> Tim Jones wrote:
> > I always understood the Bren to be LMG material. Is it perchance the
The Bren is more like an Automatic Rifle, with a similar role to the US BAR
(Browning Automatic Rifle) or FN L2A1 (the heavy barrel and bipod
version of the old FN or SLR). I'm not sure if the US made a full-auto
bipod version of an M-14, but that's an appropriate comparison.
An LMG it isn't. Trouble is, it was used as such by the Brits and the rest of
the Commonwealth forces during WW2. With a ROF of under 12
rnds/sec, and a 30-round mag, it compared poorly to an MG-38 or MG-42,
which are ancestral to the US M-60 and a dozen other LMGs.
But... The Bren was accurate. Very accurate. Even _I_ have been known to
put every round of a 3-round burst in a dinnerplate-sized target at 200
yds, a feat I couldn't manage with a bolt-action .303 SMLE. But note
that accuracy is not a big issue with LMGs, volume of fire is more important.
The Bren is also reliable, and easy to fix when it goes wrong (usually a gas
stoppage).
So I wouldn't say it was "inferior" to it's German counterpart, because it
didn't have one. German doctrine called for an LMG, not an automatic rifle in
support. UK and US doctrine used an automatic rifle, not an LMG (like a
Lewis).
As for the Sten... it was very very cheap, and about as reliable as the much
more expensive MP38 and MP40 models. Not as accurate, or as quick firing. But
could be (and was) immersed in Mud, water, sand etc and still be able to be
fired without a full filed stripping. Incredibly easy to manufacture, even at
home. MP38s in particular were
On Monday, April 13, 1998 9:52 PM, Thomas Barclay
> [SMTP:Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca] wrote:
The Bren is a Czech well made magazine fed LMG, I used to strip them in the
army cadets. The Sten is the tinplate SMG later replaced by the Stirling. Both
very inferior to their German counterparts.
(Probably from a somewhat similar design
> strategy....). I can't see anyone equipping a large force with any
LMG's usually one per section of 8 men.
> Aden Steinke wrote:
Ye gods, we're of the same vintage...
> Tim Jones wrote:
> On Monday, April 13, 1998 9:52 PM, Thomas Barclay
Actually the bren which standards for Bruno & Enfield, where they wheremade
were a british design from a Czech prototype. Which is actually a good weapon,
its biggest problem is the fact that it is not belt fed. SOme countries like
Indis still use them as they are very hardy and easy to maintain.
I've had the opportunity to handle both the MP38 and the Sten (personal plug).
I wouldn't say the Sten was superior to the the MP38 in all ways. One
complaint about the Sten was its inaccuracy, A vet told me that if you fired a
Sten, people standing on either side of you would duck.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
snip
The Bren gun was developed from the Czech LMG series ZB26, ZB30, and ZB37
(actually the 37 branch of the series posts dates the Bren and was used as the
Besa British tank mg in WWII). The difference between an LMG and Automatic
Rifle is NOT the feed device. It is whether or the weapon has quick change
barrel. This allows the weapon to be fired into automatic mode for sustained
periods without destroying the weapon. The
Bren, and all of the ZB series do; however, the BAR, M14E2, FN FAL-HB do
not. There are also tatical differences in how LMG's (even those feed by
magazines) and Automatic Rifles are best employed.
I wouldn't say the Bren compared poorly with MG-38's and MG-42's. It
was more limited in use because it was a LMG and not a general purpose MG.
Some experts still tend to view the whole general purpose MG concept as
failure. The lower cyclic rate is often a blessing in disguise. Not only does
it allow more accurate placement of fire, but it also tends make a weapon more
reliable. The faster the action cycles, the greater the forces being exterted
on it.
> So I wouldn't say it was "inferior" to it's German counterpart,
snip
Didn't have one! Didn't have one!!! The Germans made extensive use of Czech
weapons and equipment throughout World War II. The ZB26, ZB30, and ZB37 were
produced by and used by the Germans throughout the war. They needed every good
LMG they could get.
Now if you want a really bad mg, it's hard to find a non-French mg worse
then the M60. Even back in the 1960's, the tank version was rejected by the
"tankers" in favor of the tank version of the FN MAG. The best of the general
purpose mg's are the Soviet PK, the FN MAG, and the South African SS77.
Hi all
I must confess to being old enough to remember when the Bren was still in
service in Australia in reserve formations in.303 caliber (when I was in high
school in the 1970s) it has a major liability as a support weapon due to
having a very small beaten zone, that, combined with a small magazine means it
was tactically suited for the same things as a heavy barrelled AR as a squad
automatic in support of non automatic weapon equipped infantry (first Lee
Enfield then SLR) but with the additional benefit of being able to be used for
more sustained fire, and capable of very accurate long range fire.
WRT GPMGs generally, the M60 is fine if properly maintained, as number 2 on
the gun for a couple of years I never found it to be anywhere near as bad as
popular myth makes it out to be, like the M16 I suspect early problems in
quality haunted the reputation long term, look after the pins for the cover
etc and it served well, I cannot remember ever being part of an unrecoverable
failure in operation.
[quoted original message omitted]
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 22:49:20 +1000, Alan E & Carmel J Brain
> <aebrain@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
> The Bren is also reliable, and easy to fix when it goes wrong
And the Bren used the same ammunition as the Lee-Enfield .303 bolt
action rifle. The Bren banana clip could fit in an Enfield (though it would be
a pain to use, I'd imagine), and the Enfield's 5 round clip could fit in a
Bren (this is all from memory; correct me if I'm wrong). This greatly eased
British small arms ammunition logistics.
The cyclic rate of the FN MAG is about 750 rounds per minute. The M60 cyclic
rate is about 550 rounds per minute. That's not a substantial difference.
While you can adjust the gas regulator to of the FN MAG to get a cyclic rate
of about 1000 rounds per minute, this is not a good
idea. As stated in previous e-mail, the faster a gun cycles, the harder
it is on the parts. The prupose of the adjustedable gas regulator is to allow
the weapon to stay functional as it becomes dirty.
LMG's are made to be fired on the ground. Only an idiot (or commandos) make a
habit of doing other wise.
The M60E3 actually is a decent mg. But it shouldn't have taken 20 years since
the M60 was deployed for a decent version of it to show up. Both of the FN MAG
and the PK were designed and depolyed during the same time periods, and both
are far supperior mg's.
Concerning the M16. Most people have no idea why the M16 got such bad rep. The
truth behind it is a pretty ugly story. In short the US Army Ordance
sabatogued it by changing the type of powder used in the ammunition. Why? They
wanted the M14 desinged by Army Ordance to be the US Army's combat rifle, not
the M16. Almost all the changes that were latter made to the M16 were to get
the M16 to function reliable with the new powder. This has been well
documented in a couple of books.
The Lee Enfield No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5 rifles all took 10 round detachable
box magazines. I don't know if they could be used in the Bren Gun. It's
probably mentioned in the book I have about the Bren Gun, but I would rather
the calculate the mass for different spectral class of stars then look it up
to night.
In fear of being an idiot I have to respond your one point. Just so I
am clear by LMG do you mean the FN-MINI (we call it a C9 in Canada)? If
so, you do not, and I haven't, have to fire it from the bipod. In fact there
are several times that I've had to fire it from a position where
the bipod could not used. So please, don't call me an idiot ;-). (The
rest of your post is right on the mark though)
Have you much experience handling LMG's?
[quoted original message omitted]
> And the Bren used the same ammunition as the Lee-Enfield .303 bolt
I regret to inform you that the magazine for the Bren and SMLE rifle were
definitely not interchangeable.
The Bren also had a 200 round pan magazine (like the "K" and Lewis MG's) which
came in a set of 4 mags an adaptor & a kit of parts to boost the ROF. It was
issued in small numbers for AA use and is about as rare as the Bren tripod
mount (which converted into an AA mount).
The Bren was fired from the hip (or anywhere else available) in New Guinea at
least as there was often no alternative if you wanted to see & shoot at the
enemy. ( take a look at some contemporary photos)
regards
> -----Original Message-----
I think the confusion is this, when the bren was updated to fire 7.62 and the
standard rifle in the british army was the FN L7A1 SLR the magizine from the
L7 SLR could be used on the modified bren's as the new modified bren's had the
same mag adaptor.
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
> Aden Steinke wrote:
Some am I, but not the same vineyard...
I thought we covered this sorry subject already. I thought my '69
graduation date put me amongst the old-timers here, you young
whippersnappers(never DID figure out what that was supposed to mean...).
Please deliver the previous with an accent from Grandpa of the Real McCoys(for
those in the US of the proper 'vintage'.)
However, in an attempt to bring this somewhere near back to topic, and answer
a question on the periphery of my consciousness: how large a difference in
weopen characteristics and capabilities translates into a noticable difference
in game performance? In the evil empire, a new weopen creates whole new rules.
While fun, some can be most difficult to justify compared to very similar
items.
Doesn't come up often in my own favorite GZG system, FT II, but I'm curious
about a discussion for SG II and Dirtside II.
The_Beast
Mike Looney - ionet <mlooney@ionet.net> on 04/16/98 09:24:05 AM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)
Subject: Re: <ot>Bren Guns</ot>
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
Some am I, but not the same vineyard...
> Doug_Evans/CSN/UNEBR@UNebMail.UNeb.EDU wrote:
In the current 6mm set of rules from Evil Empire, a "new" weapon just
generates a new stats line. As a general rule, no new rules are needed.
Having said that, they missed a whole large group of weapon classes that did
need new rules, but this is not the group to talk about that.
> Doesn't come up often in my own favorite GZG system, FT II, but I'm
> However, in an attempt to bring this somewhere near back to topic, and
FT II, due to its abstraction seems to be assuming that minor differences in
the weapon technology are irrelevant, so any big enough weapon with enough
range is an A battery. For DS II the same is true, weapon systems aggregate to
size /
type classes, and for me it doesn't reduce the ability to identify with the
units - as opposed to some WW2 systems where each type of gun has its
own unique profile, or the evil empire (tm) where two apparently similar
objects may have unique and different rules. Certainly in some real world
situations it may be relevant, but as in the case of the cheap and nasty large
magazine soviet sub machine gun vs the elegant smaller magazined german one,
there may have been a head to head relevance at the personal level, but at the
unit level IMHO questions of supply of ammo and maintenance are more
important.
I agree with the DS approach, as long as the technology is comparable, not
radically different like breech loader vs muzzle loader, it is the quality of
the man and his training that matters (and of course doctine, which in gaming
is
a reflection of the style of the player - my own tastes always running
to firepower and lots of it!).
Wonder weapons are an abomination unto my sight sayeth the lord....
[quoted original message omitted]
I don't know what the Evil Empire is upto. I stopped buying thier products
years ago.
Most weapons are similar enough, and troop training mediocre enough that you
can get by with abstracting them into general catagories as in DS II and SG
II. But I prefer a little more chrome. My favorit game in this genre is the
old Avalon Hill game, Fire Power. It's man on man with modern (50's to the
early 80's) weapons. It works best as a three player game, two sides playing
double blind and one ump. Weapons with similar characteristics are clumped
together on a single data line. Note that there interesting difference between
some weapons. But only in the closest games can the differences in weapons
stats determine who will win and lose. What the different stats do, is to
provide different optimal tactics, etc.