Close Combat Series :: View topic - Machine Guns with Magazines

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:17 pm
—
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?

#2: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: 0202243,

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:21 pm
—
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=

#3: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: kawasaky, Location: Zagreb, Hrvatska

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:39 pm
—
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.

#4: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: papa_whisky,

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:44 am
—
The BAR is a compromise between rifle and lmg that really failed to capture the best of both worlds.

#5: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: Superkala,

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:21 am
—
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.

#6: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:07 am
—
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.

#7: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:33 am
—
Bren barrels would overheat if fired too fast...

#8: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: papa_whisky,

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:09 am
—
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.

#9: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:28 pm
—

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.

Exactly. So, neither weapon (the BAR by inference) was in truth what you would consider an MG from a stereotyped tactical point of view, insofar as an MG should be able to lay down a wide field of (preferably deadly) suppression fire (preferably accompanied by a sound that would in itself cause just as much terror and suppression as the actual bullets). Instead, they were high ROF weapons that allowed a small team of men to perform as though they were a larger team of men laying down a field of reasonably accurate suppressing rifle fire.

In the end, I'd agree that the benefits of mobility granted by a magazine should probably override the ammo count benefits of a belt feed. However, I reckon a drum magazines would be the best compromise, because at least then you can consider actually using the weapon for MG style area spray suppression fire. That said, drum magazines don't seem to make a lot of appearances amongst modern personal arms, so there's obviously something wrong with them. Possibly they unbalance the weapon too severely or add far too much weight. Like I said, the Bren actually had a 100 round magazine that could be attached but this was not used in infantry weapons.

For me, I'd take an MG34 with a 50 or 75 round drum magazine as my magazine fed suppression weapon of choice. But, I'd probably have to work out a bit more... well, a lot more... well, I'd have to start working out a lot in order to actually carry it.

#10: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: Andreus,

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:29 pm
—
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...

#11: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: Dima,

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:36 pm
—

Quote:

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

neither US nor UK infantry doctrine meant section MG for sustained supressive fire - they had different MGs for that role Smile

Quote:

I guess there was no fully auto MG portable by one man that was not magazine fed, atleast from what I know.

neither BAR nor BREN was one-man weapon Smile

Quote:

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

BAR was Automatic Rifle and it was good in this role.

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.

Bigger magazine = heavier magazine = less ammo for 2men crew.
BREN could fire semi-auto - was standard drill actually.

Quote:

Bren barrels would overheat if fired too fast...

why? and what will prevent to change the barrel if it gets overheat?

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...

what about Suomi M/31, PPD-40, PPSh-41, Lewis, DP, DT? Smile

#12: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: Andreus,

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:17 am
—

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...

what about Suomi M/31, PPD-40, PPSh-41, Lewis, DP, DT? Smile

[/quote]

Yay you got me, was thinking US and... forgot the Lewis...

#13: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:29 am
—
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.

#14: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:13 am
—
what about the K Gun - although usually fond mounted it was used by the royal marines as an infantry weapon.

#15: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:24 am
—
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...

#16: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:34 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

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

EDIT -

I just quoted the same forum comment as you did. You are quoting this as a point against drum magazines, yes?

#17: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:12 am
—
hmmm.. just as an interesting comment to consider.... I'd certainly be upset if I'd just emptied my last drum.

#18: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:35 am
—
Maybe they had a portable worktable as part of the field repair kit? Very Happy

#19: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:40 am
—

Quote:

Other than the Lewis Gun, I can't really think of many historical or indeed current instances at all.

soviet DP/DT/DA had drums also.

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.

yes, it was truly deliberate decision as drum magazine was harder to manufacture and service, it was cumbersome, hard to load and slow to reload. The bigger amount of bullets in drum didn't actually help to increase practical RoF either.

#20: Re: Machine Guns with Magazines Author: QM, Location: Australia

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:27 am
—
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

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |: Page 1 of 2