OT: German vs Allied Tech in WW2

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It's worth noting that besides the American M1, virtually everyone else where using bolt action rifles. And the M1, although semi-automatic, had a bit of a serious drawback - that pesky "ping" announcing to the world it was empty.

Oh the Marines in the Pacific and shortly thereafter among the US Army in Africa that there's a way to use that to your advantage in some circumstances.

While you're in the rear, find a couple of small pieces of metal. Drop them on each other, to test whether they sound like an M1 Garand that is out of ammo.

Then, in battle, have one of your buddies fire up to seven rounds (enough so that you're not out of ammo). Then, drop your magic piece of metal. Your squad then looks for what enemy dummy sticks his head up, and they promptly fill enemy dummy with lead.

That trick worked great with enemy snipers or sharpshooters, and enemy machinegun teams.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

While you're in the rear, find a couple of small pieces of metal. Drop them on each other, to test whether they sound like an M1 Garand that is out of ammo.

This is true, however my point was that the M1 was about the only semi automatic rifle issued as standard to any nation in WWII. Virtually everyone else, including the US Marines in the beginning, were equipped with WWI or earlier bolt action rifles, or weapons which were only a "modernised" version of them.

Personally, I'd have preferred a semi auto over bolt action, and automatic over semi, however that's just me. I know of soldiers who could accurately fire a bolt action rifle faster than could be imagined - around 100+ rpm! (ignoring reloading) My own grandfather was one of them, and he wasn't even infantry.

Despite having a number of advantages over the traditional bolt action rifle, the M1 still has that flaw which, although could be turned to advantage on occasion, was still a significant drawback most of the time when compared with more modern designs.

[Sanjuro]

No question, as a tripod mount or emplaced weapon the MG42 is better than the Bren- however, as a squad support weapon the Bren was without peer at the time. Lightweight (for the time, anyway) reliable (just don't put 30 rounds in the magazine) and accurate, usable by one man at a pinch, fairly weatherproof (one of its last frontline uses was with the Royal Marines for Arctic service)- and iconic in appearance.
It is interesting that, after decades of not using LMGs (the MAG/GPMG covering both the LMG and MMG roles) the British Army decided to go back to having a squad support weapon, the L86- not only at the squad level, but issued one per 4-man fireteam. Standard ammo load initially was 6 thirty round mags per rifleman- but 2 of those were reserved for the LSW gunner.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

No question, as a tripod mount or emplaced weapon the MG42 is better than the Bren- however, as a squad support weapon the Bren was without peer at the time. Lightweight (for the time, anyway) reliable (just don't put 30 rounds in the magazine) and accurate, usable by one man at a pinch, fairly weatherproof (one of its last frontline uses was with the Royal Marines for Arctic service)- and iconic in appearance.
It is interesting that, after decades of not using LMGs (the MAG/GPMG covering both the LMG and MMG roles) the British Army decided to go back to having a squad support weapon, the L86- not only at the squad level, but issued one per 4-man fireteam. Standard ammo load initially was 6 thirty round mags per rifleman- but 2 of those were reserved for the LSW gunner.

the mg 42 and its ante decessors - the mg 3 etc are - in my humble opinion - far superior to the mag fed Bren. The Bren - or its Czech predecessor the VZ or LK 26 ( or was it 28 ) was the best there was in the early 1930s. I would say that the MG 42 had better versatility and a more credible sustained fire ability. ( Considering squad mobile automatic fire was only starting to be introduced as a concept in those days.)

Thats not to say that the Bren wasnt any good.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

No question, as a tripod mount or emplaced weapon the MG42 is better than the Bren- however, as a squad support weapon the Bren was without peer at the time. Lightweight (for the time, anyway) reliable (just don't put 30 rounds in the magazine) and accurate, usable by one man at a pinch, fairly weatherproof (one of its last frontline uses was with the Royal Marines for Arctic service)- and iconic in appearance.
It is interesting that, after decades of not using LMGs (the MAG/GPMG covering both the LMG and MMG roles) the British Army decided to go back to having a squad support weapon, the L86- not only at the squad level, but issued one per 4-man fireteam. Standard ammo load initially was 6 thirty round mags per rifleman- but 2 of those were reserved for the LSW gunner.

The Bren was a great weapon: don't think otherwise. It was just limited in its roles. The reason why the MG 34/42 was much better was that it was the better weapon in a *lot* of roles.

Your typical '42 infantry squad (section) - 10 guys - typically, on average, and there is always exceptions, would only be equipped with one Bren/BAR, and one SMG. That was how things was formed up. Proper Machineguns was all placed in separate battalions, that was chopped up and parcelled out as need. The US at least had two advantages over the British system: The M1 over the SMLE, and the fact that there was a company level weapons platoon that had 2 belt fed machine guns. As the war went on, you would usually see an additional BAR/Bren, and another 1 or 2 SMG's.

The Germans, on the other hand, was set with a book value of 12 in a squad. They picked 12 because the assumed that for various reasons, two wouldn't be available, be it sick, lame, lazy, or such like. Each half squad in the Mechanised forces in 42 - and more than a few leg infantry units - had a MG34/42 and a SMG- with the rest of the squad there for the sole reason of protecting the MG, and feeding it. A typical german platoon had more raw firepower than any allied company - and sometimes battalions (Russians anyone?).

The main reason behind the makeup of the platoons is from how they was supposed to be used. The western allies felt that the base of fire from the platoon is aimed fire from the riflemen, while the automatic rifle keeps the bad guys at range, and help deal with the rushes. This isn't a bad idea - its very economical in ammo consumption. But it isn't well suited to mobile combat. The Germans on the other hand looked at it like this: No matter what, we are always going to be outnumbered. We have to find a way to make up for that. So they based each squad on a pair of mutually supporting weapon sections, each with the sole reason for existence of feeding a proper machine gun, with a very high rate of fire (1200 rounds a minute) designed to put as many bullets as possible in a small area in a short time. As one friend put it, "It was meant to be a 600m shotgun."

Funny enough, most armies these days seem to be built on...

2 Fire Sections...

Based around a MG.

Granted, as the war wore on those numbers got all messed up.

But back on point.

The big disadvantage of the MG42 over the Bren/BAR is ammo consumption. After all, the MG42 is only 2 pounds heavier than the Bren, and in my mind, I'm ok with a 2 pound heavier weapon compared to the MG42's biggest advantage over the Bren.

Ammo Consumption.

Yes, its biggest issues and plusses was ammo: It ran through a lot. Speaking from experience, the advantages that a belt fed machine gun gives over a magazine fed automatic rifle is much better than the problem of toting the ammo.

Of course, this is all my opinion, and you know what they say about that.

[headquarters]

The Bren and the Bar were good squad weapons - probably the best or among the best - until the advent of the MG42 and the German doctrine described by Panther.

So I agree with him - thats not to say that well trained troops didnt make the Bren a potent weapon. The British and others ended up using the Bren far longer than WWII.

Originally Posted by Panther Al

The Bren was a great weapon: don't think otherwise. It was just limited in its roles. The reason why the MG 34/42 was much better was that it was the better weapon in a *lot* of roles.

Your typical '42 infantry squad (section) - 10 guys - typically, on average, and there is always exceptions, would only be equipped with one Bren/BAR, and one SMG. That was how things was formed up. Proper Machineguns was all placed in separate battalions, that was chopped up and parcelled out as need. The US at least had two advantages over the British system: The M1 over the SMLE, and the fact that there was a company level weapons platoon that had 2 belt fed machine guns. As the war went on, you would usually see an additional BAR/Bren, and another 1 or 2 SMG's.

The Germans, on the other hand, was set with a book value of 12 in a squad. They picked 12 because the assumed that for various reasons, two wouldn't be available, be it sick, lame, lazy, or such like. Each half squad in the Mechanised forces in 42 - and more than a few leg infantry units - had a MG34/42 and a SMG- with the rest of the squad there for the sole reason of protecting the MG, and feeding it. A typical german platoon had more raw firepower than any allied company - and sometimes battalions (Russians anyone?).

The main reason behind the makeup of the platoons is from how they was supposed to be used. The western allies felt that the base of fire from the platoon is aimed fire from the riflemen, while the automatic rifle keeps the bad guys at range, and help deal with the rushes. This isn't a bad idea - its very economical in ammo consumption. But it isn't well suited to mobile combat. The Germans on the other hand looked at it like this: No matter what, we are always going to be outnumbered. We have to find a way to make up for that. So they based each squad on a pair of mutually supporting weapon sections, each with the sole reason for existence of feeding a proper machine gun, with a very high rate of fire (1200 rounds a minute) designed to put as many bullets as possible in a small area in a short time. As one friend put it, "It was meant to be a 600m shotgun."

Funny enough, most armies these days seem to be built on...

2 Fire Sections...

Based around a MG.

Granted, as the war wore on those numbers got all messed up.

But back on point.

The big disadvantage of the MG42 over the Bren/BAR is ammo consumption. After all, the MG42 is only 2 pounds heavier than the Bren, and in my mind, I'm ok with a 2 pound heavier weapon compared to the MG42's biggest advantage over the Bren.

Ammo Consumption.

Yes, its biggest issues and plusses was ammo: It ran through a lot. Speaking from experience, the advantages that a belt fed machine gun gives over a magazine fed automatic rifle is much better than the problem of toting the ammo.

Of course, this is all my opinion, and you know what they say about that.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by headquarters

The Bren and the Bar were good squad weapons - probably the best or among the best - until the advent of the MG42 and the German doctrine described by Panther.

So I agree with him - thats not to say that well trained troops didnt make the Bren a potent weapon. The British and others ended up using the Bren far longer than WWII.

That was a bad thing aswell.

We whre caught up on the idea of an LSW style support weapon and in the 80's built the L86 to supplement the L85 when the rest of the world had already realised you needed a proper LMG for squad support.

Wasn't untill after the gulf war we started using the Minimi.