WHICH LMG? BREN, DP, MG34, MG42, BAR?

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#61

Sorry twitch, this is absolute twaddle

it is NOT the volume of rounds fireable, but the weapon as a whole as a (ballistic) system.

If the round doesn’t hit anything, or at least go real close, (crack!.. thump!) IE near enough to keep you still and not firing back, what use is it?

spraying ammunition around may be what we saw the yanks in 'Nam doing, but it ain’t what properly trained and commanded infantry do. BIONot - TV viddie - of the fighting at the old capital Hue was used to emphasise our training - in aimed fire ONLY. Yes, even for 'nam, which was not always jungle fighting, now was it?

Yes, I know all about the ‘Salvo’ research and its points, BUT all armies still train you to AIM, no?

An LMG is used to provide accurate fire support to the squad - bursts of 3-10 rds minimum. An M14 would be all over the shop, as it is a LOT lighter, the recoil force is the same, but the movements will be greater, ask Newton.

If you have fired an m14 on full auto from the hip, did you hit the target, at all, and how far away were you from it?

Now, I have seen very fit and bulgingly muscled instructors fire the M60 on auto - one handed - and hit the 50 meter targets easily. Though heavy the m60 is a straight-line reaction weapon, it doesn’t rise at the muzzle much, which the M14, manifestly, will.

But are you really THAT fit? And if so do you think you’re typical of a US infantryman’s skills and fitness during the m14’s service?

The barrel of an M14 fired regularly on full auto use would wear out in a few days! Apart from ammunition supply versus effectiveness issues, this was the other reason that most armies with ARs in traditional loadings allowing for auto fire usually dropped it in production and modded issue weapons.

A possible reason for the confusion about this - in ‘US Army’ circles - is the long delay in replacing the BAR, which wasn’t within a bull’s roar of an LMG, and the M14 is even further away.

The ‘MG42 post wwII copy’ project failed for poor management review of of the drawings, and another 2 decades later you got the ‘flawed but acceptable’ GPMG-M60, like we did, but when we got the L4A4 Bren back we all were relieved.

Persistence by the USA - in retaining ‘military 30-06’ exterior ballistics, in a shorter case - IMO delayed rational development of infantry weapons in the West. And by a much longer time, if not for Stoner.

#62

I would not disagree with you on the M14 squad not requiring the BAR, but to say that they did not require section level fire support I would disagree. Although the M14 could fire auto it would not be effective in that roll over 200m. The ability to hit or give effective fire would not be possible. To reach out and affect the enemy would require an LSW of what ever flavour you prefer.

I think from reading most of what has been said this relates to a cultural difference. I liked to have my gun and my gunner could double tap very quickly all day provided we gave him ammo. Brits prefer point, accurate fire as opposed to area suppressing fire. This is not to say that one is better than the other, it’s just a different way of looking at it.

I have an article from a British Army Review (BAR to really confuse things) about the crossing of the Rhine. The soldier talks about how effective the MG 42 was and that the sole use of the other section members was to feed the gun. The suppressive fire kept his troops down and caused a lot of problems.

I have never quite understood why the US kept the BAR for so long. I can understand the inter war years and also the war but to keep it into Korea and beyond is baffling, unless they had shed loads of them left over.

#63

The Aussies DID make one big mistake though & that was in accepting the L2A1 HB FAL as an LMG; too light for an LMG & too heavy for an IW.
Plus; how the hell are you supposed to keep a low profile with a 30rd magazine stuck in the dirt?
The Canucks made the same mistake - just 'cause it was new didn’t make it better than the Bren in the intended role.

#64

Topor,

the heavy barrel FAL was never adopted as an LMG by the Australian Infantry.

It was mainly used by Engineers, Cavalry, and services units like transport etc, to provide some measure of automatic fire capacity.

No it isn’t a suitable LMG, though it’s rate of fire is reasonably low.

The parachute training base, AND the RAAF’s own Airfield Defence guys, were equipped with the L2A1, for a while. But the Infantry always brought their M60’s or L4 Brens. Later when there were sufficient m60’s, or later when the Brens were reissued - they got them too.

In 'Nam, the sappers seemed to have obtained M60’s anyway!

And JBTW Topor me old maaate, do please learn to read the headings of people’s posts, on Pattle f’rinstance but as a general rule as well.

'kay?

;-)!

#65

I didn’t just read it, I quoted it in full - no sign of the word “Hurricane”.

I also said nothing about Infantry & the L2A1, merely that it was neither fish nor fowl so to speak.

:roll:

#66

And JBTW Topor me old maaate, do please learn to read the headings of people’s posts, on Pattle f’rinstance but as a general rule as well.

'kay?

Ive read it too. No mention matey. Also I think interaction works best when condescention isnt in every post. It gets my back up straight away. Oh and by the way, you cant spell Australia!

#67

Hey all I can tell you is volume of fire was paramount in Vietnam. 2nd of Foot has my same question in mind- why did the BAR live so long after WW2? By the time a magazine-fed 30 caliber automatic rifle was available to all squad members the BAR concept was obsolete. I never said a squad shouldn’t have had another superior, true LMG for use. For all intent the name says it all Browning Automatic RIFLE. It was a crossover weapon that foretold of the M-14 but was not anywhere as effective as a true belt-fed LMG. And BTW, the M-14 had a bipod- just like the BAR that increased it accuracy! Most certainly no one would be using an M-14 on full auto enough to warp a barrel in a few days of operation.

Guns like the MG 42 were superb but as you mentioned they require dedicated assistance. But so do almost every belt-fed in static position. But that’s fine for the firpower produced.

My squad’s M-16 usage yeilded extremely short bursts in the bush. We got to where we could control 2-3 round shots. I was a ammo hoarder. We fired lots of round in semi-auto mode too. I counted my rounds like they were gold but when the squad firepower was brought to bear in fully automatic supression use the point was to waste the enemy not be thrifty with the government’s $$ ammo expenditure. But at a fire base with a ton of ammo stores no one, no one is conserving ammo when the perimeter is breached. Sorry if the company’s concentrated barrage of full auto fire lacing the surrounding tree stands don’t coincide with the rules of engagement in someone fantasy world.

In training it was emphasized that these weapons were accurate at 100 meters with 300 being an real extreme. We trained on M-14s at Pendleton and they had a far greater hit-producing range in semi-auto fire. They could at least produce large area results at 400+ meters. On auto they fired about the same rate as the M-16. What we used them for in the real world made the M-16 a better weapon.

All the clinical talk in comparison is silly. The M-16 was lighter and for the same weight in ammo we could tote nearly twice as much. It was the M-1 carbine to the Garand on the WW2 Pacific islands. IE., you don’t need text book long range capability when you perpetually engage at less that 100 meters. There are weapons for every purpose so no serious sniper depends on an M-16 with a scope, right? YOU saddle up with all the extra weight of your M-14 and ammo but don’t complain that you have almost no opporyunity to use its superior range in a limited visibility field of combat.

Anyone that has ever been shot at knows that there are no long aimed bursts of full auto fire unless you enjoy the idea of being a head shot for Charlie. Training to aim on the range is altogether different that snapping off 3 rounds in the area you think your target is firing from and ducking down. The distances you can hit on the range and the accuracy you encounter when your breathing heaves like a steam engine as your heart races and your mouth is like cotton while you’re crawling through water buffalo shit trying to lay in a couple rounds is completely alien in comparison!

I just want to laugh cause I’ve heard so many misguided concepts for decades from armchair soldiers who compare ballistics and think they know about combat. Ballistics don’t kill anything but time. This whole line of talk about picking off individual enemies at 5-600 meters is pure bull crap invented by the Lazyboy crowd as they mull around FPM ratings with their equally deluded buddies. You can do that on a windless day with perfect light firing on a bigass target while controling your breathing with no incoming. Try it in rain after spinning around to a kneeling position, snap shooting 150 meters up a ravine attempting to zero in on a 1/10th of a second muzzle flash you think you saw before you drop down flat to avoid incoming. Yeah, right.

Every engagement doesn’t require a texbook example of deployment and weapon placement. There’s time when you don’t even want the M-60s to get involved. We had .45s and there were times in which THAT was the best weapon for the job at hand given the logistics of the terrain and positions of the enemy. I guess someone will now begin the usual, predictable tirade of how much better the 9mm is in some lofty, clinical universe where statistics are more important than actual events.

The armchair tacticians all seem to know exactly what a squad should be armed with and how they should engage and under what circumstances. Every “expert” has had some idea of what was needed for the next war and they were all dead wrong. Or should I say us grunts were dead due to this penchant for antiquated “rules” being followed that applied to the last conflict.

These comparison polls are fun in the general sense until someone starts taking it seriously that some SS sergeant with an MP-38 and flip up sights could regularly pop off GIs from 300 meters. :smiley:

#68

(puts telescope to GOOD eye):

I see no bipod:

M14A1, yes, but the M14 itself has no bipod…

#69

Topor and others, see above in the Subject box - for my apology.

But when you (Topor) copied and pasted the ‘Message body’ of my reply to your question - to which the answer is Pattle and a Hurricane you did not copy OR read the subject box.

so, once again, do please go and read the ‘Subject’ box of my first reply, above the message body and you’ll find ‘HurricaneI’ in there.

it is there.

And you do owe me an apology because you persaist in refuisng to read it or acknowledge it.

Okay?

Timbo in Oz

#70

DO read the line above here, in the subject box, which IS part of my reply to you.

Then go to the quiz thread and read my subject line of my first reply.

Okay?

#71

Post subject: Pat Pattle? In a Hurricane Ialmost certainly, hard to know.
he did well on Gladiators before that, too.

I know he’s NOT the RAF’s official highest scorer, Johnnie Johnson is IIRC.

But Pattle is reliably known to have shot down a lot of aircraft in Greece.

Skeptical mensurer, and audio scavenger.

Okay?

#72

Timbo
I certainly don’t owe an apology - it was you who put the answer in the wrong place. Once I noticed this I posted a reply, which for some reason failed to appear :?
Pattle is now accepted by most RAF Historians as being the most successful fighter pilot of WWII, though Johnson remains the official highest scorer.

#73

After I told you where the first part of my answer was, you did not bother to look for the additional text.

You simply proceede to ‘prove’ your initial reaction that I had not answered your question, despite my pointing your error out more than once.

What is the subject heading for? why not go and ask the maintainers to drop it so you don’t have to use it.

IME on the web - given that topics and thread shift in coverage, it is common for people on web forums to use the subject line or heading - to identify the shift when responding or to begin their responseOR even to answer in the subject heading and put <nt> ie. not USE the message body at all!

Yes, some people never do this, even when they’ve taken the thread way off the original topic.

I still feel owed an apology - for your refusal to look where I had suggested, and another for trying to duck it by suggesting that I had put it ‘in the wrong(?) place’. Where else but in my answer was it?

If when I pointed out your error you got your back up, that was not something I did, but a choice you made.

This point would apply even were we in the same room, because I am not responsible for what you do.

I do hope you will accept that I did have the answer correct first up, that you have wasted my time and others, and created tension that could have been avoided, if you had simply taken me at my word.

NB I will continue to use the subject/haeding box and wille xpect you to read it along iwth the rest of each message, sometimes if I can fit an answer in it that is all I will use.

it is quicker after all.

#74

IME on the web - given that topics and threads shift in coverage, it is common for people on web forums to use the subject line or heading - to identify their shift when responding - in the subject heading box.

OR to begin their answer there,

OR even to answer in the subject heading only, ending with <nt> in the heading block ie. they don’t use the message body at all.

That is where I’m coming from, and is my experience on most of the fora I visit.

I still feel that I am owed an apology - for your refusal more than once to check my answer, carefully, uanless you thought I was lying. And, now this twaddle that I had 'put it in the wrong in the wrong place ? Where else - but in my answer - was it?

And, please show me the forum rules that states that it is ‘the wrong place’.

Lastly, it is possible - probable - when I pointed out your error, or the second time - that this got your back up. If it did that was still a choice you made, not me.

I will use the subject/heading box whenever I wish to and expect the courtesy, from you and others, to read it as the beginning of any message I post. Sometimes if I can fit an answer in it, that is all I will use. It is quicker, after all.

#75

Topor,

You wrote

“I certainly don’t owe an apology - it was you who put the answer in the wrong place.”

see below.

“Once I noticed this I posted a reply, which for some reason failed to appear.”

Repost it. Then we can restart the quiz, and TIA.

IIME - on many web fora - that topics and threads often shift in coverage, become more specific, etc.

It is common for some alert people on web forums - to use the subject line / heading box - to identify ‘their’ shift when responding or in response to a post - that didn’t change the original heading - but should have. Eg with a WAS … etc… Or

to begin their answer there, Or

to use the subject heading only, ending with <nt> in the heading block ie. they don’t use the message body at all.

That is where I’m coming from, and is my experience on most of the fora I visit.

I still feel that I am owed an apology - for your refusal, more than once, to check my answer carefully for additional text - in the ‘heading’ which is usually above the body.

Perhaps you thought I was lying?

And, now you say I ‘put it in the wrong place’? Where else - but in my answer - was it? And, please show me the forum rules that states that it IS ‘the wrong place’.

Lastly, it is possible - probable? - when I first pointed out your error, or later - that this got your back up. If you did, it was a choice you made, not me.

I might use the subject/heading box whenever, and expect a courtesy from you and others, from here on in.

That you look there first on any message I post. If I can fit the answer in it, that may be all I will use.

It is there after all, and available to each poster to use - as part of their message - anytime they wish to.

Warmer still,

Timbo in Oz

[/quote][quote]

#76

I will try and pay more attention to your posts in future.

#77

Man of Stoat The M-14s we used at Camp Pendleton had bipods.

Marmaduke Pattle is the ‘unofficial’ leading Allied ace due to the fact that all official records were lost on Malta where he racked up his tally.

#78

I have also come across a bipod attachment in the mid 70s in NI. It originated in the US and was issued to whoever wonted them. And may have been designed for the M14.

It consisted of two pressed steel legs that were hinged about an inch from the end with a grove cut for the barrel. Attached to the hinge was a spring that kept them open at about 70 – 80 degrees and clamped to the barrel. They came with a webbing case, which they could fit into when the spring was depressed. Only useful in static positions.

Like this one but made of steel.

http://www.gunaccessories.com/ati/bipods/index.asp

wikipedia has the list of bit that come with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_(rifle)

Accessories
· M6 Bayonet with M8A1 sheath
· Bandolier
· National Match sling
· Combination Tool
· Cleaning equipment
· Winter safety
· Winter trigger
· Magazine filler
· Model 1961 ammunition magazine pocket
· M2 Bipod
· Grenade launcher
· Grenade launcher sight

And some did have bipods for the M14

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m14.htm

M14, basically a product improved M1 Garand, performed well as a infantry rifle. The M14 had an effective range of 500 yards (460m). The M14 used a standard NATO 7.62mm cartridge in a 20-round magazine. The M14 was the standard Army infantry rifle, until replaced by the mass fielding of the M16 5.56mm rifle in 1966-1967. Some M14s were equipped with a bipod for use as a squad automatic weapons. However, the M14 displayed an erratic dispersion pattern, excessive recoil, and muzzle climb when fired as an automatic rifle.

M14A1. The Army designed the model M14A1 to overcome these problems, but it was too light to become a truly successful replacement for the M1918 series BAR, and production was halted in 1963. The M14A1 featured a full pistol grip and a folding forward hand grip.

My bold.

#79

No, MOS cant be wrong - surely, he knows everything about SA!