visit.

I still feel that I am owed an apology - for your refusal more than once to check my answer, carefully, uanless you thought I was lying. And, now this twaddle that I had 'put it in the wrong in the wrong place ? Where else - but in my answer - was it?

And, please show me the forum rules that states that it is 'the wrong place'.

Lastly, it is possible - probable - when I pointed out your error, or the second time - that this got your back up. If it did that was still a choice you made, not me.

I will use the subject/heading box whenever I wish to and expect the courtesy, from you and others, to read it as the beginning of any message I post. Sometimes if I can fit an answer in it, that is all I will use. It is quicker, after all.

Timbo in Oz
11-13-2005, 11:55 PM
Topor,

You wrote

"I certainly don't owe an apology - it was you who put the answer in the wrong place."

see below.

"Once I noticed this I posted a reply, which for some reason failed to appear."

Repost it. Then we can restart the quiz, and TIA.

-----------------------

IIME - on many web fora - that topics and threads often shift in coverage, become more specific, etc.

It is common for some alert people on web forums - to use the subject line / heading box - to identify 'their' shift when responding or in response to a post - that didn't change the original heading - but should have. Eg with a WAS ........ etc.. Or

to begin their answer there, Or

to use the subject heading only, ending with <nt> in the heading block ie. they don't use the message body at all.

That is where I'm coming from, and is my experience on most of the fora I visit.

I still feel that I am owed an apology - for your refusal, more than once, to check my answer carefully for additional text - in the 'heading' which is usually above the body.

Perhaps you thought I was lying?

And, now you say I 'put it in the wrong place'? Where else - but in my answer - was it? And, please show me the forum rules that states that it IS 'the wrong place'.

Lastly, it is possible - probable? - when I first pointed out your error, or later - that this got your back up. If you did, it was a choice you made, not me.

I might use the subject/heading box whenever, and expect a courtesy from you and others, from here on in.

That you look there first on any message I post. If I can fit the answer in it, that may be all I will use.

It is there after all, and available to each poster to use - as part of their message - anytime they wish to.

Warmer still,

Timbo in Oz

Firefly
11-14-2005, 03:45 AM
I will try and pay more attention to your posts in future.

Twitch1
11-14-2005, 11:01 AM
Man of Stoat The M-14s we used at Camp Pendleton had bipods.

Marmaduke Pattle is the 'unofficial' leading Allied ace due to the fact that all official records were lost on Malta where he racked up his tally.

2nd of foot
11-14-2005, 03:49 PM
I have also come across a bipod attachment in the mid 70s in NI. It originated in the US and was issued to whoever wonted them. And may have been designed for the M14.

It consisted of two pressed steel legs that were hinged about an inch from the end with a grove cut for the barrel. Attached to the hinge was a spring that kept them open at about 70 – 80 degrees and clamped to the barrel. They came with a webbing case, which they could fit into when the spring was depressed. Only useful in static positions.

Like this one but made of steel.

http://www.gunaccessories.com/ati/bipods/index.asp

wikipedia has the list of bit that come with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_(rifle)


Accessories
· M6 Bayonet with M8A1 sheath
· Bandolier
· National Match sling
· Combination Tool
· Cleaning equipment
· Winter safety
· Winter trigger
· Magazine filler
· Model 1961 ammunition magazine pocket
· M2 Bipod
· Grenade launcher
· Grenade launcher sight

And some did have bipods for the M14

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m14.htm


M14, basically a product improved M1 Garand, performed well as a infantry rifle. The M14 had an effective range of 500 yards (460m). The M14 used a standard NATO 7.62mm cartridge in a 20-round magazine. The M14 was the standard Army infantry rifle, until replaced by the mass fielding of the M16 5.56mm rifle in 1966-1967. Some M14s were equipped with a bipod for use as a squad automatic weapons. However, the M14 displayed an erratic dispersion pattern, excessive recoil, and muzzle climb when fired as an automatic rifle.

M14A1. The Army designed the model M14A1 to overcome these problems, but it was too light to become a truly successful replacement for the M1918 series BAR, and production was halted in 1963. The M14A1 featured a full pistol grip and a folding forward hand grip.

My bold.

Firefly
11-14-2005, 04:37 PM
No, MOS cant be wrong - surely, he knows everything about SA!