The Bren Gun

Hi Wills...

This one is actually true, there are mid-war grouping tests etc.showing how accurate the Bren was...but feeding back into the Ministry calculations it ALSO meant that the Bren had a very short "effective range" compared to the Vickers', calculated on hitting man-sized targets with lethal effect I.E. basically the torso.

This one is true as well - once you remember that they're not talking about WWI-era long barrelled .445 Webleys but "bullnose" Police Webleys firing the lower power cartridge. There's a few posts discussing this in THH's thread on re-purposed weapons...

 

1980 invited to have a couple of rounds from the Ruger service revolver by an RUC sergeant down the underground pipe range - JHC! Had along grip handle and it did not feel right to me - he liked it.

 

Hi,

Having fired the Bren and it's 7.62mm derivative as well as the GPMG I
always thought of the Bren as the best to handle.

On 15 Sqn RAF Regiment in the Far East we were issued General Purpose
Machine Guns (GPMGs).

To solve the problem of the guns belt dragging a lot of undergrowth
into the feed mechanism causing a stoppage a 50 round Belt Box was
attached on the left side of the weapon. To enable more rounds to be
carried on the gun when on Patrol we would attach extra linked rounds
as seen in the attached photographs.

The 50 Round Belt Box enabled a rapid response and gave the Guns No 2
time to pull out more linked ammo from his pouch and attach it to the
end of the belt before it was expended.

There was nothing in the Training Pamphlet about this and the Boss
(CO) thought it a good idea.

Regards, Mick D.

 

Actually, I had not gotten around to posting about the .38 Webley/Enfield series, or the older .455's either. This is partly because the nomenclature is confusing. Webley made two series of revolvers, one for government service and one for commercial and/or police sale. These both used mark numbers as designations and to the non-expert like me it isn't easy to tell them apart visually. The WWII era government guns were the old Webley Mk VI (.455) and the Enfield No. 2 (.38). The commerical series guns were the Mk III and Mk IV, both in .38. The latter was very similar to the Enfield, the No. 2 being in fact an unlicensed copy/development of the Mk IV.

As far as I know the .38 commercial Mk III was not used officially by the armed forces but like the later Mk IV it was used for many years as a police weapon throughout the Empire. Apparently the Mk IV did not immediately displace the older Mk III and both were around in large numbers in the 1940's. The armed forces eventually bought the Mk IV and used it as a substitute standard weapon. To make matters still more confusing, I come across many references to "Mk III Pocket" and "Mk IV Pocket" guns. I am not a Webley specialist so I cannot tell if these were entirely different designs from the full size Mk III and Mk IV commercial revolvers, or simply standard guns with shortened barrels and/or butts. There was also something called the Webley "W.P." (Webley Pocket) which appears to have been a strictly commercial gun chambered for a .32 cartridge ( sorry, I don't know which one). This was offered all through the 20's and 30's and there was also a hammerless version. I have not heard that the WP ever saw police or military use, but anything was possible in 1940. In the U.S., at least, the .32 only passed from favor as a police round bewteen the wars.

The .38 No. 2 Enfield doesn't seem to have a good reputation these days. This may be due to the cartridge, which was certainly less powerful than the old .455 and also weaker than the .38 Special. Finish on wartime guns was so-so compared to Webley commercial weapons and the No. 2's trigger pull was apparently stiff, especially on double action. Yet the weapons survey of the 1st and 8th Armies gave no complaints about the No. 2 at all from the units. However, if some of these guns were still in use with police and the armed forces decades after the war then naturally they wouldn't function too well or look very good next to more modern products firing more powerful rounds.

 

We were issued in 1976 (Londonderry) with .38 revolvers for VCP - somebody had decided that they would be a better checkpoint weapon. Quick course, remember being told to leave the chamber under the hammer empty - nicely balanced weapon to fire. No sooner issued they were withdrawn - the rumour mill of the time had it that we had used up the ammunition stocks on training and the MoD in a rare omission had not purchased ammo - more likely somebody had the idea and assumed as the weapons were stored so would the ammo.

 

TTH, it did indeed arise in your non-standard, substitute standard and captured weapons thread; it's a brief side discussion between me and TonyE regarding the .455 Webley's ability to fire the old .450 round for the earlier Webley Bulldog .45...which the RUC inherited quite a quantity of from the RIC. They would fire the round, but "not very efficiently" I.E. low velocity.

They had it so they used it up - which made for some very embarassing non-stopping power moments when RUC rounds wouldn't penetrate heavy raincoats! - and the subsequent legend.

 

I am interested in the use of two Brens by British infantry sections. My searches have failed to find any firm, documented, examples of this, but there have been many comments to this effect in various places. Can anyone help me with some evidence of this practice? Thank you in anticipation.

 

I found some info on a website that said there were 3 ten men sections in a platoon, 3 platoons in a rifle Coy, and 4 Coys in a Btn. It also said that in June 1944 there were 63 bren guns allocated to a Btn. 63 / 4 / 3 / 3 = 1.75. So mathematically rounded-off, there were 2 Bren guns in a section.

http://59div.morssweb.com/?divorg

 

Thank you worthatron but that approach just does not work. For example, the carrier platoon had 12 Brens. The anti-tank platoon had 6 Brens. There would be the odd Bren or two in other parts of the battalion organisation. So pretty soon you're down to around one Bren per section, which is what the establishment was.

 

I just remembered. My grandad did say he was always picked for patrols (being the bren gunner). He said the patrols normally comprised of Him, a rifleman, and a Sgt. Sometimes accompanied by an Officer.

 

From many accounts I've read the normal establishment was not always maintained. Brens were redistributed according to the situation at hand. Particularly in an attack, several Canadian regiments would dramatically beef up the number of Brens in the lead sections.

 

Thank you, and did your reading tell you where the Brens were taken from? It would be interesting to know who had to give them up.

 

I'm trying to find those references but my recollection is that they simply described adding many Brens and lightening the loads for the assault troops. The most detailed description I believe came from one of the French Canadian regiments during the July/August Normandy battles. It may also be an assumption that anyone had to give up anything. Perhaps they merely requisitioned more than the official allotment.

 

I'm trying to find those references but my recollection is that they simply described adding many Brens and lightening the loads for the assault troops. The most detailed description I believe came from one of the French Canadian regiments during the July/August Normandy battles. It may also be an assumption that anyone had to give up anything. Perhaps they merely requisitioned more than the official allotment.
Tim
I think that may have been the case, soldiers often collected and kept equipment above war establishments if they knew it would be of use or make things easier for them.
the Number 2 was definitely out by fall 44. there wasn't enough men to allow for the luxury.
the first Canadian Corp had 100s of Vehicles over war establishment when they left Italy for NWe in the winter of 45. Most notable was an armoured Chicken coop in the possession of one of the Armoured regiments ( a burned out sherman to house the squadrons prized hens).
More looking to follow.
Matt

 

I'm trying to find those references but my recollection is that they simply described adding many Brens and lightening the loads for the assault troops. The most detailed description I believe came from one of the French Canadian regiments during the July/August Normandy battles. It may also be an assumption that anyone had to give up anything. Perhaps they merely requisitioned more than the official allotment.
Tim
I think that may have been the case, soldiers often collected and kept equipment above war establishments if they knew it would be of use or make things easier for them.
the Number 2 was definitely out by fall 44. there wasn't enough men to allow for the luxury.
the first Canadian Corp had 100s of Vehicles over war establishment when they left Italy for NWe in the winter of 45. Most notable was an armoured Chicken coop in the possession of one of the Armoured regiments ( a burned out sherman to house the squadrons prized hens).
More looking to follow.
Matt

I posted a few years ago about a Canadian unit in Italy who routinely stole U.S. vehicles, including a generals personal jeep, and promptly repainted them in Canadian colours with phoney registration. They were exceptionally well equipped.

 

Hey Andrew
did a bit of searching through materials at hand and came across a Paragragh (page 161) in Scislowski's book "not all of us were Brave" which read roughly " our section had to occupy a forward listening post for 24 hours the section set up 4 men upstairs and 4 downstairs that's were we set up the Brens" (brens being more than one) . However later in his account of the Gothic Breakthrough he mentions that he was the number 2 with Bob Wheaton so confliting info. that's my offering for now.
Matt

 

Many thanks Matt. If only the veterans had thought about our need for precise information when they wrote their memoirs!

 

an interesting conversation here LMG supporting the Platoon or the Platoon supporting the LMG.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/05/platoon-and-bren-gun-myths/

Matt

 

I'm trying to find those references but my recollection is that they simply described adding many Brens and lightening the loads for the assault troops. The most detailed description I believe came from one of the French Canadian regiments during the July/August Normandy battles. It may also be an assumption that anyone had to give up anything. Perhaps they merely requisitioned more than the official allotment.
Tim
I think that may have been the case, soldiers often collected and kept equipment above war establishments if they knew it would be of use or make things easier for them.
the Number 2 was definitely out by fall 44. there wasn't enough men to allow for the luxury.
the first Canadian Corp had 100s of Vehicles over war establishment when they left Italy for NWe in the winter of 45. Most notable was an armoured Chicken coop in the possession of one of the Armoured regiments ( a burned out sherman to house the squadrons prized hens).
More looking to follow.
Matt

Matt,
A classic case would be the generally despised Piat which suddenly came into favour in Ortona for its utility in wall busting. The usage rate and establishment numbers were likely very different than the period before and after. Which leads to a thought on the reverse scenario. How many "establishment" weapon counts were entirely misleading if the troops saw little use for them.

 

I don't know how it was in the British and Commonwealth armies, but by 1944 both US Army and USMC units had a pool of reserve weaponry that was distributed according to need and conditions. The .50 Browning M2HB was commonly allotted to such reserve pools.