Machine guns

Night fighting in a WWI type environment can still be successful with the use of artillery and mortar launched flares and illumination rounds. Better still might be trip flares set in front of the position at fixed ranges, so the riflemen can set sights and put accurate fire into the advancing enemy. This also helps the defending artillery and mortars as well. An aggressive use of patrols, OPs and listening posts also makes the task of enemy forces moving at night much more difficult.

If you want to make night fighting as difficult as possible for the enemy, then lay down a barrage of smoke. The enemy will have a difficult enough time keeping formation and locating objectives in darkness, blanketing potential forming up points will sow confusion and break formations and morale before they even get to launch into the advance (then they emerge from the smoke and into the flares and pre laid fire plans of the ICA troops...)

Of course routed troops running back into the smoke will be even more difficult to rally and reform.

Self contained metallic cartridges made for the new revolvers mean that the Tommy-gun is possible a Deviant Art fella emoticon more here http://ehsan-m.deviantart.com/gallery/50482519/Icons-and-Avatars

Poker

Thucydides wrote:While a BAR is a pretty impressive weapon in its own right, it falls into a class of weapons like the Lewis gun or the Bren Gun (or even an M-14 on automatic). Because they fire full power rifle rounds rather than intermediate rounds (7.62X36 like a Russian RPK) or assault rifle rounds like 5.56X45 they are much harder to control and much larger and bulkier as noted. . . . . . . .

Our Sergeant Instructor always stated that (in his expletive opinion) the BREN gun was "Too accurate" for a machine gun.
"Yer don't want 'Erman wiv firty 'oles in 'im! Yer wants him and a load of 'is mates wiv a coupla 'oles apiece."
"So spray' er around a bit".

He was also MOST definite on "bursts of three or four rounds and shift aim"

Three or four rounds? My Sergeant used to say that three were overkill if the aim was correct. In fact it was easy to fire three single aimed rounds instead of firing bursts.

Cheers

John

chrisd wrote:

Thucydides wrote:While a BAR is a pretty impressive weapon in its own right, it falls into a class of weapons like the Lewis gun or the Bren Gun (or even an M-14 on automatic). Because they fire full power rifle rounds rather than intermediate rounds (7.62X36 like a Russian RPK) or assault rifle rounds like 5.56X45 they are much harder to control and much larger and bulkier as noted. . . . . . . .

Our Sergeant Instructor always stated that (in his expletive opinion) the BREN gun was "Too accurate" for a machine gun.
"Yer don't want 'Erman wiv firty 'oles in 'im! Yer wants him and a load of 'is mates wiv a coupla 'oles apiece."
"So spray' er around a bit".

He was also MOST definite on "bursts of three or four rounds and shift aim"

John Prigent wrote:Three or four rounds? My Sergeant used to say that three were overkill if the aim was correct. In fact it was easy to fire three single aimed rounds instead of firing bursts.

Cheers

John

Speaking for myself, I always found it easier to fire "singles" than repeated "threes".
Once you got past the first round and the gun was "cycling" automatically I found it more difficult to judge just when to "let up" on the trigger for a reliable number of rounds.
You were going for three but sometimes you got four.

Hi Chris. That makes two of us! Has anyone else here actually fired a Bren gun, or are some discussing the superiority/inferiority of a weapon they've never fired?
Cheers
John

chrisd wrote:

John Prigent wrote:Three or four rounds? My Sergeant used to say that three were overkill if the aim was correct. In fact it was easy to fire three single aimed rounds instead of firing bursts.

Cheers

John

Speaking for myself, I always found it easier to fire "singles" than repeated "threes".
Once you got past the first round and the gun was "cycling" automatically I found it more difficult to judge just when to "let up" on the trigger for a reliable number of rounds.
You were going for three but sometimes you got four.

Weird Harold wrote:

Thucydides wrote:Imagine Napoleon's army with AKs instead of smooth-bore muskets. That's the equipment mix I see in the near future, without the suicidal massed formations that smooth-bore muskets demand.

I would rather see Wellington's army with Lee-Enfields. The French attacked in column, which limited the number of weapons which could be directed at the opposing side as most of the troops were surrounded by other troops. The British attacked and defended in line which allowed all of the available weapons to be used, therefore, in that environment (Napoleonic wars), the Lee-Enfield .303 would wipe out the AK- whatevers before the wielders got in range.

John Prigent wrote:Hi Chris. That makes two of us! Has anyone else here actually fired a Bren gun, or are some discussing the superiority/inferiority of a weapon they've never fired?
Cheers
John

I've never fired one. But every time I see a picture of one, it seems to me that the magazine sticking out of the top of the gun would make it harder to sight and aim compared to a design where the magazine feeds from the bottom of the gun. Since you have firsthand experience, is this an issue?

It's not an issue at all, Henry. The rear sight with range drum is on the side of the Bren, not on its top like a rifle's rear sight, and the front sight is offset to the side to match it. The result is a lethal accuracy (assuming one knows about the wind, and can gauge ranges).
Cheers
John

Henry Brown wrote:

John Prigent wrote:Hi Chris. That makes two of us! Has anyone else here actually fired a Bren gun, or are some discussing the superiority/inferiority of a weapon they've never fired?
Cheers
John

I've never fired one. But every time I see a picture of one, it seems to me that the magazine sticking out of the top of the gun would make it harder to sight and aim compared to a design where the magazine feeds from the bottom of the gun. Since you have firsthand experience, is this an issue?

I've had the opportunity to fire an automatic M-14, and it was quite impressive. OTOH, the more modern weapons that I used were much more controllable (the 7.62mm C-6 GPMG was expressly designed as a fully automatic weapon), and so much more useful.

During training (oh so long ago) we were taught by our sergeant to say "Son of a Bitch" with each squeeze of the trigger (then release on "Bitch") to get a consistent burst on target. Since we were/are using real machine guns with belted ammunition, you actually want to fire enough to get a tracer round out the spout, to help you get on target. normal belts are 4 ball/1 trace, so you can do the math.

For non machine gunners out there, you actually want the tracer round to pass just over the top of the target, since as a tracer round burns, it becomes lighter and has a higher trajectory. The remainder of the rounds will then pass through the target (much to the gunner's delight), which also makes the gun controller happy as well.