In your opinion, which one of these was the best LMG of WW2, and state your reasons why you think so.
BAR vs BREN
- Thread starter selector67
- Start date
- Status
BREN.
Standard magazine held 30 instead of 20.
Has adjustable gas regulator, BAR does not.
Top loading magazine - a plus in certain situations.
Easier to field strip and maintain.
BARREL CAN BE EASILY SWAPPED OUT IN THE FIELD
Standard magazine held 30 instead of 20.
Has adjustable gas regulator, BAR does not.
Top loading magazine - a plus in certain situations.
Easier to field strip and maintain.
BARREL CAN BE EASILY SWAPPED OUT IN THE FIELD
Bren. More ammo, better for prone (which is how I'd be using it---gets better accuracy) due to top-loaded magazine. Make it .30-06, and it would be just about perfect. Or .308 even.
BREN is by far the better design, though once has to remember that the BAR was developed 10-20 years before the BREN.
Also, let me point out that the BAR was designed during World War I when the U.S. Army needed something "NOW." The Bren had the luxury of evolving over time between the wars from the Czech Zb26. While the Bren is more "refined," the BAR was an exigency that was good enough to serve on the front lines up through the Korean War.
Opsie. My mistake.
The British did rechamber the BREN for 7.62x51 in 1958. It became known as the L4. Remained in British and Commonwealth service till the 1990s. I believe New Zealand still uses them in her reserve forces.
Bren definitely, for all the reasons given.
However, the BAR was not only an older design, it was intended for a different purpose. The first model didn't have a bipod, it was intended to be fired from the hip or the shoulder by an individual infantryman in the attack: a kind of "heavy assault rifle". So it's hardly surprising that it didn't make such a good LMG as the purpose-designed Bren (and the ZB26 and ZB30 in 7.92x57 calibre, from which the Bren was derived).
In fact, it's a credit to the BAR that it lasted as long as it did, and that it was regarded with great affection by its users.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
However, the BAR was not only an older design, it was intended for a different purpose. The first model didn't have a bipod, it was intended to be fired from the hip or the shoulder by an individual infantryman in the attack: a kind of "heavy assault rifle". So it's hardly surprising that it didn't make such a good LMG as the purpose-designed Bren (and the ZB26 and ZB30 in 7.92x57 calibre, from which the Bren was derived).
In fact, it's a credit to the BAR that it lasted as long as it did, and that it was regarded with great affection by its users.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Well, owning a BAR I'm a bit biased, and I've only fired a Bren once so....
Thoughts on the BAR.
Mag is on the bottom. That top feeder reloads pretty quick but you had to either stick your head up to reload or turn the gun on its' side, so there really wound up being no practical advantage when someone was shooting at you.
Reliability of the BAR exceeds the Bren from the reading I have done. There are many accounts from BAR men in WWII stating that they never replaced a single part on their rifle. The only real reliability issues came in the Korean War when many reconditioned WWII BARs were sent out with the old recoil springs, causing some problems for a short time. Early in VietNam there are many stories of SF guys dumping the M16 to get a BAR for the reliability. They were used extensively there early on when the M16 was still having startup problems and then given to the Montangnards who cherished them.
Weight of the Bren in use exceeds the BAR by quite a bit. The BAR bipod was usually the first thing a BAR man threw away. They were rarely used in combat. The majority of the combat photos in the BAR book "Rock in a Hard Place" shows the bipod removed. The posed training photos always show it, but it's usually gone in combat, especially in the paratroops.
Accuracy. The BAR could be fired semi quite accurately by a good BAR man. Though the majority of BARs did not have a semi selector, a trained rifleman could do semi quite well on the slow rate of fire setting. I can get it to work about half the time. When I can, the accuracy is astounding. There are stories from BAR men in the Marines bragging they can "put all 20 rounds in the same hole" with their rifle.
As for the barrel not being field replaceable, that might be a bit of a downside for the BAR but not as much as you'd think. Because the mag only holds 20 rounds, the sustained rate of fire for a BAR is really not enough to melt barrels like a real machine gun.
And that's the last point, the BAR wasn't really deployed as an LMG, the M1919 was the LMG of its' day. The BAR was deployed as a "Squad Automatic Rifle".
The Bren is a fantastic weapon, with 30 years newer design don't forget, but it's not really a direct comparison between the 2 weapons.
Thoughts on the BAR.
Mag is on the bottom. That top feeder reloads pretty quick but you had to either stick your head up to reload or turn the gun on its' side, so there really wound up being no practical advantage when someone was shooting at you.
Reliability of the BAR exceeds the Bren from the reading I have done. There are many accounts from BAR men in WWII stating that they never replaced a single part on their rifle. The only real reliability issues came in the Korean War when many reconditioned WWII BARs were sent out with the old recoil springs, causing some problems for a short time. Early in VietNam there are many stories of SF guys dumping the M16 to get a BAR for the reliability. They were used extensively there early on when the M16 was still having startup problems and then given to the Montangnards who cherished them.
Weight of the Bren in use exceeds the BAR by quite a bit. The BAR bipod was usually the first thing a BAR man threw away. They were rarely used in combat. The majority of the combat photos in the BAR book "Rock in a Hard Place" shows the bipod removed. The posed training photos always show it, but it's usually gone in combat, especially in the paratroops.
Accuracy. The BAR could be fired semi quite accurately by a good BAR man. Though the majority of BARs did not have a semi selector, a trained rifleman could do semi quite well on the slow rate of fire setting. I can get it to work about half the time. When I can, the accuracy is astounding. There are stories from BAR men in the Marines bragging they can "put all 20 rounds in the same hole" with their rifle.
As for the barrel not being field replaceable, that might be a bit of a downside for the BAR but not as much as you'd think. Because the mag only holds 20 rounds, the sustained rate of fire for a BAR is really not enough to melt barrels like a real machine gun.
And that's the last point, the BAR wasn't really deployed as an LMG, the M1919 was the LMG of its' day. The BAR was deployed as a "Squad Automatic Rifle".
The Bren is a fantastic weapon, with 30 years newer design don't forget, but it's not really a direct comparison between the 2 weapons.
Yeah, but the BAR wasn't "closely based" on anything younger than it.
Even though it was based (not copied) on something younger, it is still 30 years younger design.
Wasn't the US LMG of WWII, the Browning designed light machine gun?
Even though it was based (not copied) on something younger, it is still 30 years younger design.
Wasn't the US LMG of WWII, the Browning designed light machine gun?
BAR related question:
I've seen old training footage of a BAR man with the rifle's butt in a metal "Box" on his belt to help hold it in place while firing from the hip.
Has anyone else seen the video I'm talking about?
I've never seen any real WWII footage with this contraption. I think it probably was in the planning stages at the end of WWI, and by the time WWII broke out they figured it wasn't going to work out. Thoughts?
I've seen old training footage of a BAR man with the rifle's butt in a metal "Box" on his belt to help hold it in place while firing from the hip.
Has anyone else seen the video I'm talking about?
I've never seen any real WWII footage with this contraption. I think it probably was in the planning stages at the end of WWI, and by the time WWII broke out they figured it wasn't going to work out. Thoughts?
I have one for mine, it's pretty odd in usage.
They were only used in WWI. Some of the old cartridge belts were re-issued at the start of WWII but the metal cup was removed on nearly all of them.
The tactic really only worked in trench type warfare, for covering fire. Didn't really turn out to be such a good idea in actual use.
Yes the Browning M1919 was the LMG for the US during WWII.
Well, seeing as the BAR is classified as an automatic rifle, and the BREN is a LMG it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. The BAR was originally designed with the afore mentioned metal cup to be used in "walking assault" when storming the Hun trenches, not as a sustained fire weapon like the BREN. Other than that, they're pretty much on an even footing.
the history channel showed a cut down version of the BAR used by (?) one of the 1930's gangsters, i forget which one. Also read non-fiction "S.O.G." book about the weapon being used by special forces in Vietnam. Impressive history.
The principal modifications to the ZB26 to turn it into the Bren were to do with altering the chambering from 7.92mm to .303". That hardly turns it into a new design.
In any case, the BAR was designed in 1917, the Bren modifications in the mid-1930s (it went into production in 1937) so even if you take your criterion, the difference is less than 20 years, not 30.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
rbernie
Contributing Member
Overall BREN for the various reasons outlined above. For a "best of both worlds" factor - I think the real question is what caliber would then allow a singular load out between the BREN and the Garand, esp for the Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand forces ? A BREN in .276 Pedersen maybe ?
Joachim
The NZ Army phased the BREN out of service from the Territorial Forces in the late 1970s. I had a conversation with a former soldier who spent several days torching alot of the receivers.
However, some made into it civilian hands. An auction I am attending this weekend as several for sale (my eye is on a Reising M50 SMG !!).
.45Guy
Agree with your points on LMG vs Automatic rifle. There is some good WW 2 footage of Australian troops "fighting through" using a BREN gun off the hip against Japanese forces in hilly/jungle terrain. A case of when needs must.
Joachim
The NZ Army phased the BREN out of service from the Territorial Forces in the late 1970s. I had a conversation with a former soldier who spent several days torching alot of the receivers.
However, some made into it civilian hands. An auction I am attending this weekend as several for sale (my eye is on a Reising M50 SMG !!).
.45Guy
Agree with your points on LMG vs Automatic rifle. There is some good WW 2 footage of Australian troops "fighting through" using a BREN gun off the hip against Japanese forces in hilly/jungle terrain. A case of when needs must.
There was actually a bush barrelled version of the BAR tried in the jungles of the Pacific cut down to about the same length of that used by Clyde.
I will see if I can scan a photo of it, pretty cool looking.
Basically an A2 with the barrel and stock cut down.
I will see if I can scan a photo of it, pretty cool looking.
Basically an A2 with the barrel and stock cut down.
- Status
