Best LMG of WW2

my choices would be

1) Bren (in all models)/Cz vz30 (bassicaly the same gun as the Bren)
2)B.A.R.
3)DPM/DTM
4)japanese T-99
5)Vickers K/Vickers Berthier
6)DP/DT
7)Chatellerault M1929
8)Breda M1930
9)T-96
10)T-11

(i didnt include the MG34 or 42 because i generally class them as GPMG) but what do you guys think are the best LMGs of WW2?

 

Overall, I'd pretty much agree with your list, with the exception that I'd probably put the Finnish Lahti-Saloranta M26 somewhere in the top 5, probably 3rd ahead of the DPM, then just move the rest down a slot.

 

You know what is funny i started working on my own list of best mgs of WWII pretty much right before you made this post.

I think it is a pretty good list.

 

I wouldn't put L-S M26 ahead of DP or DPM. Neither did Finnish Army during WW2 as its production stopped during continuation war. Apparently DP was more reliable than L-S M26 and had definitely larger magazine (47 vs 20).

 

I'll defer to your better judgement on that then, the book I had indicated that it was held in quite high regard, but it could well be wrong.

 

The BAR is one of those weapons which prompts hot debate.

It was quite light and reliable and liked by its users, but it had some bad features for an LMG: small magazine, mounted underneath so difficult to get at to change quickly, fixed barrel so overheats in heavy use, rather low RoF.

It was really caught half-way between being an automatic rifle (too heavy for that) and an LMG.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

The BAR was quite an advancement in 1918 but arrived too late for WW1. It was still more easily carried than the M-1919 .30cal machine gun. I think the adoption of the Garand made the BAR less important as time went on.

The BREN was a fine light machine gun.

 

Its rate of fire was 550 RPM, which isn't too slow for an LMG. Experienced users could reload the rifle in 2-3 seconds.

One of the things it had going for it was superb range and penetration. It is more or less the .50cal of automatic rifles.

 

That's a lot slower than a Bren mag change - and it has to be done more often - and the barrel can't be changed - all of which multiplied together greatly limited its practical RoF.

Oh come on, now. The ballistic performance of the various 7.6-8mm full-power rifle rounds in WW2 was too similar to be an issue - and nowhere near that of the .50 BMG. Besides, how many other "automatic rifles" were there? The main one I can think of was the FG 42.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

It did have a longer barrel than any rifle, maybe that made a difference?

 

Not so's you'd notice - the difference would only be marginal.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

The BAR used the same ammo as the M-1 Garand, M-1903 and M-1919 machine gun. It was just standard .30 caliber (.30-06).

 

The list you made is almost identical to what I would put down.

 

Bren, and the BAR

 

1) Bren (all models)
2)japanese T-99
3)BAR
4)DPM/DTM
5)DDP
6)Chatellerault M1929
7)Breda M1930

The T-99 below bren as T-99 is pretty much a copy of the bren.
BAR in the third as it only holds a 20-round mag, lacks a changable barrel and a bit suited in the role of LMG which is to give fire support. I think tat's y they name it as browning automatic rifle not browning light machine gun(BLMG?). It is more suited in the assault role.
The DDP in 6th as it has the stupid pan mag which has high risk of being jammed and hard to carry. Just imgaine having circlar disk all around u. But it's there also because of it's great reliablity in battle.

 

as a matter of interest why don't you consider a MG34 to be a LMG?

It's chamber size would normally mean it was a LMG and the actual role and design of GPMG was not recognised until after the war.

Furthermore I heard of examples where the MG34 has been fired from the hip similar to that of an M60/Bren/BAR

It was certainly issued to the german forces more like an infantry support weapon than a MG unit in the same way that UK and US platoons were issued with the Bren/BAR, with the .30/.50/Vickers being assigned to specific MG support squads.

FNG

 

I guess it's the fact that it was a mainly belt fed weapon and the tripods for the Bren weren't that common in fire support roles because of the Vickers (i could be can anyone else shed some more light on this please)

 

I would also say Bren, as I have heard it is so reliable, and carried a bit more than the BAR. I'm told that to prevent jams, Bren gunners would load only 28 rounds instead of the max theoretical capacity. Only 28 - so this is why I wonder why the 97-round drum wasn't used more often, as I have only rarely seen it, and alway as an AA mount. Perhaps the barrel would overheat? Is this why Lewis guns with the drum were sometimes used instead?

 

One more quick one:
I saw a post about 550rpm for the BAR - wasn't the bren 550rpm, and the BAR either 300 or 600 via a selector switch.
I'm not correcting, I'm asking, as that's what I remember from way way back.
And which of these 2 weapons had the heavier bullet?
Thanks!

 

No one mentioned the Johnson M1941 LMG.
It was used by US Marines in the Pacific campaigns, but never accepted by the military like the BAR.

Tim