Do Bren Gun still have its place in modern warfare?

DOES THE Bren Gun still have A place in modern warfare?

and the answer depends entirely on how you use it and when.

>>63820510 (OP)
Better than nothing.

>>63820510 (OP)
Nice ass.

>>63820528

>>63820510 (OP)
No, anything that needlessly blocks your field of vision is obsolete.

>>63820682
amogus

>>63820510 (OP)
Mah lawd all those loose straps...
Give this man some tape.

>>63820510 (OP)
I'm sorry third world ESL-kun but the Bren gun is only useful nowadays in that it fires bullets that kill people in rapid succession.
Insofar that your tactics or strategy is superior than your opponent's, then yes, it has a place.
Against a first world army, it's still a gun, but it will be outpaced easily, and it's fire will be mitigated by any APC.

>>63820510 (OP)
If you are this (I assume Burmese) rebel guy, then I bet it's pretty awesome compared to your buddies using old hunting shotguns or 3d printed 9mm carbines, but it doesn't have any capabilities that most rifles made in the last 40 years or more wouldn't generally excel over it at.

yeah

>>63820510 (OP)
Yes

>>63820510 (OP)
A working machinegun is a working machinegun, but you there's a hundred better options, assuming any of them are available to you.

>>63821007
>>63821132
>>63821052
>Yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksMydLGN1oc

>>63820510 (OP)
No,
Undoubtedly an excellent LMG and one of if not the best during the war but wouldn't work today.
The Bren only worked if the whole section was directed to support it. British webbing and doctrine was centred around it to provide ammo and support.
You just wouldn't be able to support it's ammunition with everything else modern soldiers have to carry. There are so many better options.
Maybe on the defence if you have lots of loaded magazines nearby but if not probably ditch it.

>>63820510 (OP)
Didn't they get used in .308 up until the 90s? I'd think the only major issue is lack of an optic rail and the fact that it's heavy as shit for the 27 rounds or whatever it was that the magazine actually held

>>63821964
still crazy how the nazis had modern belt fed GPMGs and we had semi auto rifles, meanwhile the bongs were using bolt action rifles to support a 30 lb semi auto rifle (Pretty sure I read that based on bong doctrine, Brens were supposed to be fired in semi auto)

>>63823123
30rds, which isn't as much as the 47rds of the Russian DP-28 and DPM, but it's 10rds more than most other LMGs of the war. There existed a 100rd horizontal drum, but it was meant only for anti-air roles.

If you consider that the average opponent infantryman in WW2 was usually a man with a bolt-action rifle (matches power and range, but not rate of fire) or sometimes with a subgun (matches rate of fire, but not range and power), the average LMG's 20rd mag of rifle ammunition and full-auto fire isn't bad, let alone a 30rd mag.
This dynamic only just begins to change during WW2,

>>63823135
The Bren was NOT supposed to be limited to semi-auto fire, that's retarded. It was really one of the best light machineguns of the war, being an improved Zb.26, but Britain instead didn't really have anything like the German MG34 or even the American M1919.
Well, they did have some M1919s, but they had them on vehicles and aircraft (both in .30-06 and .303, former because of Lend-Lease aid), but they didn't use them in an infantry role, and they didn't really have anything else in a comparable role either.

>>63823302
>30rds,
bren mags don't hold 30 rounds. you can physically fit 30 rounds in them, but they won't work reliably unless you download them
>but it's 10rds more than most other LMGs of the war.
the nazis had belt feds. Hell we also had belt fed aircooled machineguns with the 1919 brownings.
>The Bren was NOT supposed to be limited to semi-auto fire,
I've read they were fired in R mode which is semi auto and not full auto.

>>63820514
Seems like ukraine wasn't the only one raiding museum piece kek

>Vickers gun from the same conflict as >>63820510 (OP)

>>63820819
His Ghille suit is just growing in, give it another week and he'll blend into foliage like nobody's business!

>>63823397
Maxim Guns, much like the M2 are stupidly reliable and work so long as you have a steady supply of water and ammo and Ukraine has plenty of 7.62x54r stockpiled

>>63823371
>bren mags don't hold 30 rounds. you can physically fit 30 rounds in them, but they won't work reliably unless you download them
That would depend on the magazine, and generally pertained to specific manufacturers (along with regular old superstition about spring wear in loaded magazines).

It's like saying the Sten's magazines isn't 32rds because it was sometimes downloaded to 30rds or even 28rds.

>>63823371
>I've read they were fired in R mode which is semi auto and not full auto.
So because it had a semi-auto setting, that means that full-auto would not have been used?

>>63820510 (OP)
I love the juxtaposition of Bren gun alongside much more modern guns

>>63823525
Sten mags are absolute turds, I have never managed to load more than 12 rds by hand into one and I have a fair bit of muscle too

>>63823525
https://archive.org/details/1942-uk-sat-1-pam-4/page/n1/mode/2up?view=theater
page 4 of the viewer, the manual from 1942 says to load the mags to 28 rounds, not 30.
>>63823536
https://archive.org/details/1939-uk-sat-1-pam-4/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater
page 8. if you fired the thing full auto you would burn up mags. I've seen a couple versions of this in different manuals they had
single fire "r" where the gunner fired semi auto, up to 30 aimed shots per min
slow burst where the gunner was supposed to fire burst of 4 to 5 rounds not in excess of 30 rounds (1 mag) per min
rapid burst which was 4 or 5 round bursts up to 120 rounds or 4 mags per minute to only be used in emergency situations.
https://www.battleorder.org/uk-rifle-co-1944
this also say they downloaded the mags to 28 rounds and it says they only carried 25 loaded bren mags per section of 10 men plus another 300 rounds for the brens on clips. if they were firing in full auto all the time they would rapidly run out of bren mags

>>63823595
They had loader tools for a reason.

>>63823598
Bursts with full-auto isn't full-auto?

>>63823595
User skill issue

>>63823604
>Bursts with full-auto isn't full-auto?
read the manual. they were instructed to fire semi auto a lot if not most of the time, not burst

How do you do, fellow light machineguns!

>>63821964
It would still work, especially the ones rechambered in 7.62mm for easier ammo acquisition.
The British even tried keeping the concept alive into the 90s and 2000s.
You'd obviously want something better, but of its all you have then it still does the job. And unlike in WW2, all the other riflemen will probably have assault rifles so can lay down heavy fire themselves if needed.

>>63823302
>and they didn't really have anything else in a comparable role either

They had the Vickers K and the Lewis gun , but they weren't often used by dismounted infantry.

>>63823932

>>63823919
If they had made it in 7.62 it would have been a decent marksman rifle. Even in 5.56 it had something like a 600-800m effective range. Bad LMG but good sharpshooter rifle.

>>63823919
Look at the mag. It's a .303 mag lmao

>>63820781

>>63823999
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?

>>63820510 (OP)
if it works, have ammo for it and nothing else then yeah

>>63824890
But they do have something else

>>63820514
how do you even use a maxim in moden combat? can it even pivot side to side?? it looks fixed what do you do if the soldier runs sideways instead of charging you from a trench straight on

>>63829382
The answer is to upgrade the maxim by attaching swivel point, disintegrating link and put an optical sight

Maxim gun is sufficient enough for perimeter duty or as vehicle weapon, releasing more modern small arms for front line use

>>63829382
>how do you even use a maxim in moden combat?
Like this. They make a great marksman rifles, with URRAAH-wave mowing capabilities in a pinch.

>>63820510 (OP)
>Do Bren Gun still have its place in modern warfare?
the top loading autorifle concept is one of the most underrated designs ever. absolutely.

>>63829382
Shut the fuck up and lurk for a year, nigger.

>>63829382
if you stick it on a modern mount and add some type of red dot to it there isn't any reason why it would be any less effective than modern GPMGs assuming you don't need to move it by hand

It's rather hard to guard an aerodrome with the Vicar's stirrup pump, a pitchfork and a stave.

>>63823135
The Nazis had many ideas that had tons of problems to iron out. As deadly as the MG-34 and 42 were, they melted barrels worse than modern day MGs with that huge rate of fire among other problems.

>>63823598
>carried 25 loaded bren mags per section of 10 men plus another 300 rounds for the brens on clips
that's a thousand rounds, how much do you think the Jerries carried?

>>63823611
clearly they were supposed to use both, covering movement was probably the most common scenario

>>63829382
Like the others say, if it's going on a vehicle or you're putting it in a fixed defensive position, it's gonna do the machinegun job, fill the jacket with water and load the thing up, and it's gonna 100% rock and roll for you. Then you can free up lighter and more mobile modern guns for the people who need those.

The Maxim is the kind of gun that will truck on for eternity if you keep supplying it with ammo, water, and replacement barrels, and it's by design. There's a famous test the British did when they were finally phasing their Maxim-Vickers guns out, where they fed millions and millions of rounds of .303 through a single gun almost non-stop, and the thing was still in spec afterwards.
They are also not too difficult to caliber convert.

>>63831025
proper classic innit
https://youtu.be/UXqwh2o_zzs?si=UIOXpLKKlKhBXGOT&t=1432

>>63823135
That's a load of shit though. It's something that people think because of video games. Allied forces had more total machineguns than Germans did, and had more and better heavier machineguns to boot.

An American infantry battalion had 12 M1914A4s, 8 M1917A1s, 6 M2s and 45 BARs. (26 belt fed with tripods, 71 total, 20 SFMGs, 6 HMGs)
A German Infantry Battalion had 27-43 LMGs and 12-14 LMGs with tripods that they called HMGs. (39-57 belt feds (and total), 12-14 tripod mounted, 0 SFMGs, 0 HMGs)

The thing that's actually wild, that wehraboos and video games gloss over, is that German infantry battalions were entitled to 15-46 riding horses and 80-159 draught horses, because they were such a fucking backwards military.

>>63831295
That's because German industry and economy was shit, and they couldn't afford to fully mechanize their army lmao

>>63831295
>such a fucking backwards military
I think thats a little dishonest, if their industry could allow it they would have been far more mechanized. They had decent for the time trucks, half tracks, and prime movers. Their resources and industry could not outfit them like the Brits and US did

>>63831320
>>63831316
>tfw if video games were realistic you'd have to fight 4 german horses for every 1 machinegun in frontline infantry battalions
*backwards country
Is that better?

>>63823135
>Brens were supposed to be fired in semi auto
where the fuck did you get that idea
standard drill was to fire in 3-5rd bursts
they're full auto or nothing, albeit with a pretty slow rof

>>63831018
it was only like 700 actively loaded. and again it says fast fire would burn 4 mags a min
>>63831025
it literally says only in an emergency

>>63831529
it literally says
>suprise effect against a vunerable target
>to cover movement
>or in an emergency

>>63831295
ok, but we are comparing the nazis to the bongs, not the nazis to us. a lot of media does correctly depict the number of 1919s in use by our troops
>>63831500
you are thinking of the BAR or something. Brens were S, R, A. Safe, semi, full auto and the manuals talk about single fire. see >>63831025

>>63831603
they only had 25 mags per section, firing at that rate would burn their mags up in 8 mins

>>63831608
oops, my mistake
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/manuals/Bren%20Small%20Arms%20Training.pdf
see 7.3 (pg 19)

my mistake
christ theres a lot of bad info out there on brens

>>63831615
Why do you seem to think that full-auto salvos would have to mean "dumping the entire mag in one single go"?

>>63831823
the manual literally says
>this burns through 4 mags a minute
>>63831739
eh it's ok

>>63820510 (OP)
Not really per se, as your question is "should you still field it". That being said it's absolutely still a very effective weapon. Full auto 7.62 is always serious business.

>>63820510 (OP)
Brens just fucking barely had a place in ww2 my man

>>63831615
>enough ammo for a few minutes of continuous fire
so like every other infantry gun?

>>63831972
>Each rifle squad had 1,150 rounds of ammunition for its machine gun. The machine gunner carried a 50-round belt drum loaded for quick reaction to contact. The assistant machine gunner carried 4 additional 50-round belt drums as the first-line ammo load and a 300-round ammo box. Two additional 300-round ammo boxes were carried by the riflemen.

https://www.battleorder.org/1944-schutzenkompanie

finally a good thread on /k/

>>63831295
The BARs don't really count.

>>63831868
>It's set to full-auto, I must dump my entire mag in one go
Stop and think a LITTLE bit.

>>63832124
the manual literally says firing in that way burns 4 mags a min

>>63820819
kek I think I know where they got their pouches

>>63831615
>>63831529
Dude do you have mental problems?
>only 8 minutes of fire for the LMG
If you had any military experience then you would know that's pretty typical of a dismounted squad/section of men.

>>63832193
And? Rapid rate of fire for a rifle in my military is taught at 1 mag a minute in semi auto.

>>63832224
>>63832233
yeah I really do not care what they teach in the indian army

>>63832193
Nigger, what are you not understanding?
If a gun is stated to be firing at 600rpm, that doesn't literally mean that you're pulling the trigger and putting out a whole 600 rounds in one go (which is more than twice a combat load for a modern infantry rifle).
That the gun is stated to be ABLE go through four mags in a minute is an ESTIMATE of practical rate of fire, and a warning to be mindful of how much you actually fire when using full-auto. That's how fast the gun will go, so be careful that you don't go through your ammunition too fast.

Do you think that the British were just different from everyone else using magazine fed light machineguns, or do you think that people were deathly afraid of using full-auto at all with the BAR, Lewis Gun, Zb.26, LS26, DPM, MG13, Type-99, Madsen, etc? The gun is full-auto for a reason and it got used for that when appropriate, even in infantry combat.

>>63831295
>German infantry battalions were entitled to 15-46 riding horses and 80-159 draught horses, because they were such a [freak]ing backwards military.
Everyone but the Americans had insufficient trucks for their logistical needs. Even then America only had the trucks it needed, because it was able to operate a wartime economy for several years before ever actually getting involved in the fighting. Using horses made sense in the European theater as the horses could graze and be self sufficient, as opposed to having to drag a long logistics train for fuel. Speaking of trains, the Germans produced tens of thousands of train locomotives and last I checked trains are more efficient than trucks for transporting goods.

>>63832217
>shit looking beret
>shit looking chest rig
>camo pattern looks like someone put a mosaic on a poo for viewers' discretion
>shoulder board and insignia (in gold no less) sewn on sleeve instead of vertical chest strap. on a fucking battle dress

Do these clowns even know wtf they're doing?

>>63832292
>Using horses made sense in the European theater as the horses could graze and be self sufficient, as opposed to having to drag a long logistics train for fuel.
It also made sense because Germany NEVER had enough fuel to go around for their cars and trucks, or even planes.

>>63832282
a. don't write your name to start your post
b. I ain't readin all that
c. the manual literally says that mode of fire is 4 mags a min and that's not the theoretical max firing rate

only if your country has a reliable source of 30-06

>>63832487
Did they ever make the Bren in .30-06?

>>63820850
>Against a first world army, it's still a gun, but it will be outpaced easily, and it's fire will be mitigated by any APC.
Why would you use it as anything other than a squad automatic weapon?

>>63832257
>I'm a fucking retard eho doesnt understand the subject and proud of it

>>63832292
Working horses need oats, they need to spend all day eating grass to get the nutrition they require

>>63832584
maybe Germany could have synthesized oats out of grass lmao

>>63832292
>Everyone but the Americans had insufficient trucks for their logistical needs.
Not true. By 1944 all the western allies were full motorised except in places like Burma (where even Americans used pack mules because for lots of stuff they were actually better) and Italy (again, pack mules in mountainous areas are often better than trucks) but even in Italy they were pretty much phased out by then.

>>63832109
MG42s don't count because they criminally fucking suck at SFMG roles but don't have the hitting power to cover for a HMG, and German doctrine didn't even fucking use them in infantry squads as a LMG, it used them (no shit) for walking fire in the attack that the BAR would have been better at anyway.

Fite me. MG42s in German infantry hands were absolutely fucking useless except in static defence. Shit for SFMG, shit for direct support. Probably worse than worthless in the attack because of the retarded formations they insisted on using with it. They would unironically have been far better off replacing most of them with BARs or Brens for the direct support role and keeping a number of MG34s for the SFMG role similar to the number of SFMGs in allied battalions.

>>63831898
Oh shit, I'm not accidentally agreeing with that faggot am I? I rescind.

>>63820510 (OP)
In the trench.

>>63832579
nice to know, retardo

>>63835288
Unfortunately, it seems so

>>63824872
Oh my lord