Bren vs BAR

[Amsel]

I have read in a few places that the Germans used the MG's much more then the allied troops. I cannot recall specifics but the German platoons on the Westfront fielded a large percent automatic weapons. When I get home from work I'll check into it.

 

[Colin1]

Just found this
looks like an excellent site although it does class the BAR in the same category (Light Machine Guns) as the Bren. There's other weapons comparisons on the page too and a Site Map link at the bottom although I haven't tried that yet

Infantry Weapons of World War Two

 

[Amsel]

Fighting in Normandy, Combat Lessons, No. 4 (Lone Sentry)

German Weapons One infantry regimental commander has given a good detailed description of the defensive organization: "We found that the enemy employed very few troops with an extremely large number of automatic weapons. All personnel and automatic weapons were well dug in along the hedgerows in excellent firing positions. In most cases the approaches to these positions were covered by mortar fire. Also additional fire support was provided by artillery field pieces of 75-mm, 88-mm, and 240-mm caliber firing both time and percussion fire. Numerous snipers located in trees, houses, and towers were used.

Generic Stucture of a Fallschrimjger-Division

Fallschirmjäger-Division - circa late 1944


A Division had three Fallschirmjaeger regiments, an artillery Regiment, a machine-gun Battalion (this was later removed), an anti-tank Battalion, and supporting units. total strength was 15,976 men. With nine rifle battalions and strong supporting elements, a 1944 Fallschirmjaeger Division at full strength was much stronger than a 1944 Army Infantry Division (six rifle battalions, 12,352 men) and had a much higher percentage of automatic weapons. (43) this is one reason why the Fallschirmjaeger divisions were so good at defense late in the war.

 

[Amsel]

Just found this
looks like an excellent site although it does class the BAR in the same category (Light Machine Guns) as the Bren. There's other weapons comparisons on the page too and a Site Map link at the bottom although I haven't tried that yet

Infantry Weapons of World War Two

Nice website,thanks.

 

[timshatz]

For clarification, which automatic weapons were deployed at squad level by the different combatants?

UK: Bren
US: BAR (at what level was the M1919 issued at?)
Germany: MG-34/MG42?

They actually had the BAR ready in time for the last year of WW1. But the Army decided not to issue it to the troops in large numbers because, and I am not making this up, they didn't want the Germans to capture it and see how it worked. So, that means the US troops don't get it either.

Talk about bad reasoning.

Anyway, it was issued in small groups to test and went over very well. But not widespread.

 

[parsifal]

Comparing the BAR to the bren yields two designs that are similar in capability, but in my opinion the BAR is not as good as the bren.

The BAR was a reliable weapon, and did fill the role of squad level LMG, but it didnt do this job all that well. It was actually too light, this was a legacy of its original design as an assault rifle, to go forward with the Infantry as they crossed no-mans land in the trenches. It was a successor to the disastrous Chaucat, which the AEF had adopted in 1917.

The weapon was too light when operating in the true LMG role. It tended to bounce around too much, which affected its accuracy.

The other major flaw was the small capacity of the magazine, only twenty rounds, as compared to thirty for the Bren. Coupled with the slightly higher practical rate of fire, this meant that the effective burst time for the BAR was only 1.83 seconds, as opposed to 3.8 for the Bren. You cannot lay down an effective suppressive fire with only 1.8 seconds of burst available.

I dont know anything about the barrel changing arrangements for the BAR, but for the bren i know they were very simple and quick, and that the Bren had a very effective barrel life.

The only criticism i can level at the bren was that it was very expensive make. The breech block for example was only 2.9 lbs, but it had to be machined from a piece steel more than 22 lbs in weight, and required no less than 229 machining operations to fabricate. this meant that it took a lot of steel to build a Bren, and it took a lot of factory time to manufacture it.

The reasons why the FG-42 is superior to both of them is because it can do two jobs instead of just one. it can operate as both the squad weapon, and as the Platoon support gun. It has a much higher theroretical ROF (up to 1200 RPM), and is actually cheaper to build because it uses a lot of stampings and sheet in place of machied parts. The germans rightly considered the MG to be the heart and soul of the Infantry squad....its main source of firepower, whereas the british still believed it to be a support weapon, complementing the firepower of the rifle commponent. Moreover, the germans were the first to add a second (and sometimes even a third) MG to the rifle squad, giving the squad commander the ability to provide his infantry with mutually supporting fire zones (making it much easier to catch an enemy in cross fire)

 

[Soren]

Hello Parsifal,

I assume you were talking about the MG-42 right ? Just a small correction: According to all the data I have the actual RoF of the MG42 was 1,500 rpm, the modern MG-3 shoots at 1,200 rpm. Not that it makes any difference.

 

[Soren]

Amsel,

To add to what you've already posted:
German Soldiers

Among other elite German outfits in Normandy, there were paratroopers. They were a different proposition altogether from the Polish or Russian troops. The 3rd Fallschirmj�ger Division came into the battle in Normandy on June 10, arriving by truck after night drives from Brittany. It was a full-strength division, 15,976 men in its ranks, mostly young German volunteers. It was new to combat but it had been organized and trained by a veteran paratroop battalion from the Italian campaign. Training had been rigorous and emphasized initiative and improvisation. The equipment was outstanding.

Indeed, the Fallschirmj�ger were perhaps the best-armed infantrymen in the world in 1944. The 3rd FJ had 930 light machine guns, eleven times as many as its chief opponent, the U.S. 29th Division. Rifle companies in the FJ had twenty MG 42s and 43 submachine guns; rifle companies in the 29th had two machine guns and nine BARs. At the squad level, the GIs had a single BAR; the German parachute squad had two MG 42s and three submachine guns. The Germans had three times as many mortars as the Americans, and heavier ones. So in any encounter between equal numbers of Americans and Fallschirmj�ger, the Germans had from six to twenty times as much firepower.

And these German soldiers were ready to fight. A battalion commander in the 29th remarked to an unbelieving counterpart from another regiment, "Those Germans are the best soldiers I ever saw. They're smart and they don't know what the word 'fear' means. They come in and they keep coming until they get their job done or you kill'em."

 

[parsifal]

Hello Parsifal,

I assume you were talking about the MG-42 right ? Just a small correction: According to all the data I have the actual RoF of the MG42 was 1,500 rpm, the modern MG-3 shoots at 1,200 rpm. Not that it makes any difference.

Yes. It was originally called the MG-42. I may have mixed the name up with the assault rifle developed for the LW.

 

[Soren]

Btw, I'd take the Luftwaffe's FG-42 over both as-well. That was one excellent piece of kit. As a fire support weapon the MG-42 MG-42 were however years ahead of anything else throughout the war.

 

[Amsel]

Amsel,

To add to what you've already posted:
German Soldiers

Indeed, the Fallschirmj�ger were perhaps the best-armed infantrymen in the world in 1944. The 3rd FJ had 930 light machine guns, eleven times as many as its chief opponent, the U.S. 29th Division. Rifle companies in the FJ had twenty MG 42s and 43 submachine guns; rifle companies in the 29th had two machine guns and nine BARs. At the squad level, the GIs had a single BAR; the German parachute squad had two MG 42s and three submachine guns. The Germans had three times as many mortars as the Americans, and heavier ones. So in any encounter between equal numbers of Americans and Fallschirmj�ger, the Germans had from six to twenty times as much firepower.

And these German soldiers were ready to fight. A battalion commander in the 29th remarked to an unbelieving counterpart from another regiment, "Those Germans are the best soldiers I ever saw. They're smart and they don't know what the word 'fear' means. They come in and they keep coming until they get their job done or you kill'em."

On an interesting note about the FJR.3, an American I&R platoon became the most heavily decorated unit for a single action in WWII fighting the FJR.3 at Lanzerath.

The 18 men of the I&R platoon had inflicted between 400 and 500 casualties, decimating an entire battalion of the German 3d Parachute Division. The platoon had halted the mission of the paratroopers to rapidly break through the American front and allow armored units of the German main effort the Sixth Panzer Army immediate access to open roads toward the Meuse River On the night of 16 December, the 9th Parachute Regiment in Lanzerath failed to continue to the west. They feared heavy resistance from American defenses such as they had encountered from the I&R platoon.

It is an indicator of how interlocking fields of fire from a bunch of BAR's, two Browning .30's, and a single M2 can cause havoc. This little platoon of intelligence guys caused 50% casualties on an elite unit with small arms fire.

More of the story is here- Battle of the Bulge: Ardennes Forest

 

[Soren]

Hehe, this was about the weapons not about how some defenders crushed an ill concieved attack

The FJR3 was amongst the most feared German units on the western front, and on almost every occasion they gave a lot better than they got.

Btw, only 60 German paratroopers died at Lanzerath, the US unit however succeeded in holding off a 500 man strong German unit, which is a grandous task considering the weapons they had.

 

[Deanimator]

The BAR was not really an LMG - more of a proto-asault rifle in many ways, and perhaps influenced by the US Army's employment of the French Chauchat automatic weapon during WWI.

Not really an assault rifle in any way, since rather than an "intermediate" cartridge like the 7.92x33mm, it fired the full power .30-06 rifle and machinegun round. The BAR was a "machine rifle" in concept.

The US had an LMG, the Johnson, but used very few of them. Instead the BAR and the Browning M1919A6 were forced into the LMG role, for which they were ill suited.

The BAR was a good gun, but not an LMG. The M1919A6 was neither an LMG, nor even a particularly good gun, in contrast to the M1919A4.

In it's intended role, at the time, the BAR was a good gun. The Bren would have been a far better LMG.

 

[Deanimator]

They actually had the BAR ready in time for the last year of WW1. But the Army decided not to issue it to the troops in large numbers because, and I am not making this up, they didn't want the Germans to capture it and see how it worked. So, that means the US troops don't get it either.

Talk about bad reasoning.

Anyway, it was issued in small groups to test and went over very well. But not widespread.

Browning's son Val went to France to test and demonstrate the guns.

The Army could have had Lewis guns too, but Lewis and the head of the Ordnance Corps HATED each other. It didn't help that the gas system of the original .30-06 test guns wasn't optimized for that round and was unnecessarily violent in its action.

I believe that the Marines went to France with Lewis guns and had them taken away and replaced with the wretched Chauchat.

 

[Amsel]

Hehe, this was about the weapons not about how some defenders crushed an ill concieved attack

The FJR3 was amongst the most feared German units on the western front, and on almost every occasion they gave a lot better than they got.

Btw, only 60 German paratroopers died at Lanzerath, the US unit however succeeded in holding off a 500 man strong German unit, which is a grandous task considering the weapons they had.

I guess the Intelligence unit didn't get the memo about FJR.3 being the most feared when they inflicted so many casaulties upon them. A crushing blow for an elite unit brought on by automatic weapon fire from BAR's, and two .30 Brownings, as well as a Ma Duece. I know it doesn't say much about the weapons as it does the employment of them. I only brought up the FJR.3 as a side note though.

 

[Deanimator]

I guess the Intelligence unit didn't get the memo about FJR.3 being the most feared when they inflicted so many casaulties upon them. A crushing blow for an elite unit brought on by automatic weapon fire from BAR's, and two .30 Brownings, as well as a Ma Duece. I know it doesn't say much about the weapons as it does the employment of them. I only brought up the FJR.3 as a side note though.

The real demonstrations of superior weapons and their employment routinely occurred in the Pacific theater.

Japanese infantry were regularly scythed like corn by a nearly impassible combination of Browning M1917s, M1919A4s, Garands, .50 M2HBs and occasionally, pump action and semi-auto shotguns. A face full of 00 buck trumps "Yamato damashii" every time.

The Japanese Navy was so impressed by the Garand that they [unsuccessfully] tried to copy it.

 

[Soren]

The BAR Ma Deuce weren't the reason for the success of the I&R platoon's success, it was their tactics which won the day. They could inflicted even worse casualties had they had a couple of MG-42's or MG-34's around instead. As light as the BAR, belt fed and possessing a higher RoF they would've greatly improven the firepower.

 

[Amsel]

The BAR Ma Deuce weren't the reason for the success of the I&R platoon's success, it was their tactics which won the day. They could inflicted even worse casualties had they had a couple of MG-42's or MG-34's around instead. As light as the BAR, belt fed and possessing a higher RoF they would've greatly improven the firepower.

I don't disagree. Unless mobility is an issue.

 

[Soren]

Thats the great thing about the MG-42 MG-34, they were just as mobile as the BAR Bren, yet the MG-42 MG-34 possessed everything the BAR Bren did and much more.

It was good that the US possessed a rifle as good as the Garand, cause their MG's certainly left a lot to be desired. And the British had it even worse.

Anyway we're straying off topic yet again. Guess we just can't help it

IMO one can't say the BAR was better than the Bren and vice versa, both had their good bad sides.

 

[gjs238]

Thats the great thing about the MG-42 MG-34, they were just as mobile as the BAR Bren, yet the MG-42 MG-34 possessed everything the BAR Bren did and much more.

It was good that the US possessed a rifle as good as the Garand, cause their MG's certainly left a lot to be desired. And the British had it even worse.

Anyway we're straying off topic yet again. Guess we just can't help it

IMO one can't say the BAR was better than the Bren and vice versa, both had their good bad sides.

Is a belt-fed gun really as mobile as a magazine fed gun?
Can a belt-fed gun truly be a one-man weapon?

For a SAW, might the BREN (or to some extent the BAR) have an advantage over a belt fed gun (MG34, MG42, M1919, etc) in terms of mobility?
Every squad member can carry a magazine or two.
And there needn't be a dedicated "crew" for the gun.

On the other hand, US Rangers and Airborne used M1919's in lieu of BAR's.

Anyone know what the Marines used for SAW's?