Author Topic: According to the military channel......  (Read 1255 times)

Offline Hoffman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2011, 05:29:41 PM »

Back on the History Channel's errors: I watched some show awhile ago comparing LMG's of WWII and they listed the BREN as having a 600 yard effective range but yet gave the BAR a 1200 yard range.   :bhead   They ultimately had the same effective range, with the BREN having a slight edge in the general LMG role for a multitude of reasons.   


I remember reading somewhere (going to bug me all day now) that during Korea they used BAR's as a semi-indirect fire weapon from hilltop to hilltop using spotters.  And I always thought the Bren gun had the same properties as that BAR.  Magazine fed, heavy as all hell, but terribly accurate and long-ranged in the hands of a good gunner.
It irks me whenever I watch modern history/science shows and their speakers have the brains of my high school history teachers.

Offline The Jekyll

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #16 on: December 29, 2011, 10:18:32 PM »
   

Back on the History Channel's errors: I watched some show awhile ago comparing LMG's of WWII and they listed the BREN as having a 600 yard effective range but yet gave the BAR a 1200 yard range.   :bhead   They ultimately had the same effective range, with the BREN having a slight edge in the general LMG role for a multitude of reasons.   

Just curious, how exactly did both weapons ultimately have the same effective range? I would have to disagree but, I'm always open to learning new things about weapons.
Yea, simply because I can

Offline kilo2

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3445
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2011, 10:30:58 PM »

I remember reading somewhere (going to bug me all day now) that during Korea they used BAR's as a semi-indirect fire weapon from hilltop to hilltop using spotters.  And I always thought the Bren gun had the same properties as that BAR.  Magazine fed, heavy as all hell, but terribly accurate and long-ranged in the hands of a good gunner.
It irks me whenever I watch modern history/science shows and their speakers have the brains of my high school history teachers.

My great granddad carried a BAR on Okinawa and he sad something very similar. He told of a day when they were stuck on a ridge and across this little valley was another ridge with caves and enemy fortifications. He sad he spent the day firing at "anything that moved" and when things were quite he would spray a few rounds to let them know he was still there. He said guys were just piling ammo next to him as he did this.
X.O. Kommando Nowotny
FlyKommando.com

"Never abandon the possibility of attack."

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2011, 11:48:14 PM »
Just curious, how exactly did both weapons ultimately have the same effective range? I would have to disagree but, I'm always open to learning new things about weapons.

The big issue in question is range, so we'll start with the basics of what constitutes an effective range of an LMG. 

The BREN fires the .303 British, it hurls a 174gr bullet roughly 2400 fps.  The BAR fires the .30-06 Springfield, it pushes a 150gr bullet roughly 2800 fps.  The differences are minute enough to hardly make mention of it.  Do you want to get your hand smashed by a 18lb or 20lb sledgehammer?  Next, we'll go to the sights.  Both featured iron sights (no optics).  Both featured a "ghost ring" rear sight aperture and a post front sight.  That system is far superior to the typical leaf/v-notch sights found on most service rifles and many MG's of the era.  The BAR had sights calibrated for up to 1500 yards and the BREN has sight calibrated for up to 1800 yards, both of which were wishful thinking, really.  At that range the firing is purely guessing at their effectiveness because the impacts can not be seen.  So we've seen where the sights are capable and the cartridges are capable, but what about the shooter?  Ultimately, the human eye can see only so far.  The job of the light machine gun, or squad automatic weapon, is to directly support the men of the squad or platoon.  That typically means direct lines of sight with fellow squad members and the enemy is the norm.  If there is an enemy bunker that is 800 yards out and both the BREN and the BAR gunners have an opportunity to get in a position to comfortably deploy their bi-pod, I'm quite confident that both LMG's will be able to deliver sustained and accurate fire against the enemy while the riflemen advance.  I would put the maximum effective range of both LMG's at 800 to 1000 yards depending on the gunner's experience and expertise. 

What separates those two LMG's are other factors.  The BREN had a 30 round magazine that fed from the top, and while in the LMG role (prone w/ bi-pod deployed) the BREN could be reloaded very quickly.  The BAR was fed by a 20rd magazine from the underside, so while prone the gunner/loader had to shift the entire weapon to the side in order to clear the ground for a reload.  Not as good as the BREN for sustained fire ability.  The BREN had a inter-changeable barrel that was easy to swap out once it got hot from sustained fire.  The barrel of the BAR was only able to be changed by a armorer with proper tools.  The BREN was 25 lbs when loaded.  The BAR was 19 lbs when loaded.  In the LMG role, recoil was not a factor for either.

FWIW, next time you are out and about near a football field, stop and take a look at just how far 100 yards is (or the 140 yards between goalposts).  Now think of how small an enemy soldier would be laying prone facing you with a rifle pointed at you at that range.  Now thing of that same guy being 400 or even 800 yards away, behind a rock, tree, or even in a bunker.  The human eye can only do so much and I cringe every time I see the History or Military Channel claim an exact 647 yard effective range on some particular rifle or gun, then claim something with identical abilities to have another 841 yards in effective range without explanation.  There is a reason NATO forces use optics on their rifles on today's modern battlefield: it lengthens their effective range in a major way.             
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17419
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #19 on: December 30, 2011, 01:35:16 AM »
you can compare the bren and the bar all you want but even a know-nothing like me can tell you that they served two different purposes.  the bar was an assault rifle while the bren was a light machine gun. 

and I learned that from the military chanel when they were comparing different weapons.

did you guys know that the BAR has a different recoil than any other rifle back then?
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline Vudu15

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #20 on: December 30, 2011, 08:26:44 AM »
laughed my way though a documentary where all the planes only had half their available guns, F86 with 3 .50s a 47 with 4 and so on pretty funny.
"No odds too great"

"I was a horse ahead at the end" - Nathan Bedford Forrest
Training Video List https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL54E5CE

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #21 on: December 30, 2011, 08:29:29 AM »
you can compare the bren and the bar all you want but even a know-nothing like me can tell you that they served two different purposes.  the bar was an assault rifle while the bren was a light machine gun. 

and I learned that from the military chanel when they were comparing different weapons.

did you guys know that the BAR has a different recoil than any other rifle back then?

I'm doing my best to detect sarcasm in your typing.... 
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23939
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #22 on: December 30, 2011, 08:53:14 AM »
Complaining about the inaccuracies on military & history channel?

Try KCC - Knight Country Channel. :noid

 I had to detune from it yesterday, I guess I just couldn't manage the awesome amount of spectacular new information about WW2 history that was presented by those renowned experts there  :bhead
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline Rob52240

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3770
      • My AH Films
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #23 on: January 01, 2012, 08:47:40 PM »
Complaining about the inaccuracies on military & history channel?

Try KCC - Knight Country Channel. :noid

 I had to detune from it yesterday, I guess I just couldn't manage the awesome amount of spectacular new information about WW2 history that was presented by those renowned experts there  :bhead

Were they talking about the time that we killed Rommel @ Okinawa again?
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was locked in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam and Zipp...  I would shoot Zipp 3 times.

Offline Hoffman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #24 on: January 01, 2012, 10:23:20 PM »
Were they talking about the time that we killed Rommel @ Okinawa again?


Hey now, that's a well kept secret of WWII. The Marines don't want anyone to know that Hitler faked Rommel's death and sent him and the 1st Far-East Expeditionary Panzer Division to help the Japanese out on Okinawa, and the reason---  no no I can't type this anymore and keep a straight face.  :x

Offline PAKFRONT

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #25 on: January 01, 2012, 10:46:36 PM »
1500 and 1800 yds "wishfull thinking" for a .30 caliber LMG??
Where did you learn about the deployment of Machineguns?? I suggest you go back and take the course again!
Youtube game channel, Megaflammenpost
Password of the day = DEMARKATION!

Offline PAKFRONT

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2012, 11:27:15 PM »

I remember reading somewhere (going to bug me all day now) that during Korea they used BAR's as a semi-indirect fire weapon from hilltop to hilltop using spotters.  And I always thought the Bren gun had the same properties as that BAR.  Magazine fed, heavy as all hell, but terribly accurate and long-ranged in the hands of a good gunner.
It irks me whenever I watch modern history/science shows and their speakers have the brains of my high school history teachers.
Machineguns have always been used that way, "search and traverse' was their intended purpose.. The .30 cal ammo from WW2 was easily capable of effective suppression fire at 3000yds.. You need a tripod and T&E to do it, but easily doable.. With a good barrel, the fire dispersion at that range would make a beaten zone about 25yds square.. If you are in that area, without cover, you will eventually get hit.. MG's were never designed (or expected by gunners), to perform like a rifle.. The BAR's limited range is because it was never fitted for a tripod, and had no QC barrel.. Bipod gives it a bit better fire concentration, that is why it has a bit more effective range than a Garand.. Which is why it is called an AUTOMATIC RIFLE! Whereas the BREN is a good attempt at a GPMG, and was fitted to a tripod.. If anything, comparing Bren and BAR are judging apples against oranges..
But what do you expect from the whole TV channel, just more cheezy crap.. "Gee whiz kiddies, look at me shoot da gun"! LOL!
Youtube game channel, Megaflammenpost
Password of the day = DEMARKATION!

Offline Penguin

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3089
Re: According to the military channel......
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2012, 08:31:56 PM »
I go there for that, and nothing more.  If I actually want history, I can get it any time I want it from my 800 page AP textbook.

-Penguin