Bren vs Spandau part two - or Lloyd against the fan-boys
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 05. 2016
- The WW2 German fanboys didn't like my first video on this topic, some were quite hostile. Here I explain myself even more fully.
Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
The original video on this topic: • Bren vs Spandau - whic...
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
Many people didn't read the description on my last video, and so missed my dealing with most of the objections. People don't read descriptions, so here I come back at my critics in video form. So terrified were some people to think that someone out there might be suggesting that German WW2 equipment wasn't superb in every way, or that British equipment might have been as good as adequate, that they were very quick to misinterpret me, and to jump to wild and erroneous conclusions. Most people were not like this, and I was blessed as ever by many pleasant comments, but when a CZcamsr concludes that a piece of WW2 German or medieval Japanese kit was sub-perfect, then he will face the wrath and wails of the fan-boys.
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"
There are a couple basic misconceptions that are repeated in the video that spurred this followup.
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 indicated 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.
To find someone who says the Bren is rubbish simply ask the average Brit. If we've designed it, it must be terrible - either that or it's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum and it's the best in the world. There are a huge amount of misconceptions relating to the Second World War in the UK. For some reason people seem to blow everything German out of proportion and reduce everything British to comical levels of inferiority - leaving only the British man's fighting spirit as our most valued weapon. I suspect it's a way of making our role seem more heroic (especially with the Battle of Britain and the Blitz).
well now that's not true. ask who had the better aircraft us or the germans and 90% of people will say us. because they would be right. jokes. jokes. definitvely better stragetic bombers though. better than the damn yanks as well. oh yes look us with our 'flying fortress' oh la dee daaa.
Alistair Shaw Of course everyone in the UK would say the Spitfire was supreme. But the average person will overrate German equipment and underrate ours massively. The majority of people think of little old England fighting the Nazis against all the odds.
XXXpallisterXXX where did I mention spitfire? did I say that no Lancaster's Lancasters
Alistair Shaw I never said you mentioned that. You mentioned ask who had the better aircraft, 90% of people will say us. I was reinforcing that by saying everyone automatically thinks of Spitfires being the top dogs, at least in the UK.
Neither the Spandau or the Bren could ever match half a dozen guys shooting off fire arrows.
lols
Good one there XD
I used to be an explorer, but then I got a fire arrow into my knee
Or one man Tossing a Pommel
Artificial Avocado ha ha.
The nearest I've seen him to genuinely annoyed.
I think he has every right to be annoyed....having read some of the ridiculous comments made to his first video.. He makes wonderful videos, cut the guy some slack
@@rmcguire7033 Most of the comments on his first video were perfectly reasonable, and his annoyance doesn't change how wrong he was.
@@lowesmanager8193 How was he wrong? I am confused so maybe you could enlighten me as to what points exactly he was incorrect?
Precise as possible if you will please.
@@elijahshafer8956 Ian from Forgotten Weapons left an excellent comment on this video explaining many of the issues, it should be easy to find as I'm pretty sure it is the most liked comment.
That being said I'll try to explain myself.
1. He claims that the MG42 was inaccurate, and in this follow up video he claims that it was accurate enough for purpose, but still inaccurate, which is still wrong. In reality the MG42 was very accurate up to 600 meters especially when fired in short controlled bursts.
2. He perpetuates the myth that the Bren's biggest problem was that it was too accurate, and that this prevented it from being used effectively for area fire, which is false. The Bren was accurate to be sure, but it wasn't as laser accurate as Lindy implies, and you can use it for area fire, quite easily in fact.
3. He claimed that you could not shoot an MG42 while standing without being thrown off balance. While it might be difficult, and it certainly wasn't the guns intended purpose, you could shoot it standing up if you held it porperly.
4. He claimed that while the Bren didn't leave British service until 2006, the MG42 had long been taken out of service, and I believe he aslo said that the Bren was more influential for the designs of future MGs. In reality the MG42 is still in service to this day with some European armies, and the MG3 which is only a slight modification of the MG42 is still in service with the German army, as well as several other armies. And in terms of influence, practically every belt fed machine gun has been influenced by the MG42.
5. He claimed that the MG42 had overheating problems, which makes it sound like the MG42 didn't have a cooling system, or that it was poor. The MG42 actually had a very effective air cooling system, and the heating of the barrel was perfectly manageable with a trained gun crew.
6. He claimed that "English speakers" use the term "spandau" to refer to the MG42. He clearly doesn't mean people from England, but rather all people who speak English which is just nonsense. As an American who loves WW2 history I had never even heard the term spandau until his first video, and this sentiment was shared in the comments as well. He tried to use a dictionary to defend himself, but apparently he doesn't realize that dictionaries don't dictate how people talk, they only explain the meaning of words, no matter how obscure.
7. Even after coming to the conclusion that both guns were better at different things, and that neither was inherently better, he goes on to imply that the Bren was better by saying that the British consistently won against the Germans. This is absurd because there were tons of factors that influenced these outcomes, and yet he absurdly tries to boil it down to two machine guns. He does bring this up in this video but he condescendingly dismisses the criticism without a satisfying response. He also claimed that the Germans using the MG42 were "very determined" when in reality German morale was practically nonexistent late in the war.
This is mostly from memory as I didn't rewatch everything just to leave this comment, but once again I implore you to look for the comment left by Forgotten Weapons.
For American viewers that think firing a gun makes them an expert
"The MG34 continued to be used for bow machine guns, [et al.] for some reason..."
The opening in the ball mount for a bow machine gun is round, not the square opening that an MG42 would require, and changing the barrel on an MG34 pulls the barrel straight back, while on an MG42 it is pulled out to the side; an MG42 would have to be pulled completely back into the vehicle for the barrel to be changed. It was simply more convenient to continue to use the MG34 instead of having to redesign the bow machine gun mount to accommodate the differences between the two weapons.
thank you for mentioning my video. Glad you liked it!
keep up the work
We all love you videos mate!
I just watched a video by you guys (I believe) about the steel ammo used by the Germans, Im curious if that could have had an impact by increasing recoil, or perhaps by wearing the weapon out faster.
As a further compliment, I totally knew it was your work (by name) without having seen that particular video. You definitely have a 'brand'
"What was the #1 weapon? That's a subject for another video."
*Looks at newest video*
My god. It was fire arrows.
I believe it's the PIAT.
Good joke
I thought fire arrows, but decided the pommel. Could be the katana, but the pommel destroys the katana anyway, and the katana has no pommel. Perhaps the Cromwell was effective?
nuclear weapons
Karabiner 98k, followed by the M1 which the yanks still paid the $10 surcharge to Mauser for every rifle they produced, whilst shooting Germans with them, proving business trumps poor people's lives everytime.
When i served in the British Army in the 1980s, i used the Light Machine-Gun (LMG) which was a re-calibred Bren Gun. The weapon i carried had a manufacturing date of 1942.
Did that not make you a touch nervous? Obviously with parts getting worn down and replaced over time I doubt much of the original 1942 gun was there, but that must have been a little bit uncomfy?
@@awordabout...3061 I think wielding a weapon that has been proven in combat but perhaps worn is a lot less concerning than wielding a weapon that could have been shoe-horned into service by some rich gunmaker, a fancy rigged demonstration, and some bribed generals. I would be really nervous if my machine gun had batteries, or connected to my smart phone. 1920s technology was unfortunately insanely effective at its purpose of ending human life, 2020s technology is not really better at it just better at dealing with certain new political realities involved.
James Beil To draw a similar comparison, I would feel more nervous driving a car sold second hand with 2000 miles than a second hand car with 40,000 miles. (Provided both have a service history.)
British manufacturing at it's best :)
@@francissaunders4050 ummmm akchuly....
"Almost all the criticism coming in were for things I never actually said."
You perfectly summed up what it's like to try to argue a point on the internet.
@Avery Chance I see what you did there.
@@kr00k3d100 lol
Why don't they just duct tape a katana to a Spandau? With that as a weapon the war would have been over by Christmas.
Of course, katanas can cut through 18 machine gun barrels in a single stroke so you would be careful when attaching them together.
better yet,attach katandaus to tigers and panzers, tge war would've been won in 7 hours
I heard the japanese Kamikaze fighters had a katana on their plane tips to cut through US battleships and carriers :P it was so sharp that you could cut yourself only by seeing the blade. Thats also the fact why japanese people have narrow eyes. The chinese just copied it.
Hahaha jolly good!
That would a truly glorious sight to behold, MG42/MG34 with katana bayonets
Even better: katana bullets can't be THAT hard to manufacture. Instead of typical conical-ish bullets - load those little bastards into a spandau! You could slice through reality itself with a gun like that :D
Coming up next: Lloyd explains why Tornado ADV is better than an F-15
Lol
Coming up next: Lloyd explains why Challenger 2's inability to use regular NATO tank shells is actually an advantage and thus makes it superior to Leopard 2, Leclerc and M1A2 combined.
+Heinrich Berndovsky you mean that terrible rifled gun? takes two piece ammo, has a miserably low rate of fire and short tube life? it's gotten to the point where the RM 120 is better the it in nearly every way, the M1 can manage a 7 second reload, the Challenger would be lucky to make a 15 in combat......also the LEP program is replacing the rifled gun with the smooth bore 120, even the Brits are starting to get that it's outdated.
Brass 'n Barrels Firearms Channel
Well, to be perfectly honest with you, as a tank, Challenger 2 is better due to its excellent protection (in fact, M1s use the British Chobham armour plates that have been in use since Chally 2, if memory serves). The only problem with it is that the MoD is unwilling to throw as much money on it as is the DoD in terms of their Abrams fleet.
+Heinrich Berndovsky not really, the first M1 used pretty much a copy of the challengers armor, the SEP updated it, DU backer plates and some other armor ju ju, but as I was saying, the only real problem with challenger 2 is gun life, mobility and engine reliability.
I'm happily picturing Basil Fawlty screaming, "Who won the bloody war anyway!?"
To acurate
Don´t mention the war, hahahaha.
I was in the army from 86 - 90 and we still had the Bren or LMG as we knew it then and it was a brilliant weapon: reliable, easy to use and so accurate.
I think you could have avoided the shit storm if you simply named your original video: "Bren gun - why it doesn't suck."
He couldn't. He's a Bren gun fanboy!
No velikiradojica you muppet because the Bren gun doesn't suck and no one thought it does. If it did the British Army wouldn't have used it for so bloody long!
+CLIn7 l33tW00d tru dat
The Iron Guild
That's a crappy argument. Armies have tendencies to use outdated guns and tactics. WW1 being the best example.
The Iron Guild It's quite obvious that Lloyd is trying to correct the wide-spread opinion that Bren sucks. I had no reason to believe it did, since it's a licenced Czech gun that underwent heavy testing before it was approved for production.
But it's not unheard that Brits used shit guns *cough cough L85A1 cough*.
Fun fact: Germany is still called "Deutschland" in Germany.
And to get more Formal you can add a Bundesrepublik before.
and the 'Weimar republic' was officially called das Deutsches Reich.
Soon to be known as "ألماني"
Hagen thanks for the supplement, I'll continue to learn.
+maglorian you're welcome! Thank you for nit flipping out because of me being a 'grammar nazi'
I spent many happy hours behind a British Army 7.62mm LMG (Bren) in the late 1970's and early 1980's. I recall it was a stunningly accurate weapon out to 800 yards and beyond, in the hands of a competent operator it could be like an awesome double or triple tap sniper rifle. The belt fed GPMG on the other hand was a much better tool for area denial or suppressive fire and was more similar in performance to the "Spandau". In some infantry operations (eg: counter insurgency or FIBUA, etc) accuracy may be valued more than spread or high rates of automatic fire thus the LMG lingered on. With the 7.62mm LMG we could shoot through concrete walls at close and medium range and worry targets out to 1000 yards and beyond. Another happy thing about the LMG (Bren) was that it's 30 round magazines would fit the SLR ( yes I know they could cause stoppages) and visa versa SLR's mags would fit the Bren, handy in a crisis. :-)
Nick Randall-Smith - there is no room for reasonable people with sound experience here! Kindly move along.
Well said...
@@77thTrombone this cracked me up
Had an LMG mounted on the ferret survey vehicle in Germany in early 80s. Loved putting the 30 round mag on my SLR. BSM didn't like it though...
That was what Aussies did in Vietnam. They used their scrounged Bren mags on their chopped up L1A1s managing to keep their AO free of Viet Cong and NVA until the very end of the war. The FAL is an outstanding weapon, even today.
"Well, that changes everything!" xD
If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion, don't start with naming people that point out your inaccuracies "fanboys" and comparing them to people that perpetuate misconceptions about the katana.
You've got a lot of commenters that actually used the MG3, or at least read a lot about the MG line, because - surprise - that gun was used last century, so within the lifespan of many of our grandparents.
"B-but a lot of people actually left short and stupid comments!" - why focus on them, then? Why wouldn't you just admit inaccuracy when it's pointed out with sources? Why not argue the comments that actually challenge you with those sources? This goes completely against what you've said in the "feel free to disagree with me" video.
First off, the MG 3 is not the MG42, it is a modernized version of the same design, although influenced by other guns. Second "People who've read about the MG42"
So what? Do you honestly believe Lloyd hasn't read about it? He literally reads this stuff for pleasure, hell, he wanted to do a series of videos discussing war memiores
Well some of the factual errors were so obvious to anyone with a little bit of knowledge on the subject that if he did the research he used TERRIBLE sources.
Just a small correction.
The MG42 is essentially still in use today in the form of the MG3, same gun different calibre. And in use by a impressive amount of countries including Germany, Italy, Turkey, Finland, Sweden Denmark and many others. So not only are there people that have used the MG42 but quite a few people would have been firing the MG3 within the last year.
+Dracarys Blackfyre the mg-3 is the exact same weapon as the mg42 the only thing that's change is the caliber used instead of 8mm Mauser(7.92x57mm) it uses 308 caliber (7.62x51mm) other than that the only thing that's changed Is they have added a rail on top in later models to added night vision optics. but the original mg-3 when it was first introduced quite literally where marked mg-42 and where rebarreled to fire 7.62 NATO.
Anusideral
"OMG He was so wrong I'm not even gonna bother supporting my argument, because he's so wrong!"
Oh no. Describing those with legitemate opinions as fan-boys, thereby trying to discredit them. Bad, Lloyd, bad
ThuleanPerspective Yeah, I agree with you. Some perspective is lost.
Don't think so, his research seems varied and more importantly, from a variety of primary sources. Sources from the time.
If the sources of the time record inaccuracy in the part of the German weapons, then surely it has to be of note for it to be in the books. At least if you accept that people will not record the common day stuff, assumed knowledge but only record those things of note, beyond and out of the ordinary.
There Be Game All of his sources was from British soldiers, those facing the gun. He never mentioned a source written by a German operating the gun in a battle scenario.
Tiaan De Swardt And?
Depending what you want to read about, there's only so many sources out there. Not only that, there's only so many sources in your language.
Unless you have the time to offer a translation service for Lindy, then what else what was he to do? If he has primary sources (he has), from other sources outside his own country (he has) and referred to a variety of them.
Research does not have to be 'balanced' or does it have to show sources from everywhere on everything. If he's got documents that support it, or the books he has are of good academic quality, hence my question in another post, then everything he said was on point and is hard to argue with.
At least I find it hard to argue with, I can't find a whole in his stated position that in terms of the end product, the Bren and Spandau were both good and bad at things and that the Bren is under appreciated.
If you're comparing an automatic weapon to a sniper rifle on rate of fire, the automatic weapon is going to win. So at least be fair in your comparison and the grounds on which they are done.
There Be Game There should be tonnes of autobiographies from German perspectives, even translated ones.
I actually just googled 'German Common soldier autobiographies" and found these:
In Deadly Combat: A German Soldier's Memoir of the Eastern Front
Blood Red Snow: The Memoirs of a German Soldier on the Eastern Front
I Was a German - The Autobiography of Ernst Toller
Soldat: Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936-1949
They aren't hard to find. A person operating a phsychological weapon such as the MG 42 would give a different opinion than the person fighting a phsycological weapon. This would give his research more balance and credibility.
Is his books of good academic quality though? They might be or they might not be. Therefore more info from more sources regarding the subject would better flesh out a persons knowledge on the subject.
I agree that the Bren was a good gun. That wasn't what the hypothesis was about though. The question was, which gun was better, and from a scientific standpoint this hypothesis, and subsequent explanations, is flawed since the Bren and the MG 42 belonged to two different classes of guns. Both had their uses in different roles.
And if we can use his criteria that the Bren was better than the MG 42, then logically we can assume that the MG 34 was a better gun than the Bren, up until it wasn't. The Germans won everything up until 1941-1942. Was the MG 34 then a better gun than the Bren?
P.S: Sorry for my long comment :(
When I was growing up, I often heard of a WWII German machine gun referred to as a Spandau by my veteran uncles. I never understood that they were talking of the MG34 and 42. I always thought it was a reference to something like the Lewis gun for some strange reason. Nice to have the confusion cleared up, finally, lol.
nonsense bren and the spandau have nothing on a man throwing a pummel to end someone rightly
Still?
Yo Momz Nothing beats a sharp piece of steel giving someone a major concussion. I myself bought a Judicial Sword, also known as an Executioners Sword, for personal protection. Designed to take off heads? Then hands should be pretty easy. And I would rather take off a hand then take a bullet myself.
whyamihere Stalin yes psycho very good
Aye aye!
I don't mind entertaining the idea of the Bren being more battlefield useful, but most of your evidence was anecdotal and you were so clearly biased against the spandau that I couldn't take your video seriously. You also made unfair comparisons in that video and this one on the effectiveness of German units in ww2. There are way too many factors involved to say that the machine gun was the deciding factor and it is very ignorant to come to that conclusion based on that. Weapons don't necessarily win wars, battle tactics and overall strategies were much more important and that was especially the case in the Second World War. It is also frustrating that you brush off any critics as fanboys, which is utterly absurd. Hope I haven't offended.
Abso-fucking-lutely. I'd completely buy the Bren being a more useful battlefield weapon; I value aimed fire, its portability is great, easier to keep it fed, etc. I don't even like the Bren, magazine is too funky for me (which is probably where most of the criticism of it started). The problem is that it all comes across as "no, this gun is better than that gun, and see it won the war." Which is just wow.
Even direct comparisons with weapons that are used similarly are difficult to make valid; then again, something tells me that Lloyd never much ventured into the sections of the internet rife with gun comparison arguments (ala AR vs AK, a topic so worn it's essentially banned on most forums where guns are discussed).
And yes, brushing off the critics as wehraboos. There were plenty there, but I have a hard time believing he didn't see the legitimate criticism.
''battle tactics and overall strategies were much more important''
thats another point for bren
+Mongis Lort No, it's a point for allied tactics and strategies. Learn to logic.
+Lambert2191 Which is not what he said at all, or I'd have agreed. Learn to read.
+Lambert2191 You don't seem to realize that something being more versatile does not make it strategically more useful or better.
The problem I had with the original video was the omission of facts. When you would mention that, for example, the BrEn was used after the war and neglect to say anything about the use of the Mg-34/42, it's probably fair to think that you are saying the Mgs were discontinued. Saying that you didn't actually say the Mgs went out of service is missing the point of the argument.
Then you're just purposefully misinterpreting what he said. That's on you not on him. As he stated he mainly wanted to point out that the Bren wasn't completely awful and saying that it continued to see use was part of that.
he did a really bad job showing that the Bren was a good machine gun, and mostly seemed like he was saying it was better than the MG34 and MG42.
"What?! It's an MG42? Well that changes everything!" is probably the funniest thing I ever heard in my life. Which is kind of sad if you think about it ^^
According to the guy on Forgotten weapons, the reason the MG34 continued to be used in vehicles was likely due to the vehicles being designed to accommodate the method of changing the barrel
But my grandfather during WW2 grabbed his mg-42 and sliced through an ancient magic katana with a single slash!
LOL
Sadly he was shot immediately afterwards. By a Bren gun😂
@@simonmorris4226 *katana
My comrades sliced through 10000 people with 2 artillery batteries in the battle of Mukden
This is quiet different from the Katana videos.
In the comments of the previous videos I don't see fanboys but I see people who know the subject with valid arguments.
-Your video contained factual errors, like saying MG34 and 42 are "essentially the same guns" when they're entirely different in every aspects of the engineering. The barrel change system which you use as another point, are totally different. MG42 has one of the quickest LMG barrel change system ever designed.
-You also said "Not everyone copied the "spandau" after the war!", which is another factual error. The MG42 design can be seen in a M60 or a M249 for instance. Let it be said that in the world of small arms enthusiast, this is part of "basic knowledge". Saying the MG42 was not influential would be like saying Elvis wasn't influential in Rock music.
-There is a valid reason why German WW2 weapons are "overhyped", it's because most of them are at the roots of a lot of modern firearms designs. Maybe it's a lack of knowledge on firearms history on your parts. German weapons engineering during WW2 was a key moment in the history of small arms design and manufacturing. First intermediary cartridge, first assault rifle, first stamped steel weapon manufacturing, first portable individual rocket launcher, etc. etc. etc. All of that, on the industrial scale.
-Another argument you use is "if the Bren was rubbish they would have stopped giving it to the troops", but that's not how military logistics works. Take the US troops still using the BAR in WW2 when it was already an outdated weapons at the end of WW1. Armies use what they have in stock, not what they can potentially develop from captured enemy weapons.
-The "the German constantly loss" part was also, "heh?". It was true at the end of the war indeed, when the Germans were vastly outnumbered and barred from ressources. The quality of the equipment is not really a factor in this. But actually, one could make the counter argument by just looking at the kill/death ratio of Germans troop at the end of the war and despite their defeat.
-To expand on that, I wanna add that Germany mainly lost for two reasons: the USSR, and the massive bombing of the civilian German population. But making a video on that is not really "British nationalist bias" friendly. "Let's not forget that the British consistently won from 1944 the Normandy landing onwards". Indeed, when the war was already won by the allies.
There is nothing wrong with not knowing a specific subject, no one can be an expert at everything. Just don't go calling fanboys people who correct you on obvious factual errors.
M60 is based on the Fallschirmjägergewehr, not the MG42
Konine
Guns are never "based on a single gun".
I made a generalization, if you want to get into the specifics, the M60 belt feeding tray/mechanism is directly copied from the MG42's. And yes, the M60 also borrowed designs from the FG 42 (which is yet another ahead of its time German designed small arms).
Proving again the point that German small arms in WW2 were way ahead of their time, and created designs still used today in small arms.
The M1918 BAR outdated by 1918?
OH look, one of them can actually give examples instead of just insisting they're right and calling anyone who asks for examples an idiot. Bravo sir, bravo.
(that probably comes across sarcastic. It isn't)
Yep, it would be like saying that "Allied airpower was technologically superior to German airpower" because they had air superiority during the waning years of the war.
That's not really a fair assessment, because the Luftwaffe was already severely weakened by wartime attrition (you WILL lose enough planes given a long-enough war) and supply shortages. Strategic bombings and sabotage of supply lines destroyed crucial oil supplies, so a lot of the German airforce was essentially grounded by then.
After the war, did the British army ever give Brenda her gun back?
Nope, and she was bloody livid.
Never apologize on the internet.
NEVER!
How about apologising if you are actually wrong? 🤔
@@Johnny-sj9sj ESPECIALLY not if you're wrong!
You can admit that you had some points wrong, and that you're now smarter by having more information and knowledge,
BUT YOU DO NOT APOLOGIZE.
A Spandau that shoots pommels and has a katana as a bayonet = The ultimate weapon
*A Panzer that has Spandaus that shoots pommels and has Katanas as bayonets.
The ultimate way to end your enemy rightly. :)
*A spandau with a pommeled katana bayonet that shoots fire arrows
You're thinking of the Japanese Type 99 light machine guns, with their somewhat incongruous bayonet fittings. :)
Ryan Hall is that a skallagrim reference by any chance?
This is completely and 100% true.
You should ask forgotten weapons to test the two.
He already posted a comment. And he mentioned, that the german guns were not at all that bad for aimed fire...
All 4, BREN and BAR vs MG 42 and MG 34
As far as whether it's accurate in actual usage, line up a bunch of cardboard Tommys and go at it. Regarding supression, even if you're a veteran that was confident it was more spray-and-pray than targeted fire, I think it's still a safe conclusion that the more bullets you have flying by your head, the less you'll want to poke your head up, don't you?
I have shot and hit man sized targets out to 600 m with an mg 42. Its accurate enough.
Well, it was obviously able to hit targets...how many thousands died from machine guns in the Normandy and Stalingrad landings? His point was I think about sustained accuracy. Have you been able to try to simulate the sweeping suppression/area denial the gun was designed and used for? I'm sure you would want to, not many places to do it though, and the ammo must be quite expensive. If so what results? I've seen entire bursts hit a silhouette at 100 yards from a Bren. It doesn't seem like the 42 could do that, except maybe mounted? It sure seems to jump around a lot.
"Spandau"? more like "Spamdau" amirite?
Spam,spam,spam and spam with MG42
I used an LMG in the British Army (the 7.62mm version) and I totally agree that the weapon was very, very accurate. I loved mine and knew that I could very quickly reach out 600m with a few three round bursts and take a target out. I would always prefer that to a less accurate weapon
Did u shoot the MG34, 42 or 3? Can you confirm that they are less accurate?(On a Mg42 i could imagine that they are less accurate but not with an 34)
To be fair, I thought people were quite reasonable with their disagreements in that video. I mean, this is the internet so I've seen much worse but the comments last time were mostly calm counter arguments.
Yeah but you are commenting on a lindybeige video there is a higher standard of comment.
+avenger1312 Hence, calling the people who had counter points fanboys doesn't help the discussion. (not saying you called anyone a fanboy)
+Top 4ce (Heiko Brunken) Yeah to be honest I find it ridiculous to call someone a fanboy of these weapons because let's be honest not many if any of us have used these weapons in a real life scenarios all we have to go on are statistics and anecdotes. These are guns that we will never use from a war that has long since ended. A lot of people tend to forget that these weapons are manned by people and their use will vary wildly from situation to situation.
I've handle and compared many historical weapons of the era, but I can only give those comparison in a controlled environment. I'm glad I don't have to use these weapons in real life scenarios, and have respect for those who did.
Not to mention that different countries utilize each weapon differently and each theatre of war was different.
For example, F2A Brewster Buffalo aircrafts were considered flying coffins by the USMC and utter garbage by most other countries that used them, but when employed by Finland against Soviet Union, they racked up ridiculous amount of kills.
Look man, there are a ton of problems here, but you are the #1 problem on this issue. You waffle more than Belgium in this video. But I will keep my comment to something you brought up in THIS video.
You claim that 'the best troops' manning the MG42 lost to the Bren, but in reality for the majority of the later half of the war it was the M1919 and BAR at the squad/platoon level in the hands of US troops that met the MG42 most of the time (along the western front).
Then when someone points out that the best trained and most seasoned German troops had already died in Russia, and the people manning MG42s in the later half of the war were either conscripts or kids just out of basic training, you completely dismiss the impact this has on those battles... How often did a German officer drop mid-combat just to have his entire company immediately surrender?
So even if it was Bren vs MG42 the majority of the time, I have a 16 year old German kid scared out of his mind spraying bullets, and you have a seasoned British soldier that has used that Bren gun for years. Who are you putting a fiver on? Cause I sure as shit am not betting on my guy.
You brought up the issue of later war skirmishes, which means you don't get to dismiss all factors at play in later war skirmishes as 'irrelevant'.
@ThuleanPerspective So the Russians lost 13 soldiers for every 1 German and ended up with ~1:2 KIA ratio how?
Out of curiosity, where did you get those numbers? Germans suffered very high casualties. How come, if they killed a platoon for every one of them? Everyone else should suffer more than they did...
so now you are basically doing the same as the previous commenters did, he never explicity said, the best german soldiers lost to the bren.... he just said overal the german lost the war every day
Myth. In small scale tactical engagement one soldier tended to be about as good as the other, perhaps the Soviets excepted, whose troop quality took a massive nosedive after the disasters of 1941 and 42 and took a long time recovering both individual training and junior officer leadership abilities.
There were relatively minor difference in troop quality as the war progressed but the Germans certainly were not having it all their way.
Strategic considerations tended to dominate individual combat skill. If you read up on small tactical fights you get the strong impression that the well trained British regulars ran rings around the less experienced Germans during the campaign in Belgium and northern France of 1940, right up until the Brits were standing chin deep in the waters of Dunkirk!
German troop quality steadily climbed during the war, giving the Germans a slight (and I do stress slight) advantage until the casualties of the war started to weigh heavily on troop quality after which a steady decline in troop quality took place handing the advantage back to Brits in small scale infantry combat.
It is also worth mentioning that the British wrote the book on most current infantry tactics and doctrine. The way sections are used today in modern western armies? British. House to house and urban combat doctrine? British. Mortar usage? British.
They really had their shit together during WW2 even if it is popular to say they had not.
ThuleanPerspective back at you bro. 27 million - 17 million civilian deaths, versus 5 million german military losses on eastern front gives which ratio?
Don't bother to answer. I've got all the answers I needed to hear from your last comment.
Actually, the MG could be very precise if mounted on a Lafette Tripod, this assembly not only could remove much of the recoil vibration as it would add a second trigger in the tripod making the gun very accurate at long distances.
>magazine fed machine gun
>Best machine gun of WW2
Pick one.
That shirt's off-white, not beige.
The standards for this channel have really dropped.
On a more serious note, all guns and swords have pros and cons. If they didn't have pros, they simply put wouldn't have been made. But if there were no cons, they'd probably be the only gun used by every military.
In this case Lindy decided to lump together a washing machine and a dish-washer and call them the same thing. Sorry but that's just plain wrong.
+LazyLife IFreak
It is only wrong if the two were not competitors, which they were; for instance, fundamentally, the mp5 and AK-47 are terribly different; however, both competed against one another in many instances, and thus might be compared for those times. Likewise, the Bren and Spandau are different, but both were pitted against each other, and thus are viable for comparison.
Coupledyeti Vonvanderburg
You mean the MG34. the MG42 or the german version of the Maxim MG? Both are referred to as the "spandau" but are two entirely different weapons.
LazyLife IFreak
No, no they are not; that is like calling the 1903 and 1911 drastically different weapons; everything, save for the barrel, the single-fire capability, and very slightly different rate of fire, was practically the same, and both were used for the same purpose.
But if eases the stress on your brain, we can just say the MG-42, okay, little Billy?
I believe that Lloyd's apartment has a wooden floor.
Every time he gets excited the image wobbles slightly as he leans forward.
That "katana breaking machineguns" thing is probably from the pacific theatre, against US marines, who used watercooled maxim-type MGs up to 1942-1943. It is the only way any WW2 machinegun could be destroyed by katana (or by any sword).
Everyone Else: I'm gay
Lloyd: I've handled plenty of spears!
why not call the Spandau *"PFFRRDD"* instead?
its just one syllable and accurately describes what youll hear when it fires
The minigun already took that name
TheCompleteMental Don’t you mean the Americana 180?
I don't think you'd be able to hear much when a spandau fires
@@johnnysack2404 You forgot the "R" in "REEEEEEEEEEE"
@@TheCompleteMental aha, it hasn't though. That's Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!
So what we've established is that people on the internet nail their colours to the mast very quickly and get very defensive when you challenge their biases.
except he doesn't say the bren was better at everything, what he says was it was better for making accurate shots, while the spandau was excellent at suppression because of its comparative inaccuracy. that not fanboying.
How often have you fired Brens and MG 42s?
+Ken Clark never. but that's irrelevant. my experience isn't in question. lindy's is. And he has based his opinion and argument on first hand accounts of the weapons and on the opinions of men who have used these weapons frequently.
Chris Mearns Anecdotes are not data.
+Ken Clark actually it kinda is. that's what is used in history. If there's actual data then that is used as well. But sources of people who have used the weapons are very valuable.
Note that between 2016 and now, CZcams removed links in videos, replacing them with the i-card system, which you haven't accounted for in your older videos, so you point to another PiP video and imply there is a link, but said link is now inaccessible
Having just found your CZcams content in the last few days, I've had a bit of a binge and found them all to be fascinating.
Listening to the controversy video about Brens and Spandaus reminded me of my dad's stories of when he was in the Royal Engineers in the 1950s and how his instructor told him off for holding the butt of the Bren too tightly when firing because this made the weapon too accurate when shooting as the desired effect was to spray rounds at the enemy rather than kill just one
They're not Katanaplonkers or whatever. They're called: Weaboos.
Aka weebs
lazzer+FISK004 actually a weaboo is some one who is obsessed with modern japanese culture not anything japanese
Found the weeb :^)
Mentelpe Jenkins no im friends with a Grammer nazi who is
Gman Grammar*, if you were really a friend with a grammar nazi, you'd know this.
Hey, watch Star Wars and look carefully and you'll see the stormtroopers main weapons are the Stirling smg and the Mg 34, so they must be good.
even han solo has a mauser :)
PROOF! The stormtroopers couldn't hit a derned thing with them either....
@@zythran c96, they aren't blasters... Those are just tracer ammunition
William Phillips Plot Armor. We train to be marksmen since we are first recruited, around 14 years old. Our helmets however... yeah, hard to see out of.
A lot of them carried lewis guns without the magazine
'A gun is good because the British used it for a long time'
[Laughs in L85]
This is me when I shoot an l85a1 and the magazine just falls out
The Madsen is the gun that truly gets no love.
My grandfather absolutely referred to the German MG's (34 and 42) as a "Spandau". He said they knew this was not the official name but as everyone else he met in the British and American armies used the same nickname then he used it too. There were a lot of nicknames for all sorts of German weapons "potato masher" for the stick grenades is one example. Also the Bren had one advantage over the MG-42 that was essential in raiding - it fired less rounds, therefore you didn't need 7 guys carrying truckloads of ammunition to feed it just for a couple of minutes fire. Also box magazines have some advantages over belt fed - IE less dirt ingression, easier to re-load, and you don't need someone just "feeding" the weapon.
Gordon Lawrence Mhm, I've heard "potato masher" referred to a lot also.
That's pretty much what Finnish soldiers called every version of the stick grenades. Straight translation of "perunanuija" would be "potato mallet", but you get the idea. No one ever called them by type, because who cares when you just want to quickly tell someone to throw whatever version they had of it :)
The Quack nope cos the Bren is far more mobile. That counts for a lot in a battle where things can change in 5 seconds never mind minute to minute.
Whats weight got to do with it? Also WRONG! With the tripod mounting an MG42 is more like 10kg heavier. The main point is that with a Bren it's immediately ready to use and can be used in transit, an MG42 being belt fed should be moved by 2 people not just one, and should have the feed checked before firing after moving. try using your brain for once.
Ah now I get it your just a troll. You didn't even read my reply.
We in Germany call the Bren actually "Beanbag" or "Hastings" i dont no why we just call it that way..........for no fucking apparent reason !!!!
and start admitting mistakes.....british biased
He is that. Particularly against the USA.
Clarkson is the Clarkson of history. Look at his WW2 documentaries. They're a pretty good watch actually, covering actions I'd never heard of but that were truly incredible.
Yeah, but Clarkson is like R. Lee Ermey. If it isn't a jingoistic exaggeration ignoring the input of any other nation but his own, it doesn't get said.
GunFun ZS Yup. Still a good watch though.
German doctrine in the day was to change the barrel every time a new belt of cartridges was used, usually 250 rounds & barrel change time was less than 10 seconds, three spare barrels where carried by support troop, if properly maintained the MG42 could fire continually the reason three spare barrels were carried was in theory that by the time you got to the fourth barrel the first one had sufficiently cooled to repeat the process. Keep up the great work Lindy, peace.
Provided the crew still had their asbestos glove. To get a real perspective on that as a problem read US remarks on the M60 in Vietnam as they copied things slavishly including the two worst points - the need for the glove that almost always got "lost" so guns went out of action unnecessarily and two that the muzzle deliberately spread fore being designed to increase the area or cone of effect
I served in the German Bundeswehr and trained with the mg3, the modernized version with less firerate of 1200rpm. Besides the firerate and the Nato bullets the mg42 and the mg3 are very similar. We actually trained to make the barrel change and the reloading together in less than 7 seconds. 7 seconds was the max time we had to beat.
Thank you for this nice video. An upside to this polemic: It confirmed for me the quality of all the three CZcamsrs that were involved. Another upside: Nice to see my three favourite CZcamsrs concerning WW2 interacting
The MG-34 was in use with the Norwegian home guard until the early 90's, and by then they were simply worn out from years of use. From what I've been told by the older instructors who've used it, it was VERY accurate, and gunners could actually earn sharp shooter badges meant for the Mauser (also in home guard use) using semi auto.
The MG3 (and also MG42, I guess) is not as inaccurate as you seem to think. The high rate of fire means that, when firing bursts, you have the rounds down range already by the time recoil knocks you off your sights.
So a Spandau Ballet is literally dodging MG fire?
It for sure dodges my weariness of 80's GOLD czcams.com/video/ntG50eXbBtc/video.html
..... good one! :)
Not at all. Good point though. The band name is taken from the random motions associated when someone succumbs to said machine gun fire. Not dodging. Dying. This is a fast machine gun, "tactically" running around like a twat is going to get you murdered. I'm sure there are plenty of expressions for 'dodging bullets' but this isnt one of them.
Yes . Dying from a Spandau not dodging its bullets
I always heard that spandau ballet is the name given to the way that German officers feet moved and twisted after execution in spandau prison
You do know that there is really, technically nothing wrong with comparing apples with oranges. Honestly why not?
So, now that I've heard your original video and extrapolated opinion video, I have a question. Which rifle was better in terms of accuracy, survivability, and battlefield reliability: The Lee-Enfield Rifle, No. 4 Mk I or the Karabiner 98 kurz?
Or, instead of having another British vs. German 'contest', what about the Arisaka Type 99 Rifle vs. the Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 Rifle (or the M38, I can't remember which one was used more)?
No tactical difference indeed. The MG 34's double crescent trigger dictated either semiautomatic or fully automatic firing modes. So basically you can loose single shots out of a mg 34 not a bit of a difference to the hellfire gun that cannot hit single people. Your reserach seems to be amazing. Almost as amazing as your ability to handle critizism
And yet it was a feature removed in the updated MG42. And do you know why? Because the MG34 was not a rifle, and trying to use it as such was ineffective at best. It's a machine gun, not an assault rifle.
The MG34 was produced until 1945 at the same time as the MG42. The MG 42 was optimized for cheap and easy production, the MG 34 was not. So aehm sir you are full of cotton candy and its main ingredient, hot air.
the MG.34 was the MG used in tanks, the 42 was the section machine gun that replaced the 34. the 34 and 42 fulfilled the same role as a section machine gun, massed suppressing fire. ergo they are comparable weapons. he even specifically went on about this in the above video, mentioning the double crescent trigger specifically.
And stated it makes no tactical difference. Remember? The production technology is not to Lindy but to Mr. " the second trigger was useless"
You're making a big point about the bloody trigger. How does this change the arguments that are being made?
Of course the MG42 is made out of magic and is more awesome than everything ever made. My own MG42 is mounted on a unicorn and fires out candy at a rate of 3000 gumdrops a minute straight into the mouths of orphans and wizards!
I'm sorry but I have to interject here. Do you count orphaned wizards double?
They don't count since they can magic themselves new parents.
When have you ever read about wizards with parents? Aren't they all orphans? I think it's a requirement.
Øyvind Bløff
Aren't they just so old that their parents are dead from age?
+Wat? I think it's down to a problem with there vanishing cabinets, those things were always tricky to work.
Could anyone find a link to that US Army video he shows towards the end?
Funnily enough the polish 2nd core in Italy pronounced it with "sh" (and wrote it as szpandał).
Why is Lloyd allowed to use the argument that the brits used the Bren for ages THEREFORE it's a great gun, but the fact that every LMG that came after the war was closely modelled after the spandau, influencing even up to what is used today (MG4, m249,, etc). Like it or not, the Bren as a platform was largely abandoned by manufacturers. Just because Britain used it for a while doesn't necessarily mean anything more than "well we have a bunch lying around might as well use them". Third-worlders still use the SKS and the Mosin for fucks sake.
I think what he was trying to say is that he made that point to praise the Bren because many people think it is rubbish. Making the same point about the Spandau is unnecessary because people already believe the weapon to be extremely good.
His video wasn't "why the bren is good", but directly pitting it against the spandau, and his conclusion was that it was better.
Only because of the American lineage of the M60, and of course the German lineage dating from the MG42. And guess who are among the world's biggest arms exporters today, and in previous decades: the USA (#1) and Germany (#5).
It's no coincidence that you see what you claim are "descendants" of the MG42 everywhere. L/MGs are very, very diverse in their design and mechanisms around the world. What you claim sir, is BS.
I would like to just say the American guy who picked up a water cooled browning and held off a Japanese attack was a total badass that is all
If he had a Spandau, he could've killed a Japanese officer, nicked his katana, and conquered all of Japan in a matter of days by himself.
No, because the Spandau was not designed by our lord and savior, John Moses Browning.
B DeWit uh oh, katana fucktard is here to weebify the comments -_-
Minedweller329
The worst thing about communication on the internet: social cues are missed since they don't translate well into text.
So either you don't know I'm goofing around (personally I think the katana is an over-hyped rubbish weapon which should've never made it out of the 14th century) or I'm missing that *you* are adding to my sarcasm by saying I'm a katanatard.
Kinda thought my initial comment was obviously sarcastic. I don't believe that even katanatards or katana-plonkers think that a single man with a katana could've conquered all of mainland Japan on his own... well, maybe *some* of them do.
'Manilla John' Basilone.
Thoroughly enjoyed both videos. Thank you.
I had to come back and comment after all these years after recently watching the incredible movie Their’s is the Glory where a British Arnhem veteran specifically refers to a German machine gun as a Spandau. 👍
It's an amazing film for accuracy as many of the cast were actually participants reliving their actions.
If you really want to see people arguing over weapons, just compare the British Enfield and the American Garand rifles, oh boy the shitstorm
Is there even an argument between those 2.
The only bolt gun that can come close to keeping up with a semi-auto.
@@helmsscotta
Still not very close
For the Lee Enfield guys, their fire rate is a huge deal until it comes to comparing it to an M1
@@helmsscotta K31 is faster than the SMLE rifles
Now imagine a german katana. Fanboys would go nuts.
Kriegsmesser?
A Katana bayonet mounted onto the underside of an mg42 that, when stabbed with would make plenty of salt to go around the nearby village.
You mean the Volkssturmsmaschinengewehrssamuraischwertbajonett? All of the Illuminati operatives carry them when guarding Hitler's mausoleum at the far side of the moon.
Smygskytt #1 oh yes that's what I meant, I tried to grab one on ebay but the price went up to tin-foil+2p so I couldn't afford it
Josh Mcdowell
Did you remember to sign the dotted line with your own blood? A lot of new recruits keep forgetting that simple step.
Oranges. They are higher in sugar but also higher in vitamin C than an apple. The children might end up more obese but their immune systems will be stellar.
And here I am thinking of all the water wrapped around the exit pathway.
There is a huge difference between Spandau on Tripod which was a Platoon / Heavy weapon asset vs the bipod. The description were on the tripod and the tripod has a mechanism where bullets are sprayed to get even spread over an area ( it can be turned off I believe) . This was the same role as the Vickers and the Vickers 50. Note the tripod had sights as well and could be devastating at very long ranges - In fact it was probably more accurate at mid to long range than short due to the spraying mechanism though I do not know exactly how this works.
In the squad role it used a bipod and is comparable to a Bren but it was also accurate when fired in short bursts , ammo was not bountiful esp on the eastern front. German logistics was never up to US / UK. Not as accurate as a bren but pretty close and probably made up by the rate of fire ( even if both fired in short bursts) . Under sustained fire the heavier recoil will make it inaccurate but the bren would simply be out of ammo at this point.
This was the strength of the gun it could be used in all 3 roles and fire the same ammo the rifles did - very useful with average logistics.
Germans did use their rifles normally especially in defense or from a flanking position if this could be achieved but yes they were supposed to be moving to get into better / flanking position while the MG is used on the enemy. This is a good thing which allied squads including the brits also did but was not doctrine like the germans.
re performance in 1944 , I don't think this is correct because the same Bren vs Spandau as used in 1940 in France. In 44 far more likely large amount of 25 pounders , Shermans and air were the reason - Not to mention the fact the Russians already did the job in 42-43 . ;-p
I was a section machine gunner in the New Zealand infantry,we used both roles,carried the GPMG for section battle drills and in the SF role for heavy defence etc.In Malaya we also used the Bren as well sometimes,they were re-chambered to 7.62.Loved using them on the range too,we would still use them for competition shoots between companies etc.
The “tripod” for the MG42 was a highly complicated damped parallelogram frame thing that was actually many times more expensive than the gun it mounted.
I feel that one of the main reasons people get the idea that british stuff was terrible and german stuff was so good, was to make us look like even more of an underdog, and thus making our victory a greater success.
Is a very good point.
That might be overthinking the issue just a bit
CornishPasty it anoys me though as our stuff was just as good if not better than the germans eg. the halifax bomber the spitfire even the lee enfield was better than the kar98k even the churchil tank was able to trade blows with tiger tanks there is a story of a 12hour showdown brtween a pzkpfvi tiger where they kept bouncing of eachother so our stuff wasnt bad
I think Kar 98 vs Lee-Enfield is probably hair-splitting. I don't think you could definitively say one outclassed the other.
Brit Lurker well the enfield could fire faster had more stopping power and looked cooler thats what matters
I have a feeling the comments arn't going to be kind to you here Lloyd.
RIP
And for once, the comments would be right.
*****
Listen to both sides, do a bit of your own research and read between the lines. That's the probably the best thing you could do.
*****
Oh no, I didn't mean that you'd choose someone to side with. It was an advice in general.
Good. Let the Fanboy butthurt flow like wine. They deserve every bit of discomfort they can get in their lives.
19:13
The vid referenced here, anyone got a link? Thanks.
I was only mad when i thought you were talking about the 80s new wave band spandau ballet. 😏
those guns are also based on completely different historical army doctrines. the British army was still in tact after the first war and was still trying to modernize and adapt to new battlefields with current weaponry. The Germans had to build a new army around its plans for conquest
if the British actually held the idea to keep the good stuff and get rid of the rubbish then they wouldn't be using the l85's
Your claims based on what? After being upgraded by H&K the L85A2 is a great weapon.
+RyanRyzzo Took them long enough, though.
Charlie Massey
What 15 years?
History is a long time.
+RyanRyzzo it's such a great weapon that the special forces never wanted them, and commandos are getting new guns, that the sf use.
fact remains that there's still better guns that the forces could be using, and it's a shame the engineers and manufacturers messed up with the l85.
"tatatatatatata
He hold hes finger on the trigger and
tatatatata"
i just remembered "Fistfull of dynamite" and the bridge ambush scene with Spandau and Maxim. it was hilarious.
I used a Bren when I was in the Army Cadets on a couple of occasions on a range. Nice gun and very simple to use...
Lloyd, I seriously think you should consult either Ian Holm from Forgotten Weapons or Alex C. from TFB TV and then make a video about their take on the "Bren Vs. Spandau" argument.
As far as I know, calling the German MG 34 and 42 a "spandau" is strictly a British term. I am a yank who has talked to many WWII vets and read many WWII stories from the US point of view, and they never referred to the cursed German MG as a "spandau". But as LB points out, loads of British authors and Tommies did.
Another example of a popular name for a German weapon being erroneous was the MP-40. Hugo Schmeisser was not involved with the development or production of the MP-40, but that didn't stop our G.I.s calling it that gun a "schmeisser".
"My sidetrack got sidetracked" - Lloyd's whole being summed up in one utterance
With a Bren I was taught that you change the barrel on a Bren after every magazine. You carried too barrels, to allow one to cool down. It has a handle on it to make this process easy.
You certainly danced rings around the nay-sayers like a well choreographed ballet. A spandau ballet if you will.
I'll get me coat...
That joke was pretty gold.
bravo!
I know that much is true
What the people who only brought up unrelated point that don't change his overall argument? I think they were the ones who avoided him first.
+hedgehog3180 but...but where was the pun, friend?
If nuclear bomb is so effective, why wasn't it adopted by all countries?
Poor example, very few countries are capable of producing them (and no one wants to sell them)
I have one in back of Larda. You want? 200 dollar.
It costs billions to produce weapons of mass destruction. Also a Nuclear warhead has never been used in any war to date. What you're thinking of is an Atomic bomb, which was created with the intent of massive explosive damage. Once people noticed the amount of radiation that was emitted from both Fatman and Littleboy and the aftermath damage. Countries soon started making the Nuclear bomb which kicks out more radiation upon use.
Delivery is an issue and frankly, access to the material required isn't guaranteed either.
Plus, you need to create a whole chain of command to ensure some loon doesn't decide mushroom cloud fun is on the books for today. Complex, messy, expensive and more than unnecessary in most combat situations.
There Be Game Delivery no issue. I have in car. Will take anywhere you like, extra fifty dollar.
Another great video - good to see some common sense and balance being applied to our history. Keep up the good work!
The mg 42 is still in service today...
he addressed that in the video
@@Alex-gf4iu he also said that he stands with everything he said in the last video.. soooo...
@@grrkaa8450 because what he said was true
@@Alex-gf4iu No it wasn't. Just look at Forgotten Weapons comment. And there was another really good one on the original video too with thousands of likes. Lloyd has an awesome channel, does very good research and is an superb speaker but he did a few mistakes here and that's neither catastrophic nor is it to be neglected.
@@grrkaa8450 hmm ill look into it., thansk
Lloyd, while I appreciate it that you dont back down even under pressure from your supporters, you have to sometimes face the realities. When you compare two MGs and point out different facts about the guns (and admit it, you were a little biased towards the Bren Gun [which is perfectly fine since I am willing to admit that I am perhaps a little biased towards the MG42/Spandau due to being german]). For example, you never adressed the really SMALL magazine size of the Bren Gun (what is it exactly? I think 20-30 bullets?) which is redicilous for a machine gun, seeing how a machine gun's purpose is to lay supressive fire and lay down heavy fire to pin/mow down the enemies while more accurate weapons (rifles for example) pick off single targets one by one. Or for guys with submachine guns to close in on the flanks (or to smoke them out with granades if they are sheltered somewhere). In that regard you got to admit that the bren gun is terrible at that role (simply because you chew faster through a magazine than you could say 'Spandaus come from Spandau'.)
In that regard, couldnt we agree that the Bren gun might be a sur-pas machine gun, but perhaps the first step in the direction of a very bulky assault rifle? (good range, good accuracy, full-automatic and around 30ish magazine size?)
I mean you could have done it quite simply, lisitng some very simple facts (like effective range of fire, usual magazine sizes, rate of fire etc.) and then establish what the general definition of the role of a machine gun is in a modern army and then etablished the various army/military doctrines of the time and the role of their respective weapons.
(for example the part where you kind of painted the germans to flee as soon as their MG was taken out, you could have simply explained that due to the fact that the germans mainly used bolt action rifles (except a few exceptions of the G43 and later on the Stg 44 (Sturmgewehr/Assault rifle) and perhaps the FJG (Fallschirmjäger Gewehr/Paratrooper Rifle) which meant that while they were accurate and reliable and effective on long ranges, they were ill suited for engagments on a lower range or against enemies with a higher rate of fire. (for example in an engagment on 50 yards/Meters or lower if it was a K98 against a Garand, I'd usually put my money on the Garand, simply because the Garand has a higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire and requires less input to work properly in contrary to the bolt action rifle.) Which is the reason why most german positions were hard to hold against a determined attack once the MG was taken out. (though that is the case with most infantries on all sides of the war I'd claim.)
In any case Lloyd, thanks for the video though. (since you adressed a few points which I mentioned earlier which came not so clearly across during your last video) Still you shouldnt call your own supporters fanboys either due to word of mouth of personal experience with an MG which with slight alterations is still used all over the world, while the Bren Gun is... well probably less known. :)
Still cheers mate, still love your other content, dont hate my because I disliked your Bren vs. Spandau video :'(
"Most of the criticism I received was about things I hadn't even said." Ah, the age of the Internet. More like "Age of the Strawman".
It's a problem with people's inadequate reasoning, not the communication. You see the same issue among commentators of ancient and medieval philosophical works (and basically any other era, really). And if there's one strata of humans who are particularly aware of sophistry, it's philosophers.
More the point, most of the criticism is about things that he did communicate wrong. If you compare Bren and Spandau and just say "The Bren barrel was easy to change", most people will interpret it as "The Spandau barrel was not". If he meant "Both MGs barrels are easy to change", he should have said to. Lindy probably took for granted that ALL the people would know that a Spandau barrel was easy to change, too, but that kind of knowledge is not universal and certainly not to be expected when you post a video on internet. Similarly, if he has the big theory that the Allied offensives of 1944-45 are a proof that the Bren was a good MG, he should have taken the time to explain why he discounts the effect of air power, artillery, tanks, etc. Lindy cannot blame people for not reading his mind.
Lindybeige likes to say people are putting words in his mouth, but really they are his words borne out of poor logic on his part. For instance, in this video he claims that the Eastern front is entirely irrelevant to the Allies winning ground every day, which is evidence of the Bren's superiority. The Western front wasn't simply a bunch of 1v1s between the bren and the spandau, was it? The Allied victory was considerably more complicated than that.
Besides, the Allies (even more specifically, the British) winning battles doesn't prove the Bren's superiority anyway. At best you could call it a contributing factor in some battles.
But he did not say that, watch the video again if you do not believe me.
Sergio Juan Membiela
There is a certain degree of common sense required. Saying that one gun has an easy to change barrel does not actually imply that the other gun has a hard to change barrel- it does imply that the first gun may be better. I mean if I say dogs can run well on 4 legs that does not mean humans cannot run because they only have two- though dogs are generally faster than people.
I don’t see how the aircraft and such needed to be brought into the discussion. He is talking about the Bren- they kept using it because it was worth using- the point being they didn’t find something else to replace it. Its a bit of an assumption that the army keeps things because they work but its a good point.
“Wait, Jenkins come back!” Ha!!!
At 18:00:
I've seen historical footage of a ss-man going full rambo with a "spandau" somewhere.
could u sent a link? would be amazing
>Has probably never so much as even touched a gun in his life
>Still claims to hold authoritative opinions on firearms technology
Lloyd. Please, no.
Please make more realistic accusations, even in this video he said he handled a MG42 and a Bren, and perhaps even fired other weapons.
You're whole argument is made invalid by one sentence, well done.
boohoo boohoo boohoo WAAH WAAHH WAAHHHHHH
Seems like somebody didn't finish the video. 18:10
@SNIperofDARKness02 Go watch the ending of the video. He specifically says he hasn't fired guns. But he then also explains quite well why that doesn't really matter. FYI, I think he made quite a few factual mistakes in his first video (and repeated some of them in this video) and I find it childish he's calling people fanboys in this video.
From Wikipedia:
"The gun was sometimes called "Spandau" by British troops, as was the MG 34, a traditional generic term for all German machine guns, left over from the famous Allied nickname for the MG 08 Maxim-derivative used by German forces during WWI, which was derived from its manufacturer's plates noting the city where some were produced."
I think that's a good explanation. So you were right and wrong at the same time. The name Spandau was used but mostly by British and not "all English speakers" and the name was not referring exclusively on the MG34/42, though there were not many other German machine guns in WW2.
I don't like that you refer that much on the memories of British soldiers. Their views are interesting for sure but of cause very subjective. There were German soldiers who were very accurate with the MG34/42 because they had a lot of practise and there were British soldiers who knew how to use the Bren very effectively.
I am 76, in WW2 my father came under fire from a spandau and took cover in a ditch with the bullets raking the dirt close to his shoulder. His sergeant said "How are are we going to get out of this?" Dad said "We'll move when his barrel heats up and he changes it." It worked and they got out double quick time.
my uncle is a cop here in rio de janeiro, he often goes to operations and very often he is assigned a bren gun, he told me once a burst hit 2 bandits inside of a abandoned house behind of a wall
I'm a big fan of the Bren gun. My Grandfather was a Bren gunner in world war two in the Welsh Guards. As good a weapon it was, I don't believe it was better than the MG42. Which was a superbly engineered support weapon for its time.
He didn't explicitly say it was better. Just because they are different doesn't necessarily mean that one is better than the other.
No doubt ot was superbly engineered. But answer me this. What country still used the german guns, in numbers, into the 90s. And as a follow up, how many countries still used the BREN on 7.62 into the 90s, and still in most lesser colonies now?? India, Timor, PNG, Fiji, Solomon Islands, that I know of. We gave PNG 184 000 in 90s alone.
@@ozdavemcgee2079 um, Germany, Austria and about 30 other countries. They use the MG3 which is nothing more than a product improve MG42 to the point where several parts are interchangeable. Not to mention the fact the concept of the universal machine gun that originated with the MG34 is used by almost every single military today and the countless design details of modern machine guns that were copied from it.
Nah. The MG34 is the Go-To. the Mg42 was meant to be cheaper and easier to manufacture than the 34.
My Grandfather was a Bren gunner in WW2 in the Monmouthshire rifles. Attached to the 11th Armoured division. He always said the german equipment was better and that they would pilfer from dead German soldiers what they could especially Luger pistols and the ammunition because for short range personal defence that was the weapon to have.
If my English version is to be believed, then Guy Sajer refers to them as Spandaus in The Forgotten Soldier.
Correct me if I'm wrong but i thought the m 60 was bassed off of the Spandau
The M60 is based on the FG42 automatic rifle used by Luftwaffe Fallshirmjager paratroopers. The FG42 is based on the Lewis machine gun which was an american design.
@@fastmongrel the first weapon was probably a stick (wich the Lewis Machinegun is clearly based on). Can we now please argue about wich country this stick came from?
Rock throwers are the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
In all my study of the war in North Africa until the end of 1942 I've never found one reference to Allied troops preferring to use a captured Spandau to say, a Bren. Yes, some troops did use captured Spandau's and they also used captured Italian weapons too. But Spandau's replaced rifles when they were used and basically they were used because they were automatic and could provide more firepower than a bolt action rifle.
So I'd prefer to accept the experience and preferences of combat troops over any theoretical or wishful thinking contary advantage. And yes, some Allied troops were not stopped by rules and regulations from using captured weapons.
Bren used .303 and Spandau (MG42) used 7.62 mauser. Why'd they exchange for a spandau, a weapon which : they haven't been trained with, do not have the extra ammo for , and confuses their allies (like Mr.Lloyd mentioned about the soldier being mistaken by his pals that he's german cuz of the spandau) , etc? It only make sense that they didn't prefer Bren over a Spandau (both being mgs which eat ammos fast).
@@sweetrumman6496 MG42 used 7.92mm Mauser...............
Lloyd: English speakers call it the Spandau.
English speakers: No we don't.
Lloyd: WWII soldiers called it a Spandau, so they must be called Spandau.
E.S.: We aren't WWII soldiers; we don't call it that. You don't even call it that.
Lloyd: I'm doing this for clarity.
E.S.: But you're only succeeding in confusing us.
Lloyd: You're just a fanboy.
Penkitten 82 He's brittish and brittish people called it a spandau, it's not that difficult to understand
Areknerm No we don't at all, I've never heard of it being called a Spandau until I watched this video a year ago. I've been to war museums across the country and still haven't heard the MG42 or 34 being called a Spandau.
Disciple of Khorne he said called not call. past tense
Ichavel Then why isn't it called a Spandau in any museum or anything, and why does Lindy seem to be one who mentions it. And why bother mentioning the fact that he's British?
Disciple of Khorne it was called spandau during the war by soldiers who didn't use the official name. Of course it's not gonna be in museums cause museums like using official names. I agree there was no real reason for Lindy to call it a spandau I'm just explaining why he did. Also there is no reason for him to mention he's british
Looking back at these I got confused, the term Spandau Ballet, from which the group took its name, was it from the dance a corpse did being shot by the fast firing Spandau or as I thought the twitching when being hung at Spandau prison?
Count me as liking part one and part two. Great videos.