papa_whisky wrote (View Post): |
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. |
Quote: |
Were the Bren and BAR meant to be section weapons capable of sustained supressive fire? |
Quote: |
I guess there was no fully auto MG portable by one man that was not magazine fed, atleast from what I know. |
Quote: |
The BAR is a compromise between rifle and lmg that really failed to capture the best of both worlds. |
Quote: |
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. |
Quote: |
Bren barrels would overheat if fired too fast... |
Quote: |
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... |
Quote: |
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... |
schrecken wrote (View Post): |
what about the K Gun - although usually fond mounted it was used by the royal marines as an infantry weapon. |
Quote: |
Other than the Lewis Gun, I can't really think of many historical or indeed current instances at all. |
Quote: |
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. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT