Bren or BAR.

A dumb question here, Marcus, but were you actually looking through the sights correctly? I'm just asking because I've never experienced nor heard of this being a problem before and, if it was, i'd have thought that there would have been some major design change in the Bren's 60 years of (British) service history (or indeed the 92 years service history of top loaded magazine-fed LMGs).

Dave


Haha, I think so mate. I was looking through the little hole and lining it up with the sight at the other end.
There were 5 or 6 targets that kept popping up. I shot the one in the middle, and then while still looking through the sight, waiting for another target, my mate kept saying, “shoot it then”. When I looked up away from the sight, there was a target just to the right which I hadn’t seen because the magazine was blocking my view.
If that had been a German, Id have been a gonner.

In reference to a major design change, I think the problem I noticed is only because it’s the first time I’ve ever used one. I suppose with regular training it wouldn’t or may not be an issue.

marcus

 

This reminds me of apples and oranges, I carried a BAR over the Owen Stanley Range to Buna, seemed big and heavy until you came under fire, then it didn't seem big enough. The aussies were good with the brens, reminded me too much of the jap machine guns with the clip on top.

Jack

 

Given only the two choices, I'd have to vote for the Bren. However, I would have also included the Chatellerault 24/29, as it was an equal to the Bren and I think superior to the BAR.

 

Having been a Bren gunner, I must say that it was a damn good weapon, It was very accurate, but slower than the spandaus. The Enemy weapons could, and did, cut a man in half...
I found the Bren so accurate with a pattern of five. A small burst would show as a neat pattern of five bullet holes, one dead centre. (for me that is!)

It was light enough for a healthy young man to carry it, had the advantage that the mags would fit into the large khaki trouser front pocket.
It was as accurate and efficient..... as the sten was the opposite.
The Bren? a very stable machine gun, Its worth could be found in how long it lasted. Sadly I never tried another gun except a captured schmeiser. And the use of that was forbidden
Sapper

 

HI All,
i`ve battled using both bren and bar.
i``ve always prefered the bren as i found from experience its easier to use and more comfortable to use aswell.

Matt

 

I'll go for Bren,. during independence time in Indonesia, it was Dutch backed up by British to return to Indonesia. Indonesian fighters so afraid of this British Bren,..

even until today, at least when i was a kid,. most indonesian will call a bren for any automated rifle.

 

Ive read the use of Brens as sniper rifles. Anyone have any info on this.

Sapper,

what was the schmeiser like?

Kev

 

I like Bren more then BAR, i like the aim and the design of the weapon.
BAR is to noisy by the way.

 

I still think the sight has it's flaws as already stated. I would like to hear what the vets have to say about it.

 

surely a lmg is only as accurate as you wish it too be,i mean the bren of course.yours,4th wilts.

 

surely a lmg is only as accurate as you wish it too be,i mean the bren of course.yours,4th wilts.

The general opinion was that the Breen was 'too' accurate and its spread was insufficent. Fired at an enemy grouping it would riddle one with mutliple hits while everyone else got away. The lmyth goes that experienced gunners would use worn barrells to improve spread.


????????


Kev

 

Did the brits used the US 30 cal. machinegun too ?

 

Did the brits used the US 30 cal. machinegun too ?


In aircraft but not that I know of in general vehicle or infantry squad use. prefere choice of the Vickers

 

Could the Bren be fitted with a drum magazine, Lewis style? I mean, that would make it even more superior to the BAR in terms of firepower.

However, even though I´m with the Bren all the way, in a sort of defense for the BAR, I agree with KFZ when he mentions that it was only a complement for the .30 lmg in US units, and as such, didn´t need to have all the characteristics of a true squad weapon, like the Bren.

Now, was there another weapon in the british arsenal below the Vickers water- cooled, in the same fashion as the BAR?

 

Having discussed this subject on another forum (at some length of course) I went to my pat.grandfather that was at one point a Bren gunner. He was delighted with the Bren, and found the accurancy to be of the good.

In combat firing at fleeting targets, the gunner himself will the bigger factor in hitting anything.

I have had a 2 week course for squad leaders in the Army and one of my fields were the use of our MG-3. As a second generation MG-42 it carry most of the qualities. The decisive piont is still the same. You need to aim to hit and kill your target. Spraying an area with hundreds of rounds will only hurt your tax bill.

The Bren was (and I'd say is) a brilliant LMG for a number of reasons. It is developed for the attack. Easy to redeploy and possible to operate alone (you need two men for the MG-42 to be effective)

Looking at some of the reasons for selecting the Bren you will still nod 70 years on. It doesn't slow down the org using it. And it is perfectly possible to deploy more of them in the section/squad without slowing them down to a crawl or tying them to a vehicle. In the later stages of the war the Germans were fighting defensive battles, enabeling them to deploy more MGs as a result. Their light formations (such as their Jaegers) still deplyed 1 MG for logistic reasons. The British could easily deploy 2 per section without putting to much extra burden on their men, and have dramatic results in fighting efficiency.

For the BAR this is not so much the case. Mainly because the US Army issued the Garand to their men (meaning that the firepower was always there, not having to drill their men like the Lee Enfield equipped British), and secondly because the BAR was developed to clear trenches in WW1. The mags for the BAR were too small (the Bren was right on the absolute minimum to sustain fire) leaving to much of the time for changing mags, rather than firing.

 

I like the bren is video games, but its a close call I went with bren

 

I admit to never firing (or coming across) the BAR but had quite a lot of Bren contact and found that it could do all it was intended to do , including AA, the position of the magazine in no way affects the accuracy or the firer's vision. When used in an infantry section the ammo load was distributed among all members and using the same ammo as the Lee Enfield there was no need for duplication . A superb weapon that has stood the test of time and is very "soldier proof".

 

Voted Bren Gun...The fact a variant was still being used in the Falklands speaks for its self