I haven’t fired any of the weapons on this list 
but I would vote for the MG 34 or 42 as the best. BUT if I could buy any of the above weapons I would buy a 1918 BAR, I love the looks of that weapon.
Belt box, right ?[/quote]
there was a 50 round drum or a 75 round saddle magazine that could be carried.
Belt box, right ?[/quote]
there was a 50 round drum or a 75 round saddle magazine that could be carried.[/quote]
Aye, the ‘drum’ is actually a belt box which can hold one section of link, and clips easily onto the feed tray of either the 34 or 42.
The saddle drum on the other hand needs a different top cover to permit use and as far as I’m aware was not fitted to the 42 due to the double pawls.
That said, it’s not beyond the bounds of credibility to think that one or two might have been produced in prototype form, as the Germans were quite famous for letting their engineers have a fiddle. ( :shock: )
No modification was ever made to the MG42 to accept the saddle drum which was withdrawn from infantry service in 1941.
Hosenfield, ammo cans came with 250 rounds to a can, 5 belts linked into 2 belts one 150 rounds the other 100. Because there is a taper on the 8mm case to fit them in the can the 2 belts lay in different directions one facing forward and the other facing back.
You can argue this all you like, this will not change the fact that I have several belts of 8mm mauser at home, along with WWII German ammo cans. I have tried to load 300 rounds into one and it is too cumbersome to manage. If you have any links that contridict my actual experience and research, please provide them.
Also in your first post you did not specify who was carrying the ammo leaving the assumption that the gunner would need to as you make no mention of squad mates.
With regard to the gunners assistant, he was armed with a rifle, not a pistol and probably had one of the heavest loads in the squad. The pistol was issued to the machinegunner.
Thanks, I was sure they didn’t use saddle drum mags on the 42.
I mentioned the possibility of prototypes because I have seen a Madsen Rekylgevær modified by the Germans to use DM1 link ! :shock:
The mechanical equivalent of getting two lifts to operate simultaneously in opposite directions using the same shaft !
right, my fib. i went from 250 to 300 to 250!
well, according to the german army handbook published by the US govt., the second man in the gruppe had a pistol during the early war years )1939-1941)
however, he was officially given a rifle on paper.
But, in reality, by 1944 there were shortages of everything, and if there weren’t enough carbines in a division (which was often the case), the assistant would go rifle=less and compensate for this by carrying extra belts.
the assistants were usually the gruppe’s worst shot with the rifle, so not giving him one for the benefit of carrying an extra two belts was clearly worth it.
If you want to see this in action, there are photos of monte cassino paratroopers with gunless assistants carrying 3 cans of ammo.
many officers also had a disfavorable view of any rifle; they knew that it was mostly mgs doing the killing. Thats why some officers often ordered that the assistants go in with only pistols.
This way of acting was expecially prominent amoung elite truppes, like panzergrenadiers and parachutists, most of which carried two mg42s per gruppe.
Hosenfield I’m not saying you are wrong, but I would really like to see some links backing up the claims you’ve made.
Yes there were shortages of materials, however the Germans got around that by issuing 2nd line troops with captured weapons so that all the standard issue German manufactured guns were available for the front.
They also stripped police and guard units of their rifles to pick up the shortages at the front.
I can not fantom why a officer would prefer that his men go into battle with a pistol over a rifle. It is a well established fact that the pistol has next to no use on a modern battle field, certainly none as an attacking weapon.
With reference to the paratrooper photos you also need to take the situation in context, I too have seen ammo carriers hauling 4 cans of rounds. But these guys are feeding fixed HMG nests and not in a squad on manuvers.
if you pick up Hurbert’s Meyer’s 12th SS volumes 1 and 2, there are shortages in carbines amoung even among the elite SS-panzergrenadiers. there are also photos of HJ troopers that you can find online of mg assistants armed with nothing but a pistol, 2 cans, belt ammo, and spare barrels.
it wasn’t so much that germany wasn’t producing enough rifles, it was that many times enough rifles didn’t reach the front; (especially if the troops were committed to retreats and lost weapons)
My grandfather’s panzergrenadier unit also had a shortage in carbines that was addressed in a similiar fashion.
Sorry, must have missed this earlier.
The short answer is yes, both the BREN and the L4.
Yeah, 500 rounds of .30-06 in 20 magazines for the BAR is a bulky load more than heavy besides all you other gear for one man to carry.
Cuts- yep, I was a recon Marine in country 69-70.
Semper Fi!
Having passed for Marksman and Coach, in the 1970’s - and on foreign weapons - at the Infantry Centre, Singleton, Australia. I think it might help if I give my perspective.
Weapons fired and field stripped (and hot-barrel changed) in this class on the course - included; the 303 and 7.62 Bren, a Vickers MMg, the M60, the FN-MAG, the RPD in 7.62X39, the DP in 762 x 63R, the BAR with a bipod.
At that time all 7 RAR battalions, and other infantry, had just re-equipped with the L4A4 Bren, to sighs of relief from all quarters.
Remaining GPMG M60’s were at coy/battalion for MMG duties. I never liked the M60 as a squad gun. And I still hate that 50/50% risk gas piston.
My perspective stems from a deep interset in our and the world’s military history. My Grandfather served on the Western front in the Artillery Ammunition train, of the 3rd Divison AIF. These are the guys who brought up the ammunition, and anything else, on wagons, right in to the front line.
And my Father served in the RAAF in the Western Desert in wwII. The ground component of all RAF and RAAF squadrons much preferred the Bren as an LAA LMG, and local defence weapon, to anything else - despite the ready availaibility of lots of the high cyclic rate VGO* observer’s gun on adapted Bren LAA tripods. Let alone all the captured Eytie and German stuff/
[ ‘Downed and scrounged’ 0.50 Browning aircraft guns were very popular from '42 on, as well. ]
and they were even more keen - after experiencing just ONE ‘Benghazi Handicap’!
Why, because it was accurate#, and reliable, (and didn’t move about a lot#). Apart from the Vickers Berthier (*related) and the ZB’s themselves, and the DP, few LMG’s or GPMG’s of this period were without serious flaws.
Next up - the BAR just is NOT within a bull’s roar of a proper LMG.
The originals didn’t even have bipods. It was meant to be fired from the hip while supported on a sling - in the advance, standing up???.
Just one of those weird ideas stemming from the Frog’s reigning obssession with ‘le attaque’. And, adopted without much thought by the Yanks.
So, the bipod is an afterthought. Okay?
In the Pacific War, and in Korea many BAR’s had their bipods taken off, 'cos they didn’t help much.
Just 20 rounds in the magazine??? @
It has no changeable barrel, which means that sustained fire rates will destroy the barrel in a very few minutes. The chamber also over-heats leading to cook offs. Let alone jams, separated cases and just failure from heat. Replacement rates in service were VERY high.
Viz. The action is quite violent - even when the damper is up to OEM standard.
And, so, it isn’t particularly accurate.
The idea that a top-mounted magazine is a ‘BAD idea’ - for an LMG - trying to store 30 rds minimum - is just silly. No it does NOT affect your ‘sight-picture’, or your ability to see the wider gun-crew / squad picture, and it keeps you and the gun lower down to boot. It is also ergonomically more efficient, - fast - when changing magazines.
Watching Regular infantry ‘gun crews’ at Bren drill is a revelation. You just can’t do any task as quickly on an M60, which is slow and a fiddle by comparison.
The Bren isn’t a really ‘easy’ carry even with the strap, no LMG can be, but it is a LOT easier than the M60 GPMG.
The Bren simply works, makes the gunner and the number 2’s life easier. The gas adjust - with the tip of a round - is another aspect of the thought that was built into it.
The low cyclic rate of fire (400-450 IME) is NOT a drawback, the concentration of rounds in a given volume of space, in a given period, is pretty close to that of the spray gun MG34 or 42, because the Bren’s beaten zone was only 1/3rd as wide. More effective, bearing in mind that you emplace* LMG’s for enfilade fire if you have any brains. *You do this lying on the ground, mind - orificers tend to forget this necessity.
So the Bren’s barrel also doesn’t get as hotin a given period, yet barrel changing is easier than most others, encouraging the crew to change barrels regularly and extend the life even more. And the crew are less tired and unstressed about burns.
Has anyone here actually changed a HOT barrel on any MG!? Fast?!
It just cannot be done quickly with an M60, not unless you like spending weeks in hospital with your hands bandaged. Jumping into the air while blowing on your hand, and screaming, isn’t recommended during a fire fight.
On the Bren, once you are across the drill, it is easy, safe, and is taught, lying down. Takes no more three times longer than changing mags.
It is a great pity that no-one ever thought of a '30-06 Bren, it couldn’t have been hard, as the cartridge is almost a copy of the 8mm Mauser, internal ballistics wise, which was the base design cartridge for all the ZB’s!
To sum up
any of the Brens/ZB’s, or the VB, were the finest LMG’s in traditional loadings ever, with Russia’s somewhat older DP close behind. and,
the BAR is more of an anomaly, than an LMG.
there it is.
Timbo
Can’t say fairer than that Timbo, you’ve summed up the BAR/Bren discussion quite effectively.
Short supply of ammo so i would probably go with a Bren. But if i had to i would take a BAR
Why’s that IF ?
i;d hav the BAR as a machine pistol wud any1 hav a MP40?
But the BAR is patently NOT a machine-pistol or anything of the sort, it is as long if not longer than the Garand. :?
And when we compare the old with the new we have the M-14 as a reincarnated BAR without a bipod. Both .30 caliber. Before the M-16 replaced it you had a squad full of LMGs with the M-14.
:shock:
Err, a full-auto M14 is in no way, shape or form an LMG. And in any case most of them were locked at semi-auto only. Ever fired 7.62mm full-auto in a 9-10lb rifle? If you’re interested in killing large areas of sky it’s a great idea, otherwise it’s the old tits-on-a-fish again.
The m14 is the Garand M1 design restocked and converted to a 20 round mag feed in 7.62 Nato, is all.
Not an LMG by any measure, which is why the auto option was
‘dropped’.
same with the FAL or ‘Slurr’ as we knew it.
'kay?
Timbo in Oz
The .30 caliber cartridge in the BAR or the M-14 has the same power is my point. And since both weapons are fully automatic the squad with M-14s had no need for a weapon like a BAR since the squad’s firepower is quite adequate. Doesn’t matter how the M-14 came to exist and that the M-1 is it’s grandfather. In most real world combat the squad’s M-14s were ample as a heavy enough automatic weapon so as to preclude the need for a similar-calibered, magazine-fed weapon such as a BAR.