Bren vs Spandau - which was better?
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 05. 2016
- The bren gun and the Spandau were rather different, and each the prime infantry weapon of its army. Was one better?
Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
Buy the music - the music played at the end of my videos is now available here: lindybeige.bandcamp.com/track...
More weapons and armour videos here: • Weapons and armour
After reading the comments, I shall respond with the following, because the same few points were coming up again and again:
1. The two weapons were both section MGs. This makes them comparable. The standard infantry section of a British Commonwealth infantry unit had one bren per section, and the standard German equivalent had one Spandau. Yes, they were in other ways different weapons. That is largely my point. If they were almost identical in performance and use, then there would be no video to make. The comparison is only interesting because they were different.
2. Yes, I am well aware that there are descendants of the Spandau still around today, notably the MG 74 and MG 3. I never said otherwise. I was talking about the bren and the Spandau in the context of WW2, when they went up against each other.
3. I say things in praise of both weapons in this video, and point out short-comings of both, and conclude that they were both fit for purpose. I reject, therefore, accusations of bias one way or the other. The usual thing one hears/reads is that the bren was rubbish and the Spandau excellent, and the reality was more complicated than that.
4. I concede that when I mention some of the good things about one gun, it may imply to some that these things were lacking in the other. For example, I mention that it was easy to change the barrel on a bren, which some people have mistakenly interpreted as my saying that it was awkward to change the barrel on an MG 42, which it wasn't.
5. Yes, very obviously there were more factors than bren guns that explain the advance of the Allies in in 1944/5 in the west. However, the point I make is that the front advanced towards Berlin every day, and this can only happen if infantry are moving forward, and taking and holding that ground. Artillery and air support cannot do this. It is also a way of countering the too-often-repeated notion that the Germans were better troops with better equipment. Yes, the best German troops were excellent, but let us not forget that they lost. If they were consistently better troops with better equipment, then they would not so consistently have lost.
6. Yes, there were differences between the MG34 and the MG42 more than simplicity of manufacture. The MG42 had a higher rate of fire, for example. I lumped them together at the start of the video for convenience. They served the same battlefield role, and were used with the same doctrine. After-action reports written at the time, and memoirs written afterwards almost never differentiate between them. Everything I say about the relative merits of bren and Spandau are true for both MG34 and MG42, which both fired substantially faster than a bren, and were both belt-fed.
7. The name 'Spandau' originally referred to the MG 08 used in World War One. It was made at the factory in Spandau, a borough of Berlin. The nick-name then got transferred to the machine guns used by the Germans in WW2. It was a misnomer in that the MG 34 and MG 42 were not made in Spandau, as I say in the video, but it is still a good word to refer to the two weapons since it is quick, clear, and was the term used at the time.
8. Yes, the MG 34 was accurate enough for purpose. Had it not been, I would have been sure to mention that. With a new and cool barrel, fired single shot, the MG34, with its double-crescent trigger, lacking in the MG42, could indeed be decently accurate. However, the barrel quickly got hot and worn, and more importantly, that was not the doctrine of use. The gun was designed to put plenty of rounds down against the enemy. Also - psychology. Give a man a gun that can spray bullets really effectively, suppressing his foes and thus keeping him safe, while making a really impressive noise, and he will use it this way, but accuracy will suffer. Give a man a slow-firing MG with a magazine of 28 rounds, and he will take careful aim and fire far fewer bullets, but with greater accuracy.
Musical stings kindly contributed by David Bevan.
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige"
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
/ user "Lindybeige"
That was a load of misinformation on the MG42 though, sorry to say.
I used the MG3, which is the exact same weapon with a so called "NATO Brake" to cap its RoF at 1100 RpM, when I was in the Bundeswehr. The MG42 and the MG3 are both still in use and production today (in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Turkey, Pakistan to name a few)!
You can use the MG42/3 to snipe, if you know how to make it fire only a single shot. Changing the barrel is quick and easy, but you have to use a glove or cloth. Its lock system was copied and used for a very long time for example in the M60, a US machine gun.
We were also trained in firing the MG3 on the move, from the hip.
The spread, which was a required feature, was and still is controlled by firing in bursts of up to ten rounds.
Neither the British nor any allied forces were "constantly winning" during 1944. Hürtgenwald and Market Garden come to mind.
+PaganShredhead Ich bin aus America, Ich heiBe ist Kyle..Ich spreche Englisch, unser wirklich richtig,
Kyle Murphy
Hi!
+PaganShredhead No, the M-60 didn't use the locking mechanism of the MG-42- it used some of the ideas from the feed system. The M-60 was more from the FG-42, the magazine fed Luftwaffe light machine gun, itself modeled after the Lewis Gun from WWI.
+PaganShredhead Dont forget the repeated enormous failings in Normandy with the British and Canadian army in Normandy. They could not break out of the Normandy pocket on their own. It was for Bomber Command and the Americans that were underestimated by the German high command that saved the day. And Patton in Southern France ofc.
+PaganShredhead Agreed, the MG34 actually had a two stage trigger, so you could fire it in semi-automatic if you didn't engage the trigger fully. The barrel change was extremely fast on both the MG34 and 42, as it was designed specifically for prolonged sustained supressing fire, and while both were uwieldy, they could still be effectively fired on the move - the official training manual suggested a wide standing pose and holding the bipod at the front, guiding the bullets into the target. In any case to my knowledge both could be fired from the shoulder standing up, but the problem was that the guns were about 10-15 kilos with ammunition and bipod, and the massive rate of fire made it fly all over the place if not set down.
The Bren was a good weapon, but it was still an automatic rifle like the BAR or the FM24, not a general purpose machine-gun. The biggest advantage of the MG34/42 was that it was only slightly less portable than the standard automatic rifles of the time, but still had almost the same performance as a "medium" machinegun of the era, e.g. a M1919 or similar. Practically all modern light machineguns (or squad automatic weapons or whatever you want to call them) are by all means the result of the MG34/42.
Of all the German WWII weapons, the MG34/42 really deserve all the praise they get.
To be fair, the mg42 is also still in production.. only they call it the mg3 now unlike the bren gun, wich you said stopped production in 2006
+SpleeF S. And many modern machineguns such as m60 copied mg42s design.
Blob64bit exactly!
+Blob64bit It copied the dust cover and trigger at least. The rest was actually copied from the FG42 which in turn was heavily inspired by the British Lewis gun.
ddioppp can you please explain how the fg42 was inspired by the british lewis gun? I don't see anything in those 2 guns that have to do with eachother. then again I am not a gun expert
SpleeF S. Just the internal mechanism. Theyre very different guns other than that. FG42 is more of a battle rifle while the Lewis gun is an LMG. The lewis gun weighs 8 kilos more.
The “spandau” is still used today.
Its called the MG3
Robert Walker also the m249
Italian vehicles (like Ariete and Centauro) still use the MG 42/59 made by Beretta
@@luxan8690 they have changed basically the entire gun in terms of internals have been changed and improved to make it more accurate and reliable. Stop being a wehrboo and get a life.or even better, do some bloody research.
the gun is used by the danish army, swedish, german, and few others
The Americans also copied it it’s pretty much the grandfather of most modern us light machines guns
"It's not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, rather, the forty addressed 'To whom it may concern:'"
OfDaSouth welldone
Nice!!
Baldrick had a Cunning Plan. He had the bullet with his name on it, in his pocket!
Lmao
@@valeriechaumeziere377 lol That was the first thought that came to me when reading this post.
It's quite wrong to say that the MG-34 and the MG-42 were the same gun. They had some pretty big differences.
+Old OddJobs What?
+Old OddJobs Roller-locking vs rotating bolt is not pedantry when it comes to weapons.
+Bart Bols No matter the purpose behind the guns, they were too different to just lump them together.
Also what's with Lindybeige calling the MG-34 and 42 "Spandau"? I don't recall ever hearing anyone call either weapon "Spandau". As far as I know the Spandau is the MG 08 used mainly in WWI. Maybe some Brits in WWII called any German MG "Spandau", but that's still a pretty silly reason to use that name in a supposedly objective comparison video. Already the fact that he uses the same incorrect name for two quite different MGs makes him look ignorant, biased and unprofessional.
I've liked Lindybeige's videos in the past and have been a subscriber for at least a year or two, but this video was a disappointment and well below his usual quality. From what I've seen, his knowledge is probably better suited to making videos about the medieval era rather than WW2.
+zombat im so hard bro
Perhaps, but the Brits called MG-34 and 42 "the spandau".
So what you're saying is this:
1) The Bren is the better LMG.
2) The Spandau is the better MMG.
Yes?
Yes
What I got out of it:
1) Spandau is much better on defense.
2) Bren was at least as good on offense.
3) The two sides used different tactics.
Also, Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge didn't happen, the Bren somehow was a better weapon in 1944-1945 than it was for the BEF, which returned with only 4k out of the 30k they had, and the Bren was obviously not that great because everyone did not copy it after WW2. And he failed to mention the best thing about the Bren gun: It looked freaking cool. Many a machine gun has roughly the same look as the Spandau, but the Bren gun has that banana clip, and that that gives it character.
It pisses me off that he forgot to mention the Bren is actually a Czech design.
@@derekperez1418 Yep check out the zb30 its the 8mm bren
@@Axterix13 There were 3-4 light machine guns in that period that had same conformation, so not a big novelty.
The Spandau was obviously the superior weapon because no one named their pop group Bren Ballet!!!
Well, the MG42 kinda sucked at accuracy. It’s better in defence as an individual weapon, but the BREN is better in attack
@@digitaal_boog but how does it fare as inspiration for a pop group name? 🤔
@@BeleagueredThespian because Bren ballet was a missed opportunity. Would have sounded way better
@@digitaal_boog sounds like a Cockney ska band
@@dzonbrodi514 yeah, and with the ‘Brodie’ helmets, we could incorporate you
"Hans here come ze british, make brrrrrp sounds!"
Hans: BRRRRRP BRRRRRRP!
7:46 Here's Hans !
Allies: no you can’t use such inaccurate weapons to cause terror and chaos on the battlefield
Germans: haha, ze MG42 go BRRR
i can see him doing that with his voice and the brit's hit the ground out of fear
Honestly if they recorded the sounds and played them in battlefields, I fell it would be a similar plan as the wailing ghost voices in Vietnam.
Fritz: hey Hans the murikanz are coming!
Johan: Mein gott dey have the Ma Deuce run....
Joe: Boom there it is...
People didn't carry on with the MG42 eh? The MG3, M60, MG74 and the Zastava M53 would like a word with you.
+GeckoNovice And BAR mated with MG42 and FN MAG aka M240 aka L7 were born
exactly! mg42 was a superior weapon way ahead of its time
I would say the 34 was better of the two, I think 1200-1500rpm was a little excessive for an LMG/MMG.
p.s the guy also BSs about the ROF being similar, the 34 was much slower at around 800-900rpm.
+GeckoNovice The Bundeswehr still use the modern version of it.....
LOL you Yea the MG3, which has a slower fire rate, around 800-900rpm...
British WW2 Veterans say, they never saw the Germans firing their rifles. I'd call that a clear case of survivor bias.
Imagine being so much of a wehraboo to think the reason for that statement was because every time a gunfight occurred between two opponents the German would win 100% of the time.
It took less than a year to get from Normandy to Berlin. The western allies had a much better k:d ratio.
@@Alex-lg9zb nearly 2:1 from 44-45!!!
@@Alex-lg9zb I think he was making a joke, saying that all the british veterans are cowards that hid when the fights began.
@@Alex-lg9zb oh yeah having 4 of the world most powerful nations allied against you and losing definitely means the mg42 was a worse gun.
@@evila9076 I never said the mg42 was a worse gun…? I was responding to the original comment.
What is this 4th superpower you mentioned btw?
On Forgotten Weapons Ian just said that the rumors of the Bren beeing used for sniping are utter bullshit.
He didn’t say it was used for sniping though. He said it was more accurate
@@MyBoomStick1 Watch again. "The Bren gun was very accurate. It was as accurate as a rifle. They were even occasionally used for sniping [...] when you set them to single [...] shot."
Lots of debate around that. I think it is far to say it was used for long range shooting, sniping, maybe not, as it was not outfitted with a scope.
Sniping is not always done at extreme range and not always with a scoped weapon.i knew a Sargent that served in Malaya and he used the bren.he'd keep up with the rifles on the range no problem.
@@JeffLeChefski The first ones had a scope mount actually
I did not know about the name Spandau, so far. My Grandfather told me, that it was also called Hitler-Saw or Hilter-Scythe.
Hitler's Buzzsaw, but heard it from a video game :D
@@simeonstoyanov5226 Simple history
I remember a war comic from a kid, it described them as Deck Spandau's (I think it was on a ship?). I also reckon that's where the name Spandau Ballet (the band) came from. I'd dance if you fired that at my feet.
Hitlersäge in german. With an Umlaut of course.
Hitlers buzzsaw
I know one thing the Bren can't do!
My grandfather used one and one of his mates tried to clear a hornets nest with it which was behind their barracks. Needless to say they spend nearly an entire day in bed under their sheets to try not the get stung while cursing and shouting at that one guy. Oh and they got stung quite a bit despite trying to cover themselves with sheets.
Ha there you have it, don't use those bad British Bren guns for hornet removal!
+DushinSC Ha ha!
+Lindybeige His brother in law died firing a brengun and was awarded a posthumous bronze cross. He was ordered to advance waist deep in a swamp to provide covering fire for advancing troops and, according to the description that went with the award, did so without hesitation, delivering steady and well aimed fire until he was killed.
I suppose that account backs-up two of your assertions.
+DushinSC Clearing out a hornet's nest? That's what fire is for. ;)
+DushinSC You have to give a bloke a medal when your orders got him killed.
Derna1804 The battalion had 38 killed and something like 7 medals/awards in total of which two belong to the 38 killed.
I'm sorry Lindy but using the "success rate" of the British military to measure the effectiveness of the MG42&32 is a very very poor argument. First of all, the allies had air and naval superiority during the d-day operation and onward, and had a larger land force combat ready. And honestly using that argument is like me saying "The MG32 & 42 was an amazing GPMG because the allied force were forced out of Europe and allowed the Germans to push the superior Russian military back all the way to Moscow."
+Ubermarine Actually, they just thought that they got air superiority during and after D-day landing, they did really just get it during the winter. The army was almost at a standstill several month after the landing...
Well.. really with that argument you could say...
"MG42 was far worse than MG34 because after they got it, the war was getting much worse" :)
I used to be a machine gunner in the german army ( in the 80's) and found out that the mg3 could be quite precise. With some practice you could fire short bursts and even single shots and you could hit a target the size of a plate on 300 meters, which is not bad for an area denial weapon.
yep, long barrel will give you that :D thing is its not really needed tho, mgs are about volume of fire and only rambo can really control bursts
I severely doubt you were a machine gunner in the German army
@@richardfiddler4526 So why do you think that ?
a bit different from the laser accurate Guns we were led to believe Germany had.
@@totocologne7824 because this is youtube comment section where people making up about being in the army all the time
"The MG 42 was adopted by several armed organizations after the war, and was both copied and built under licence. The MG 42's lineage continued past Nazi Germany's defeat, forming the basis for the nearly identical MG1 (MG 42/59), chambered in 7.62×51mm NATO, which subsequently evolved into the MG1A3, and later the Bundeswehr's MG 3 and Italian MG 42/59. It also spawned the Yugoslav nearly identical Zastava M53, Swiss MG 51 and SIG MG 710-3, Austrian MG 74, and the Spanish 5.56×45mm NATO Ameli light machine gun, and lent many design elements to the American M60 and Belgian MAG."
Guns arent identical if they are cambered in different rounds
@@BanglaBoy52 the blot is slightly different which is to slow the rate of fire. Adding more control to the gun
There's no valid way to exclude the MG3 in 7.62 while counting the Bren in 7.62.
Both had quality of life improvements and modifications varying from one nation to another, and both are functionally similar to their predecessor.
I don't think you'd notice the difference between versions if they were shooting at you. Additionally, the caliber is arguably one of the least important aspects of the design. From a user perspective, the belt used to feed it makes a bigger difference than which standard rifle caliber you use. Would you also argue that an otherwise identical machinegun fed with belts is a different gun than one fed with links?
@@vexwestley6683 have u fired a gun
@@Conservative_crusader I own both a 7.62 and a .303.
While I haven't specifically fired the weapons in question, I have had the opportunity to get behind some transferable MGs. Additionally my family has a history of military service going back across multiple generations and countries. I would've been able to enlist myself if it wasn't for a genetic disorder and a tumour in my dominant hand. I bring this up to highlight that while I may lack firsthand experience with these specific weapons, I have heard accounts of their usage from experienced veterans.
Unless you're about to tell me you were a British commando who dropped into France with a Bren and acquired an MG42, then got the chance to fire their respective 7.62 conversions after the war, I won't be terribly impressed by whatever experiences led you to believe these guns aren't directly comparable.
The MG 3 is a clear example of the MG 42's legacy.
And really? Equating Germany's retreat from France to the effectiveness of the Bren? I'm sure that had nothing to do with superior numbers, complete and total air superiority (and artillery support in general) and the fact that a huge amount of Germany's army, particularly its seasoned veteran Divisions, were fighting the Soviets.
I've a great deal of love for this channel, but you really slipped up with this one.
Silly lindybeige has no clue.
Being really into my history, I cannot do anything bit agree with you
+ReachForTheSky Not so much legacy as minor changes to the same weapon. They chromed the inside of the barrel and changed to 7.62 NATO cartridges, but other than that they just changed the name. In may ways it's better than the FN Mag (called the M240 in US service).
+Rolf Hartmann That's what I meant. It's essentially the same design, still in use 70 years later, in many countries.
+ReachForTheSky a friend of mine in the german army had to shoot one of those. ...with still the nazi symbols and everything engrained on it it is fairly the same weapon, with only a few changes to use another type of amunation i think. also mg3 are export wonders . like said very good at surpessing areas.
The MG42 is still in use today by many nations, only recalibred in 7.62x51mm and renamed the MG3
+kylesenior same for the bren
RoniiNN A. please don't call me a dummy while using incorrect grammar.
Well, I carried the MG3/MG-62(Danish version) back in the 80's and it was pretty accurate if you ask me, and stayed in service in the danish armed forces beyond 2000. By the way; a little trick you could use was to unscrew the muzzle guard a few turns, lock it again and that way turn down the rate of fire and get off single shots. Otherwise short bursts of 2-4 shots was the norm. Without having ever fired a Bren, the MG3 was a Beast and a very reassuring weapon to have in your unit.
Do you know what's the average bullet spread of mg3 at 100m on a bipod, I can't find anything on the internet
@@tiredtotality4145
Is fast ! Is very fast !
This guy is full of shit
Every one knows it as the mg 42 he’s just trying to smart and different
Well I used the MG 42 Danish version, you can shot in short bursts and keep it accurately on target.
Yes same here. That Bowlby 80 yard fairy tale cracked me up
Yeep. Ive even managed to get 1-3 round bursts on it and then get a ticking off by the sarge saying thats not the way to use it.
While standing? While clearing a building? I think that's the bren advantage
First off, the MG34 and MG42 were quite different not only in production, but also performance: MG34 way more accurate and MG42 way more rate of fire. Yeah, they were used in similar roles. Furthermore, not sure if it was called "Spandau" at the time, because I never heard or read that term before when it comes to the MG34/42 and well, I am not really unfamiliar with that era... The "Spandau" was although definitely used for the German MG in World War 1.
just did a quick check on wikipedia and it notes that the British occassionally called the MG34 "Spandau". Not sure if you mean by "people at that time" you only refer to the British or the Germans as well, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you only meant the British (or made an error, I know that happens quite easily). Because the term in German I heard the most often for the MG42 was definitely "Hitlersäge" (hitler's buzzsaw).
+ZSH1aventail still, never heard or read that term ever before. So if your statement is true it didn't stick after the war. I know the Schmeisser MP was technically not from Schmeisser, but the name stuck even after the war. I guess "Spandau" for Germans was way to inaccurate, because of the Spandau MG from First World War.
+Military History Visualized Spandau was a term used by the brits only. Its because the cover plate was stamped in spandau and there there fore in WWI asumed it (the MG08 that is) was called the spandau). It never was.
Calling the gun for a place is not really that smart because then you might confuse the gun for the place in a hot situation. (well the Springfield 03 is of cause called springfield, but there are like 30 places in the US called by that name).
All machineguns in German army was called MG. MaschinenGewehr... it was called what it was.
Germen naming nomenclature was also different to most other nations. While most call the number of when it was designed or started production. Germany called it as a year model, about how we call cars today. And it was not the year model of the gun it self, but rather the division is was for. So the MG42 was desegined for the year model 42 of infanteri division. Now it happend to be the case that it was introduced 1942, but its not true for all all guns. Some are actually introduced the year before, and some the year after.
Compare that for example to the AK-47 that was designed in 1947, but not introduced before 1949
How bout u go shoot a bren and a mg 42 and 34 at the same range and see what one is more accurate
@@matsv201 butttt AKs were in production in 1947... AK prototypes go back to 1946 even.
@@r.9158 A prototype is not the finished product
Your British is showing Lindy! Almost every belt fed man-portable machine gun made post-WWII is heavily based on the MG34/MG42 platform. In fact, several countries use a direct copy of it even today.
+Jukku It was influential, yes. The British army 'gimpy' was influenced by it. I considered pointing out the MAG in use in the Falklands in the same shot as the bren (the guy standing in the background). The Swiss managed to come up with a version that was much heavier and more expensive.
+Lindybeige Having used the MG3 extensively and tried the Spandau I have to disagree on the close combat aspect. It is relatively easy to fire from the hip, full auto or small bursts. You don't get pushed back at all if you know what you are doing and it's accurate enough. The MG3 is even fired from the shoulder off hand in the Norwegian army.
+Lindybeige Right, but the Swiss version has a can opener, a saw and a spoon. The bullets, however, seem to bounce harmlessly off of every target.
germany still uses it as the MG3, yugoslavia and almost all of the balkan states use it even today. last time i know it was used in war was in 2001 conflict in Macedonia where i was actually a support gunner in a macedonian platoon using the M53 (yugo version) and it is really terrifying, it is anyway a support machine gun and it is made to suppress enemy troops and the rest of the guys in the platoon to take them out. Even i was scared sometimes to fire it not because of the sound but because i would have a guilty consience after that because it's a horrible thought knowing you've killed someone .... war is bad.
I have to agree with Jukku. I'm a machine gunner in the USMC and my weapon is the M240B which is essentially an FN MAG with minor U.S.-specific tweaks. Having said that, the MAG draws very heavily in design and functionality from the MG42. The earlier U.S. medium machine gun, the M60, used a cover and feeding mechanism that was virtually identical to that of the MG42. As for accuracy, I have no firsthand experience with either weapon so I cannot offer facts, but I will say that I find it nigh on impossible to believe that a German machine gun team couldn't hit a man-sized target at 80 meters. I've seen demonstrations of the cone of fire from an MG42 and it's fairly similar to that of an M60 which is accurate on a point target to about 600 meters. Barrel changes could also be accomplished by a trained crew in 3-5 seconds. I enjoy your channel a great deal, having only discovered it about a week ago but in this particular instance I believe you are incorrect sir. In no way do I mean to discredit the Bren, it's a fantastic weapon in its own right as well, however when compared to the MG42 I think it comes up short. Regardless, it's all a matter of opinion and Jerry didn't win the war, did he?
The MG 34 or "spandau" has 2 triggers! for rapid use! one for full auto, and one for single shoot! single shoot is rifle like accurate. What are you talking about dude!?
This entire video is a shitshow
Indeed it is. Lindy is well known for obvious, evident British bias.
Maybe he meant the mg42. It’s fully automatic only.
Speaking about the spandau, a collegue of mine told me about his great great uncle, who died literally cut in half by a spandau. He was carrying weapons for the french resistance in his 3 wheels bicycle, encountered a german barrage, tryed to turn back and was cut in half by a spandau burst. The best defense machine gun, for sure.
There are some serious mistakes in this video.
The MG42 is not the cheaper successor to the 34, but more of a upgraded version. The rate of fire of the 42 was waaayyy higher than the 34. Ans not at 1200 rpm but above (up to nearly 2000 rpm). Beyond that the MG42 was continued after the war. This gun is still in use as a squad automatic weapon in the german Bundeswehr and on nearly any vehicle. The actual version is called MG3 but there are nearly no differences to the 42 version. Only one thing was changed. The rof was dropped down to 1200 rpm. But there are still some refurbished MG42 in service in the Bundeswehr. Only the wehrmacht insignia have been filed off.
Furthermore the german MG is percise enough to compare with the Bren. It really doesnt "spray" that much unless your barrel isn´t glowing in the dark.
Firing from the shoulder or the hip is possible too but the MG3 weights about 26 pounds, so it is a little bit unwieldy. But it works. You just cant shoot full suppressiv fire from standing position but thats not the idea behind this weapon. If you are commanded to "Sturmabwehrschießen" (attacking and rushing forward whilst laying suppressive fire) you´d fire short bursts.
There is only one thing about the MG42/MG3 i can totally undersign. There is some serious recoil. Big times.
Source of my information: I was married to a MG3 for my basic training at the Bundeswehr. 26 pounds of pure violence and a pain in the ass to carry around. But it doubles the firepower of a 12 man group.
+Tonda Rauðhrafna The MG42 was very much a cheaper version. It took half the time to make and cost a great deal less per weapon, and in wartime, this was a huge improvement. The MG34 was considered to be too good in some ways: too expensive, too precisely built, too intolerant of dirt, too refined. Much of the 'spray' effect comes from the fact that it had more recoil as you say, and was belt-fed. Yes, NATO troops from Canada and the like training in Germany in modern times have often been surprised to see these weapons still in use.
+Tonda Rauðhrafna
Not to mention: The US M60 is half MG42.
+Lindybeige Have you ever handled a Bren/MG42 on the range? I'm not too well versed on British gun laws.
+Lindybeige yepp. the mg42 was in fact a lot cheaper in production due to the body that is completely stamped from sheet steel. but it isn't a "cheaper version" of the 34. it is much more a improvement in every was. rof, reliability, tolerances, handling like barrel cange (5sec for a trained gunner). and another practical improvement was the selfdismantling endless belt. on contact you dont have to think about reloading. your #2 just clips on another 100 shots and you just keep on firing.
But in terms of precision it is comparable to any other 7.62 machinegun. with a erdziellafette (groundtarget suspension?) you'll get rid of the recoil and fight targets up to 1200 maybe 1400 meters. The sights are regularly der to a maximum of 1200 meters. and even with the bipod 800 meters are no problem. the only problem of these distances is the lack of a proper scope or magnifying optic.
for the future conflicts there is a new mg issued to our troops which is based on actual tasks like cqb. it is a 5.56mm Saw-type machinegun based loosely on the g36. but the mg42/mg3 will still be in use for the next 30 years.
+Tonda Rauðhrafna Shooting from the hip is shitty idea if you want to stand showballs chance to hit anything anyway.
Lindy, I usually appreciate your videos, but this one is rather inaccurate. We are still using a variant "spandau", the MG3 in the german army today, the only difference to the original being, that the maximum rate of fire is capped at 1200rpm rather than 1800rpm and above. So, while I cannot really comment on the BREN, I have some experience with the "spandau".
1. The "spandau" is pinpoint accurate. I will admit, that handling might be difficult to inexperienced soldiers because of recoil, rate of fire and the not so great iron sights, but if used correctly, the gun is dead accurate at first shot up to 400m and above. When fixed in, say, a tank as a coaxial machine gun, the spandaus effective range is as far as 1200m. The limitations in accuracy come from the user, not the gun. The gun itself is very accurate.
2. It is entirely possible to fire the spandau from the hip, we tried. Although maybe not the preferred way to use it. It is, however, not geared to be used for aimed fire while standing up.
3. I cannot comment on the guy from the book, but even an inexperienced shooter can easily hit a lying target out to 200m, so don't know what went wrong in that particular situation.
4. It is correctly assumed, that the german squad relied entirely on the machine gun for firepower and that the mg was used in a central position rather than in a flanking one. Whatever the philosophy behind that was, I cannot imagine.
5. A section machine gun with detachable box magazine? Really? Belt fed machine guns have so many advantages, I cannot count. Most armies today are using belt fed machine guns, while the British army is also using the L85 LSW with detachable box magazine for whatever reason - though they seem to be doing well with it...
6. The german forces where in constant retreat since 1944, but that was (maybe) not because of the BREN LMGs great performance. The german forces where worn out and not at all well trained and well equiped. (My grandfather was captured in summer 1944 by the british - who treated him well, he only speaks good about them - he hadn't eaten in three days, had almost no training and was only 17 years old.) The allies had air superiority, vast superiority both in trained professional soldiers and equipment and they had stuff like proximity detonators for artillery shells. The choice of section mg at that time was negligible.
TL;DR: your description for the spandau is not very accurate. As I said, I appreciate your videos, but this one was a bit off. No hurt feelings, though. Sorry for my bad english, cheers from Germany ;)
+Etienne Nückel Guter Kommentar, vielen Dank für deinen Dienst.
+Etienne Nückel
"Bad English"
O_O
Jesus man, you're a damn perfectionist. Very few mistakes in there at all. Better than most who have English as their first language. Especially for the internet.
"spandaus effective range" spandau's
" at first shot" at the
"so many advantages, I" comma isn't needed
"forces where in" "forces where worn" were
" he only speaks good about them" well of Though your wording may actually be correct, it just sounds odd.
"description for" description of
These are all really minor grammatical points that are easily made, I've even made some of them myself. And your message comes across perfectly despite these teeny weeny errors. Most of them aren't even terribly noticeable unless you are looking for them.
Goddammit man you're making us look bad! You're doing better at English than we are. And don't even ask about my German.
:P
Have a nice day.
+Pascal Severin Danke.
+Comrade Shamrock Well, thank you very much, I knew there was something wrong. Don't worry about your German, it's grammar is from hell :D
+Comrade Shamrock Excusing for our "bad" english is some kind of hobby for us germans i assume, you'll find a lot of us doing it, and it's usually those, you can understand quite well.
Ian from forgotten weapons just did a video on the Bren and has ones on the Czech gun it was developed from. Might help to clear up some of the reasons why the Bren is so well regarded
Allies: noooooooooo you can't shoot 1500 rounds per minute. that's unfair.
German's:
haha MG 42 go brrrrrrrrrrrr
It’s pointless. Why do you need 1,500 rounds per minute?
@@thethirdman225 Well, how about you go back in time to World War 2 germany and ask the military command why they put muzzle boosters on their MG42 to increase the rate of fire.
@@baraka629
*_"Well, how about you go back in time to World War 2 germany and ask the military command why they put muzzle boosters on their MG42 to increase the rate of fire."_*
Well, I did training on the Bren. What are your qualifications? Firing 1,500 rpm isn't very helpful. It's too hard to aim and you have to carry three times the ammunition. Try lugging that round on foot for three days. The only time that kind of fire was any use was for defensive fire in aircraft where critical hits with rifle calibre ammunition were hard to score.
@@thethirdman225 bren fanboys coping
@@Amish234 Not a fanboi. Couldn’t care less about guns. To be honest, if it hadn’t been this channel, which was referred to by Ralf Ratz’s Military History Channel, I wouldn’t even watch it. But I trained on the Bren. I’m familiar with squad tactics and nobody needed 1,500 rounds per minute. We trained to fire in bursts of three to five rounds, which saved ammunition and barrels.
well the mg3 is still being used all over the world and that's just an mg42 moddified for NATO rounds
Stop pretending to be an expert on things you clearly are not an expert in.
Just to point out one thing when you said that the bren was in use for much longer than the mg 42, thats true. The germans replaced it with the MG 3 during the 1950's wiche was basicly an MG42 but with 7.62mm nato rounds insted of the old mauser rounds, and its being used by around 30 different countries
+lordofdarkdudes Also about nobody copying it. The M60 would probabnly disagree.
+LordDarthHarry The M60 had a horrifically low fire rate compared to the MG42, something like half
+LordDarthHarry The M60 is mechanically more of a copy of the FG42 but with MG42/MG34 beltfeed mechanism and a quick change barrel.
+Revener666 I would say the same. M60 kinda a mix FG42 and MG42 but with the appearance of FG
+lordofdarkdudes can't remember him claiming to be an expert, at which timestamp did he say that?
Seems your own fault if you simply assumed that. this is the internet, youtube of all places. don't go assuming things are correct, no matter how well the are produced. Take them as datapoints and opinions.
The Germans must have been deliberately missing the guy lying on the ground for 45 mins. Lindy you did a video about how most of the time soldiers avoided killing enemy for reasons of humanity but also self preservation.
That makes no sense why woud the german miss a british soldier?
Interesting he does a video almost entirely on this phenomenon
Shitty reasoning for wasting 45 mins worth of ammo for a 1200-1500 rpm gun
@@JaePlay yeah, I think he either was the most inexperienced gunner in the Wehrmacht or a Hitler youth that did not want to kill. Sounds great pretty fake to me. Maybe he was shooting blanks lmao
It's incredibly difficult to hit a point on the ground at distance....
If the guy was standing it would of been a different matter😎
The mg3, mg1, mg53 and mg74 are nearly identical versions of the mg42, there are no machine guns based on british ww2 designs, blessings
1:28:
look up Rheinmetall MG 3, and how much countries are still using it even today....
+T2266 and the M60 is based on MG42
yup. my country's armed forces (Danish) have just replaced the mg 3 with the m60e6.
+T2266 True. But far more nations have elected for weapons with a more BREN-like rate of fire, a BREN-like operating mechanism (gas-operated, with long stroke piston) and often lower (BREN-like) weight. And that includes Germany, that are replacing the MG3 with the all new MG4 and MG5. The true greatness of the MG42, was not the complete product, but the use of stamped steel and the supurb belt-feed. The later was used in both the FN-MAG and the M60.
@@gonzomanxx
The M3 is a pretty straight derivative of the MG42 but the M60 was derived from the MG42 and M1941 Johnson machine gun with some similarities to both.
@@gonzomanxx Just the feed mechanism, really
MG 42 is NOT the same gun as the MG 34. It was designed by a different man and produced by different manufacturers. It was intentionally kept similar to the MG 34 for familiriaty purposes, but it was by no means "basically the same gun".
Bren gun isn't comparable to the MGs. Bren gun is more similar to the modern concept of a SAW or IAR (see: RPK, M249, M27 IAR). MG 34 and 42s are GPMGs, entirely different type of weapon.
Bren was more controllable, you could use it to accurately fire single-shot or burst, similarly to modern standard "assault rifles". MG 42 could be as accurate as the Bren gun, but it was difficult to fire it as controllably as the Bren, because of how ridiculous its RPM was.
I think you draw too much on potentially unreliable anecdotal evidence. I highly doubt that every german section instantly routed as soon as their MG was knocked out. Maybe the kids that the British faced in 1944-45 did, but that certainly wasn't the case in Africa or Eastern Europe.
The fact that the British were constantly advancing in Europe is completely unrelated to the guns comparative characteristics. Battles aren't won by machineguns alone. Brits had their arses handed to them in Africa for a while, and they had Bren guns vs MG34\42 there as well.
MG42 is still in service with the Bundeswehr in the form of the MG3. It also spawned numerous derivatives, such as MG 51, Zastava M53, as well as influencing (heavily) the US M60 and the FN MAG (and subsequently - M240 which derives from it).
+Makro I think the reason most people compare them is because they were both used in WW2. But you do make some really good points.
+Makro Some good points. But it isn't like an M249 the belt fed Vs Magazine fed is the ultimate difference in reality.
Hardly splitting hairs its a fundamental difference in Firearm application and design. The Magazine feed on the 249 is known to be woefully unreliable, to the point that a lot of military's had the magazine port removed. Alas at least the magazine port on the 249 is side loaded not completely destroying your situational awareness and blinding you on your right hand side, due to the top fed magazine.
Anyway lets agree to disagree. The Bren should really only be compared to contemporary of its time.
heheh cheeky bugger :P
Indeed! Good debate none the less buddy :)
*****
heheh cheeky bugger :P
Indeed! Good debate none the less buddy :)
You remind me of a dear friend of mine who still argues that replacing the binding on the hem of shuttlecocks with a plastics based glue instead of a bone glue has destroyed the history of badminton and rendered all badminton games since as essentially pointless and irrelevant.
This made my day
in other words, he reminds you of an utter idiot
It has
I bet the germans didn't talk about how much they feared Bren or give it scary nicknames.
The Bren is an amazing LMG and I've been lucky enough to fire them when I was in army cadets. But if i went to war I'd want the belt fed.
The Germans had the original ZB 20 and they were not much impressed by this LMG!
Whether something is considered "Scary" or not, does not mean it's better, that's a fallacy. Being considered something does not equal being something, plain and simple.
@Ankjok Ming Calling something stupid does not make it so, nice poisoning the well fallacy to start. There are many things given names for qualities, they do not process, this is a simple concept. The mg42 was generally considered scary but I was expressing a logical idea and abstracting it to the general where it is true. X can be called something without being it, It's true from a logical bases etc, what you're talking about is the more likely outcome of something being in tune with what it is considered by, please make that distinction in your head.
@@Grazzio558 best comment I've seen
@@gone8913 nice fallacy fallacy my friend. just because an argument is fallacious doesn't make the claim behind it false.
Lindy I think that saying "The British Army wouldn't have advanced consistently from 1944 [well maybe even 1943] onwards if the Bren Gun is rubbish" is a bit unfair. Lets face it the Bren Gun was just one of many weapons systems the British Army had, not to mention the supply, and airpower advantages Britain and the US had in general over Germany by then. You could equally argue "The British Army was consistently defeated by the Germans in 1939 and 1940, therefore the Bren is clearly rubbish and the Spandau the superior weapon." We both know there is more at play here than a single form of section level fire support.
+dernwine Yes, I knew this would come up. The British had many opportunities to use an alternative to the bren, and chose not to take them. Post-action debriefs concluded that the bren was the second most effective weapon used by infantry. The advance against the enemy was done by infantry, and in the end infantry had to do the basic nitty gritty of infantry work. Both sides had artillery, tanks, and all that. Air superiority cannot take ground and hold it. It would take another video to defend the statement. In 1939 the British army fought very effectively at the small scale against the Germans, and the Germans reported that making headway against the British was harder than against any other foe. The large-scale strategic situation required the British to withdraw. They were also greatly out-numbered.
+Lindybeige Love the videos, but the point you brought up about the Bren's longevity compared to the Spandau's is a little troubling to me. This is because the German army still uses the mg42 in a round about way, they call it the mg3, and it is just an updated version that shoots a .308 caliber bullet. Loving the videos tho
Lindybeige First of all: Thanks for taking the time to reply, I honestly didn't think you would and am kind of honoured that my comment was good enough to merit a reply.
Secondly onto the meat of the thing:
I don't want to give the impression that I disagree with you about the Bren, I know a lot of people who where issued with the Bren and have heard nothing but good things about it, in fact I'm mildly jealous that I'll never get the chance to take it on the ranges. My only issue was, an I admit I was being a complete pedant, that you can't take "we won" as being proof that the Bren was good, as you said we lost in 39 and 40 in spite of the fact that the Bren was excellent, so hypothetically it would be possible for us to advance into Germany in-spite of a inferior light machine gun. Both sides may have had Artillery and Tanks and all that but if our Tanks and Artillery are more numerous and being better employed (same for our infantry) [and yes I know the limitations of the airforce, the less said about them generally the better, I was just using them as an example of a factor that might help compensate] then the fact that one weapons system would *hypothetically* be worse than the German equivalent shouldn't have that big of a bearing on the end result right? Of course this is literally just me picking nits.
@@lindybeige yes, you knew that your completely moronic argument would be exposed. Stupid jingo buffon
@@dernwine I think his real argument was that the infantry who used the Bren in 39 also wanted to use it in 45. They liked the thing....
Brens are still in production? MG42s are still produced, as the MG3. Guess they've both stood the test of time.
+GenericFakeName m60 was just recently fell out of favor by the US, which is just a customized mg42
+Alex Sitaras No it isnt, totally different actions. The M60 is a gas operated short stroke action, while the MG42 is a recoil operated roller locked action....
Basically they are different guns!
+Alex Sitaras M-60 was based on the FG-42 as used by Luftwaffe Paratroops .
+alganhar1 and which was based on the Lewis gun at that .
+GenericFakeName I didn't know that. Who uses the Bren today? Is it used as an infantry weapon? Armored cars, tanks?
Lindybeige -- You are informative and a lot of fun to learn from.
I trained on a Bren in the 70's. They were absolutely beautiful. Balanced and no bits digging into you when out on patrol. You knew you could take out anyone up to a half mile or more with a short three shot burst. One awkward thing was when you cocked it, the mechanism stayed back. You had to make sure the mechanism caught properly, or it would fly forward, gathering a round and firing it. Friend of mine was shot like that and was lucky to save his arm, through someone being careless. Like most weapons, correct application in the field made a big difference.
Other than its nickname of "Hitler's buzzsaw", I can't really comment on the "Spandau".
you can tell that he's british when he says that bren was used in falklands but doesnt mention mg3 wich is used still effectively.(mg3 is mg42 with nato 7.62)
Like squire
That's just delusional Lindybeige for you. Incredibly biased towards Britain
And fire slower. The MG3 was discontinued quite a bit ago
bobbyjoe2402 that’s just a delusional Wehraboo for you. Incredibly biased towards German engineering. Also, Lindy is British what the hell do you think
@@wejwedge8137 why is he a suddenly wheraboo? Lindy is indeed extremely biased towards britain. End of discussion and no need to add any useless wannabe fact.
No way MG-42 was that inaccurate, come on Lindy. Huge, huge British bias you've got here, entire video, huge historical inaccuracies.
Few books written by British soldiers are not historical documents.
You don't actually want machine guns to be highly accurate.
There is no point putting 10 rounds into 1 enemy while his mates remain unhit.
+everest108 I think he's playing more of a guessing game than anything else honestly. I think he's kind of made up his mind that because the mg 42 had a high rate of fire, it must have been very inaccurate, the same way that he seems to have made up his mind that the mg 42 was clunky and heavy, while the Bren was light and manageable, and could be used in close quarter fighting etc., but in fact a Bren MK 1 and 2 weighed around 11 kg, almost the same as an mg 42. I mean there's a reason the Bren was fired from a bipod.
+Massimo O'Kissed Think about what you wrote for just a second.
If you didn't spot the flaw in your reasoning, here it is: just because a weapon is capable of hitting the same spot 10 times in a row, does that prevent the gunner from adjusting his aim while firing? Of course it doesn't. It's a very simple motion to sweep the machine gun from left to right while holding the trigger, allowing a nice spacing of 1-2 shots per meter, ensuring that you hit that one enemy and most of his mates.
Really spray and pray? Doesn't work. In Vietnam the expended 250,000 rounds per kill. The current rate for Afghanistan is around 50,000 rounds and that's using a more controlled method. You've been watching too many Rambo movies.
I operated the LMG when I was a National Serviceman, on the firing range I might add, I had it on repetition & frightened the life out of the boys operating the markers. Great fun many years ago.
CHOWDAH PASS ME THE MG-42
It's almost as if these machineguns were made for different purposes
+Archsinner I trained on the Bren LMG when I joined the British Army in 1980.
The LMG was designed to support the infantry section in all phases of war - attack, defence, withdrawal, harbour, patrolling etc..
Conservation of ammunition has always been a British Army "thing" so it was standardised across the section at .303" / 7.62mm. Also, the Bren was magazine-fed, which limited the rate of fire but made it very handy and a one-man load - very useful in the attack or withdrawal. We were also instructed very clearly that "spray and pray" is not an option: you AIM, then fire. So in the attack, you AIM at the enemy position and in defence you AIM at each individual enemy soldier or clump of soldiers. Area support fire is what mortars and Vickers/GPMGs do. I had to carry all my own ammo and there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING more disconcerting than to pull the trigger and bugger all comes out of the pointy end. So you AIM. If you want to carry out suppressive fire, you can waggle the end of the gun a bit.
The MG42 was belt-fed and less accurate. Its rate of fire was astonishing so it would chew up a man-load of ammunition in no time - hence, if possible, it was emplaced with ammo dumped next to it for immediate use. It was frequently mounted on a tripod for this purpose. In defence it could scythe through massed infantry - i.e. the Red Army. In the attack it was a very effective area suppression weapon, assuming you had line-of-sight to the target area. However, since it was belt-fed it took longer to move (you had to shorten the belt before lifting the weapon from the ground) less effective while moving (the short belt would have only a handful of rounds ready to fire) and take longer to set up to fire (down, position, either join up a new belt or clear the old belt and load a new one before giving fire). Some of these problem could be reduced by using the "magazine", so - assuming you had already loaded up the drum with 75 belted rounds - you would have to unload the weapon, load the drum, move, then after setting up on arrival, you unload/clear the drum, take it off and feed in a new belt.
If the MG42 had a big advantage in small unit tactics over the Bren, it was in counteracting smoke. So the enemy infantry is advancing through a smoke screen: point the MG42 at the smoke and start mowing.
So: the two weapons were designed to compliment two different sets of small unit tactics and situations.
+andrewtippman +1 only for that wall of text
+Archsinner #sigh# I know, I kept adding to it while I was pottering about in the kitchen. Sorry. I should have just said: "Yep - good point" and left it at that.
mg42 = mg 3 still in service and amazing
To be fair the Bren L4 was in service til about 1991 with the British, and copies of the Bren L4 pop up in modern use today in India.
The MG42 has other descendants, including the M60, which borrowed from the MG42 and FG42 quite a bit. The M60E-variants are still in use today.
oh well if the famously modern and advanced indian military uses them.. admit it, lindy is biased alot
"If india is doing it it must be a great idea" - nobody ever
MG3 is only really in service on vehicles with most of the countries that use it, and not nearly as widely distributed as the FN MAG or PKM. That huge rate of fire renders the weapon very inflexible.
actually, an mg 34 is pretty good in semi auto, and with the double-crescent trigger you could select-fire by just shifting your finger. that feature went away with the 42.
I looked up the Sydney Jary book on Amazon. It doesn't seem to be available. Do you know of anyone who might reprint it?
I don't see what he means about the mg34 not being accurate. No weapon is ''accurate'' whilst spewing out 900 rpm (not 1200), but the trigger on the mg34 was designed in such a way that firing a single shot without accidentally firing a burst was easy. The mg34 was very capable of firing accurately at single targets and was not just meant for suppressive fire and area denial.
The MG 42 was rated at 1500 rounds per minute, the MG 3 (today's version) fires 1200 rounds per minute.
@@norbertfleck812 The mg42 varied between 900-1500 rpm depending on the bolt. Very few could fire 1500. Most were around 1100-1300
@@BearOfNorway I don't know where you got that data from, but I think you mixed the MG 42 with the MG 34:
The cadence if the MG 42 is 1500, only later version (after WW2) had a reduced fire rate, but never as low as 900 per Minute (that was the MG34).
The Bundeswehr used MG3 is a modified MG42 with a heavier lock and some modifications inside the lock to reduce the fire rate to stable and more reliable 1200/minute.
As the fire rate results from mass ratio of the mechanism, it is not possible to change the fire rate without altering the construction.
@@norbertfleck812 Mauser Werke AG
Wilhelm-Gustloff-Stiftung
Steyr-Daimler-Puch, Großfuß AG, MAGET (Maschinenbau und Gerätebau GmbH, Berlin-Tegel). These were the different manufacturers of this weapon and they did not all make it exactly the same. The fire rate would vary between 1200-1500 rpm. I am not denying that some models had that high of a fire rate, just that it is not incorrect to say that the fire rate of an mg42 was 1200 rpm because it varied. It all depended on the bolt used in each specific model.
MG-34 fires from 900-1500 RPM depending on the bolt used. So maybe you shouldn't be correcting people...
The Spandau could also shoot fire arrows, and had a katana bayonet.
Also it could be dual wielded by Berserkers.
And each time you make the team leave then re-crew, it fires twice as much - Erwin Rommel once got an MG42 team to just leave and re-crew for three weeks, and at the end just shoot at Britain once. To this day, there is only a crater there.
Every time a berserker gnawed on his shield, the Spandaus would loose a barrage of flaming bayonets pommels. That's the real reason they were so effective: Noone else was crazy enough to get anywhere near that level of glorious ordinance.
The Spandau make good Breakfast and can drive car. It will be our President.
It also kept some old bloke efficiently behind bars for 40 odd years....Wunderwaffen indeed!
Hi Lindybeige - I like your videos. A few comments about this one:
The MG42 was further developed into the modern MG3, which saw service in the Danish army well past 1996 (when I served). With a shoulder strap it could be fired from the hip during attack, but it is a heavy s.o.a.b. ;-)
Using the two forward legs for support under the mouth of the barrel, you could actually fire pretty accurate 3-5 round bursts and knock down individual-sized targets at 100-300 metres. Using the tripod for fixed defense, it was even more accurate and deadly. The main disadvantage of the MG3 is that the barrel gets stupid hot. It is air cooled and the loader / ammunition carrier also carries and extra barrel, which you then switch out as needed. IF you mess up and forget to use the glove - you burn you hand. IF you don't put down the red hot barrel in its casing but drop it on the ground, the metal is so hot that dirt and leaves with "melt" onto it and stick. IF you drop it in snow - instantly cooling it too much - the entire barrel can bend out shape and be rendered forever useless :-D
Nice delivery! So many vids aren't so I appreciate your work.
British Soldier in the field: 'Blimey, that MG 42 is just inaccurate, they can't even hit me! They should have Bren guns! Bren guns are superior! British technology is obviously superior to anything these Krauts can make! I shall write a book describing this and hopefully middle class British man near the turn of the next century will tell everyone the same thing... A war memoir of how heroic and awesome British forces and technology truly were...'
German Soldiers in the pillbox overlooking him: 'Klaus, vatch zis... I can make zis Tommy viggle and jiggle like a leettle verm every time I fire zee machine gun!' *brrrrrrrrrrrt* 'Oh yeah Hans! Zat ees a giggle! Let me go get zee sergeant, zis vill make his entire veek!'
Reminds me of this civil war general who's last words were "They couldn't hit an elephant from this far!"
Lindy I love you man, however, you've got a few things wrong here.
+Von Depeche More than just a few things.
+Heinrich Berndovsky Oh my!
A few things? He kept mixing up the mg34 and the mg42, thinking they were almost the same gun and claiming a high rate of fire while showing a picture of the mg34 and completely missing the big difference between the mg34/mg42 and the Bren, in that the germans "invented" the gpmg-concept which everyone promptly copied after the war.
The fact that you had to belittle the other side by claiming that their knowledge is in fact based on "video games" instead of research and that you seem to imply that the Thompson and M3 are similar if not the same from the engineering standpoint is not giving you any credibility.
I do agree that the GPMG concept and who invented has nothing to do with the video since it was never really even brought up in the first place. What did irk a lot of people was the fact that the MG34 and 42 were essentially described as nothing more than bullet hoses which isn't true (and dozens of people who've had actual experience of using MG3 during the military service claim as much under this very video). I do get your point being locked up on the details, but there is a fine line between not paying attention to important differences and nitpicking.
Oh, and comparing people you disagree with katanafags is not going to automatically win the argument for you.
*****
I'm from a country where military conscription meant I served in the military, so I have actual experience of machine guns and how they are used in a military context.
Can you say the same?
And if Lindy makes comments about the differences between the Bren and the mg34/mg42, he really should be aware that he is comparing three different squad support weapons that are all called machine guns, rather than just two.
The mg34 could fire single shots, just like the Bren, something the mg42 could not. The early versions of the mg34 had an adjustable rate of fire, going almost all the way down to as slow as the Bren, but that was later removed since there turned out to be little need for it.
But here's a big kicker really, the british troops continued to use the Bren for quite a while after the WWII, including up to and into the Falklands war.
One could wonder why, since they had the excellent FN MAG to use as a machine gun.
One reason was likely the fact that the dumb ass british top brass decided that british soldiers couldn't be trusted with fully automatic weapons as standard armament, and so used a single-fire only version of the FN FAL (as the L1A1 self loading rifle).
Making the british military one of the last (if not the very last) military in the modern world to adopt a full-auto capacity weapon as standard rifleman armament only with the introduction of the SA80 in the 80s....which just also happened to coincide with the sharp decline of use of the Bren....
Would the brits really have continued to use the Bren for as long as they did if they had adopted the FN FAL in a full auto-version?
Or was it more to compensate for the lack of a true select-fire rifle rather than as a machine gun?
I had experience firing Bren guns in cadets in school. Greatest difference from the Lee Enfield rifle, both using .303 rounds, was that the Bren had no recoil, a net negative recoil infact, due to the gas reload capability and actions of the butt-plate buffer spring and the piston-return spring. I recall young short slight lads using the Bren on the ground being pulled bodily forward towards the target across the dirt. I took to holding on to their boots to anchor them.
Love those stories.
My father told me he had the same experience as a cadet in the late forties! He was a skinny kid and said they had to hold him back when he shot the Bren. He also said they got to shoot it lots as there was lots of surplus ammo back then, now you can hardly find surplus ammo anywhere
The modern version of the “spandau” is accurate to 400 meters, it’s called a mg 3 and is still being used by the German army.
yes the modern version he is talking about the original 1942 design
@@kek5109 almost no changes were done. Heck, some of the Bundeswehr mg3 still have Waffenamt stamps and were stamped as mg42.
And that means what? It's better/good? Just because something has been in service or a variant has for a long time doesn't equal being good, bad or anything other than being in service a long time. It's a fallacy to assume so and again just because something is not used now doesn't mean it's worse than the thing that has, there are many reasons/variables for why that can be
@@gone8913 It literally is good. almost every LMG/MMG in use by a modern military is based on the feed system from the mg42. the zb26 was an evolutionary dead end, and lindy should recognize that, as even the czechs who made it ditched its system pretty fast after the war...
@@marcusborderlands6177 one of the reasons we dropped it was because communism/sovets fucked us
The MG42 is still in use by most European countries in the MG3 form which is the same weapon.
+Miratesus Yes, and american M-60 (Rambo gun, you know...) is essentially the same system with slight improvements.
Basically, yes. But the MG3 uses "7,62x51mm Nato" instead of the "7,92x57mm Mauser"
And the spanisch CETME Ameli use "5.56x45mm Nato" and is also a bit more compact.
And the swiss Army reduced the firerate to 1000 rpm and so on, and so on.
Well, regardless of MG3, good old MG42 knock-offs were still used in the balkan wars at least, and probably still are in africa, syria and other sad and torn places.
x/variant of x is still used so y which is not in use is worse, it's a fallacy, x being in use only implies that it's still in use, there are many variables/reasons something can be in use over something else. It's a fallacy to assume it automatically means anything other than it is still used.
Wow Lindy. Your sweeping and 'true' statement was an ace example of cherry picking. There are multiple reasons for Germany losing battle after battle in 1944, not least of which was the fact that the vast majority of their army was out fighting the Red Army. You also seem to forget their losses in France, Belgium, Crete, Greece and North Africa. Also trying to argue that the Bren was better since the British won more battles over the Germans is quite nonsensical. There are once again a vast amount of contributing factors. Don't deny the reality.
As for the Spandau being 'that' inaccurate, how the fuck would a German section rely solely on a weapon that couldn't hit a stationary object at 80 yards for their attacks? Oh, not to mention, they conquered the majority of mainland Europe in just six months as well. Reviewing these facts, either the Spandau was not as inaccurate as you say it was, or the German section didn't solely rely on it during attacks. You can't have both.
+Tiaan De Swardt Yes, there are many reason the Germans lost. I wouldn't deny that. They didn't rely solely on the Spandau. They had grenades, panzerfausts, rifles, mortars, flame-throwers, bayonets, pistols, and more. I was just talking about bren vs Spandau. They did not make their gains in 1940 because of the Spandau.
Lindybeige Well, I thought you said that German infantry tactics and advances reloed solely on the Spandau squads? By that token, one could say that their infantry advances happened because of their Spandau, which was kind of what you were saying.
Cool video thanks!
Mg 3 is the mg 42 but with some updates used buy Germany and outher country's in Europe bren no one uses
Well, at least in Germany the mg3 gets slowly replaced by the mg5 since 2015.
@@mycrofthirschecke5271 but the mg5 also is just a pimped up mg42
I thought the US M60 was based upon the MG 42 tech, similarly the UK GPMG (GimpyG) ¿? That the 42 was still in service around the world, manufactured under licence and original mint, crated, (and not so perfect eg's), are being located by Russian War Detectorists, even......
From what i've read and seen, the MG42 is actually quite accurate when fired in short bursts, which is what German MG crews did.
+Alixundr That's probably true and that's probably why it was so effective in defending beach landings, the Germans would just be able to pick them of in short bursts because the enemy was so close...but at long ranges that acurracy would begin to drop off
+Majority Hippo All weapons, tend to suffer the same problem. A majority of the combat isn't fought past 200 meters and the MG42 can still be used to effectively engage targets at 1000 meters.
+Edelweisse Exactly. I've easily hit targets at 500m with an MG 42 and didn't even need a burst, a single shot was enough. And with the incredibly higher fire rate the "Hitler Saw" had, a single burst would be precise enough to take out an entire group.
Majority Hippo "Hitler's saw" or "bonesaw"
Edit: Yay, a troll.
+ArkiosRokuyon
"Didn't even need a burst" - well, the thing is, it's a full automatic weapon and only shoot in bursts - the most skilled gunners are able to deliver a two shot burst - an average gunner is able to do 3-4 shot bursts!
Personally I can hit fairly well with 3 shot bursts at 400M but I've seen a very skilled gunner consistently delivering 2 shot bursts center target at 800M
right shoot bursts at a guy for 45 minutes not hitting and no one got the bright idea to just put a rifle round in his head and be done with it...
Sounds like bullshit to me.
+DJ Doc's Videos Yeah, fairly sure no one was actually trying to kill the guy, though i don't doubt that's the story he told, or that it seemed like a miracle to him, but in reality, if they had wanted him dead, he would have been.
+DJ Doc's Videos And you shouldn't forget, the first shot is always accurate. You only start wandering of target with the following shots and if you are an experienced gunner (which every soldier is, bc it's in basic training) you know how to compensate.
I shot with it myself. The first round was always exactly where you aimed it and you always wandered of in a distincitve direction. So you either shoot someone with the first round or you put the next couple in him, because you aimed low/left/right and let the recoil do the rest.
+DJ Doc's Videos It's possible they were busy holding back other troops, only taking a burst at him when they weren't preoccupied with the rest of the battle. It's hard to say without reading the full account.
That's the thing about anecdotal evidence - it's not bloody evidence at all.
Maybe he forgot to tell, that the Germans were yelling at this poor guy, who was crawling desperatly right in front of their muzzles at point blank, in broken english: "Godamm! Go home Tommy! Run back! Nobody will harm you!"
If they had wanted to kill him - they had thrown a helmet at him....^^
We've learned a lot since these days. Therefore we developed the HK 121, issued as the MG 5 with 5 different variants and with changeable rate of fire via gas piston selector.
Funny how I've seen both captured footage and people I know firing the MG-34/42/Spandau accurately using a bipod or tripod or pintle mount.
MG 34 and MG 42 are NOT the same gun. They have competely diferent operating mechanisms. MG 34 has a rotating bolt and a rate of fire of about 900 rpm. MG 42 is roller locked and has a rate of fire of about 1250 rpm. Barrel change is a lot different (much faster on the MG 42). MG 34 is milled and MG 42 is stamped...
+mihajlo olujic So...it still lost
+Majority Hippo Lost what?
mg 34 had a rate of fire from about 600rpm bit the rests correct
+Jan Hemmer I think you need to go and check your facts :)
Multipollop The war...BOOM...(Drops mic)
The UK was backed by the entire US and USSR no wonder they won, the UK lost to the Germans constantly from 1939-42 (El Alamein was the turning point)
Nope.
+Conor Buckman The UK and US beat the german because 75%-80% of german soldier died on the eastern front. The germans simply didn't have the numbers to win.
+Hymer300 But... Britain was mainly fighting Italy from 1940-1942 so I'm not sure how it's possible to er 'loose' to them. Other than in the battle of Britain, which the UK won. The only other major conflict which involved Germany, was due to the British giving the Italians such a hard time. XD
And you're forgetting Germany had the other Axis nations and had control over the whole of Europe. The UK is a small island... You can't expect a small island to be able to take over an entire continent on it's own. xD
+Xiolablu3 USSR was actively on the side of the Germans until June of 1941.
Germany built the coalition which defeated them by attacking Poland, Denmark Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Britain, USSR, and declaring war on US, then invading Vichy France, invading Italy. Then they complain about how the entire world was against them. Poor Germans.
+jamie M Well, there was that "Rommel" guy, though he was Swabian, that is kind of a German.
That's the first video I hear that the Mg42 was not an accurate weapon.
In basically any other clip I have seen they always say that the combination of accuracy and rate of fire made the Mg34/42 so fearsome.
because he never used one.
thank u for the great video
in fact the NATO version of the MG42 the MG1/MG2/MG3 is still in use by a lot of armed forces like the Baltic states and the Scandinavian states. They just renamed it when they rechambered from 7.92×57mm Mauser to 7.62×51mm NATO.
+Lars F mostly all modern SAW weapons are in someway related to the mg 42
+Lars F Most notably Germany herself of course.
+william butler even the M60 "stole" some of its design out of the MG42 ;)
Vapautta The Bundeswehr is now replacing it with the MG4 and the MG5/HK121
Well the point was that Lindy said the Bren was used for so and so long while the "Spandau" wasn't. But yeah you're right, they're finally moving on.
"better" or "worse", the mg34 definitely had a bigger influence on the world of firearms as a whole.
+kevin butler yea history tends to tell us of their pill boxes with guns of death, mg34 / 42 def had that award.
Hey lindybeige! I was wondering which sources you were using? I'm interested in reading more into the subject.
Note here he never said the MG 42 was utterly crap just got in different areas.
Coming up: how the PIAT was actually better than the Bazooka, and how the sten was superior to the P-40.
lol
I hope we get why Panzer II was superior to KV-1...
Taking into consideration the time and design purpose, both the Pz II and KV-1 were good tanks. Though the KV was better, even with those criteria.
dIRECT0R Piat was horse shit... It uses a spring! A spring! XD
+White house gaming If the Brits made it, then the spring was the best choice.
Not going to knock the Bren, it's great gun but using the success of the combined allied assault after D-Day is a bit of a cherrypicked argument don't you think? At that point the German army had already fought 4 bloody years of war against the Soviets, with millions dead and gods know how much equipment lost, whereas the western allies landed all their forces in France. There's something to be said about overwhelming numbers. Then we could mention Market Garden and Bastogne as examples of the allies being temporarily pushed back... It's not that clear cut.
Thank you CloakingDonkey, some accuracy at last.....
This is not an apples vs apples comparison, and again... it all boils down to _"What do you need these guns to do?"_ Because they are entirely different weapons that were built for different purposes. They are both excellent at the jobs they were meant for. The MG42 is the perfect machine gun for a nest that's facing waves of troops. The Bren Gun is perfect as a support weapon for a mobile platoon. The MG42 can effectively suppress an attacking force for hours if need be. The Bren Gun can snipe if your platoon is on the attack and suppress if your platoon needs to fall back or make its escape. They're both great weapons when they are used in the manner for which they were intended. This whole argument is like trying to compare an APC to a main battle tank and asking, which one is better?
The Bonesaw .. True
Not only that, in 44 both USA and USSR produced more military equipment per month than Germany produced in any year of the war. In global conflict it's industry that wins wars.
@@VelikiHejter -- Not just industry (Germany had industry and look where that got them). It's GDP and the resources to keep that industry thriving long enough to turn it into an advantage. But, I get what you're saying and I'm sure you intended it in that manner... I'm just pedantically parsing it down (I admit it).
When you get a quizando ad and think it’s the actual video for a solid 3 seconds
Has anyone read the description??? Many of the things you object too are mentioned
Nobody copied after the MG42 war? How about the Spanish CETME Ameli (albeit in 5.56mm), Yugoslavian M53 and German MG3. Plus the MG34/42 really drove the General Purpose Machine Gun idea, i.e universal widespread use of a specific belt-fed machine gun design in different roles from bipod mounts to vehicle and tripod mounts. So even guns that weren't direct copies were still based on the same concept, e.g.M60, FN MAG (MAG 58) etc.
The Bren did this to an extent also with tripods and Bren Gun Carriers, but the box magazine has serious limitations in mounting (e.g. coaxial mounts in tanks, which the MG34 (not 42) was used extensively in) and sustained fire. The MG34/42 could fire hundreds of rounds before barrel/belt change, whereas a Bren would require numerous magazine changes for the same volume of fire (unless you get into the ROF argument with the MG42 running out of ammunition more quickly and thus not providing supporting fire for much longer than the Bren with its lower ROF).
The Bren probably favours single/two man local fire support similar to a BAR (but with 10 more rounds and QC barrel), whereas the MG34/42 probably favours support role of the whole squad like the Browning M1919.
+iNsaneMilesy Not really, it was FG42/MG42 "frankengun".
+Sam Prudden Dont forget the Austrian MG 74, what was almost a direct copy.
Actually the MG 34 / MG 42 ist still in use in the german Bundeswehr. It is called the MG 3 now. And tactical doctrine for shooting with MG 3 calls for shooting short bursts in order to get precise hits. ;-) I imagine it wasn't much different in WW2. P.S. Another thing is just noticed is that german infantry is trained on all infantry weapons a platoon (section) carries along. Meaning, if the MG shooter gets killed another soldier just steps in and takes over. P.P.S. The conclusion is wrong, too, I am afraid because the Germans didn't lose the war because the Bren was so good at its job. It was because english (and US) bombing of the german industrial areas and thus denial of ressources was very effective. Plus a bunch of other factors as well.
All infantry in a section are trained on the section weapons. For the obvious point you mentioned. It's the same in any army.
+MrTryAnotherOne Germans lose the war because allies-USSR, USA, GB etc. had a huge advantage(manpower, industry, oil etc.)
+MrTryAnotherOne The mg 3 is in use also in Finland
+MrTryAnotherOne And not just the Bundeswehr. The 42 is used by like thirty other countries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_MG_3#Users
I was just pointing out the modern usage of the MG3 in the Bundeswehr as Lindy was hinting towards the usage of the Bren in the british army.
In 1946 I fired a Bren Gun as a 14-year old army cadet in Toronto. Great weapon. Hardly any recoil compared to the Lee Enfield rifle and even on my first shoot on my first day with the Bren I got tight groups on target at over 100 yards. I had trained with the Lee Enfield for a couple of days before firing the Bren.
The Bren can be used by a left-hand shooter like me more easily than a bolt-action rifle, but it was too heavy for me to carry far because I weighed only 105 pounds.
Your video brought back memories.
For 1 person only the BREN rules the Germans had 7 men carrying bbls ammo , trypod for a static MG42 etc
Actually they are still using "Spandau" to this day in form of MG3.
+Kharmazov Yeah buddy, the Norwegian armed forces as well as Bundeswehr still use it. Lindybeige is full of shit.
*****
Nah he just "misses" things sometimes.
Kharmazov You're right, I was a bit harsh.
+Mathias Laakkonen Yes plus about 30 other armies still use them. Must be a very unsuccessful design this thing.
+Kharmazov "misses"
*cough* doesn't fit his narrative *cough*
9:22 I disagree that 1944 Allies on west front winning is a argument for superiority for Allied equipment, at 1944 Nazi were already under supplied constant bombing raids on supply routes and industrial area made almost every advantage you pointed diminished and Nazi were constantly on back foot. And consider this that Nazi also fought soviets with used tactic like "CHARGE THAT MACHINE GUN NEST FOR THE MOTHER LAND " in with case MG42 had clear advantage over Bren Gun. As for British wouldn't use bad equipment for so long argument ... SA80
The Americans used different machine guns for the two roles.
The Browning 1917 for longer range suppressive fire and the 1919 for closer accurate fire.
I always feel somewhat enlightened after watching one of his videos.
Considering how little Lindy knows about firearms you really shouldn't.
Yes, you learn he knows shit
So in Lloyd's world, you don't use covering fire in an "offensive" capacity.. sigh. Poor brits didn't even have a proper machine gun in their companies.
+dIRECT0R You realize he describes exactly how a Bren gun was used in offensive covering fire. I mean those exact words. (4:30)
+Colin Ley And you do realize how silly it is to compare the MG-42 and the Bren in terms of covering fire?
I'd just LOVE to see a source for how the Germans "always had to make frontal attacks" just so their machine gunner wouldn't hit his own comrades. I mean, how dumb do you have to be to believe such nonsense? Its just complete rubbish.. it sounds like war propaganda, which is probably where it stems from. Via thoroughly propagandized war diary writers.
The MG-42 is WIDELY recognized as easily the best machine gun of WWII. The Bren wouldn't even reach the top five. Its in the same category as the BAR.
+dIRECT0R Now you are just being childish. The BAR is nowhere near either of these.
The Bren and the Spandau are just different types of MG. The Spandau is a GPMG.
The Bren was a loved gun way into the 90s. It served alongside another great GPMG, the L7 (FN MAG) and they complemented each other wonderfully. It was replaced only by the lighter 5.56mm Minimi.
+dIRECT0R "The Bren wouldn't even reach the top five. Its in the same category as the BAR." - ROFL
Yes, but that's an issue with analysis not with content. I'm simply saying that Lindy does provide the information you were commenting on at the provided time link, even if you disagree with it.
Huh, this video is bound to get quite a few dislikes, not because as some may assume Lindy is busting a popular myth, but rather because he is seriously stretching things. For one the MG34 and the MG42 were not the same gun. Secondly, they were by no means inaccurate. The MG42 had an inherent inaccuracy when fired in full auto from the bipod due to its indeed very high rate of fire. Which is also partly why the modern MG3 has a lowered rate of fire. The Bren and the MGs had similar weights and barrel lengths. They all were/are more accurate than rifles due to having free floating barrels. In the example that Lindy gives, assuming the German crew had a proper sight picture (which in war never actually happens), at 80 yards they could easily land a bullet between the Tommy's eyes. That they didn't means that either they didn't actually see him (they merely knew were he was), or that they hadn't properly zeroed the gun's sights, or that they hadn't adjusted for range.The claim that Lindy makes about the British constantly advancing between 1944 and 1945 is similarly poor. I suppose by the same token the BAR (which was a turd btw) and the DP28 can be considered superior to the "Spandau".I generally agree that the BREN was the better LMG. This was a realization made by others (the Greek army in my case) as well. But Lindy's reasoning is poor.
+xristar
>at 80 yards they could easily land a bullet between the Tommy's eyes
nope. MG42 can't do that. Even when firing from mount
+Вячеслав Скопюк It depends on how literally you take my claim. You can definitely aim and hit a target the size of a man's head with an MG3 at such a short distance, take my word.
xristar
MG42 is surprisingly inaccurate. Thanks to high rate of fire.
+Вячеслав Скопюк That's more due to the operator. In such a scenario the gunner should have fired single or short bursts, not full auto.... the first shot accuracy would have been more than efficient
Shaun Doyle
MG42 surprisingly inaccurate even when fired short bursts.
Fun clip I enjoyed, what bullet did the Bren fire - 303 ? The MG had problems with over heated barrels.
How many rounds should we put it the magazines in this LMG
Thirty
Wouldn’t more make it more com...
THIRTY
In fairness, a larger magazine would most likely be more difficult to produce (time, parts) and would most certainly be heavier to carry and larger in size. Ammo in large quantities is extremely heavy, so adding more weight on top of all the other kit that the gunner would have, plus the 20+ pound LMG, would be asking a bit much. Furthermore, larger magazines often had an annoying tendency to jam at the most inconvenient times.Also, most LMGs in WW2 had similarly sized magazines: BAR had a 20 round mag, DP had 47 round pan mags but mainly used 30 round box mags because the pans had a tendency to not work, FM 24/29 had 25 round box mags. Lastly, the Bren did have a 100 round pan mag. But it required modifications to the housing for it to be used, was very bulky, blocked the sights of the gun completely and, like many other pan mags, had a habit of not working. They were meant for use in plane tail-gun mounts and some found their way into tanks, but I couldn't find any use of them by infantry.
R Anthony Rupp IV the BARs main fault was that it only had a capacity for twenty rounds because it was an old model, but it worked reliably like the German Mouser. The DP was primarily used the pan magazine and the sights were set to compensate. There’s a reason troops began jerry rigging pan magazines in ww1.
The Spandau (MG3) is still produced and used today.
+mijnkampvuur A descendent of it, yes.
Ian from Forgotten Weapons has written up a response to the video and its followup. As someone who's researched firearms history for years, his opinion is invaluable in this case, I believe.
facebook.com/ForgottenWeapons/posts/1066572813405161
"Several people have asked for my input on a video recently posted by
Lindybeige comparing the Bren and "Spandau" (MG 34 & 42 lumped
together). I have watched his material on medieval arms, and enjoyed it.
In this case, though, I believe his lack of firsthand experience has
substantially hindered his analysis. There are a couple basic misconceptions that are repeated in the video.
1) The MG34 and 42 are not inherently inaccurate as Lloyd proposes.
There would be no problem using a 42 for flanking cover fire during an
assault. In addition, the Lafette tripods used with the 34 and 42 are
excellent at allowing the guns to be used very precisely at long ranges
(much better than the Bren tripod, which was also not used nearly as
much). The example of a man prone 80 yards from a 42 being impossible to
hit for an extended period it not representative of the gun. It may
indicate that the gunner was a very poor gunner, or that he never
actually saw and targeted the British soldier, or maybe he just had his
sights mistakenly set for a very long distance and never realized it
(i.e., not a skilled gunner). 2) The Bren is an accurate weapon,
but not to the point of being a flaw. People who say that you cannot
provide area fire with a Bren have never fired a Bren - it's easy to do. A few minor points...
Where does one find people who say the Bren is rubbish? I have never
met an informed person who claims this, and most of them consider the
Bren a serious contender for best LMG ever made. The obscure
reason the the MG34 continued to be produced until the end of the war
was than the 42's barrel changing procedure would not work in the mounts
that were built for the 34. Simpler to continue making 34s for
vehicular use than to redesign the mounts. While the 34 and 42
may have been called "Spandau" by some British soldiers, this was not
the case in the US (not with the British collectors I know, FWIW). IMO,
it is better to use proper names than inaccurate slang. This is why I
would not call the MP38 and MP40 "Schmeissers" despite that term being
widely used by American troops at the time For all that, though,
Lloyd's original conclusion was basically correct: they are both
excellent guns, and not directly comparable because they were used in
different ways."
+Tribune of The Plebs he never said it out right. He merely kept implying it. "MG42 is an area denial weapon", "with Bren you assist your flanking troops [unlike with 34/42]" and the anecdote about a squaddie not getting hit from 80 yards away for 45 minutes are all good examples of that.
Stop sucking Lloyd off. I like his antiquity stuff as much as anyone else, but his modern warfare video sometimes get cringe worthy.
+Tribune of The Plebs And the part about 34 specifically being harder to control is bollocks. Not only does it feature a double crescent trigger allows you to fire single shots (thus negating the increased recoil from going full auto), but also RoF controls, which allow you to decrease it to 600 rnds/min, which is easily manageable.
"He never said that! In fact he said the exact opposite."
Indeed, he didn't. You did. And I quote, "It is simple applied physics that under most circumstances these guns will be leas accurate cause they are more difficult to control. Full stop."
You ever tried being less spastic in your life?
"who isn't pedantic and terrible at logical thinking"
Right, so that's why the 80 yards anecdote was used by Lindy to explain the design flaws of what, if it were true, was more likely to be either an incompetent MG crew or busted barrels. Because that's logical thinking for you.
And could you stop saying "this weapon"? He's talking MG34, MG42 and Bren. Lumping 34 and 42 makes as much sense as doing the same to Chieftain and Challenger 2 based on them both being British, MBTs and having terrible engine issues.
*****
So you do have nothing of value to add after all. Got it.
Ian summed up this better then anyone.
German tactical doctrine and training with the "Light machinegun" did propose the use of the "light machinegun" on the assault, in use as a hip fired [or otherwise] machinegun with the magazine attached including during city fighting and room-to-room. Doctrine was to fire at the ground allowing the gun climb to get on target.
I haven't watched this video yet but I'm going to guess the final analogy will be there different guns for different purposes.
The modern day MG3, which is still in widespread use, is an MG42 with a, adjustable rate of fire, bolt for 7.62x51 so you can go tp lower rate of fire and get more accuracy. It can do between 900 and 1800 rounds per minute.
The Mechanism is still in use in other designs unlike the Bren's, which is pretty much dead.
The Americans were so impressed they copied it and created the T24.
Take the M60 "Pig" which was closely related, or the Belgian MAG, SIG MG-710-3.
The Yugoslavian M53, which actually was manufactured after the war using german war time machinery and using the orginal 8x57 Mauser were used in regular use by the military until almost 2000, and now still serve with the Peshmerga fighting ISIS. This is an MG42, unchanged in most ways.
The MG74 is also a rechambered MG42 and has been in production in Austria since 1974. It's rate of fire is also adjustable but generally slightly lower.
So much for the MG42 being useless after the War.
+MyFabian94 This. Really this should have been Magazine Vs Belt fed. Which would have resulted in the same scenario....
Apples and Oranges. The MG42 and MG34 were different beasts entirely, the MG34 being more similar to the Bren, while the MG42 was more of a "light" heavy MG even with forward infantry use.
But even that comparison doesn't hold up.
The best Comparison would be FG42 v Bren, because they served the same role, similar weights, both magazine fed, fully automatic, full power cartridge and still easy to carry.
+MyFabian94 My uncle got a prize leave in the army for hitting the door sized target with 5 rounds at 200 meters with M53. I believe he shot a whole 100 round belt.
Also, you cannot just replace the bolt and have a weapon chambered in 7.9x57mm fire 7.62x51 with any reliability if at all. M60 was a copy of FG42 actually, although a first prototype was a frankengun with MG 42 belt mechanism. M60 has a spring loaded firing pin that is supposedly completely unnecessary, because it isn't select fire like FG42.
GrimFaceHunter Well, the M60s Top Cover and Loading Mechanism is straight of the MG42.
Rechambering doesn't mean redesigning parts as such, just changing a couple of parameters. Just a different piece of the same Norm.
+MyFabian94 Just can'T see my comment anymore.
+Lindybeige "Spandau" is a stupid term, for various reasons. 1) Only brits used that colloquial name. 2) It derives from the production place of the MG 08, from WORLD WAR 1 and is a generic term used for a wide variety of german machine guns.
MG42s are actually quite accurate, but single fire accuracy wasn't what the MG42 was purpose-built or even used for. The Bren is a light machine gun and as such, is desinged to be used on an assault. The MG42 is a heavy machine gun, that is not designed to be carried around and fired during an assault. It's like comparing an armoured car against a Tiger tank. Sure the car has better camouflage, speed and terrain passability, but that is not what the Tiger is designed for. A Tiger shoots tanks, an armoured car runs away. Oh and besides, the guy not getting hit by the MG42. an MG42 is accurate enough to hit someone at 80 yards without a problem. Whats much more likely there is, that either he underestimated the cover he had, or the german position didn't allow to depress the MG enough or there was a mechanical error with the gun. E.g. it's quite likely that the barrel of the MG42 was overheated and they couldn't simply switch the barrel for whatever reason. An overheated barrel is quite detrimental to accuracy, even and especially after it had time to cool down again.
Next point is, "Germans running away because their MG42 was out of commission". That isn't based on their fear or whatever you want to imply there. It's based on operational use. The MG42 was the central corner-stone of a defensive positioning. Without the MG, the position thus is deemed unfavourable and of course the troops made a retreat at the point, because defending a position under unfavourable circumstances is stupid².
Oh and if you want to compare a Bren with something similar on the german side, have a look at the FG42, which is close enough in operational use or even the StG 44. Things will look quite different. And if you want to compare the MG42 to something on the british side, take the Vickers or the Browning M2.
Those points aside, the Bren was a good gun, that did exactly what it was built for.
+iNsaneMilesy MG34 was the first GPMG, designed for use as both an LMG and as a static tripod mounted MG.
+MadnerKami
MG42 and MG34 were actually general purpose machine guns, which could be used as both medium and light machine guns depending on how you mounted it. So, as both heavy and a light machine gun if that terminology is used in your country. It was supposed to fill the roles of both a squad support weapon and a company/battalion support weapon without the need to make different weapons for both roles.
I'm not sure there was a comparable weapon on the allied side, really. The closest one could find might be Browning M1919, which had some variants used a light machine guns, but that wasn't exactly the same thing. On weapons similar to Bren from the German side I'd actually go for other Axis countries. Japanese Type 96 or 99 were similar to Bren in their role, as well as Finnish Lahti-Saloranta or the Italian Breda. Bren wasn't really an assault rifle unlike StG 44 or FG42, as far as I know.
Other than that, though, I agree.
An interesting side note..... The 80's English band "Spandau Ballet" was named for the resulting death swirl dance of the victims of the MG34/42 "Spandau" machine gun... "So much is true".
I trained on the bren gun a VERY long time ago and recall using a 2p coin when doing a field barrel change. I can't recall for the life of me what the trick was. To be honest I can't really remember how to strip a bren or do the barrel change anymore, but does anyone remember the trick with a coin or how it was used? I'm certain it was the bren where we used a coin.
it amazes me that by pure chance every single history and arms expert has managed to congregate in the comments section of this video. The chances of that, huh.
haha yep
+RmacNet Someone was wrong, on the internet!
+RmacNet it is more like he made some obvious and quite serious errors. And yeah, even without those some people would act the same way.
CZcams 'experts' are fast to give critique but whine like a baby whenever you criticize them.
+Sam Smith I agree. its literally just loads of triggered naziboos.
The MG34 and MG42 are not the same gun. They have different operating mechanism: MG34 has a rotating bolt, and uniquely, a dual trigger that allow single shot and fully automatic. The MG42 is roller locked and fully automatic only. The MG42 spawned the MG3, which is an MG42 chamber for the 7.62 NATO, used by the German Army until currently being phased out by the HK121. Another variant is the MG74, used by the Austrian Army. The MG3 is produced with license in a number of countries, including Spain, Italy, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, and Turkey.
But more importantly, the concept of a belt-fed light machine gun at squad level lived on and expanded to virtually almost every country in the world. Everyone create their own version of a light machine gun chambered for a rifle cartridge, with an attached bipod, optional quick change barrel, then distribute them at the squad level. The BREN, which is more or less today called Infantry Automatic Rifle: an individual weapon, more mobile than a light MG, which is more of a crew-served weapon. An automatic rifle higher sustain rate of fire than the usual rifle, can still be seen around, though less popular than a belt-fed light MG.
Definitely an automatic rifle is more mobile and readily shouldered than a belt-fed machine gun. A belt-fed full-sized MG is very heavy and have a lot of recoil. Such is the case that the PK machine gun, a Russian belt-fed, 7.62x54R, do not even bother with a foregrip or similar device: you are gonna set it down and fire, not standing up and rush. The PKP, which is the true squad automatic version of the PK machine gun, also do not have a fore grip. Variants of the FN MAG include a handguard or grips of some kind to allow soldiers to shoulder them.
The reality in modern combat is the most casualty producing weapons in a unit is a crew-served weapon. All units, from smallest to biggest, rely on crew served weapons. A section or a squad is built around one or two light machine gun, the M249 in US service, the RPK or PKP in Russia, The British variant of the M249 in British service. If your gunner is out, then others replace him. A platoon greatest direct firepower is a pair of medium MGs; plus some mortars or anti-tank weapons. The automatic rifle definitely has its place. The US Marine swapped out their MG249 (a 5.56 gun) for the IAR27; however, a platoon/company commander have the choice to retain a number of M249 as he see fits. Then some special forces unit swap their M249 for the Mk48, which is essentially a M249 but chambered for the 7.62 NATO. The Russians used the RPK, a magazine-fed Automatic Rifle in 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 but then some units (mostly special forces) swap them for the PKP, which is a belt-fed 7.62x54R light MG. The trend is back and forth but it slightly favours the belt-fed MGs. Mobility, it seems, can not replace the sheer firepower. There's a bit of reason behind it: if you lose the mobility of 1 man, others with rifles can still rush the enemy; with the guy having the belt-fed MG spraying bullets to suppress. But if you loose a belt-fed MG, other rifles simply can not make up the difference.
When the US Marine swap their M249 for the IAR27, their arguments and the US Army arguments were basically the same as what you said. Marines: "The IAR27, while having smaller capacity (they also develop a 60 rounds magazine for it), is more mobile and accurate. The accuracy adds to suppression, more than volume". Army: "We will not swap our M249 for the IAR27. We value the belt-fed capacity. Also, Army squads have 9 troops, compared to the Marines 13, that means we can not sustain casualties and still maintain the volume of fire needed. The belt-fed stays". Others believe that the IAR27 is basically a ploy to circumvent the lengthy budget, acquisition process inherent to government entities. They said the Marines want to swap their M4s and M16s but the bureaucracy will hamper that. So they just label the IAR as a replacement for the M249s, which are fewer in numbers and apparently, cheaper than to replace all the M4s or M16s.
Finally, a weakness of a German infantry squad is correctly, as you said, the total reliance on the MG42 for firepower, which is alright in an open field battle. German riflemen do not carry much ammo in anyway: 3 pouches of 5 5-rounds clip, so 80 in total. You suppress everyone then drop mortars and shells on them. The problem is in urban areas. The MG42 and Mauser rifles are just too slow to respond the nature of combat in cities. The MG42 is bulky, difficult to handle in close quarters, and slow time to set up. Mauser, well, it's a bolt-action rifle. German units only give SMGs to officers and NCOs, which there were never really enough of them (2-3 per squad). The PPSh SMGs, which were very plentiful in Russian service (entire infantry companies and battalions were armed with SMGs) became a favourite captured weapon for the German infantry in urban combat. So much so that the German supplied their own ammunition, the 7.62x25 Mauser, which had identical dimension to the Russian 7,62x25 Tokarev, just slightly weaker. They even printed instruction manuals for the PPSh.
Still I believe that the perfect set up for a squad should be 1 belt-fed light MG, 1 Automatic rifle, at least one rocket of some kind. The rest should be armed with other light weapons, perhaps grenade/grenade launchers, for rushing. Their other roles are to haul the ammunition for the big 3 weapons and replace their gunners in case the latter are incapacitated.
+Xuan Vinh To Thank you for taking the time to write that. The bolt action rifle was certainly not the weapon I would have wanted in WWII.
+Xuan Vinh To That's more or less what the 'carbine' is for nowadays. A sort of inbetween what lets you run urban conflicts as well as open terrain.
Personally, I'd go 1 LMG, 1 AT, a designated marksman which isn't necessarily a sniper or such, just someone with a more accurate rifle possibly in a bigger size, a grenadier armed with a launcher [though, arguably, you could just give everyone those now a days], and most everyone left armed with carbines.
Preferably, the LMG should use the same ammunition as the rest of the team. Perhaps with the exception of the marksman. I do like how some LMGs are actually designed with that in mind, letting you use magazines as needed.
my thoughts exactly.
+DoktorKebab Personally, I prefer a new cartridge altogether first. The Russian and American special forces swapped out their 5.56x45, 7.62x39, and 5.45x39 MGs for a fullsized 7.62x51 or 7.62x54R MG at the squad level is because the smaller bullet just will not do in the extended range in mountain terrains of Afghanistan and Chechnya. Still, that means in a squad of 9-12, only 2 or 3 men can engage the enemy at that range, which is unacceptable. There are already several bullets that can be accurate and carry enough energy at 1000m to do the job yet still comfortable enough make a small, light weapons with manageable recoil. The British had one, way back in 1951; the EM-2. There are a few offerings in the US in the 6.5-7mm; for eg, the 6.5 Grendel, which at 800m and above, retains more kinetic energy than the 7.62 NATO.
In that setup, the squad level LMG and the platoon level MMG can share the same cartridge, the only difference is their barrel length, weight, and sustained rate of fire. In a squad, I would want to have one belt-fed LMG, you can not replace firepower. As for the automatic rifle, there are reports of the IAR27 accurate enough for DM role. Advances in portable optics can definitely make it so. The Automatic Rifle is also better for rushing. Anti-tank rockets are useful: you can shoot it at pretty much anything. "Swoosh-and-boom" has a powerful psychological effect. You will definitely want those 3. In a pinch, you can left out the Automatic Rifle. Some grenadiers are nice; but it seems that the troops prefer a separate standalone launcher, like the Vietnam-era M79 or the new M320, in standalone config. The underbarrel set up make the weapon very heavy. Very front heavy also (which is why a bullpup might be better; a bullpup with an underbarrel launcher, flashlight, and optics might be more balanced than an M4).
Some LMGs are designed to accept magazines. However, it seems that the latter variants of the FN minimi (the M249 in US service) leaves that out completely to save weight.
+Xuan Vinh The Marines aren't using the IAR for real tactical reasons, they're using it because they're in a pissing contest with the Navy over money - they couldn't get funding to adopt the HK416 as a general issue service rifle, so instead they bullshitted and argued creating an inventory of HK416s for use as an automatic weapon was perfectly justified. The split second the Marines get the money to field general issue HK416 rifles the entire IAR concept goes out the fucking window and the 249s come right back in.
The fact is history has proven Lindy dead wrong on this topic. You *need* a belt fed machine gun to suppress the enemy, even at the fire team level. Hell, sometimes even *that* isn't enough and you need Johnny Riflemen able to lay down automatic suppressive fire too. Hence why the M4 (3-round-burst) is being phased out for the M4A1 (fully automatic).
My Grandfather stormed Juno Beach with a Bren. He died about 10 years ago. I wish I could show him this and ask questions. Thanks for the perspective .
My uncle was a Bren gunner in the first Canadian para. He told me if you ever end up in battle you want a Bren gun or it's equivalent. He did say it was shite on a jump because it was covered in a case, and you had to get it out and set it up when you landed.