SOMEONE, erroneously wrote earlier today that te BREN LMG only had one
crewman.
WRONGO!
the BREN had a team; the section LCPL was the team commander, the gunner was
the NO.1, the loader was the NO.2, and there were 2 ammo bearers carrying
preloaded magazines for it in addition to their personal arms.
four infantry men out of the full strength TOE infantry section.
i have never been able to find out what the BASIC AMMO LOAD for a BREN
LMG was-this has eluded me.
magazines were reloaded from standard service rifle stripper clips, or single
rounds. BREN LMG magazines were not casually tossed away when empty.
the BAR in its SAW role had 2 men to serve it, although 1 man was most common.
The gunner NO.1 had a special ammo belt that cheld 12 magazines in its six
pouches, and a 13th magazine in the BAR. the NO.2 carried a second ammo belt
loaded with 12 magazines in addition to his personal weapon and ammo. this was
the MINIMUM BASIC AMMO LOAD for a BAR, and both men often carried as many as
24 loaded magazines when going into action. BAR magazines,were not tossed away
as jun when empty either.
other GIs could not reload BAR magazines with ammo from their own belts
and bandoliers as it was carried in pre-loaded 8 round clips for the
M-1 rifle.
(especially if they were toting SMG or carbines!)
BAR magazines were re- loaded 1 round
at a time or from 5 round stripper clips. reloads were carried in stripper
clips from bandoliers (for the 1903 rifle) or in ammo cans of loaded stripper
clips or bandoliers of stripper clips.
the same person, i think, also wrote about the problem of reloading those BAR
20 round magazines due to high rate of fire.
WRONGO again. the BAR had two rates of autofire, a "slow" cyclic rate, and a
"fast" cyclic rate.
the BREN only had one cyclic ROF-higher than the BAR's.
both weapons were restricted to using pre-loaded magazines, and unable
to switch over to a belt feed.
(this happened later to the BREN LMG when it was re-chambered and
redesig - nated as a GPMG)
to further muddle the waters, i found out that the BELGIAN made BARs made
bewteen the wars were able to use belted ammo or loaded magazines, and that
these BARs also were used by the HEER as a substitute LMG along with the Czech
LMG, the French LMG, and the Danish LMGs.
(LOL-so we had both BRENs and BARs fighting on both sides in WW II)
the loaded weight of a BAR was nearly 20 pounds-empty weight was around
17 pounds.
i just went brain dead and cannot remembr what the empty and loaded weight for
a BREN LMG was.
also, the BREN used the curved magazine as it fired the pre-20th
century.303 round. the Czech made LMG, the French LMG, the Belgian made BAR,
the US BAR, and MADSEN used rimless cartridges, hence the "straight" magazine.
anyway-some LMG thoughts about old and reliable weapons.
DAWGIE
In a message dated 3/1/02 5:22:14 PM Central Standard Time,
> DAWGFACE47@webtv.net writes:
> anyway-some LMG thoughts about old and reliable
The Bren was a little heavier than the Browning, but not much. The interesting
thing to note is that the 30 round Bren magazines were prone to
malfunction when loaded fully. It over-stressed the magazine spring. It
was customary to carry magazines loaded with 28 rounds instead of thirty. I
assume the gun crew loaders (in their copious free time, under fire in scanty
cover) thumbed a couple extra rounds ijnto the magazine that was going next
into the gun, but who knows?
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
> (this happened later to the BREN LMG when it was re-chambered and
Errr, I could be very wrong, but I'm quite sure the GPMG is a completely
different weapon than the BAR.
Cheers,
THE BREN LMG BECAME RE CLASSIFIED AS A GPMG WHEN IT WAS RE CHAMBERED FOR
7.62MM AND MODIFIED TO USE A BELTED AMMO FEED!
(as i remember it; a tripod was introduced in addtion to the normal bipod to
allow for this mission)
BAR was never, ever classified as a GPMG-it was always what we call a
SAW now.
DAWGIE
On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 08:40:16 +0100 (CET) Derk Groeneveld
<derk@cistron.nl> writes:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
Two points 1) Is your BAR a typo to his BREN? or does the snippage
unintentionally mislead me?
2) Dawgie, did you mean designated as *the* GPMP or as *a GPMP type* weapon?
Not that I have the slightest clue what GPMP means (General Purpose Machine
*something*?) in reality.
Gracias,
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 09:09:04 -0600 (CST) DAWGFACE47@webtv.net writes:
GPMG! Duh, wonder where I got GPMP or whatever I typed earlier this morning...
I hate that part of sleeping in, my body wakes up before my
brain (used to 0400 reveille) re-engages...
Gracias,
GPMG-a NATO type designation for a belt fed tipod mounted GENERAL
PURPOSE MACHINE GUN (usually a LMG with a folded bipod using the
tripod mounting and maybe special sighting equipment, like an MG-34 or
MG-42.
supposedly there was a provision to mount an M-60 in this manner too,
but i never saw it done.
i think the UK were the first ones to actually come up with the classification
GPMG for a tripod mounted LMG.
DAWGIE
Gracias.
When I 'woke up' totally I realized GPMG was as stated but earlier my mind
insisted on the dyslexic version... GPMP.
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:12:00 -0600 (CST) DAWGFACE47@webtv.net writes:
> At 9:09 AM -0600 3/2/02, DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
The Bren was never converted to belted/linked ammo. There were some
trials versions done at Enfield of such a beast. But none were ever issued.
The 7.62 Brens that soldiered on after WWII were converted largely from old
stock.303 brens.
Also, note the Bren was a section weapon. Given a 10 man infantry section,
there were 3 guys on the bren with the lance corporal over the bren group and
a corpral over the full 10 man section.
So you had 1 Cpl with sten or other sub gun
6 pvts w/ SMLEs or No4's
1 LCpl with a SMLE/No4 and several bren mags
1 Pvt w/ a Bren, several mags and a parts wallet
1 Pvt w/ bren mags and spare barrel/parts roll
Supposedly the 7 man rifle group carried a few bren mags each as well. If they
could, everyone carried full sized shovels, Mills bombs and other kit.
> (as i remember it; a tripod was introduced in addtion to the normal
This was for the Sustained fire role as they called it. Not the same
class as the Vickers (which had 2 carriers/ gun and 4 men).
> At 11:01 AM -0500 3/2/02, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> 2) Dawgie, did you mean designated as *the* GPMP or as *a GPMP type*
GPMG in one sort means a General Purpose Machine Gun. In another sort
it means the FN-MAG as used by the British as a medium machine gun or
in armored fighting vehicles like my Ferret. They also know it as the L7. The
7.62 brens were known as L4's.
> At 11:12 AM -0600 3/2/02, DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
Technically the MG-34 and MG42 were the first GPMGs. They had a true
to life dedicated sustained fire role as well as an infantry platoon role in
bipod form.
The FN-MAG GPMG was FN's very wise choice of decisions at the right
time (regarding weight, capibilites and calibre).
When I was a battery commander, artillery units habitually mounted the M60 on
tripods for battery defence. Fact is, we used it on the tripod a lot more than
we did on the bipod.
[quoted original message omitted]
I hear that BC! we used to duct tape the tripod legs on the truck bows for air
guard in movement also in the 105mm units I was in...former Smoke!
Don
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 02:28 2/03/02 -0500, you wrote:
The
> 7.62 Brens that soldiered on after WWII were converted largely from old
> stock .303 brens.
The differences being the barrel, no conical flash suppressor and the
magazine. Straight has opposed to curved. Did a search and found this picture;
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg10-e.htm
I never handled the 7.62mm Bren, although it was still in service in the
Australian Army for quite some time. Used in Vietnam and continued in service
into the 1980's, I can remember regular army units firing this weapon on the
range when I was a teenager. The last time I came across the Bren was when I
saw some army reserve officer cadets under going weapons
instruction, but by this stage I think the Bren was almost exclusively a
training tool.
Cheers
Small world, ain't it Smoke<g>. I was in155MM SP units except when I was in
2nd Div in Korea and 18th Artillery Brigade at Fort Bragg - those were
both 155 towed outfits. Only time I worked with 105's was the Basic and
Advanced courses at Fort Sill.
[quoted original message omitted]
Yes it is that...BTW I'll spare you my litany of past assignments of the last
20 some years, it would be unnecessarily tedious......) And we'll completely
avoid my feeling on the lack of gunnery skills do to the advent of Paladin..)
Off me box and back under me rock...
> At 9:25 AM +1100 3/3/02, Derek Fulton wrote:
Actually the 7.62 Brens are still in use today. The Indians have lots of them.
SLRS and Enfields too. The Indian government just handed out a bunch of
Enfields to some villagers in Kashmir as self defense tool. Not that they
showed them much as far as training.
I remember feeling the same way when Tacfire came into the inventory. I find
myself wondering sometimes if any of the LTs these days still know how to
crank a mission with chart paper, an RDP, and a GFT.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 08:40:16 +0100 (CET) Derk Groeneveld
Err, yes. Silly me.
> 2) Dawgie, did you mean designated as *the* GPMP or as *a GPMP type*
It's GPMG - general Purpose Machine Gun
Cheers,
Don't tell me your longing for that dinosaur FADAC? The fire control computer
that was (just) bigger than your FDC track, and (just) faster than my
grandmother in a snow storm....) Charts and darts were faster!
I don't know how long you've been out but the Paladin has had some really
interesting firing incidents. Like the latest one (year ago now) the GPS was
off and the new
E-5 chief fired 300mils out! In my day I would stick my
head out the hatch and orient on the impact area, call me silly but I trust no
one when I'm shooting! Needless to say a few heads rolled on that one as the
round landed off Fort Hood and hit this old guy's yard lol.
They're all hooked on GPS and the PLUGER no one terrain associates
.......scary, glad I'm done!
Oh, no, FADAC was a cantankerous beast on the best of days. I liked Tacfire as
a system, and understand that BCS is very slick ( I only saw prototypes). I
just think the human being in charge needs a solid grounding in gunnery
fundamentals otherwise he just becomes a button pusher. I've been out since
'82, so I'm way out of date.
[quoted original message omitted]
On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 14:28:59 -0500, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> So you had
Not always a private with the bren. My dad was a lance corporal in the
Highland Light Infantry, from 1958 to 1960. He was the section's Bren gunner.
He also noted that during marches, the Bren was passed from man to man. The
thing was heavy and it was considered unfair, at least in his unit, to have
the same man marching with it. Note that this was not during combat
situations, though they trained under combat situations.
Makes for an interesting scenario idea. Have a support weapon carried by a
random member of the squad, requiring a reorganize to put it into the right
hands. Oh, and then have the squad jumped in ambush...
> At 8:03 PM -0500 3/2/02, Robert W. Eldridge wrote:
Likely the red-legs that had always used horses to tow their guns and
limbers thought similar things about the mechanized concept that was taking
shape around WWI. Many still resisted the whole concept. Airplanes were even
more disdainful.
> At 10:10 PM -0600 3/2/02, Allan Goodall wrote:
wrote:
> So you had
Oh, granted. Above was just the basic structure. It deviated more or less.
Some cases had more Stens spread around. Others had experienced privates
leading the entire section.
> He also noted that during marches, the Bren was passed from man to man.
The
> thing was heavy and it was considered unfair, at least in his unit, to
Well, load everyone else down with additional Mills bombs, 2" motar rounds for
the mortar section, added bren mags, a full sized shovel or pick, some compo
boxes, and extra water. The Bren gunner wouldn't feel so bad...
> Makes for an interesting scenario idea. Have a support weapon carried
Could be interesting. But if they are walking about in a contact area with out
the correct people carrying the correct weapons, then they
need to get bush-wacked.
LOL- do not know about the BAR being passed around from first hand
knowledge, but all the menfolks who were in the infantry in WW I, WW BANANA
WARS, WW II, and KOREAN WAR and later, the BAR gunner was saddled with the
beast all of the time!
BUT, with the M-60, during training, the members of the gun team
routinely swapped off carrying it in return for another load.
sometimes, during combat ops, the gunner and assist gunner might swap off
carrying it, but the ammo bearers, and other GIs wee equally heavily burdened
with weapons and ammo equal to or surpassing the weight of an LMG with a 25
round partial belt or (rarely) a 100 rd belt loaded into an assault pack.
and i agree- on a route march it would make life interesting to see
what happens if the bad guys launch an ambush and the squad SAW might not be
where the SL, PSG or LT thought it was!
actual operation (except for ammo) should not be a problem as we all
were trained to use- maintian all infantry weapons.
interesting about the belt fed BREN LMG. i know i saw and read about the UK
Army going over to this way back yonder when.....
i must have then assumed that the FN-MAG ( later seen from a distance )
was this weapon in the GPMG mode. the aussies and kiwis in the RVN used
M-60 LMGs, FN rifles shotguns, and an odd looking SMG in Tay Ninh
Province when i was there in 1969.
do not remember seeing any magazine fed BREN LMGs.
DAWGIE
> At 11:08 3/03/02 -0600, DAWGIE wrote:
> i must have then assumed that the FN-MAG ( later seen from a distance
That could either be the Owen SMG ( or Owen Machine Carbine) first produced in
WWII or it's successor the F1 SMG. Both noted for their vertical magazine and
reliability.
> do not remember seeing any magazine fed BREN LMGs.
Not with any of the infantry battalions at any rate, almost all the references
or information related to me by veterans indicate that the
infantry used M-60s. Perhaps they were used in 'rear' I do remember
seeing one reference stating that a New Zealand artillery unit was equipped
with Brens.
Cheers
> At 11:08 AM -0600 3/3/02, DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:
[snip]
Likely it is easy to confuse the Bren and the FN-MAG both have very
boxy appearances and similar arrangements. Ian Hogg's book on Machine Guns
covers the development of the BREN quite extensively. From the early days in
the ZB form as made by the folks at BRNO to the post war developments for a
belt fed version.
Rest assured the BREN was magazine fed in service and was never belt fed in
service. The 7.62 brens have as straight magazine. The.303 models have a
curved magazine.
Thanks.
I'm not crazy.
Well, I *am* but...
never mind. <grin>
Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com
On Sun, 3 Mar 2002 02:35:47 +0100 (CET) Derk Groeneveld
<derk@cistron.nl> writes:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Glenn M Wilson wrote: