[mooxe]

BAR & Bren are just two examples I can think of.

Were the Bren and BAR meant to be section weapons capable of sustained supressive fire?

I guess there was no fully auto MG portable by one man that was not magazine fed, atleast from what I know. Was that why these were developed? Surely the powers that be knew one mam portable magazine fed machine guns were far better?

[0202243]

ZB 26
M249 (not all models, ammo belt & magazine)
LSW

http://www.google.be/search?source=ig&hl=nl&rlz=1G1GGLQ_NLZZ267&q=magazine+fed+machine+guns&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[kawasaky]

The BAR was designed for "walking fire" (firing from the hip while moving) as it was thought to be needed in trench-warfare in the West (1917- 18 ).
They were really used as light machine guns, although 20 rnds per mag limited it's effectivenes. That coupled with mechanical issues prevented bar18 from being a "section weapon capable of sustained supressive fire". However, it was used when the USA entered WWII bcs they had nothing better!

Bren, on the other hand, was a genuine light machine gun concept built weapon (upon the licence purchased from Zbrojovka [vz. 26]).

Google for the Jap Type 96 Light Machine Gun, it was based on the French Hotchkiss (Jap type 11) with some improvements from above mentioned Zbrojovka.

[papa_whisky]

The BAR is a compromise between rifle and lmg that really failed to capture the best of both worlds.

[Superkala]

Hey, could someone reword the opening post for me? Im so confused by what this topic is about  8O

edit; oh i see. The question is why was reliance placed on the BAR as a LMG compared to belt fed light machine guns like the mg42, etc. Personally i deploy the the BAR Rifle units with an focus on the rifle-not a LMG at all but simply a better rifle. It seems that historically squads were given two BAR rifles so one could cover the other when reloading.

[Hoogley]

From what I understand the BAR was designed as a WWI "shoot from the hip" auto-fire weapon to apparently answer the German MG fire as the US troops marched across no-man's land...  Yeah.  

The Bren was chosen as the British LMG in the '30s.  Interestingly, it was chosen over the BAR which was also submitted as a candidate.

I've got to say, the small amount of ammo in both the BAR (particularly) and the Bren has always made me wonder about the reality of using these weapons.

I mean, both fired at about 500 rounds per minute (different BAR models achieved different rates so we'll average it), which is roughly 8 rounds a second.  The Bren usually had a 30 round box magazine, and the BAR a 20 round box magazine.  Does reality match the maths?  Could a BAR unload it's magazine in 2½ seconds at continuous squeeze, and the Bren in 3½ seconds?  At reduced fire rate, the BAR should conceivably be able to dump it's load in about 4 seconds.  Is this true?

Even if you fired in three round bursts (about 1/3 of a second squeeze) that would be around six bursts for the BAR and ten for the Bren before you'd need a magazine change.  Surely the reality is that both of these weapons worked efficiently enough that nobody felt the need to redesign either by, oh I don't know, making the magazine a little bigger or something like that.  It's just that from a first glance it seems they must have had to change magazines an awful lot.  But, the Bren had a 100 round pan magazine available to it, and it only seems to have been used in an AA role, so obviously nobody felt the need for more ammo.

However, if reality is anything like the numbers suggest, I can only assume that neither the BAR or Bren were capable of being A-grade sustain fire suppression weapons.  Mobile certainly, but not high sustain fire.  If anything, I gather they were used in practice like slightly cumbersome automatic rifles, which is kind of what they are.

I always assumed that this was another reason why the M1919A6 was developed, aside from the BAR being too long for jumps.  I mean, the M1919A6 may not have been as mobile a weapon as the BAR, but with a comparable ROF and belt-feed in 250 round lengths, it surely would have provided more in the way of real sustain fire section support.

In the end I gather that there must have been some dissatisfaction with the ammo limitations of magazine feeds, since both weapons were replaced with the M60 and L7 GPMG respectively, and both of these weapons used belt feed.  So, I guess in the end one man magazine fed MGs weren't better.  Although, in all fairness, with the US troops armed with M16s by the 60s, the rest of the squad was armed with personal weapons better than the BAR anyway.

Still, I've never been a soldier and I've never fired an automatic weapon, or indeed any weapon, so I'm definitely no authority.

[schrecken]

Bren barrels would overheat if fired too fast...

[papa_whisky]

The Bren was a section weapon, it was not designed for a sustained fire role. It was also too accurate to fulfil this role, where as a modern MG is deliberately designed to be less accurate and with its rate of fire will produce a cone of lead covering an area rather than more of a point target that a bren can do. It could and was fired from the hip when assaulting but in a classic section level tactics  section 2 i/c, the gunner and the number two would form a gun group that provides covering fire for the rifle group as they assault. Ammo for the bren would be carried by each member of the section. In action the 2 i/c directs the fire, the gunner fires, and the number two changes the magazine, and the barrel as it gets hot. The rate of fire for a typical engagement I don't know I will have to look it up but approximates to the combined rate of the rifleman in the section.

[Hoogley]

[Andreus]

Drum magazines weren't much used because they were not thought to be reliable. The thompson had them available, though I haven't seen any WW2 pic with them, probably lots of jamming with...

[Dima]

[Andreus]

[Hoogley]

There must have been a reason for it though, because neither the US or UK chose to utilise drum magazines, quite deliberately so it would seem, for either MGs or automatic rifles used in an infantry role.  Other than the Lewis Gun, I can't really think of many historical or indeed current instances at all.  

I can't help but wonder if it was truly a deliberate, conscious decision, or just purely coincidental.  Maybe it was just easier and/or cheaper to manufacture box magazine, and so they did.  Could be just about any reason, or combination of reasons I guess.

[schrecken]

what about the K Gun - although usually fond mounted it was used by the royal marines as an infantry weapon.

[schrecken]

K-Gun

http://www.wwiireenacting.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=49057


The K-Guns were withdrawn during the Normandy campaign as they were a logistical nightmare to keep fed with ammunition.

In the Ouistreham photo you can see one gun and five ammunition bearers. That gives them twelve magazines or about a minutes worth of fire... And what then? The K-Magazine is a tricky beast to reload and really wants doing on a workshop bench to avoid jams.

The guns were reissued again for later operations on the Schelt Estuary. The ORBAT for the Free French Commandos shows the K-Gun Section still in existance having four guns and being commanded by Lieutenant Amaury at that time...

[Hoogley]

[schrecken]

hmmm.. just as an interesting comment to consider.... I'd certainly be upset if I'd just emptied my last drum.

[Hoogley]

Maybe they had a portable worktable as part of the field repair kit?  

[Dima]

[QM]

Interesting stuff on this link and the links within.

Check out the half inch Vickers K Gun and the COW gun.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RAF%20guns.htm