Best light machine gun of WW2

Outstanding, something we can fully agree on.

 

Nope, the Bren had a capacity of 30 rounds in a box magazine (heard roumers of a 100 round pan magazine but i dont believe it)

 

Its a 200 round drum derived from the Vickers-Berthier machinegun. But, it is rarely used because of its weight. The photo show it on the Motley AA mount. There is also a tripod mount for the Bren that looks alot like the German MG mount but, it too was rarely used.

 

On a different note:

The Japanese machineguns do have one unique "advantage" if you can call it that....

All of the light ones are capable of being fitted with a bayonet! The Japanese were the only nation to put a bayonet on a machinegun.....

 

Rarely ? Try with never. And that simply because you couldn't use the sights on the weapon with it on, had nothing to do with the weight. It was only ever used on mounted Bren guns for AA defense.

 

It has everything to do with weight and size. One of the high speed drums weighs over 7 times what a 30 round Bren magazine does. The British Army didn't issue any means of carrying these to troops. Since the standard loadout for a British infantry squad was for the virtually everyone in the squad to carry four Bren magazines switching to the drum would be a big problem. First, the squad would have nowhere to store or carry them except in hand. Second, as one drum weighs more than the three or four 30 magazines carried the load for each man would go up by over five pounds.

On the other hand, most AA mounts were designed for vehicle use (like the Motley). This made it practical, along with the ability to fire more sustained bursts, for these mounts to have the drums; not that they were anywhere close to universally issued for this purpose.

 

The weight is really of no concern if you can't aim the thing, so the weight was obviously not the only reason for its' rare appearence.

 

I'll throw an almost complete unknown as first used in the LW and kept through the war finally used as a close in little guy with plenty of rapid fire for the KM small crafts :

MG 17

 

Tomcat wrote:

Yes, sir.

Well the way I see it the BAR should not be considered because it was, as the name implies an automatic rifle. The design, tactics and employment of this weapon are different from what in WWII was considered a LMG's role.
-M1919A4: Pros-reliable, good usable rate of fire
Cons-heavy 31lbs+14lb M2 tripod=45lbs, no quick change barrel,
-M1919A6: Pros-lighter than M1919A4/Tripod at 32lbs, quicker to deploy due to bipod.
Cons-lighter barrel than M1919A4 so overheated quicker, no quick change barrel.
In U.S. tactical doctrine the squad was built around the riflemen, augmented by auto-riflemen, supported by light machine guns. In German tactical doctrine the squad was built around the LMG supported by riflemen, so the requirements for the optimal LMG were different. In the defensive U.S. troops had available the M1917A1 Browning HMG, capable of extended sustained fire because of it's cooling system.
*NOTE: up until the retirement of the M1917A1, U.S. practice was to designate machine guns based upon their role and/or cartridge size. Thus the M1917A1 firing the .30-06 (role) and M2 .50cal (cartridge size) were both designated heavy machine guns.

Bren Light Machine Gun-interesting weapon, served in automatic rifle role and LMG role. IMHO, the compromises that made it an excellent weapon in the squad automatic weapon role, or LMG assault role, kept it from being a better weapon in other LMG roles.
Pros-light weight 22.883lbs, reliable, extremely robust, magazine feed better for use on the assault, usable rate of fire, bipod.
As Brndirt1 pointed out, "the Bren barrel changing system is easier to use...The Bren had a handle built in/onto the barrel, no glove needed with a hot barrel".
Cons-no option for belt feed option when used in a static employment.
Overall, one of the all time great weapons. British and Commonwealth troops had the water-cooled Vickers for use in the MMG/HMG role thereby mitigating the Bren's weakness' in these areas.

Totenkopf wrote:

Actually, if your trying to keep someone's head down a MG firing 600 rounds per minute (or even less) is no less effective than one spitting out 1500 rounds per minute. Would you be any more inclined to stick your head up if only 10 rounds a second (600rpm) were striking your position than if 25 rounds per second (1500rpm) were headed your way? It really makes no difference to the troop being suppressed, you're not sticking your head up. Now figure that the gunner and A-gunner each are carrying around 40 pounds of ammunition (belted 7.92 ball weighs about 18.5 lbs per 250 rounds including the box, belted .30-06 ball weighs a little over 18 lbs per 250 rounds boxed), so roughly 500 rounds each man. At the cyclic rate the MG42 crew could exhaust their ammo in 40 seconds, the M1919A4 firing at the cyclic rate would take 1 minute 40 seconds to exhaust their ammo load. This means they would be able to suppress the target 2.5 times longer with no less effectiveness. Now, no trained gun team would do this, but it should illustrate the point that the higher cyclic rate looks good on paper or in video games but isn't really usable in the real world. One of the hardest things to teach gunners is fire discipline, too many rounds too fast is counter productive.
There are really very few instances where the higher cyclic rate is actually usable. In the AA role, you're leading the target and putting up a stream of bullets that the aircraft will fly into. Say you strike the aircraft for one second. 25 rounds striking the target gives a much better chance of hitting something critical or causing sufficient damage to bring the aircraft down than 10 rounds. Same/same with a machine gun arming an aircraft. You may only have the opposing aircraft in your sights for a second or so (possibly even less), so it is important to hit the target with the most rounds within the limited time frame. But as formerjughead pointed out, weapons such as the .50 cal browning AN/M3 have increased ROF's for just this reason. The final reason would be for final protective fire. Note, in none of these situations would the the cyclic rate be required to be sustained.

Marc780 wrote:

This was/is not something the Germans developed. Enfilade and flank fire have been a preferred method of attacking an enemy at least as long as firearms have been in use.

I don't buy this. If you've ever been shot at, unless you take fire from multiple locations at once or the firing unit is very distant, you know immediately from the sound which general direction you're taking fire from.

Once again I don't buy this scenario. Unless the allied troops were standing around in a clump. Soldiers are trained to move in a dispersed manner, this prevents a single burst, a single grenade or mortar round etc. from causing heavy casualties. In reality, you'd open fire and probably hit your initial target, then you'd have to begin to traverse your fire to hit additional targets. American doctrine was, upon taking fire to immediately hit the ground, take cover, face the source of the fire and begin laying down suppressive fire. Since the targets have changed elevation (by dropping to the ground) the gunner, now, has to not only traverse but change elevation. Chances are the gunners initial elevation adjustment will have the rounds going over or short of the target. He'll then use his tracers to walk the rounds into his next target, but tracers work both ways so his adversaries will quickly get a firm fix on his position. (It's very hard, with a machine gun, to judge exactly where your rounds are impacting without tracers). If the gunner is not using tracers he'll be using his sights, firing short bursts and making small adjustments to bring his rounds on target, if he can accurately identify where his rounds are impacting. Unless the guys being shot at were very poorly trained, incompetant or trapped in an open flat area, the mass casualties you describe would be very unlikely.
A more effective tactic for the scenario you describe would be to use the machinegun to initiate the engagement with enfilade fire, but to locate the rest of the squad along the long axis of advance. After the initial burst the gun would traverse left and right to keep the enemy pinned while the squad uses aimed fire against and eliminates individual targets. The target unit couldn't maneuver against the gun without exposing them to fire from the squad and they couldn't advance on the squad without exposing themselves to the gun. In effect they're trapped in the kill zone.

 

You obviously have never had to hump a combat load of anything anywhere. Weight is an issue. When the combat load of a soldier is 75 lbs and you now want him to carry 85 lbs it is an issue. Worse yet, you don't have a proper place for him to store the extra load and distribute its weight. That is an issue.

Sights are nothing. The manufactuer can modify these with relative ease. Humping ammo magazines that weight a "ton" for the infantryman are a problem not easily resolved.

 

Note the universal declaration which is contradicted 2 sentences later.

 

Are you sure they were MG-17?
The MG 15, was the one designed for flexible mounts while the MG 17 was for fixed mounts and was belt fed, the 15 had a saddle magazine and would be a lot easier top adapt to ground use, the belt fed would be OK for ships that had less issues with dirt clogging the mechanisms. AFAIK there were a lot of MG 15 adapted for ground use in the LW field formations (not so much the paras that had access to standard MGs but HG and the infantry LW divisions that had to be equipped from LW stocks).
Both weapons had high ROFs (1000 RPM for the 15, 1200 for the 17) and could fire the higher powered V rounds but they were lacking in ergonomics and I think had no quick barrel change mechanism. The closest allied equivalents would be the air cooled M-1919 variants. One wonders at a ground used MG 81 it's theoretical ROF of 1600 RPM was even higher than the MG 42's though it's short barrel (48cm compared to the 60 of the earlier weapons) belies it's role as "bullet hoose" rather than precision weaopn.

 

I thought that was the definition of "Field Strip"..............hey what do I kn ow though, I only spent 11 years in the infantry.

 

I think it is the MG 15 Erich is thinking about. This was widely used on aircraft as a defensive mount and as a ground weapon by the Luftwaffe as well. In the ground version a stock and bipod are added. The same belts or saddle drums could be used with it as with the MG 34.

The Japanese licensed it as the Type 98 (Army) and Type 1 (Navy) 7.92mm machinegun for their aircraft too.

 

That's what I always thought. I found the M 14 easier to do than the 16 by-the-by.

 

I have carried more combat gear around than you'll ever get a chance to in your lifetime. I never claimed weight wasn't an issue, only that it was obviously not the only reason for the rare appearance of this odd design. The large drum mag obstructed view to a large extent, and that along with the extra weight and cumbersome design made it highly impratical for use by infantry.

Sights are definitely an issue as it requires a redesign of the weapon. Incase you haven't noticed we're talking a whole new et of sights with different attachment points here.

 

How do you know that? Do you know Terry personally? If not you are making an assumption without a base.

 

Haha, and he wasn't?

If he has ever had to walk 50 km over rough terrain with over 45 kg of gear then I'll take back my comment. That **** aint funny.

 

Is it at all possible for you to communicate without the smug besserwisser remarks at other members of the forum ?

 

Wow, so I guess saying that "You obviously have never had to hump a combat load of anything anywhere" didn't strike you as a smug besserwisser or snide remark?

If you can't take the heat then don't invite it on yourself.