@@luxan8690 they have changed basically the entire gun in terms of internals have been changed and improved to make it more accurate and reliable. Stop being a wehrboo and get a life.or even better, do some bloody research.
First off, the MG34 and MG42 were quite different not only in production, but also performance: MG34 way more accurate and MG42 way more rate of fire. Yeah, they were used in similar roles. Furthermore, not sure if it was called "Spandau" at the time, because I never heard or read that term before when it comes to the MG34/42 and well, I am not really unfamiliar with that era... The "Spandau" was although definitely used for the German MG in World War 1. just did a quick check on wikipedia and it notes that the British occassionally called the MG34 "Spandau". Not sure if you mean by "people at that time" you only refer to the British or the Germans as well, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you only meant the British (or made an error, I know that happens quite easily). Because the term in German I heard the most often for the MG42 was definitely "Hitlersäge" (hitler's buzzsaw).
+ZSH1aventail still, never heard or read that term ever before. So if your statement is true it didn't stick after the war. I know the Schmeisser MP was technically not from Schmeisser, but the name stuck even after the war. I guess "Spandau" for Germans was way to inaccurate, because of the Spandau MG from First World War.
+Military History Visualized Spandau was a term used by the brits only. Its because the cover plate was stamped in spandau and there there fore in WWI asumed it (the MG08 that is) was called the spandau). It never was. Calling the gun for a place is not really that smart because then you might confuse the gun for the place in a hot situation. (well the Springfield 03 is of cause called springfield, but there are like 30 places in the US called by that name). All machineguns in German army was called MG. MaschinenGewehr... it was called what it was. Germen naming nomenclature was also different to most other nations. While most call the number of when it was designed or started production. Germany called it as a year model, about how we call cars today. And it was not the year model of the gun it self, but rather the division is was for. So the MG42 was desegined for the year model 42 of infanteri division. Now it happend to be the case that it was introduced 1942, but its not true for all all guns. Some are actually introduced the year before, and some the year after. Compare that for example to the AK-47 that was designed in 1947, but not introduced before 1949
What I got out of it: 1) Spandau is much better on defense. 2) Bren was at least as good on offense. 3) The two sides used different tactics. Also, Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge didn't happen, the Bren somehow was a better weapon in 1944-1945 than it was for the BEF, which returned with only 4k out of the 30k they had, and the Bren was obviously not that great because everyone did not copy it after WW2. And he failed to mention the best thing about the Bren gun: It looked freaking cool. Many a machine gun has roughly the same look as the Spandau, but the Bren gun has that banana clip, and that that gives it character.
I would say the 34 was better of the two, I think 1200-1500rpm was a little excessive for an LMG/MMG. p.s the guy also BSs about the ROF being similar, the 34 was much slower at around 800-900rpm.
That was a load of misinformation on the MG42 though, sorry to say. I used the MG3, which is the exact same weapon with a so called "NATO Brake" to cap its RoF at 1100 RpM, when I was in the Bundeswehr. The MG42 and the MG3 are both still in use and production today (in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Turkey, Pakistan to name a few)! You can use the MG42/3 to snipe, if you know how to make it fire only a single shot. Changing the barrel is quick and easy, but you have to use a glove or cloth. Its lock system was copied and used for a very long time for example in the M60, a US machine gun. We were also trained in firing the MG3 on the move, from the hip. The spread, which was a required feature, was and still is controlled by firing in bursts of up to ten rounds. Neither the British nor any allied forces were "constantly winning" during 1944. Hürtgenwald and Market Garden come to mind.
+PaganShredhead No, the M-60 didn't use the locking mechanism of the MG-42- it used some of the ideas from the feed system. The M-60 was more from the FG-42, the magazine fed Luftwaffe light machine gun, itself modeled after the Lewis Gun from WWI.
+PaganShredhead Dont forget the repeated enormous failings in Normandy with the British and Canadian army in Normandy. They could not break out of the Normandy pocket on their own. It was for Bomber Command and the Americans that were underestimated by the German high command that saved the day. And Patton in Southern France ofc.
+PaganShredhead Agreed, the MG34 actually had a two stage trigger, so you could fire it in semi-automatic if you didn't engage the trigger fully. The barrel change was extremely fast on both the MG34 and 42, as it was designed specifically for prolonged sustained supressing fire, and while both were uwieldy, they could still be effectively fired on the move - the official training manual suggested a wide standing pose and holding the bipod at the front, guiding the bullets into the target. In any case to my knowledge both could be fired from the shoulder standing up, but the problem was that the guns were about 10-15 kilos with ammunition and bipod, and the massive rate of fire made it fly all over the place if not set down. The Bren was a good weapon, but it was still an automatic rifle like the BAR or the FM24, not a general purpose machine-gun. The biggest advantage of the MG34/42 was that it was only slightly less portable than the standard automatic rifles of the time, but still had almost the same performance as a "medium" machinegun of the era, e.g. a M1919 or similar. Practically all modern light machineguns (or squad automatic weapons or whatever you want to call them) are by all means the result of the MG34/42. Of all the German WWII weapons, the MG34/42 really deserve all the praise they get.
I used to be a machine gunner in the german army ( in the 80's) and found out that the mg3 could be quite precise. With some practice you could fire short bursts and even single shots and you could hit a target the size of a plate on 300 meters, which is not bad for an area denial weapon.
Your British is showing Lindy! Almost every belt fed man-portable machine gun made post-WWII is heavily based on the MG34/MG42 platform. In fact, several countries use a direct copy of it even today.
+Jukku It was influential, yes. The British army 'gimpy' was influenced by it. I considered pointing out the MAG in use in the Falklands in the same shot as the bren (the guy standing in the background). The Swiss managed to come up with a version that was much heavier and more expensive.
+Lindybeige Having used the MG3 extensively and tried the Spandau I have to disagree on the close combat aspect. It is relatively easy to fire from the hip, full auto or small bursts. You don't get pushed back at all if you know what you are doing and it's accurate enough. The MG3 is even fired from the shoulder off hand in the Norwegian army.
germany still uses it as the MG3, yugoslavia and almost all of the balkan states use it even today. last time i know it was used in war was in 2001 conflict in Macedonia where i was actually a support gunner in a macedonian platoon using the M53 (yugo version) and it is really terrifying, it is anyway a support machine gun and it is made to suppress enemy troops and the rest of the guys in the platoon to take them out. Even i was scared sometimes to fire it not because of the sound but because i would have a guilty consience after that because it's a horrible thought knowing you've killed someone .... war is bad.
I have to agree with Jukku. I'm a machine gunner in the USMC and my weapon is the M240B which is essentially an FN MAG with minor U.S.-specific tweaks. Having said that, the MAG draws very heavily in design and functionality from the MG42. The earlier U.S. medium machine gun, the M60, used a cover and feeding mechanism that was virtually identical to that of the MG42. As for accuracy, I have no firsthand experience with either weapon so I cannot offer facts, but I will say that I find it nigh on impossible to believe that a German machine gun team couldn't hit a man-sized target at 80 meters. I've seen demonstrations of the cone of fire from an MG42 and it's fairly similar to that of an M60 which is accurate on a point target to about 600 meters. Barrel changes could also be accomplished by a trained crew in 3-5 seconds. I enjoy your channel a great deal, having only discovered it about a week ago but in this particular instance I believe you are incorrect sir. In no way do I mean to discredit the Bren, it's a fantastic weapon in its own right as well, however when compared to the MG42 I think it comes up short. Regardless, it's all a matter of opinion and Jerry didn't win the war, did he?
+Blob64bit It copied the dust cover and trigger at least. The rest was actually copied from the FG42 which in turn was heavily inspired by the British Lewis gun.
ddioppp can you please explain how the fg42 was inspired by the british lewis gun? I don't see anything in those 2 guns that have to do with eachother. then again I am not a gun expert
SpleeF S. Just the internal mechanism. Theyre very different guns other than that. FG42 is more of a battle rifle while the Lewis gun is an LMG. The lewis gun weighs 8 kilos more.
I know one thing the Bren can't do! My grandfather used one and one of his mates tried to clear a hornets nest with it which was behind their barracks. Needless to say they spend nearly an entire day in bed under their sheets to try not the get stung while cursing and shouting at that one guy. Oh and they got stung quite a bit despite trying to cover themselves with sheets. Ha there you have it, don't use those bad British Bren guns for hornet removal!
+Lindybeige His brother in law died firing a brengun and was awarded a posthumous bronze cross. He was ordered to advance waist deep in a swamp to provide covering fire for advancing troops and, according to the description that went with the award, did so without hesitation, delivering steady and well aimed fire until he was killed. I suppose that account backs-up two of your assertions.
I remember a war comic from a kid, it described them as Deck Spandau's (I think it was on a ship?). I also reckon that's where the name Spandau Ballet (the band) came from. I'd dance if you fired that at my feet.
I'm sorry Lindy but using the "success rate" of the British military to measure the effectiveness of the MG42&32 is a very very poor argument. First of all, the allies had air and naval superiority during the d-day operation and onward, and had a larger land force combat ready. And honestly using that argument is like me saying "The MG32 & 42 was an amazing GPMG because the allied force were forced out of Europe and allowed the Germans to push the superior Russian military back all the way to Moscow."
+Ubermarine Actually, they just thought that they got air superiority during and after D-day landing, they did really just get it during the winter. The army was almost at a standstill several month after the landing... Well.. really with that argument you could say... "MG42 was far worse than MG34 because after they got it, the war was getting much worse" :)
The crux of this argument seems to fall around the respective mutual-effectiveness of each side’s all (Combined) arms support doctrines, their armaments &/or weapon-systems in use, & how each one’s was applied in actual combat situations over a wide front of action! No single weapon-system can be omnipotent in every separate given combat-situation, & often is dependent upon the prevailing set of overall circumstances! Particularly, during & ever since WW2, without attaining air supremacy, everything soon turns to s - - t for any side, but particularly the Germans in France, Italy & NW Europe then from 1943-45!!
+Bart Bols No matter the purpose behind the guns, they were too different to just lump them together. Also what's with Lindybeige calling the MG-34 and 42 "Spandau"? I don't recall ever hearing anyone call either weapon "Spandau". As far as I know the Spandau is the MG 08 used mainly in WWI. Maybe some Brits in WWII called any German MG "Spandau", but that's still a pretty silly reason to use that name in a supposedly objective comparison video. Already the fact that he uses the same incorrect name for two quite different MGs makes him look ignorant, biased and unprofessional. I've liked Lindybeige's videos in the past and have been a subscriber for at least a year or two, but this video was a disappointment and well below his usual quality. From what I've seen, his knowledge is probably better suited to making videos about the medieval era rather than WW2.
Lindy I think that saying "The British Army wouldn't have advanced consistently from 1944 [well maybe even 1943] onwards if the Bren Gun is rubbish" is a bit unfair. Lets face it the Bren Gun was just one of many weapons systems the British Army had, not to mention the supply, and airpower advantages Britain and the US had in general over Germany by then. You could equally argue "The British Army was consistently defeated by the Germans in 1939 and 1940, therefore the Bren is clearly rubbish and the Spandau the superior weapon." We both know there is more at play here than a single form of section level fire support.
+dernwine Yes, I knew this would come up. The British had many opportunities to use an alternative to the bren, and chose not to take them. Post-action debriefs concluded that the bren was the second most effective weapon used by infantry. The advance against the enemy was done by infantry, and in the end infantry had to do the basic nitty gritty of infantry work. Both sides had artillery, tanks, and all that. Air superiority cannot take ground and hold it. It would take another video to defend the statement. In 1939 the British army fought very effectively at the small scale against the Germans, and the Germans reported that making headway against the British was harder than against any other foe. The large-scale strategic situation required the British to withdraw. They were also greatly out-numbered.
+Lindybeige Love the videos, but the point you brought up about the Bren's longevity compared to the Spandau's is a little troubling to me. This is because the German army still uses the mg42 in a round about way, they call it the mg3, and it is just an updated version that shoots a .308 caliber bullet. Loving the videos tho
Lindybeige First of all: Thanks for taking the time to reply, I honestly didn't think you would and am kind of honoured that my comment was good enough to merit a reply. Secondly onto the meat of the thing: I don't want to give the impression that I disagree with you about the Bren, I know a lot of people who where issued with the Bren and have heard nothing but good things about it, in fact I'm mildly jealous that I'll never get the chance to take it on the ranges. My only issue was, an I admit I was being a complete pedant, that you can't take "we won" as being proof that the Bren was good, as you said we lost in 39 and 40 in spite of the fact that the Bren was excellent, so hypothetically it would be possible for us to advance into Germany in-spite of a inferior light machine gun. Both sides may have had Artillery and Tanks and all that but if our Tanks and Artillery are more numerous and being better employed (same for our infantry) [and yes I know the limitations of the airforce, the less said about them generally the better, I was just using them as an example of a factor that might help compensate] then the fact that one weapons system would *hypothetically* be worse than the German equivalent shouldn't have that big of a bearing on the end result right? Of course this is literally just me picking nits.
"The MG 42 was adopted by several armed organizations after the war, and was both copied and built under licence. The MG 42's lineage continued past Nazi Germany's defeat, forming the basis for the nearly identical MG1 (MG 42/59), chambered in 7.62×51mm NATO, which subsequently evolved into the MG1A3, and later the Bundeswehr's MG 3 and Italian MG 42/59. It also spawned the Yugoslav nearly identical Zastava M53, Swiss MG 51 and SIG MG 710-3, Austrian MG 74, and the Spanish 5.56×45mm NATO Ameli light machine gun, and lent many design elements to the American M60 and Belgian MAG."
There's no valid way to exclude the MG3 in 7.62 while counting the Bren in 7.62. Both had quality of life improvements and modifications varying from one nation to another, and both are functionally similar to their predecessor. I don't think you'd notice the difference between versions if they were shooting at you. Additionally, the caliber is arguably one of the least important aspects of the design. From a user perspective, the belt used to feed it makes a bigger difference than which standard rifle caliber you use. Would you also argue that an otherwise identical machinegun fed with belts is a different gun than one fed with links?
@@Conservative_crusader I own both a 7.62 and a .303. While I haven't specifically fired the weapons in question, I have had the opportunity to get behind some transferable MGs. Additionally my family has a history of military service going back across multiple generations and countries. I would've been able to enlist myself if it wasn't for a genetic disorder and a tumour in my dominant hand. I bring this up to highlight that while I may lack firsthand experience with these specific weapons, I have heard accounts of their usage from experienced veterans. Unless you're about to tell me you were a British commando who dropped into France with a Bren and acquired an MG42, then got the chance to fire their respective 7.62 conversions after the war, I won't be terribly impressed by whatever experiences led you to believe these guns aren't directly comparable.
MG 42 is NOT the same gun as the MG 34. It was designed by a different man and produced by different manufacturers. It was intentionally kept similar to the MG 34 for familiriaty purposes, but it was by no means "basically the same gun". Bren gun isn't comparable to the MGs. Bren gun is more similar to the modern concept of a SAW or IAR (see: RPK, M249, M27 IAR). MG 34 and 42s are GPMGs, entirely different type of weapon. Bren was more controllable, you could use it to accurately fire single-shot or burst, similarly to modern standard "assault rifles". MG 42 could be as accurate as the Bren gun, but it was difficult to fire it as controllably as the Bren, because of how ridiculous its RPM was. I think you draw too much on potentially unreliable anecdotal evidence. I highly doubt that every german section instantly routed as soon as their MG was knocked out. Maybe the kids that the British faced in 1944-45 did, but that certainly wasn't the case in Africa or Eastern Europe. The fact that the British were constantly advancing in Europe is completely unrelated to the guns comparative characteristics. Battles aren't won by machineguns alone. Brits had their arses handed to them in Africa for a while, and they had Bren guns vs MG34\42 there as well. MG42 is still in service with the Bundeswehr in the form of the MG3. It also spawned numerous derivatives, such as MG 51, Zastava M53, as well as influencing (heavily) the US M60 and the FN MAG (and subsequently - M240 which derives from it).
Hardly splitting hairs its a fundamental difference in Firearm application and design. The Magazine feed on the 249 is known to be woefully unreliable, to the point that a lot of military's had the magazine port removed. Alas at least the magazine port on the 249 is side loaded not completely destroying your situational awareness and blinding you on your right hand side, due to the top fed magazine. Anyway lets agree to disagree. The Bren should really only be compared to contemporary of its time.
Imagine being so much of a wehraboo to think the reason for that statement was because every time a gunfight occurred between two opponents the German would win 100% of the time. It took less than a year to get from Normandy to Berlin. The western allies had a much better k:d ratio.
The MG 3 is a clear example of the MG 42's legacy. And really? Equating Germany's retreat from France to the effectiveness of the Bren? I'm sure that had nothing to do with superior numbers, complete and total air superiority (and artillery support in general) and the fact that a huge amount of Germany's army, particularly its seasoned veteran Divisions, were fighting the Soviets. I've a great deal of love for this channel, but you really slipped up with this one.
+ReachForTheSky Not so much legacy as minor changes to the same weapon. They chromed the inside of the barrel and changed to 7.62 NATO cartridges, but other than that they just changed the name. In may ways it's better than the FN Mag (called the M240 in US service).
+ReachForTheSky a friend of mine in the german army had to shoot one of those. ...with still the nazi symbols and everything engrained on it it is fairly the same weapon, with only a few changes to use another type of amunation i think. also mg3 are export wonders . like said very good at surpessing areas.
@@MyBoomStick1 Watch again. "The Bren gun was very accurate. It was as accurate as a rifle. They were even occasionally used for sniping [...] when you set them to single [...] shot."
Sniping is not always done at extreme range and not always with a scoped weapon.i knew a Sargent that served in Malaya and he used the bren.he'd keep up with the rifles on the range no problem.
Not going to knock the Bren, it's great gun but using the success of the combined allied assault after D-Day is a bit of a cherrypicked argument don't you think? At that point the German army had already fought 4 bloody years of war against the Soviets, with millions dead and gods know how much equipment lost, whereas the western allies landed all their forces in France. There's something to be said about overwhelming numbers. Then we could mention Market Garden and Bastogne as examples of the allies being temporarily pushed back... It's not that clear cut.
This is not an apples vs apples comparison, and again... it all boils down to _"What do you need these guns to do?"_ Because they are entirely different weapons that were built for different purposes. They are both excellent at the jobs they were meant for. The MG42 is the perfect machine gun for a nest that's facing waves of troops. The Bren Gun is perfect as a support weapon for a mobile platoon. The MG42 can effectively suppress an attacking force for hours if need be. The Bren Gun can snipe if your platoon is on the attack and suppress if your platoon needs to fall back or make its escape. They're both great weapons when they are used in the manner for which they were intended. This whole argument is like trying to compare an APC to a main battle tank and asking, which one is better?
Not only that, in 44 both USA and USSR produced more military equipment per month than Germany produced in any year of the war. In global conflict it's industry that wins wars.
@@VelikiHejter -- Not just industry (Germany had industry and look where that got them). It's GDP and the resources to keep that industry thriving long enough to turn it into an advantage. But, I get what you're saying and I'm sure you intended it in that manner... I'm just pedantically parsing it down (I admit it).
Well, I carried the MG3/MG-62(Danish version) back in the 80's and it was pretty accurate if you ask me, and stayed in service in the danish armed forces beyond 2000. By the way; a little trick you could use was to unscrew the muzzle guard a few turns, lock it again and that way turn down the rate of fire and get off single shots. Otherwise short bursts of 2-4 shots was the norm. Without having ever fired a Bren, the MG3 was a Beast and a very reassuring weapon to have in your unit.
MG3 is only really in service on vehicles with most of the countries that use it, and not nearly as widely distributed as the FN MAG or PKM. That huge rate of fire renders the weapon very inflexible.
I don't see what he means about the mg34 not being accurate. No weapon is ''accurate'' whilst spewing out 900 rpm (not 1200), but the trigger on the mg34 was designed in such a way that firing a single shot without accidentally firing a burst was easy. The mg34 was very capable of firing accurately at single targets and was not just meant for suppressive fire and area denial.
@@BearOfNorway I don't know where you got that data from, but I think you mixed the MG 42 with the MG 34: The cadence if the MG 42 is 1500, only later version (after WW2) had a reduced fire rate, but never as low as 900 per Minute (that was the MG34). The Bundeswehr used MG3 is a modified MG42 with a heavier lock and some modifications inside the lock to reduce the fire rate to stable and more reliable 1200/minute. As the fire rate results from mass ratio of the mechanism, it is not possible to change the fire rate without altering the construction.
@@norbertfleck812 Mauser Werke AG Wilhelm-Gustloff-Stiftung Steyr-Daimler-Puch, Großfuß AG, MAGET (Maschinenbau und Gerätebau GmbH, Berlin-Tegel). These were the different manufacturers of this weapon and they did not all make it exactly the same. The fire rate would vary between 1200-1500 rpm. I am not denying that some models had that high of a fire rate, just that it is not incorrect to say that the fire rate of an mg42 was 1200 rpm because it varied. It all depended on the bolt used in each specific model.
you can tell that he's british when he says that bren was used in falklands but doesnt mention mg3 wich is used still effectively.(mg3 is mg42 with nato 7.62)
bobbyjoe2402 that’s just a delusional Wehraboo for you. Incredibly biased towards German engineering. Also, Lindy is British what the hell do you think
@@wejwedge8137 why is he a suddenly wheraboo? Lindy is indeed extremely biased towards britain. End of discussion and no need to add any useless wannabe fact.
To ease up the tension of this controversial issue I think we all can agree upon one thing. That both Czechs and Germans build excellent machine guns. Oh wait.... was this supposed to be some kind of pro British thing...?
The ZB 26, sorry they added a gas regulator and called it a BREN, was an amazing light machine gun, which is something different to a GPMG, which is what the MG-34, no MG-42, no Spandau (whatever the fuck that means), so it makes heaps of sense to compare it to a weapon in a different class. Oh Lindy.
According to my copy of Jane's book on Small Arms a Spanish gun maker CETME makes a 5.56 version of the MG34/MG42. As I understand it the MG34 was designed/built first from billets of solid steel. Whereas the MG42 was largely made of stamped parts due to war shortages + more practical.
Lindy, I usually appreciate your videos, but this one is rather inaccurate. We are still using a variant "spandau", the MG3 in the german army today, the only difference to the original being, that the maximum rate of fire is capped at 1200rpm rather than 1800rpm and above. So, while I cannot really comment on the BREN, I have some experience with the "spandau". 1. The "spandau" is pinpoint accurate. I will admit, that handling might be difficult to inexperienced soldiers because of recoil, rate of fire and the not so great iron sights, but if used correctly, the gun is dead accurate at first shot up to 400m and above. When fixed in, say, a tank as a coaxial machine gun, the spandaus effective range is as far as 1200m. The limitations in accuracy come from the user, not the gun. The gun itself is very accurate. 2. It is entirely possible to fire the spandau from the hip, we tried. Although maybe not the preferred way to use it. It is, however, not geared to be used for aimed fire while standing up. 3. I cannot comment on the guy from the book, but even an inexperienced shooter can easily hit a lying target out to 200m, so don't know what went wrong in that particular situation. 4. It is correctly assumed, that the german squad relied entirely on the machine gun for firepower and that the mg was used in a central position rather than in a flanking one. Whatever the philosophy behind that was, I cannot imagine. 5. A section machine gun with detachable box magazine? Really? Belt fed machine guns have so many advantages, I cannot count. Most armies today are using belt fed machine guns, while the British army is also using the L85 LSW with detachable box magazine for whatever reason - though they seem to be doing well with it... 6. The german forces where in constant retreat since 1944, but that was (maybe) not because of the BREN LMGs great performance. The german forces where worn out and not at all well trained and well equiped. (My grandfather was captured in summer 1944 by the british - who treated him well, he only speaks good about them - he hadn't eaten in three days, had almost no training and was only 17 years old.) The allies had air superiority, vast superiority both in trained professional soldiers and equipment and they had stuff like proximity detonators for artillery shells. The choice of section mg at that time was negligible. TL;DR: your description for the spandau is not very accurate. As I said, I appreciate your videos, but this one was a bit off. No hurt feelings, though. Sorry for my bad english, cheers from Germany ;)
+Etienne Nückel "Bad English" O_O Jesus man, you're a damn perfectionist. Very few mistakes in there at all. Better than most who have English as their first language. Especially for the internet. "spandaus effective range" spandau's " at first shot" at the "so many advantages, I" comma isn't needed "forces where in" "forces where worn" were " he only speaks good about them" well of Though your wording may actually be correct, it just sounds odd. "description for" description of These are all really minor grammatical points that are easily made, I've even made some of them myself. And your message comes across perfectly despite these teeny weeny errors. Most of them aren't even terribly noticeable unless you are looking for them. Goddammit man you're making us look bad! You're doing better at English than we are. And don't even ask about my German. :P Have a nice day.
+Comrade Shamrock Excusing for our "bad" english is some kind of hobby for us germans i assume, you'll find a lot of us doing it, and it's usually those, you can understand quite well.
And each time you make the team leave then re-crew, it fires twice as much - Erwin Rommel once got an MG42 team to just leave and re-crew for three weeks, and at the end just shoot at Britain once. To this day, there is only a crater there.
Every time a berserker gnawed on his shield, the Spandaus would loose a barrage of flaming bayonets pommels. That's the real reason they were so effective: Noone else was crazy enough to get anywhere near that level of glorious ordinance.
The MG 34 or "spandau" has 2 triggers! for rapid use! one for full auto, and one for single shoot! single shoot is rifle like accurate. What are you talking about dude!?
+T2266 True. But far more nations have elected for weapons with a more BREN-like rate of fire, a BREN-like operating mechanism (gas-operated, with long stroke piston) and often lower (BREN-like) weight. And that includes Germany, that are replacing the MG3 with the all new MG4 and MG5. The true greatness of the MG42, was not the complete product, but the use of stamped steel and the supurb belt-feed. The later was used in both the FN-MAG and the M60.
@@gonzomanxx The M3 is a pretty straight derivative of the MG42 but the M60 was derived from the MG42 and M1941 Johnson machine gun with some similarities to both.
Huh, this video is bound to get quite a few dislikes, not because as some may assume Lindy is busting a popular myth, but rather because he is seriously stretching things. For one the MG34 and the MG42 were not the same gun. Secondly, they were by no means inaccurate. The MG42 had an inherent inaccuracy when fired in full auto from the bipod due to its indeed very high rate of fire. Which is also partly why the modern MG3 has a lowered rate of fire. The Bren and the MGs had similar weights and barrel lengths. They all were/are more accurate than rifles due to having free floating barrels. In the example that Lindy gives, assuming the German crew had a proper sight picture (which in war never actually happens), at 80 yards they could easily land a bullet between the Tommy's eyes. That they didn't means that either they didn't actually see him (they merely knew were he was), or that they hadn't properly zeroed the gun's sights, or that they hadn't adjusted for range.The claim that Lindy makes about the British constantly advancing between 1944 and 1945 is similarly poor. I suppose by the same token the BAR (which was a turd btw) and the DP28 can be considered superior to the "Spandau".I generally agree that the BREN was the better LMG. This was a realization made by others (the Greek army in my case) as well. But Lindy's reasoning is poor.
+Вячеслав Скопюк It depends on how literally you take my claim. You can definitely aim and hit a target the size of a man's head with an MG3 at such a short distance, take my word.
+Вячеслав Скопюк That's more due to the operator. In such a scenario the gunner should have fired single or short bursts, not full auto.... the first shot accuracy would have been more than efficient
Basically, yes. But the MG3 uses "7,62x51mm Nato" instead of the "7,92x57mm Mauser" And the spanisch CETME Ameli use "5.56x45mm Nato" and is also a bit more compact. And the swiss Army reduced the firerate to 1000 rpm and so on, and so on.
Well, regardless of MG3, good old MG42 knock-offs were still used in the balkan wars at least, and probably still are in africa, syria and other sad and torn places.
x/variant of x is still used so y which is not in use is worse, it's a fallacy, x being in use only implies that it's still in use, there are many variables/reasons something can be in use over something else. It's a fallacy to assume it automatically means anything other than it is still used.
Ian from forgotten weapons just did a video on the Bren and has ones on the Czech gun it was developed from. Might help to clear up some of the reasons why the Bren is so well regarded
+Alex Sitaras No it isnt, totally different actions. The M60 is a gas operated short stroke action, while the MG42 is a recoil operated roller locked action.... Basically they are different guns!
The mg42 design is still used today in many countries (even germany). After the war they changed ammo type and rate of fire but not much else. So much bias here because it is not british. Source: Compulsory Military Service in Austria. (MG74 is it called here) Also the Origin of the Bren is Czech.
@@Kriegter but they changed the bren in the 1950s aswell. Both were changed from their original chambering to the 7,62x51mm cartridge. Your Argument is invalid
The modern day MG3, which is still in widespread use, is an MG42 with a, adjustable rate of fire, bolt for 7.62x51 so you can go tp lower rate of fire and get more accuracy. It can do between 900 and 1800 rounds per minute. The Mechanism is still in use in other designs unlike the Bren's, which is pretty much dead. The Americans were so impressed they copied it and created the T24. Take the M60 "Pig" which was closely related, or the Belgian MAG, SIG MG-710-3. The Yugoslavian M53, which actually was manufactured after the war using german war time machinery and using the orginal 8x57 Mauser were used in regular use by the military until almost 2000, and now still serve with the Peshmerga fighting ISIS. This is an MG42, unchanged in most ways. The MG74 is also a rechambered MG42 and has been in production in Austria since 1974. It's rate of fire is also adjustable but generally slightly lower. So much for the MG42 being useless after the War.
Apples and Oranges. The MG42 and MG34 were different beasts entirely, the MG34 being more similar to the Bren, while the MG42 was more of a "light" heavy MG even with forward infantry use. But even that comparison doesn't hold up. The best Comparison would be FG42 v Bren, because they served the same role, similar weights, both magazine fed, fully automatic, full power cartridge and still easy to carry.
+MyFabian94 My uncle got a prize leave in the army for hitting the door sized target with 5 rounds at 200 meters with M53. I believe he shot a whole 100 round belt. Also, you cannot just replace the bolt and have a weapon chambered in 7.9x57mm fire 7.62x51 with any reliability if at all. M60 was a copy of FG42 actually, although a first prototype was a frankengun with MG 42 belt mechanism. M60 has a spring loaded firing pin that is supposedly completely unnecessary, because it isn't select fire like FG42.
GrimFaceHunter Well, the M60s Top Cover and Loading Mechanism is straight of the MG42. Rechambering doesn't mean redesigning parts as such, just changing a couple of parameters. Just a different piece of the same Norm.
Speaking about the spandau, a collegue of mine told me about his great great uncle, who died literally cut in half by a spandau. He was carrying weapons for the french resistance in his 3 wheels bicycle, encountered a german barrage, tryed to turn back and was cut in half by a spandau burst. The best defense machine gun, for sure.
The MG42 was better than the Bren and I have used both. However it has to be said comparing a mag fed weapon to a belt one is a ker rap idea. If you wanted to make a comparison it would be the BAR and BREN.
The BAR is an Automatic Rifle The Bren is a Machine Gun The mistake is in thinking that the BAR is a machine gun - it isn't. If you take all the crap off of it - such as the bi-pod - that was put on it to try and make it a machine gun - it is a much more mobile weapon that weights less and is easier to use than a Bren. The proper use of the BAR was in Fire and Maneuver. When people test these weapons together (R. Lee Irmey (R.I.P.)) they tend to test them in use as machine guns. The concept of Walking Fire - was horse shit - no one did that. A proper test would included having someone run an obstacle course while carrying one and pausing at firing stations to engage pop up targets. The Marines used the BAR the best. They had 3 of them per squad in 4 man fire teams, each centered on a BAR. Each BAR Man had an assistant to help carry ammo. There was also a Fire Team Leader with an M-1 Garand and a Rifleman, also with a Garand. This Squad was a highly flexible tactical unit. Part of it could lay down a base of fire while one or both of the other Fire Teams maneuvered. With 3 BAR's, 9 Garands and the Squad Leader's Thompson Sub Machine gun - this squad had a considerable amount of fire power and more flexibility than a squad based on a single machine gun supported by bolt action rifles. In the American way of doing things - each company also had a Weapons Platoon with Machine Guns, Mortor's and Rocket Launchers - which could be attached to any unit the leadership saw fit to attach them to. Thus - if their leadership thought they needed a machine gun - he could give them one. In any case, none of these weapons was intended to be used alone but to exist as a part of a system. Each nation had a system and their personnel were trained to work within it. These systems evolved over the course of the war with different weapons and tactics being developed based on their experience. If their experience indicated that changes needed to be made in the way they were doing things - to some greater or lesser degree - they did. Multiple systems existed in the Armed Forces of all the Combatants so that one type of unit in one place might be doing things much differently than a different type of unit in another place or at another time. So - there is a basic fallacy to trying to compare two weapons to determine "which is better". For the most part these "tests" tend to be set up by individuals looking to promote "their" weapon as opposed to someone else's. .
MG 3 Is basically the MG42 only modified for 7.62×51mm NATO cartridges and its still in use in Germany ,the American M60 machine gun is based off the MG42 and so is the T24 machine gun,MG 74,and the Sig MG710. while the Bren only has the Taden gun which was seen as impractical for use compared to assault rifles and never saw massive production
Yes, the M60 has very similar characteristics of the MG42. M60 is a better weapon of course, but that's only due to the fact of the R&D folks getting the chance to upgrade an awesome MG.
in fact the NATO version of the MG42 the MG1/MG2/MG3 is still in use by a lot of armed forces like the Baltic states and the Scandinavian states. They just renamed it when they rechambered from 7.92×57mm Mauser to 7.62×51mm NATO.
I bet the germans didn't talk about how much they feared Bren or give it scary nicknames. The Bren is an amazing LMG and I've been lucky enough to fire them when I was in army cadets. But if i went to war I'd want the belt fed.
Whether something is considered "Scary" or not, does not mean it's better, that's a fallacy. Being considered something does not equal being something, plain and simple.
@Ankjok Ming Calling something stupid does not make it so, nice poisoning the well fallacy to start. There are many things given names for qualities, they do not process, this is a simple concept. The mg42 was generally considered scary but I was expressing a logical idea and abstracting it to the general where it is true. X can be called something without being it, It's true from a logical bases etc, what you're talking about is the more likely outcome of something being in tune with what it is considered by, please make that distinction in your head.
There are some serious mistakes in this video. The MG42 is not the cheaper successor to the 34, but more of a upgraded version. The rate of fire of the 42 was waaayyy higher than the 34. Ans not at 1200 rpm but above (up to nearly 2000 rpm). Beyond that the MG42 was continued after the war. This gun is still in use as a squad automatic weapon in the german Bundeswehr and on nearly any vehicle. The actual version is called MG3 but there are nearly no differences to the 42 version. Only one thing was changed. The rof was dropped down to 1200 rpm. But there are still some refurbished MG42 in service in the Bundeswehr. Only the wehrmacht insignia have been filed off. Furthermore the german MG is percise enough to compare with the Bren. It really doesnt "spray" that much unless your barrel isn´t glowing in the dark. Firing from the shoulder or the hip is possible too but the MG3 weights about 26 pounds, so it is a little bit unwieldy. But it works. You just cant shoot full suppressiv fire from standing position but thats not the idea behind this weapon. If you are commanded to "Sturmabwehrschießen" (attacking and rushing forward whilst laying suppressive fire) you´d fire short bursts. There is only one thing about the MG42/MG3 i can totally undersign. There is some serious recoil. Big times. Source of my information: I was married to a MG3 for my basic training at the Bundeswehr. 26 pounds of pure violence and a pain in the ass to carry around. But it doubles the firepower of a 12 man group.
+Tonda Rauðhrafna The MG42 was very much a cheaper version. It took half the time to make and cost a great deal less per weapon, and in wartime, this was a huge improvement. The MG34 was considered to be too good in some ways: too expensive, too precisely built, too intolerant of dirt, too refined. Much of the 'spray' effect comes from the fact that it had more recoil as you say, and was belt-fed. Yes, NATO troops from Canada and the like training in Germany in modern times have often been surprised to see these weapons still in use.
+Lindybeige yepp. the mg42 was in fact a lot cheaper in production due to the body that is completely stamped from sheet steel. but it isn't a "cheaper version" of the 34. it is much more a improvement in every was. rof, reliability, tolerances, handling like barrel cange (5sec for a trained gunner). and another practical improvement was the selfdismantling endless belt. on contact you dont have to think about reloading. your #2 just clips on another 100 shots and you just keep on firing. But in terms of precision it is comparable to any other 7.62 machinegun. with a erdziellafette (groundtarget suspension?) you'll get rid of the recoil and fight targets up to 1200 maybe 1400 meters. The sights are regularly der to a maximum of 1200 meters. and even with the bipod 800 meters are no problem. the only problem of these distances is the lack of a proper scope or magnifying optic. for the future conflicts there is a new mg issued to our troops which is based on actual tasks like cqb. it is a 5.56mm Saw-type machinegun based loosely on the g36. but the mg42/mg3 will still be in use for the next 30 years.
Nobody copied after the MG42 war? How about the Spanish CETME Ameli (albeit in 5.56mm), Yugoslavian M53 and German MG3. Plus the MG34/42 really drove the General Purpose Machine Gun idea, i.e universal widespread use of a specific belt-fed machine gun design in different roles from bipod mounts to vehicle and tripod mounts. So even guns that weren't direct copies were still based on the same concept, e.g.M60, FN MAG (MAG 58) etc. The Bren did this to an extent also with tripods and Bren Gun Carriers, but the box magazine has serious limitations in mounting (e.g. coaxial mounts in tanks, which the MG34 (not 42) was used extensively in) and sustained fire. The MG34/42 could fire hundreds of rounds before barrel/belt change, whereas a Bren would require numerous magazine changes for the same volume of fire (unless you get into the ROF argument with the MG42 running out of ammunition more quickly and thus not providing supporting fire for much longer than the Bren with its lower ROF). The Bren probably favours single/two man local fire support similar to a BAR (but with 10 more rounds and QC barrel), whereas the MG34/42 probably favours support role of the whole squad like the Browning M1919.
You remind me of a dear friend of mine who still argues that replacing the binding on the hem of shuttlecocks with a plastics based glue instead of a bone glue has destroyed the history of badminton and rendered all badminton games since as essentially pointless and irrelevant.
Hello LindyBeige - I felt compelled to clear up a few comments you made. I've trained with an MG42 for a year in the army, so I know the gun. The strength of the Spandau is that it is a long range shotgun; you can aim and actually hit _incredibly_ fast with a short burst (3-5 rd). You know that split-second where the enemy jumps from one cover to another? Yeah, no such luck. Just like a shotgun is made for hunting birds, the Spandau is made for hunting soldiers. Having fired 100 shots from the hip in one go, I can say that it won't get out of control if you know what to expect. It is moot though, indeed you still won't hit anything. Fired from a position it is quite accurate, even firing a single shot. It is absolutely true that the weapon isn't suited for attack though. You need something to rest it on to hit anything.
+Eupolemos Also, the MG3 which is basicly an updated MG42 was used and is still in use in many countries. I used one in the army, and the idea of not being able to hit someone 80m away for 45 minutes seems rather strange.
@@Alendo The soldier in question was either extremely lucky, more hidden than he thought (even with the single coloured uniforms of the day, someone not moving is harder to see), or the MG team was just that poorly trained. For all we know it was a 13 year old gunner and his 12 year old assistant gunner...
+Lindybeige "Spandau" is a stupid term, for various reasons. 1) Only brits used that colloquial name. 2) It derives from the production place of the MG 08, from WORLD WAR 1 and is a generic term used for a wide variety of german machine guns. MG42s are actually quite accurate, but single fire accuracy wasn't what the MG42 was purpose-built or even used for. The Bren is a light machine gun and as such, is desinged to be used on an assault. The MG42 is a heavy machine gun, that is not designed to be carried around and fired during an assault. It's like comparing an armoured car against a Tiger tank. Sure the car has better camouflage, speed and terrain passability, but that is not what the Tiger is designed for. A Tiger shoots tanks, an armoured car runs away. Oh and besides, the guy not getting hit by the MG42. an MG42 is accurate enough to hit someone at 80 yards without a problem. Whats much more likely there is, that either he underestimated the cover he had, or the german position didn't allow to depress the MG enough or there was a mechanical error with the gun. E.g. it's quite likely that the barrel of the MG42 was overheated and they couldn't simply switch the barrel for whatever reason. An overheated barrel is quite detrimental to accuracy, even and especially after it had time to cool down again. Next point is, "Germans running away because their MG42 was out of commission". That isn't based on their fear or whatever you want to imply there. It's based on operational use. The MG42 was the central corner-stone of a defensive positioning. Without the MG, the position thus is deemed unfavourable and of course the troops made a retreat at the point, because defending a position under unfavourable circumstances is stupid². Oh and if you want to compare a Bren with something similar on the german side, have a look at the FG42, which is close enough in operational use or even the StG 44. Things will look quite different. And if you want to compare the MG42 to something on the british side, take the Vickers or the Browning M2. Those points aside, the Bren was a good gun, that did exactly what it was built for.
+MadnerKami MG42 and MG34 were actually general purpose machine guns, which could be used as both medium and light machine guns depending on how you mounted it. So, as both heavy and a light machine gun if that terminology is used in your country. It was supposed to fill the roles of both a squad support weapon and a company/battalion support weapon without the need to make different weapons for both roles. I'm not sure there was a comparable weapon on the allied side, really. The closest one could find might be Browning M1919, which had some variants used a light machine guns, but that wasn't exactly the same thing. On weapons similar to Bren from the German side I'd actually go for other Axis countries. Japanese Type 96 or 99 were similar to Bren in their role, as well as Finnish Lahti-Saloranta or the Italian Breda. Bren wasn't really an assault rifle unlike StG 44 or FG42, as far as I know. Other than that, though, I agree.
Hi Lindybeige - I like your videos. A few comments about this one: The MG42 was further developed into the modern MG3, which saw service in the Danish army well past 1996 (when I served). With a shoulder strap it could be fired from the hip during attack, but it is a heavy s.o.a.b. ;-) Using the two forward legs for support under the mouth of the barrel, you could actually fire pretty accurate 3-5 round bursts and knock down individual-sized targets at 100-300 metres. Using the tripod for fixed defense, it was even more accurate and deadly. The main disadvantage of the MG3 is that the barrel gets stupid hot. It is air cooled and the loader / ammunition carrier also carries and extra barrel, which you then switch out as needed. IF you mess up and forget to use the glove - you burn you hand. IF you don't put down the red hot barrel in its casing but drop it on the ground, the metal is so hot that dirt and leaves with "melt" onto it and stick. IF you drop it in snow - instantly cooling it too much - the entire barrel can bend out shape and be rendered forever useless :-D
yes the bren lasted the test of time - but so did the mg 42. the mg1, mg51, mg74 and mg3 are basicly just mg 42s with 7,62 × 51 mm NATO. Unlike the Bren, they are STILL IN USE. and its feeding mechanism was used by many machine guns like the m60 or the fn mag.
bren is replaced because its was a light machine gun not a general purpose one and the fact that everyone is using belts on their machine guns at that point and is pretty old mg42 is also being replaced but it's going slowly possibly due to a variety of reasons
but the germans used machine guns to pin the enemy then the infantry would flank and kill the enemy with grenades and small arms. Sooooooo.... Also german gunners were trained to shoot in 5 round bursts for greater accuracy, ammo conservation, and barrel conservation. They were used to suppress, but they were accurate. Oh and Arnhem :^)
Yes. And the MG team was supposed to work together with the highly trained and experienced mortar teams. It was "tower defense" WW2 style. Germans move forward. Germans see enemy. Enemy counterattacks. Germans stop and use MG's. They are very effective. Enemy is instantly pinned. Enemy then is blown to smithereens by a fusillade of accurate mortar fire. Rest of enemy tries to retreat but is picked off one by one by the section's riflemen, then flanked by M40 carrying sergeants and showered with "potato mashers". Love Lindybeige, but he needs some information from the other side.
+Aragmar Verilian Yes, which is why.. Oh, right, airdropped light infantry completely smashed the Germans at Pegasus, literal sitting ducks still got past numerous German defences on the five Overlord beaches, and the Germans were pushed out of Normandy and/or trapped in the Falaise Pocket by advancing Allied infantry. Indeed, it worked so brilliantly that the German military was inferior.
As effective a weapon and general strategy built around it is, there comes a time when it is...no longer that effective. Because the enemy had adapted to it. Rather painfully slow in this case, but still. As for the fact that they lost - yes they did. Any army would, especially the Wehrmacht in the end phase of the war. A pale shadow of its former self, most of those advantages I mentioned earlier lost and never replaced. That is what happens when the whole world is bombing you back to the stone age :) Btw about those beaches - I do hope you know who manned most of the bunkers there right?
A few things? He kept mixing up the mg34 and the mg42, thinking they were almost the same gun and claiming a high rate of fire while showing a picture of the mg34 and completely missing the big difference between the mg34/mg42 and the Bren, in that the germans "invented" the gpmg-concept which everyone promptly copied after the war.
The fact that you had to belittle the other side by claiming that their knowledge is in fact based on "video games" instead of research and that you seem to imply that the Thompson and M3 are similar if not the same from the engineering standpoint is not giving you any credibility. I do agree that the GPMG concept and who invented has nothing to do with the video since it was never really even brought up in the first place. What did irk a lot of people was the fact that the MG34 and 42 were essentially described as nothing more than bullet hoses which isn't true (and dozens of people who've had actual experience of using MG3 during the military service claim as much under this very video). I do get your point being locked up on the details, but there is a fine line between not paying attention to important differences and nitpicking. Oh, and comparing people you disagree with katanafags is not going to automatically win the argument for you.
***** I'm from a country where military conscription meant I served in the military, so I have actual experience of machine guns and how they are used in a military context. Can you say the same? And if Lindy makes comments about the differences between the Bren and the mg34/mg42, he really should be aware that he is comparing three different squad support weapons that are all called machine guns, rather than just two. The mg34 could fire single shots, just like the Bren, something the mg42 could not. The early versions of the mg34 had an adjustable rate of fire, going almost all the way down to as slow as the Bren, but that was later removed since there turned out to be little need for it. But here's a big kicker really, the british troops continued to use the Bren for quite a while after the WWII, including up to and into the Falklands war. One could wonder why, since they had the excellent FN MAG to use as a machine gun. One reason was likely the fact that the dumb ass british top brass decided that british soldiers couldn't be trusted with fully automatic weapons as standard armament, and so used a single-fire only version of the FN FAL (as the L1A1 self loading rifle). Making the british military one of the last (if not the very last) military in the modern world to adopt a full-auto capacity weapon as standard rifleman armament only with the introduction of the SA80 in the 80s....which just also happened to coincide with the sharp decline of use of the Bren.... Would the brits really have continued to use the Bren for as long as they did if they had adopted the FN FAL in a full auto-version? Or was it more to compensate for the lack of a true select-fire rifle rather than as a machine gun?
I trained on a Bren in the 70's. They were absolutely beautiful. Balanced and no bits digging into you when out on patrol. You knew you could take out anyone up to a half mile or more with a short three shot burst. One awkward thing was when you cocked it, the mechanism stayed back. You had to make sure the mechanism caught properly, or it would fly forward, gathering a round and firing it. Friend of mine was shot like that and was lucky to save his arm, through someone being careless. Like most weapons, correct application in the field made a big difference. Other than its nickname of "Hitler's buzzsaw", I can't really comment on the "Spandau".
The MG34 is STILL in use by Germany. The MG3 is just an MG34/42 modernized to fire 7.62mm NATO. The Bren that Britain used in the late 20th century was also chambered in 7.62mmN. They were both in service for the same length of time BUT the British supplemented their Bren guns with FN Mag 58 belt-fed machine guns in the late 50's and early 60's. I have fired both guns and would take the MG34/MG3 over the Bren. Here's why. While the Bren is lighter at 25lbs loaded, the MG34 weights 26.7lbs with a 50 round drum. It carries 20 more rounds for about 1.6 lbs more, so their weight is equal when you consider the MG34's extra "firepower." If you factor the Bren gun's 100 round drum's weight and overall bulk against the 100 round belt of the MG34, the MG34 wins. Belts are much easier to carry and load than the Bren's drum. The Bren's 30 round is easier to load than the MG34's 50 round "assault drum" (which contains belted ammo) though. The MG34's barrel is MUCH faster to change than the Bren's barrel. Both guns are capable of putting a six round burst on a man sized target at 100 meters off of the bipod (I have done this myself). The 43" Bren is easier to shoot from the shoulder than the 48" MG34. The weight of the Bren is more centered towards the shooter and the weight of the mag is exactly at the gun's "balance point." The MG34 is "nose heavy" and the weight of a 50 round drum causes the weapon to point slower to the right than the left. It also "runs hotter" which makes finding a good "hand hold" on the gun somewhat harder than the Bren. The Brens 500 rounds per minute rate of fire is ideal for short controlled bursts. The MG34's 1000 rounds a minute is "manageable" considering that I was capable of shooting six round bursts without too much trouble. The Bren has a higher "profile" in the prone which could lead to detection (and detection equals incoming fire) due to its 30 round magazine's height. This is one area where the 100 round drum is better (it has a lower profile). Both guns were accurate with "walking fire" (shooting short bursts) out to 500 meters. The one annoyance with the Bren is that you run out of ammo about one burst after getting on target. Hitting targets at 1200 meters with either gun would be a joke with irons. YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE A MAN-SIZED TARGET AT 1200 METERS UNDER "COMBAT CONDITIONS" WITH THE NAKED EYE, LET ALONE HIT IT. I didn't even get to try because the range I was on only went to 500 meters. If I could only take one, it would be the MG34 by virtue of it greater versatility (in belt feed and rate of fire) and its simpler assembly & disassembly. This is important in the field. Of course, you're comparing "apples" to "oranges" here. The MG34 was the world's first General Purpose Machinegun and the Bren Gun was a Light Machinegun (what we would call a Squad Automatic Weapon today) that should be compared to the BAR or (post war) Soviet RPK. If I had to choose between the BAR and the Bren, I'd take the Bren EVERY TIME (I've had the pleasure of firing a full auto BAR too)!
***** There would have been another MAJOR problem (which the British had to deal with when converting to .308/7.62 NATO) the .303 was fairly short AND RIMMED when compared to the 30-06. When Brens were converted to 7.62mm NATO, they became unreliable until TWO revisions were made to take into account the longer rimless cartridge (which the reason 7.62mm NATO versions have straight instead of curved magazines). The still longer 30-06 would have been a "conversion nightmare" (like when the US tried to convert MG42's to 30-06 after WW2). I have never shot the 7.62mm NATO version, but I have heard they weren't as reliable as the older .303's.
+MacNutz2 If you ever make it to this side of "The Pond," I would recommend you do a little "machinegun tourism." Contrary to what the media would have you believe, owning Class 3/NFA weapons is prohibitively expensive for most Americans. As a result, several Class 3 gun dealers have taken it upon themselves to offer rentals/range trials to anyone who is willing to pay the rental fee and buy the ammo. It is a good (and "moderately inexpensive") way to actually experience the real world "quirks" of such weapons without the huge cost and hassle of owning them. I highly recommend doing a day at a shooting range. You really don't know a firearm until you have shot it AND taken it apart.
This dumb biased person has forgoten to mention how british sucked in dunkirk. By his logic Kar 98 is better than STG44, Because Germans won in france with mauser Kar 98-s, and they lost because later switched to STG44. How dumb and unlogical.
This video is about the Spandau vs the Bren, why are you bringing this up? Isn't it biased to assume that because Lindy had one conclusion he would happen to make this example as well?
+Mikeydmc1 Yea exactly, they're were a lot of reasons the Germans lost, and the German forces were way more spread out having to defend 3 fronts, and their factories being bombed and the British having air superiority.
The war had taken it's toll and Germany was running out of men of military age. As far as the factories are concerned impacting the front? Maybe, maybe not. The last year of the war was the highest production year for the Germans. They did have to spend time, money and man power putting the factories under ground because of the bombing. If they hadn't had to do that they could have more "Black Towers". Would they have done so? Who knows? One study claimed that by just targeting electrical production centers whether they be oil. electric or coal they could have ended the war in less than two years. No electricity no tanks, planes, ammo etc. being built. Too bad he didn't come up with the idea sooner. www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/griffith.pdf en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_tower
I thought the US M60 was based upon the MG 42 tech, similarly the UK GPMG (GimpyG) ¿? That the 42 was still in service around the world, manufactured under licence and original mint, crated, (and not so perfect eg's), are being located by Russian War Detectorists, even......
You're right, but for the wrong reason. The whole open-bolt-ruining-first-shot-accuracy thing mostly applies to SMG's, since they're typically lightweight with absolutely massive bolt carriers. A locked-breech, gas-operated weapon (those two factors add up to a bolt that can be much lighter than a direct-blowback weapon) that weighs 26 lb and is being fired from a stabilized platform isn't going to be affected nearly as much by the inertia of the bolt. You could make a decent case that on paper, the Bren should be MORE accurate than the No.4. After all, it fires the same ammunition from a gun with a heavier barrel and a bipod. In practice, a well-made bolt-action rifle is usually going to be more accurate than an self-loader, simply because there are more moving parts in a self-loader that have to actuate every time you fire.
@@toslowlypoke Your point is well taken, however I disagree. A big issue with open bolt operation is lock time. That is, the amount of time taken from when the trigger is pulled, until the cartridge fires. With an open bolt, there's a lot more time available for you to wiggle around, sending your shot off.
+Alixundr That's probably true and that's probably why it was so effective in defending beach landings, the Germans would just be able to pick them of in short bursts because the enemy was so close...but at long ranges that acurracy would begin to drop off
+Majority Hippo All weapons, tend to suffer the same problem. A majority of the combat isn't fought past 200 meters and the MG42 can still be used to effectively engage targets at 1000 meters.
+Edelweisse Exactly. I've easily hit targets at 500m with an MG 42 and didn't even need a burst, a single shot was enough. And with the incredibly higher fire rate the "Hitler Saw" had, a single burst would be precise enough to take out an entire group.
+ArkiosRokuyon "Didn't even need a burst" - well, the thing is, it's a full automatic weapon and only shoot in bursts - the most skilled gunners are able to deliver a two shot burst - an average gunner is able to do 3-4 shot bursts! Personally I can hit fairly well with 3 shot bursts at 400M but I've seen a very skilled gunner consistently delivering 2 shot bursts center target at 800M
A video about something British being compared to something not British. Sure wonder what lindybeige's opinion will be :^) Not necessarily because he's wrong, but I assume he wouldn't make videos comparing two things and come out saying the British way of doing things isn't objectively superior.
The BREN was a fantastic piece of kit. Nothing wrong with it. Probably the best LMG of WW2. However the MG42 and MG34 were GPMGs, not an LMG. MG42's influence can be felt in a plethora of guns to this day. The M60 machine gun was essentially an FG42 with the feed mechanism from an MG42. The FN MAG (perhaps the most prolific GPMG in NATO) uses the feed mechanism inspired by the MG42 as well. So does the MK48 and the MINIMI (M249). The PKM ALSO uses the same feed system. The MG3 is pretty much a modern MG42 in 7.62 NATO. The GPMG concept is still STANDARD to this day. So even if, mechanically, the guns may not be related anymore; the concept is pretty much copy-pasted. I guess you could say the BREN and BAR concept have evolved into the IAR concepts, but I'd argue that the 20-round box fed LMG concept is virtually dead due to obsolescence. *EDIT* Also: please stop calling the MG34 and MG42 Spandau. It's erroneous and kinda cringe-inducing to hear. CMON LLOYD! Much love from Canada.
@JACK FLORENCE they had a 13mm MG used in aircraft that may have been forced into ground service at some point out of desperation. I know they also used 20mm AA in a ground role. It just wasn't in their doctrine. I don't really think they felt like they were lacking either. I think they also compensated for that by simply fielding more MGs...??? Don't quote me on that though.
I feel It would have been a better decision to compare the Bren to the FG-42. As both were designed for similar roles of attacking and light suppression fire. As was clearly stated in the video the guns here were designed for different roles. The MG-34/42 was designed for defensive, area-denial fire. where the Bren was made for offensive fire. This is very much like saying a Ferrari is worse than a jeep because a jeep can go through 2 feet of mud and the Ferrari cannot.
The MG34 and MG42 are not the same gun. They have different operating mechanism: MG34 has a rotating bolt, and uniquely, a dual trigger that allow single shot and fully automatic. The MG42 is roller locked and fully automatic only. The MG42 spawned the MG3, which is an MG42 chamber for the 7.62 NATO, used by the German Army until currently being phased out by the HK121. Another variant is the MG74, used by the Austrian Army. The MG3 is produced with license in a number of countries, including Spain, Italy, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, and Turkey. But more importantly, the concept of a belt-fed light machine gun at squad level lived on and expanded to virtually almost every country in the world. Everyone create their own version of a light machine gun chambered for a rifle cartridge, with an attached bipod, optional quick change barrel, then distribute them at the squad level. The BREN, which is more or less today called Infantry Automatic Rifle: an individual weapon, more mobile than a light MG, which is more of a crew-served weapon. An automatic rifle higher sustain rate of fire than the usual rifle, can still be seen around, though less popular than a belt-fed light MG. Definitely an automatic rifle is more mobile and readily shouldered than a belt-fed machine gun. A belt-fed full-sized MG is very heavy and have a lot of recoil. Such is the case that the PK machine gun, a Russian belt-fed, 7.62x54R, do not even bother with a foregrip or similar device: you are gonna set it down and fire, not standing up and rush. The PKP, which is the true squad automatic version of the PK machine gun, also do not have a fore grip. Variants of the FN MAG include a handguard or grips of some kind to allow soldiers to shoulder them. The reality in modern combat is the most casualty producing weapons in a unit is a crew-served weapon. All units, from smallest to biggest, rely on crew served weapons. A section or a squad is built around one or two light machine gun, the M249 in US service, the RPK or PKP in Russia, The British variant of the M249 in British service. If your gunner is out, then others replace him. A platoon greatest direct firepower is a pair of medium MGs; plus some mortars or anti-tank weapons. The automatic rifle definitely has its place. The US Marine swapped out their MG249 (a 5.56 gun) for the IAR27; however, a platoon/company commander have the choice to retain a number of M249 as he see fits. Then some special forces unit swap their M249 for the Mk48, which is essentially a M249 but chambered for the 7.62 NATO. The Russians used the RPK, a magazine-fed Automatic Rifle in 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 but then some units (mostly special forces) swap them for the PKP, which is a belt-fed 7.62x54R light MG. The trend is back and forth but it slightly favours the belt-fed MGs. Mobility, it seems, can not replace the sheer firepower. There's a bit of reason behind it: if you lose the mobility of 1 man, others with rifles can still rush the enemy; with the guy having the belt-fed MG spraying bullets to suppress. But if you loose a belt-fed MG, other rifles simply can not make up the difference. When the US Marine swap their M249 for the IAR27, their arguments and the US Army arguments were basically the same as what you said. Marines: "The IAR27, while having smaller capacity (they also develop a 60 rounds magazine for it), is more mobile and accurate. The accuracy adds to suppression, more than volume". Army: "We will not swap our M249 for the IAR27. We value the belt-fed capacity. Also, Army squads have 9 troops, compared to the Marines 13, that means we can not sustain casualties and still maintain the volume of fire needed. The belt-fed stays". Others believe that the IAR27 is basically a ploy to circumvent the lengthy budget, acquisition process inherent to government entities. They said the Marines want to swap their M4s and M16s but the bureaucracy will hamper that. So they just label the IAR as a replacement for the M249s, which are fewer in numbers and apparently, cheaper than to replace all the M4s or M16s. Finally, a weakness of a German infantry squad is correctly, as you said, the total reliance on the MG42 for firepower, which is alright in an open field battle. German riflemen do not carry much ammo in anyway: 3 pouches of 5 5-rounds clip, so 80 in total. You suppress everyone then drop mortars and shells on them. The problem is in urban areas. The MG42 and Mauser rifles are just too slow to respond the nature of combat in cities. The MG42 is bulky, difficult to handle in close quarters, and slow time to set up. Mauser, well, it's a bolt-action rifle. German units only give SMGs to officers and NCOs, which there were never really enough of them (2-3 per squad). The PPSh SMGs, which were very plentiful in Russian service (entire infantry companies and battalions were armed with SMGs) became a favourite captured weapon for the German infantry in urban combat. So much so that the German supplied their own ammunition, the 7.62x25 Mauser, which had identical dimension to the Russian 7,62x25 Tokarev, just slightly weaker. They even printed instruction manuals for the PPSh. Still I believe that the perfect set up for a squad should be 1 belt-fed light MG, 1 Automatic rifle, at least one rocket of some kind. The rest should be armed with other light weapons, perhaps grenade/grenade launchers, for rushing. Their other roles are to haul the ammunition for the big 3 weapons and replace their gunners in case the latter are incapacitated.
+Xuan Vinh To That's more or less what the 'carbine' is for nowadays. A sort of inbetween what lets you run urban conflicts as well as open terrain. Personally, I'd go 1 LMG, 1 AT, a designated marksman which isn't necessarily a sniper or such, just someone with a more accurate rifle possibly in a bigger size, a grenadier armed with a launcher [though, arguably, you could just give everyone those now a days], and most everyone left armed with carbines. Preferably, the LMG should use the same ammunition as the rest of the team. Perhaps with the exception of the marksman. I do like how some LMGs are actually designed with that in mind, letting you use magazines as needed.
+DoktorKebab Personally, I prefer a new cartridge altogether first. The Russian and American special forces swapped out their 5.56x45, 7.62x39, and 5.45x39 MGs for a fullsized 7.62x51 or 7.62x54R MG at the squad level is because the smaller bullet just will not do in the extended range in mountain terrains of Afghanistan and Chechnya. Still, that means in a squad of 9-12, only 2 or 3 men can engage the enemy at that range, which is unacceptable. There are already several bullets that can be accurate and carry enough energy at 1000m to do the job yet still comfortable enough make a small, light weapons with manageable recoil. The British had one, way back in 1951; the EM-2. There are a few offerings in the US in the 6.5-7mm; for eg, the 6.5 Grendel, which at 800m and above, retains more kinetic energy than the 7.62 NATO. In that setup, the squad level LMG and the platoon level MMG can share the same cartridge, the only difference is their barrel length, weight, and sustained rate of fire. In a squad, I would want to have one belt-fed LMG, you can not replace firepower. As for the automatic rifle, there are reports of the IAR27 accurate enough for DM role. Advances in portable optics can definitely make it so. The Automatic Rifle is also better for rushing. Anti-tank rockets are useful: you can shoot it at pretty much anything. "Swoosh-and-boom" has a powerful psychological effect. You will definitely want those 3. In a pinch, you can left out the Automatic Rifle. Some grenadiers are nice; but it seems that the troops prefer a separate standalone launcher, like the Vietnam-era M79 or the new M320, in standalone config. The underbarrel set up make the weapon very heavy. Very front heavy also (which is why a bullpup might be better; a bullpup with an underbarrel launcher, flashlight, and optics might be more balanced than an M4). Some LMGs are designed to accept magazines. However, it seems that the latter variants of the FN minimi (the M249 in US service) leaves that out completely to save weight.
+Xuan Vinh The Marines aren't using the IAR for real tactical reasons, they're using it because they're in a pissing contest with the Navy over money - they couldn't get funding to adopt the HK416 as a general issue service rifle, so instead they bullshitted and argued creating an inventory of HK416s for use as an automatic weapon was perfectly justified. The split second the Marines get the money to field general issue HK416 rifles the entire IAR concept goes out the fucking window and the 249s come right back in. The fact is history has proven Lindy dead wrong on this topic. You *need* a belt fed machine gun to suppress the enemy, even at the fire team level. Hell, sometimes even *that* isn't enough and you need Johnny Riflemen able to lay down automatic suppressive fire too. Hence why the M4 (3-round-burst) is being phased out for the M4A1 (fully automatic).
MG 34 and MG 42 is not the same gun. MG 34 is much complicate it's has a single shot trigger,milled receiver MG 42 is cast metal and much more cheaper. You can find a field strip video on youtube.
The Germans must have been deliberately missing the guy lying on the ground for 45 mins. Lindy you did a video about how most of the time soldiers avoided killing enemy for reasons of humanity but also self preservation.
@@JaePlay yeah, I think he either was the most inexperienced gunner in the Wehrmacht or a Hitler youth that did not want to kill. Sounds great pretty fake to me. Maybe he was shooting blanks lmao
Still has the 5th largest military budget in the world if memory serves. But given that the British ruled 25% of the world's population at the outbreak of WW1, most anything is a step down from that
Admittedly, the A1 variant had a large amount of problems. But they were fixed in the A2 variant. I'd recommend checking this out. ua-cam.com/video/js4d8c7KzCQ/v-deo.html
I really can't argue with the term "cured" when it comes to the l85. Another way to say it might be "made them viable as a military rifle". But my understanding is that the trials of the l85 just weren't really suitable. It was a great shooting rifle, but everything else was easily damaged over time and the british government didn't seem to take the time to notice
I love the vids Lindy, but i must disagree with out on a point of order. The "spandau" is in fact still in production as the MG3 and has been integral to modern machine gun design in most if not all modern militaries squad automatic weapons.
+Conor Buckman The UK and US beat the german because 75%-80% of german soldier died on the eastern front. The germans simply didn't have the numbers to win.
+Hymer300 But... Britain was mainly fighting Italy from 1940-1942 so I'm not sure how it's possible to er 'loose' to them. Other than in the battle of Britain, which the UK won. The only other major conflict which involved Germany, was due to the British giving the Italians such a hard time. XD And you're forgetting Germany had the other Axis nations and had control over the whole of Europe. The UK is a small island... You can't expect a small island to be able to take over an entire continent on it's own. xD
+Xiolablu3 USSR was actively on the side of the Germans until June of 1941. Germany built the coalition which defeated them by attacking Poland, Denmark Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Britain, USSR, and declaring war on US, then invading Vichy France, invading Italy. Then they complain about how the entire world was against them. Poor Germans.
@@thethirdman225 Well, how about you go back in time to World War 2 germany and ask the military command why they put muzzle boosters on their MG42 to increase the rate of fire.
@@baraka629 *_"Well, how about you go back in time to World War 2 germany and ask the military command why they put muzzle boosters on their MG42 to increase the rate of fire."_* Well, I did training on the Bren. What are your qualifications? Firing 1,500 rpm isn't very helpful. It's too hard to aim and you have to carry three times the ammunition. Try lugging that round on foot for three days. The only time that kind of fire was any use was for defensive fire in aircraft where critical hits with rifle calibre ammunition were hard to score.
@@Amish234 Not a fanboi. Couldn’t care less about guns. To be honest, if it hadn’t been this channel, which was referred to by Ralf Ratz’s Military History Channel, I wouldn’t even watch it. But I trained on the Bren. I’m familiar with squad tactics and nobody needed 1,500 rounds per minute. We trained to fire in bursts of three to five rounds, which saved ammunition and barrels.
Well this got a bit out of hand. The problem with books such as this is that they are recollections and people who survive such dramatic situations tend to embellish a bit. Sometimes a bit too much. And we rarely ever see both sides of the coin. Both weapons were good. Neither was bad. They just had different attributes and were used to their strengths. The subject on why the Germans were on the back heel since 1944 is such a deep and complex matter that we'd need a series of videos dedicated to just that. It definitely wasn't down to just two machineguns. There are plenty of videos on UA-cam that compare both side by side. Forgottenweapons is a good start. The result of those direct comparisons is often that they are both very good weapons, with very good accuracy and very good effectiveness. Bit it's never about the weapon, unless it's fundamentally broken. It's about the men who carry them and the men who tell them where to go and what to point it at.
I agree. You need to look at the numbers as well. 1.3 British was killed per German killed, imply that the MG series was superior. Oh, and the MG series allowed 1.5 million Germans to hold off 14 million Russians and take on the British, French, US, Yugo, etc... Numbers are harsh. In fact all modern machine guns are belt fed like the MG series, but very few nations use box magazine machine guns. In fact the US M-60 machine gun and tactics was loosely based upon the MG series and German MG tactics. MG is the future, the Bren is the obsolete past. Those guys who were missing the idiot in the open. They were just having fun I think. Sometimes soldiers do that.
+Teutone +1 I highly recommend that Lindy visits Forgotten Weapons and have a chat with Ian or Karl about these weapons, it's going to be an eye opener for him.
MG42 was a very fast firing German light machine gun yes but it was also very accurate because of its weight and the bolt being very straight and having rollers on either side also it was twice as easy to replace the barrel in fact the gunner didn't even have to move or roll to replace the barrel because i pops out right in front of you. Although with the Bren gun you have to reach towards the front of the gun to replace the barrel and it was more practical to carry around Mg42 barrels. Also the MG42 has been used all over Europe and middle east even until now, Even the Yugoslavian army used it all through out the cold war. the German military today uses a MG3 which is a Mg42 converted to a 7.62mm round to suit modern bullets, the Mg42 fired a 7.92mm round. The Bren gun is prone to gun wobble and jams. German tactics in ww2 made the Mg42 a very useful attacking tool as well as the gunner, assistant gunner and spotter who would all together be carrying around 1-2 ammo tins each which could house over 300 round a box. could smack down on the ground and give ample covering fire towards enemy positions. Same with the Mg34 and Mg15 which had slower fire rate but was also just as effective. That's my statement. Also German quality over Allied Quantity.
I agree with you about the small arms. However "German quality" wasn't a deciding factor in the Second World War. This is why so many "quality" tiger tanks broke down. They were over-complicated and engineered. In a war, a balance has to be found and was found with the US and it's amazing production capability.
LoganThe Llama I’m under the impression that the german tanks breaking down was mostly due to broken supply lines- they couldn’t even get replacement parts for basic wear and tear because the allies were disrupting the germans supply lines. He mentioned this in a recent tank video. Even the most reliable vehicles need maintenance and break when they don’t get it.
Mg42/mg3's are very accurate it was my service mg, got 23 hits out of 50 from 500m with ironsights.. you just have to do short burst of 3-4 rounds Edit: target was a siluette of a person
also who would have time to switch to single fire mode in a battle, you have too be at you’re guard the entire time, something can happen at any second
+Mathias Laakkonen It would be useful if you also pointed out what exactly shows that he doesn't understand the topic. Otherwise the comment is pretty useless.
+oOQwertyOo7 I can't point out everything, I don't have the time. But go check out the rest of the comments. Go look up the MG42 and MG34 wikipedia pages and also look up the term Spandau, the Brits used it for most machineguns made by the Nazis not as a specific term for the MG42.
Stop pretending to be an expert on things you clearly are not an expert in. Just to point out one thing when you said that the bren was in use for much longer than the mg 42, thats true. The germans replaced it with the MG 3 during the 1950's wiche was basicly an MG42 but with 7.62mm nato rounds insted of the old mauser rounds, and its being used by around 30 different countries
+lordofdarkdudes can't remember him claiming to be an expert, at which timestamp did he say that? Seems your own fault if you simply assumed that. this is the internet, youtube of all places. don't go assuming things are correct, no matter how well the are produced. Take them as datapoints and opinions.
Everyone in Europe and almost everywhere else adopted a belt-fed machine-gun after. Germany, France, Austria, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland and other countries used MG42 based weapons (MG1 to MG3, MG74 and MG51). The Americans build the M60 which was a partial copy. Belgium build the FN MAG which later became the american M240 or the british L7A1/A2. The French Army had the AA-52, and the Russians and other Communist nations had the PK series of Machine Guns (they also had the AKM-based magazine-fed RPK machine gun). As you can see belt-fed guns are the way to go. Magazine-fed guns are just niche weapons today.
And that means what? It's better/good? Just because something has been in service or a variant has for a long time doesn't equal being good, bad or anything other than being in service a long time. It's a fallacy to assume so and again just because something is not used now doesn't mean it's worse than the thing that has, there are many reasons/variables for why that can be
@@gone8913 It literally is good. almost every LMG/MMG in use by a modern military is based on the feed system from the mg42. the zb26 was an evolutionary dead end, and lindy should recognize that, as even the czechs who made it ditched its system pretty fast after the war...
MG 34 and MG 42 are NOT the same gun. They have competely diferent operating mechanisms. MG 34 has a rotating bolt and a rate of fire of about 900 rpm. MG 42 is roller locked and has a rate of fire of about 1250 rpm. Barrel change is a lot different (much faster on the MG 42). MG 34 is milled and MG 42 is stamped...
Love your comments but you know your going to get a lot of hate from gun geeks. By the by, the Rheinmetall MG3 - Direct descendent of the MG34/42 is still in use to this day.
actually, an mg 34 is pretty good in semi auto, and with the double-crescent trigger you could select-fire by just shifting your finger. that feature went away with the 42.
Actually the MG 34 / MG 42 ist still in use in the german Bundeswehr. It is called the MG 3 now. And tactical doctrine for shooting with MG 3 calls for shooting short bursts in order to get precise hits. ;-) I imagine it wasn't much different in WW2. P.S. Another thing is just noticed is that german infantry is trained on all infantry weapons a platoon (section) carries along. Meaning, if the MG shooter gets killed another soldier just steps in and takes over. P.P.S. The conclusion is wrong, too, I am afraid because the Germans didn't lose the war because the Bren was so good at its job. It was because english (and US) bombing of the german industrial areas and thus denial of ressources was very effective. Plus a bunch of other factors as well.
When I was in the danish army (15 years ago) we used the mg3, but they where being replaced as they are not very usefull anymore. But yeah that was 15 years ago. Dont think there is many left still in use in the danish army.
Alot of countries in the middle east also use them. I've known US Army dudes who've found MG42's and Lee Enfields in Afghanistan and they also keep popping up in places like Yemen. Alot of countries put a proven track record over things like all the fancy tactical add-ons most modern armies get a hard on for.
X is still used so y which is not in use is worse, it's a fallacy, x being in use only implies that it's still in use, there are many variables/reasons something can be in use over something else it's a fallacy to assume it automatically means anything other than it is still used.
@@hitmeinsteadofyourkid4967 Yes, but Czech firearms are usually very well made. I've owned, used and shot several BRNO (now CZ) firearms and found them to be well-made, rugged and accurate. Their rimfire rifles in particular have been well regarded in Australia for decades and I note their ever-increasing popularity in North America as well. So I would dispute any claim that Enfield would necessarily have made a better weapon.
@@hitmeinsteadofyourkid4967 Light machine gun model 26 was the base of Bren, designed and produced many years before license was sold to Enfield and was widely used in Czechoslovak army for long time before and even after WW II. Czechoslovakia was well-known for established and advanced military industry, especially the infantry one, so there is no reason to suspect that one of their key infantry gun was poorly manufactured.
I had experience firing Bren guns in cadets in school. Greatest difference from the Lee Enfield rifle, both using .303 rounds, was that the Bren had no recoil, a net negative recoil infact, due to the gas reload capability and actions of the butt-plate buffer spring and the piston-return spring. I recall young short slight lads using the Bren on the ground being pulled bodily forward towards the target across the dirt. I took to holding on to their boots to anchor them.
My father told me he had the same experience as a cadet in the late forties! He was a skinny kid and said they had to hold him back when he shot the Bren. He also said they got to shoot it lots as there was lots of surplus ammo back then, now you can hardly find surplus ammo anywhere
@dbenson31 MG34 is a light and heavy machine gun.The definition comes from its use...Not it´s weight or ammo capacity.MG34 in ditch in bipod:LMG,on tripod or even Lafette:HMG
MG34/42 have a rifle/LMG cartridge, but an immense rate of fire, ridiculous for a personal weapon. That somehow gave it an anti-aircraft and anti-vehicle role (if and only if the vehicles weren't heavily armored). That's why it's an universal role machine gun, not the best as an LMG or HMG, but more versatile than any of these ones.
@Lucho Lavalle larger magazine, similar weight, more modular and actually had a foregrip to improve accuracy while not on the bipod. The M1918A2 Bar used by the Americans was actually the severely overrated weapon. The Belgians used a better BAR, and the FBI used a better BAR too. (FN's BAR and the Colt Monitor). the BAR was too heavy and offered too little, although it still obviously kicked ass either way
The MG 42 (sorry, can't call it a Spandau) is still being used today by the German army and others - sort of. In 1960 or thereabouts the MG 42 design was given a few minor tweaks and re-labelled the MG 3. This is still used today by armies from Chile to Togo to Burma. You make some very good points about its less than ideal nature in advance/attack. Going back to a previous video of yours, the problem would seem to be that the Germans (and the Americans, with their Browning 30-cal) tried to use one design as both a light machine-gun and a medium one, whereas the British (and the Russians with their Degtyaryov LMG and the Goryunov MMG) had two separate weapons - the Bren and the Vickers.
Although it is commonly said that fully loading magazines "tires" out the springs...the primary reason to download a mag, is if you're reloading on a closed bolt, it is much easier with a few less rounds in the mag. Simply filling up a mag doesn't tire any springs. It's the action of repeated loading and unloading that wears out springs.
I operated the LMG when I was a National Serviceman, on the firing range I might add, I had it on repetition & frightened the life out of the boys operating the markers. Great fun many years ago.
British Soldier in the field: 'Blimey, that MG 42 is just inaccurate, they can't even hit me! They should have Bren guns! Bren guns are superior! British technology is obviously superior to anything these Krauts can make! I shall write a book describing this and hopefully middle class British man near the turn of the next century will tell everyone the same thing... A war memoir of how heroic and awesome British forces and technology truly were...' German Soldiers in the pillbox overlooking him: 'Klaus, vatch zis... I can make zis Tommy viggle and jiggle like a leettle verm every time I fire zee machine gun!' *brrrrrrrrrrrt* 'Oh yeah Hans! Zat ees a giggle! Let me go get zee sergeant, zis vill make his entire veek!'
A pretty...bizarre...take, no offence, and likely by someone who has little or no experience with firearms, at least not with military smallarms. Couple of misconceptions from the get-go, the Mg34 has an ROF of 900. Not to mention, they are not really alike in operating principle. But for the love of god: There is nothing "inaccurate" about either the 34 or the 42...inherent accuracy is about 4 MOA which is the same as most service rifles of the day. Seriously, where do these misconceptions arise? I reckon they emerge from a very one sided reading of mostly anecdotal nature. Engaging point targets with the German GPMGS is very much doable, to the point where popping balloons from both the bipod and the tripod is entirely feasible with either to over a km, especially with the latter that is rock stable and has a 4 power scope. Killing a prone individual at 80(!) meters does not pose a problem at all for even a semi-trained gunner. Even if the man in question was positively crosseyed, he would have hit a target that size with the alleged copious expenditure in ammunition. As to why the particular individual in your example was not killed might be explained to several factors, including arguably that the gunner did not actually want to kill him (gasp), but certainly not due to a lack of practical accuracy on the part of the 42. Mind you this gun and its derivatives are used in several armies around the world to this day and people have collected alot of practical experience about their capabilities and shortcomings. Why not ask them instead of apparently consulting memoir literature from one side of the equation whose intrinsic limitations, historiographically and otherwise, should be obvious? Squeezing off single shots with the MG3 is part of basic in the Bundeswehr, standard burst length from the bipod is 4-6. You can also fire a 42/MG 3 from the hip and the shoulder just fine, even though its obviously not a common approach. Mind you, the Germans used the BRENs predecessor, the Czech Vz 26 fairly extensively as well, and it came utterly short in comparison. Frankly, both practically and conceptually, the 34/42 were a generation ahead of the likes of the Bren, which make no mistake, was a fine gun in its own right. Upon re-hearing this. No offence, but lots of non sequiturs and ahistorical conclusions with a final touch of jingo. Expecting better from you.
Well said. I posted something along the same lines but I always restrict myself because I often find people don't believe me. I was an MG3 operator in the Norwegian Army and I agree 100% about the accuracy and the ease of use from the hip and even the shoulder. Using bipod and iron sights it's no problem at all hitting targets (man sized, in semi cover) at 400 m +. Where Lindybeige got this info I hdont know but it's not right at all.
right shoot bursts at a guy for 45 minutes not hitting and no one got the bright idea to just put a rifle round in his head and be done with it... Sounds like bullshit to me.
+DJ Doc's Videos Yeah, fairly sure no one was actually trying to kill the guy, though i don't doubt that's the story he told, or that it seemed like a miracle to him, but in reality, if they had wanted him dead, he would have been.
+DJ Doc's Videos And you shouldn't forget, the first shot is always accurate. You only start wandering of target with the following shots and if you are an experienced gunner (which every soldier is, bc it's in basic training) you know how to compensate. I shot with it myself. The first round was always exactly where you aimed it and you always wandered of in a distincitve direction. So you either shoot someone with the first round or you put the next couple in him, because you aimed low/left/right and let the recoil do the rest.
+DJ Doc's Videos It's possible they were busy holding back other troops, only taking a burst at him when they weren't preoccupied with the rest of the battle. It's hard to say without reading the full account.
Maybe he forgot to tell, that the Germans were yelling at this poor guy, who was crawling desperatly right in front of their muzzles at point blank, in broken english: "Godamm! Go home Tommy! Run back! Nobody will harm you!" If they had wanted to kill him - they had thrown a helmet at him....^^
Well the Rheinmetall MG3 (MG43) is still being made today and is still in use in Germany and other European countries as the main machinegun. So MG wins over Bren 100%
+Harbard the replacement is the HK 121 if you are curious. Though it should be said the are not replacing it cause it was deficient they are replacing it because the tooling to make it wore out and the cost of new tooling is enough that they felt it justified making a whole new design.
+Harbard Lindybeige is so ignorant in this subject, that he tries to compare an automatic rifle with a medium machine gun. What's next, spoon versus fork?
I used Bren guns in the Brit Army and found them accurate enough in single shot or burst mode. in fact, the only fully automatic weapon that I used that was significantly more accurate than a Bren is the US SF light mg. the name of which escapes me at this remove.
Well the general purpose machine guns are the standard in every army nowadays but the light machine guns have been made obsolete. MG34 and MG42 were the first GPMGs that were used on mass and to a great effect. So yeah I'd say that they were indeed better than a Bren.
The “spandau” is still used today.
Its called the MG3
Robert Walker also the m249
Italian vehicles (like Ariete and Centauro) still use the MG 42/59 made by Beretta
@@luxan8690 they have changed basically the entire gun in terms of internals have been changed and improved to make it more accurate and reliable. Stop being a wehrboo and get a life.or even better, do some bloody research.
the gun is used by the danish army, swedish, german, and few others
The Americans also copied it it’s pretty much the grandfather of most modern us light machines guns
"It's not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, rather, the forty addressed 'To whom it may concern:'"
OfDaSouth welldone
Nice!!
Baldrick had a Cunning Plan. He had the bullet with his name on it, in his pocket!
Lmao
@@valeriechaumeziere377 lol That was the first thought that came to me when reading this post.
First off, the MG34 and MG42 were quite different not only in production, but also performance: MG34 way more accurate and MG42 way more rate of fire. Yeah, they were used in similar roles. Furthermore, not sure if it was called "Spandau" at the time, because I never heard or read that term before when it comes to the MG34/42 and well, I am not really unfamiliar with that era... The "Spandau" was although definitely used for the German MG in World War 1.
just did a quick check on wikipedia and it notes that the British occassionally called the MG34 "Spandau". Not sure if you mean by "people at that time" you only refer to the British or the Germans as well, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you only meant the British (or made an error, I know that happens quite easily). Because the term in German I heard the most often for the MG42 was definitely "Hitlersäge" (hitler's buzzsaw).
+ZSH1aventail still, never heard or read that term ever before. So if your statement is true it didn't stick after the war. I know the Schmeisser MP was technically not from Schmeisser, but the name stuck even after the war. I guess "Spandau" for Germans was way to inaccurate, because of the Spandau MG from First World War.
+Military History Visualized Spandau was a term used by the brits only. Its because the cover plate was stamped in spandau and there there fore in WWI asumed it (the MG08 that is) was called the spandau). It never was.
Calling the gun for a place is not really that smart because then you might confuse the gun for the place in a hot situation. (well the Springfield 03 is of cause called springfield, but there are like 30 places in the US called by that name).
All machineguns in German army was called MG. MaschinenGewehr... it was called what it was.
Germen naming nomenclature was also different to most other nations. While most call the number of when it was designed or started production. Germany called it as a year model, about how we call cars today. And it was not the year model of the gun it self, but rather the division is was for. So the MG42 was desegined for the year model 42 of infanteri division. Now it happend to be the case that it was introduced 1942, but its not true for all all guns. Some are actually introduced the year before, and some the year after.
Compare that for example to the AK-47 that was designed in 1947, but not introduced before 1949
How bout u go shoot a bren and a mg 42 and 34 at the same range and see what one is more accurate
@@matsv201 butttt AKs were in production in 1947... AK prototypes go back to 1946 even.
@@r.9158 A prototype is not the finished product
So what you're saying is this:
1) The Bren is the better LMG.
2) The Spandau is the better MMG.
Yes?
Yes
What I got out of it:
1) Spandau is much better on defense.
2) Bren was at least as good on offense.
3) The two sides used different tactics.
Also, Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge didn't happen, the Bren somehow was a better weapon in 1944-1945 than it was for the BEF, which returned with only 4k out of the 30k they had, and the Bren was obviously not that great because everyone did not copy it after WW2. And he failed to mention the best thing about the Bren gun: It looked freaking cool. Many a machine gun has roughly the same look as the Spandau, but the Bren gun has that banana clip, and that that gives it character.
It pisses me off that he forgot to mention the Bren is actually a Czech design.
@@derekperez1418 Yep check out the zb30 its the 8mm bren
@@Axterix13 There were 3-4 light machine guns in that period that had same conformation, so not a big novelty.
The Spandau was obviously the superior weapon because no one named their pop group Bren Ballet!!!
Well, the MG42 kinda sucked at accuracy. It’s better in defence as an individual weapon, but the BREN is better in attack
@@digitaal_boog but how does it fare as inspiration for a pop group name? 🤔
@@BeleagueredThespian because Bren ballet was a missed opportunity. Would have sounded way better
@@digitaal_boog sounds like a Cockney ska band
@@dzonbrodi514 yeah, and with the ‘Brodie’ helmets, we could incorporate you
People didn't carry on with the MG42 eh? The MG3, M60, MG74 and the Zastava M53 would like a word with you.
+GeckoNovice And BAR mated with MG42 and FN MAG aka M240 aka L7 were born
exactly! mg42 was a superior weapon way ahead of its time
I would say the 34 was better of the two, I think 1200-1500rpm was a little excessive for an LMG/MMG.
p.s the guy also BSs about the ROF being similar, the 34 was much slower at around 800-900rpm.
+GeckoNovice The Bundeswehr still use the modern version of it.....
LOL you Yea the MG3, which has a slower fire rate, around 800-900rpm...
That was a load of misinformation on the MG42 though, sorry to say.
I used the MG3, which is the exact same weapon with a so called "NATO Brake" to cap its RoF at 1100 RpM, when I was in the Bundeswehr. The MG42 and the MG3 are both still in use and production today (in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Turkey, Pakistan to name a few)!
You can use the MG42/3 to snipe, if you know how to make it fire only a single shot. Changing the barrel is quick and easy, but you have to use a glove or cloth. Its lock system was copied and used for a very long time for example in the M60, a US machine gun.
We were also trained in firing the MG3 on the move, from the hip.
The spread, which was a required feature, was and still is controlled by firing in bursts of up to ten rounds.
Neither the British nor any allied forces were "constantly winning" during 1944. Hürtgenwald and Market Garden come to mind.
+PaganShredhead Ich bin aus America, Ich heiBe ist Kyle..Ich spreche Englisch, unser wirklich richtig,
Kyle Murphy
Hi!
+PaganShredhead No, the M-60 didn't use the locking mechanism of the MG-42- it used some of the ideas from the feed system. The M-60 was more from the FG-42, the magazine fed Luftwaffe light machine gun, itself modeled after the Lewis Gun from WWI.
+PaganShredhead Dont forget the repeated enormous failings in Normandy with the British and Canadian army in Normandy. They could not break out of the Normandy pocket on their own. It was for Bomber Command and the Americans that were underestimated by the German high command that saved the day. And Patton in Southern France ofc.
+PaganShredhead Agreed, the MG34 actually had a two stage trigger, so you could fire it in semi-automatic if you didn't engage the trigger fully. The barrel change was extremely fast on both the MG34 and 42, as it was designed specifically for prolonged sustained supressing fire, and while both were uwieldy, they could still be effectively fired on the move - the official training manual suggested a wide standing pose and holding the bipod at the front, guiding the bullets into the target. In any case to my knowledge both could be fired from the shoulder standing up, but the problem was that the guns were about 10-15 kilos with ammunition and bipod, and the massive rate of fire made it fly all over the place if not set down.
The Bren was a good weapon, but it was still an automatic rifle like the BAR or the FM24, not a general purpose machine-gun. The biggest advantage of the MG34/42 was that it was only slightly less portable than the standard automatic rifles of the time, but still had almost the same performance as a "medium" machinegun of the era, e.g. a M1919 or similar. Practically all modern light machineguns (or squad automatic weapons or whatever you want to call them) are by all means the result of the MG34/42.
Of all the German WWII weapons, the MG34/42 really deserve all the praise they get.
I used to be a machine gunner in the german army ( in the 80's) and found out that the mg3 could be quite precise. With some practice you could fire short bursts and even single shots and you could hit a target the size of a plate on 300 meters, which is not bad for an area denial weapon.
yep, long barrel will give you that :D thing is its not really needed tho, mgs are about volume of fire and only rambo can really control bursts
I severely doubt you were a machine gunner in the German army
@@richardfiddler4526 So why do you think that ?
a bit different from the laser accurate Guns we were led to believe Germany had.
@@totocologne7824 because this is youtube comment section where people making up about being in the army all the time
Your British is showing Lindy! Almost every belt fed man-portable machine gun made post-WWII is heavily based on the MG34/MG42 platform. In fact, several countries use a direct copy of it even today.
+Jukku It was influential, yes. The British army 'gimpy' was influenced by it. I considered pointing out the MAG in use in the Falklands in the same shot as the bren (the guy standing in the background). The Swiss managed to come up with a version that was much heavier and more expensive.
+Lindybeige Having used the MG3 extensively and tried the Spandau I have to disagree on the close combat aspect. It is relatively easy to fire from the hip, full auto or small bursts. You don't get pushed back at all if you know what you are doing and it's accurate enough. The MG3 is even fired from the shoulder off hand in the Norwegian army.
+Lindybeige Right, but the Swiss version has a can opener, a saw and a spoon. The bullets, however, seem to bounce harmlessly off of every target.
germany still uses it as the MG3, yugoslavia and almost all of the balkan states use it even today. last time i know it was used in war was in 2001 conflict in Macedonia where i was actually a support gunner in a macedonian platoon using the M53 (yugo version) and it is really terrifying, it is anyway a support machine gun and it is made to suppress enemy troops and the rest of the guys in the platoon to take them out. Even i was scared sometimes to fire it not because of the sound but because i would have a guilty consience after that because it's a horrible thought knowing you've killed someone .... war is bad.
I have to agree with Jukku. I'm a machine gunner in the USMC and my weapon is the M240B which is essentially an FN MAG with minor U.S.-specific tweaks. Having said that, the MAG draws very heavily in design and functionality from the MG42. The earlier U.S. medium machine gun, the M60, used a cover and feeding mechanism that was virtually identical to that of the MG42. As for accuracy, I have no firsthand experience with either weapon so I cannot offer facts, but I will say that I find it nigh on impossible to believe that a German machine gun team couldn't hit a man-sized target at 80 meters. I've seen demonstrations of the cone of fire from an MG42 and it's fairly similar to that of an M60 which is accurate on a point target to about 600 meters. Barrel changes could also be accomplished by a trained crew in 3-5 seconds. I enjoy your channel a great deal, having only discovered it about a week ago but in this particular instance I believe you are incorrect sir. In no way do I mean to discredit the Bren, it's a fantastic weapon in its own right as well, however when compared to the MG42 I think it comes up short. Regardless, it's all a matter of opinion and Jerry didn't win the war, did he?
To be fair, the mg42 is also still in production.. only they call it the mg3 now unlike the bren gun, wich you said stopped production in 2006
+SpleeF S. And many modern machineguns such as m60 copied mg42s design.
Blob64bit exactly!
+Blob64bit It copied the dust cover and trigger at least. The rest was actually copied from the FG42 which in turn was heavily inspired by the British Lewis gun.
ddioppp can you please explain how the fg42 was inspired by the british lewis gun? I don't see anything in those 2 guns that have to do with eachother. then again I am not a gun expert
SpleeF S. Just the internal mechanism. Theyre very different guns other than that. FG42 is more of a battle rifle while the Lewis gun is an LMG. The lewis gun weighs 8 kilos more.
I know one thing the Bren can't do!
My grandfather used one and one of his mates tried to clear a hornets nest with it which was behind their barracks. Needless to say they spend nearly an entire day in bed under their sheets to try not the get stung while cursing and shouting at that one guy. Oh and they got stung quite a bit despite trying to cover themselves with sheets.
Ha there you have it, don't use those bad British Bren guns for hornet removal!
+DushinSC Ha ha!
+Lindybeige His brother in law died firing a brengun and was awarded a posthumous bronze cross. He was ordered to advance waist deep in a swamp to provide covering fire for advancing troops and, according to the description that went with the award, did so without hesitation, delivering steady and well aimed fire until he was killed.
I suppose that account backs-up two of your assertions.
+DushinSC Clearing out a hornet's nest? That's what fire is for. ;)
+DushinSC You have to give a bloke a medal when your orders got him killed.
Derna1804 The battalion had 38 killed and something like 7 medals/awards in total of which two belong to the 38 killed.
I did not know about the name Spandau, so far. My Grandfather told me, that it was also called Hitler-Saw or Hilter-Scythe.
Hitler's Buzzsaw, but heard it from a video game :D
@@LibertarianGearhead Simple history
I remember a war comic from a kid, it described them as Deck Spandau's (I think it was on a ship?). I also reckon that's where the name Spandau Ballet (the band) came from. I'd dance if you fired that at my feet.
Hitlersäge in german. With an Umlaut of course.
Hitlers buzzsaw
I'm sorry Lindy but using the "success rate" of the British military to measure the effectiveness of the MG42&32 is a very very poor argument. First of all, the allies had air and naval superiority during the d-day operation and onward, and had a larger land force combat ready. And honestly using that argument is like me saying "The MG32 & 42 was an amazing GPMG because the allied force were forced out of Europe and allowed the Germans to push the superior Russian military back all the way to Moscow."
+Ubermarine Actually, they just thought that they got air superiority during and after D-day landing, they did really just get it during the winter. The army was almost at a standstill several month after the landing...
Well.. really with that argument you could say...
"MG42 was far worse than MG34 because after they got it, the war was getting much worse" :)
The crux of this argument seems to fall around the respective mutual-effectiveness of each side’s all (Combined) arms support doctrines, their armaments &/or weapon-systems in use, & how each one’s was applied in actual combat situations over a wide front of action!
No single weapon-system can be omnipotent in every separate given combat-situation, & often is dependent upon the prevailing set of overall circumstances!
Particularly, during & ever since WW2, without attaining air supremacy, everything soon turns to s - - t for any side, but particularly the Germans in France, Italy & NW Europe then from 1943-45!!
It's quite wrong to say that the MG-34 and the MG-42 were the same gun. They had some pretty big differences.
+Old OddJobs What?
+Old OddJobs Roller-locking vs rotating bolt is not pedantry when it comes to weapons.
+Bart Bols No matter the purpose behind the guns, they were too different to just lump them together.
Also what's with Lindybeige calling the MG-34 and 42 "Spandau"? I don't recall ever hearing anyone call either weapon "Spandau". As far as I know the Spandau is the MG 08 used mainly in WWI. Maybe some Brits in WWII called any German MG "Spandau", but that's still a pretty silly reason to use that name in a supposedly objective comparison video. Already the fact that he uses the same incorrect name for two quite different MGs makes him look ignorant, biased and unprofessional.
I've liked Lindybeige's videos in the past and have been a subscriber for at least a year or two, but this video was a disappointment and well below his usual quality. From what I've seen, his knowledge is probably better suited to making videos about the medieval era rather than WW2.
+zombat im so hard bro
Perhaps, but the Brits called MG-34 and 42 "the spandau".
Lindy I think that saying "The British Army wouldn't have advanced consistently from 1944 [well maybe even 1943] onwards if the Bren Gun is rubbish" is a bit unfair. Lets face it the Bren Gun was just one of many weapons systems the British Army had, not to mention the supply, and airpower advantages Britain and the US had in general over Germany by then. You could equally argue "The British Army was consistently defeated by the Germans in 1939 and 1940, therefore the Bren is clearly rubbish and the Spandau the superior weapon." We both know there is more at play here than a single form of section level fire support.
+dernwine Yes, I knew this would come up. The British had many opportunities to use an alternative to the bren, and chose not to take them. Post-action debriefs concluded that the bren was the second most effective weapon used by infantry. The advance against the enemy was done by infantry, and in the end infantry had to do the basic nitty gritty of infantry work. Both sides had artillery, tanks, and all that. Air superiority cannot take ground and hold it. It would take another video to defend the statement. In 1939 the British army fought very effectively at the small scale against the Germans, and the Germans reported that making headway against the British was harder than against any other foe. The large-scale strategic situation required the British to withdraw. They were also greatly out-numbered.
+Lindybeige Love the videos, but the point you brought up about the Bren's longevity compared to the Spandau's is a little troubling to me. This is because the German army still uses the mg42 in a round about way, they call it the mg3, and it is just an updated version that shoots a .308 caliber bullet. Loving the videos tho
Lindybeige First of all: Thanks for taking the time to reply, I honestly didn't think you would and am kind of honoured that my comment was good enough to merit a reply.
Secondly onto the meat of the thing:
I don't want to give the impression that I disagree with you about the Bren, I know a lot of people who where issued with the Bren and have heard nothing but good things about it, in fact I'm mildly jealous that I'll never get the chance to take it on the ranges. My only issue was, an I admit I was being a complete pedant, that you can't take "we won" as being proof that the Bren was good, as you said we lost in 39 and 40 in spite of the fact that the Bren was excellent, so hypothetically it would be possible for us to advance into Germany in-spite of a inferior light machine gun. Both sides may have had Artillery and Tanks and all that but if our Tanks and Artillery are more numerous and being better employed (same for our infantry) [and yes I know the limitations of the airforce, the less said about them generally the better, I was just using them as an example of a factor that might help compensate] then the fact that one weapons system would *hypothetically* be worse than the German equivalent shouldn't have that big of a bearing on the end result right? Of course this is literally just me picking nits.
@@lindybeige yes, you knew that your completely moronic argument would be exposed. Stupid jingo buffon
@@dernwine I think his real argument was that the infantry who used the Bren in 39 also wanted to use it in 45. They liked the thing....
"The MG 42 was adopted by several armed organizations after the war, and was both copied and built under licence. The MG 42's lineage continued past Nazi Germany's defeat, forming the basis for the nearly identical MG1 (MG 42/59), chambered in 7.62×51mm NATO, which subsequently evolved into the MG1A3, and later the Bundeswehr's MG 3 and Italian MG 42/59. It also spawned the Yugoslav nearly identical Zastava M53, Swiss MG 51 and SIG MG 710-3, Austrian MG 74, and the Spanish 5.56×45mm NATO Ameli light machine gun, and lent many design elements to the American M60 and Belgian MAG."
Guns arent identical if they are cambered in different rounds
@@BanglaBoy52 the blot is slightly different which is to slow the rate of fire. Adding more control to the gun
There's no valid way to exclude the MG3 in 7.62 while counting the Bren in 7.62.
Both had quality of life improvements and modifications varying from one nation to another, and both are functionally similar to their predecessor.
I don't think you'd notice the difference between versions if they were shooting at you. Additionally, the caliber is arguably one of the least important aspects of the design. From a user perspective, the belt used to feed it makes a bigger difference than which standard rifle caliber you use. Would you also argue that an otherwise identical machinegun fed with belts is a different gun than one fed with links?
@@vexwestley6683 have u fired a gun
@@Conservative_crusader I own both a 7.62 and a .303.
While I haven't specifically fired the weapons in question, I have had the opportunity to get behind some transferable MGs. Additionally my family has a history of military service going back across multiple generations and countries. I would've been able to enlist myself if it wasn't for a genetic disorder and a tumour in my dominant hand. I bring this up to highlight that while I may lack firsthand experience with these specific weapons, I have heard accounts of their usage from experienced veterans.
Unless you're about to tell me you were a British commando who dropped into France with a Bren and acquired an MG42, then got the chance to fire their respective 7.62 conversions after the war, I won't be terribly impressed by whatever experiences led you to believe these guns aren't directly comparable.
MG 42 is NOT the same gun as the MG 34. It was designed by a different man and produced by different manufacturers. It was intentionally kept similar to the MG 34 for familiriaty purposes, but it was by no means "basically the same gun".
Bren gun isn't comparable to the MGs. Bren gun is more similar to the modern concept of a SAW or IAR (see: RPK, M249, M27 IAR). MG 34 and 42s are GPMGs, entirely different type of weapon.
Bren was more controllable, you could use it to accurately fire single-shot or burst, similarly to modern standard "assault rifles". MG 42 could be as accurate as the Bren gun, but it was difficult to fire it as controllably as the Bren, because of how ridiculous its RPM was.
I think you draw too much on potentially unreliable anecdotal evidence. I highly doubt that every german section instantly routed as soon as their MG was knocked out. Maybe the kids that the British faced in 1944-45 did, but that certainly wasn't the case in Africa or Eastern Europe.
The fact that the British were constantly advancing in Europe is completely unrelated to the guns comparative characteristics. Battles aren't won by machineguns alone. Brits had their arses handed to them in Africa for a while, and they had Bren guns vs MG34\42 there as well.
MG42 is still in service with the Bundeswehr in the form of the MG3. It also spawned numerous derivatives, such as MG 51, Zastava M53, as well as influencing (heavily) the US M60 and the FN MAG (and subsequently - M240 which derives from it).
+Makro I think the reason most people compare them is because they were both used in WW2. But you do make some really good points.
+Makro Some good points. But it isn't like an M249 the belt fed Vs Magazine fed is the ultimate difference in reality.
Hardly splitting hairs its a fundamental difference in Firearm application and design. The Magazine feed on the 249 is known to be woefully unreliable, to the point that a lot of military's had the magazine port removed. Alas at least the magazine port on the 249 is side loaded not completely destroying your situational awareness and blinding you on your right hand side, due to the top fed magazine.
Anyway lets agree to disagree. The Bren should really only be compared to contemporary of its time.
heheh cheeky bugger :P
Indeed! Good debate none the less buddy :)
*****
heheh cheeky bugger :P
Indeed! Good debate none the less buddy :)
British WW2 Veterans say, they never saw the Germans firing their rifles. I'd call that a clear case of survivor bias.
Imagine being so much of a wehraboo to think the reason for that statement was because every time a gunfight occurred between two opponents the German would win 100% of the time.
It took less than a year to get from Normandy to Berlin. The western allies had a much better k:d ratio.
@@Alex-lg9zb nearly 2:1 from 44-45!!!
@@Alex-lg9zb I think he was making a joke, saying that all the british veterans are cowards that hid when the fights began.
@@Alex-lg9zb oh yeah having 4 of the world most powerful nations allied against you and losing definitely means the mg42 was a worse gun.
@@evila9076 I never said the mg42 was a worse gun…? I was responding to the original comment.
What is this 4th superpower you mentioned btw?
The MG 3 is a clear example of the MG 42's legacy.
And really? Equating Germany's retreat from France to the effectiveness of the Bren? I'm sure that had nothing to do with superior numbers, complete and total air superiority (and artillery support in general) and the fact that a huge amount of Germany's army, particularly its seasoned veteran Divisions, were fighting the Soviets.
I've a great deal of love for this channel, but you really slipped up with this one.
Silly lindybeige has no clue.
Being really into my history, I cannot do anything bit agree with you
+ReachForTheSky Not so much legacy as minor changes to the same weapon. They chromed the inside of the barrel and changed to 7.62 NATO cartridges, but other than that they just changed the name. In may ways it's better than the FN Mag (called the M240 in US service).
+Rolf Hartmann That's what I meant. It's essentially the same design, still in use 70 years later, in many countries.
+ReachForTheSky a friend of mine in the german army had to shoot one of those. ...with still the nazi symbols and everything engrained on it it is fairly the same weapon, with only a few changes to use another type of amunation i think. also mg3 are export wonders . like said very good at surpessing areas.
On Forgotten Weapons Ian just said that the rumors of the Bren beeing used for sniping are utter bullshit.
He didn’t say it was used for sniping though. He said it was more accurate
@@MyBoomStick1 Watch again. "The Bren gun was very accurate. It was as accurate as a rifle. They were even occasionally used for sniping [...] when you set them to single [...] shot."
Lots of debate around that. I think it is far to say it was used for long range shooting, sniping, maybe not, as it was not outfitted with a scope.
Sniping is not always done at extreme range and not always with a scoped weapon.i knew a Sargent that served in Malaya and he used the bren.he'd keep up with the rifles on the range no problem.
@@JeffLeChefski The first ones had a scope mount actually
Not going to knock the Bren, it's great gun but using the success of the combined allied assault after D-Day is a bit of a cherrypicked argument don't you think? At that point the German army had already fought 4 bloody years of war against the Soviets, with millions dead and gods know how much equipment lost, whereas the western allies landed all their forces in France. There's something to be said about overwhelming numbers. Then we could mention Market Garden and Bastogne as examples of the allies being temporarily pushed back... It's not that clear cut.
Thank you CloakingDonkey, some accuracy at last.....
This is not an apples vs apples comparison, and again... it all boils down to _"What do you need these guns to do?"_ Because they are entirely different weapons that were built for different purposes. They are both excellent at the jobs they were meant for. The MG42 is the perfect machine gun for a nest that's facing waves of troops. The Bren Gun is perfect as a support weapon for a mobile platoon. The MG42 can effectively suppress an attacking force for hours if need be. The Bren Gun can snipe if your platoon is on the attack and suppress if your platoon needs to fall back or make its escape. They're both great weapons when they are used in the manner for which they were intended. This whole argument is like trying to compare an APC to a main battle tank and asking, which one is better?
The Bonesaw .. True
Not only that, in 44 both USA and USSR produced more military equipment per month than Germany produced in any year of the war. In global conflict it's industry that wins wars.
@@VelikiHejter -- Not just industry (Germany had industry and look where that got them). It's GDP and the resources to keep that industry thriving long enough to turn it into an advantage. But, I get what you're saying and I'm sure you intended it in that manner... I'm just pedantically parsing it down (I admit it).
The MG42 is still in use today by many nations, only recalibred in 7.62x51mm and renamed the MG3
+kylesenior same for the bren
RoniiNN A. please don't call me a dummy while using incorrect grammar.
"Hans here come ze british, make brrrrrp sounds!"
Hans: BRRRRRP BRRRRRRP!
7:46 Here's Hans !
Allies: no you can’t use such inaccurate weapons to cause terror and chaos on the battlefield
Germans: haha, ze MG42 go BRRR
i can see him doing that with his voice and the brit's hit the ground out of fear
Honestly if they recorded the sounds and played them in battlefields, I fell it would be a similar plan as the wailing ghost voices in Vietnam.
Fritz: hey Hans the murikanz are coming!
Johan: Mein gott dey have the Ma Deuce run....
Joe: Boom there it is...
Well, I carried the MG3/MG-62(Danish version) back in the 80's and it was pretty accurate if you ask me, and stayed in service in the danish armed forces beyond 2000. By the way; a little trick you could use was to unscrew the muzzle guard a few turns, lock it again and that way turn down the rate of fire and get off single shots. Otherwise short bursts of 2-4 shots was the norm. Without having ever fired a Bren, the MG3 was a Beast and a very reassuring weapon to have in your unit.
Do you know what's the average bullet spread of mg3 at 100m on a bipod, I can't find anything on the internet
@@tiredtotality4145
Is fast ! Is very fast !
This guy is full of shit
Every one knows it as the mg 42 he’s just trying to smart and different
mg42 = mg 3 still in service and amazing
To be fair the Bren L4 was in service til about 1991 with the British, and copies of the Bren L4 pop up in modern use today in India.
The MG42 has other descendants, including the M60, which borrowed from the MG42 and FG42 quite a bit. The M60E-variants are still in use today.
oh well if the famously modern and advanced indian military uses them.. admit it, lindy is biased alot
"If india is doing it it must be a great idea" - nobody ever
MG3 is only really in service on vehicles with most of the countries that use it, and not nearly as widely distributed as the FN MAG or PKM. That huge rate of fire renders the weapon very inflexible.
I don't see what he means about the mg34 not being accurate. No weapon is ''accurate'' whilst spewing out 900 rpm (not 1200), but the trigger on the mg34 was designed in such a way that firing a single shot without accidentally firing a burst was easy. The mg34 was very capable of firing accurately at single targets and was not just meant for suppressive fire and area denial.
The MG 42 was rated at 1500 rounds per minute, the MG 3 (today's version) fires 1200 rounds per minute.
@@norbertfleck812 The mg42 varied between 900-1500 rpm depending on the bolt. Very few could fire 1500. Most were around 1100-1300
@@BearOfNorway I don't know where you got that data from, but I think you mixed the MG 42 with the MG 34:
The cadence if the MG 42 is 1500, only later version (after WW2) had a reduced fire rate, but never as low as 900 per Minute (that was the MG34).
The Bundeswehr used MG3 is a modified MG42 with a heavier lock and some modifications inside the lock to reduce the fire rate to stable and more reliable 1200/minute.
As the fire rate results from mass ratio of the mechanism, it is not possible to change the fire rate without altering the construction.
@@norbertfleck812 Mauser Werke AG
Wilhelm-Gustloff-Stiftung
Steyr-Daimler-Puch, Großfuß AG, MAGET (Maschinenbau und Gerätebau GmbH, Berlin-Tegel). These were the different manufacturers of this weapon and they did not all make it exactly the same. The fire rate would vary between 1200-1500 rpm. I am not denying that some models had that high of a fire rate, just that it is not incorrect to say that the fire rate of an mg42 was 1200 rpm because it varied. It all depended on the bolt used in each specific model.
MG-34 fires from 900-1500 RPM depending on the bolt used. So maybe you shouldn't be correcting people...
you can tell that he's british when he says that bren was used in falklands but doesnt mention mg3 wich is used still effectively.(mg3 is mg42 with nato 7.62)
Like squire
That's just delusional Lindybeige for you. Incredibly biased towards Britain
And fire slower. The MG3 was discontinued quite a bit ago
bobbyjoe2402 that’s just a delusional Wehraboo for you. Incredibly biased towards German engineering. Also, Lindy is British what the hell do you think
@@wejwedge8137 why is he a suddenly wheraboo? Lindy is indeed extremely biased towards britain. End of discussion and no need to add any useless wannabe fact.
Well I used the MG 42 Danish version, you can shot in short bursts and keep it accurately on target.
Yes same here. That Bowlby 80 yard fairy tale cracked me up
Yeep. Ive even managed to get 1-3 round bursts on it and then get a ticking off by the sarge saying thats not the way to use it.
While standing? While clearing a building? I think that's the bren advantage
To ease up the tension of this controversial issue I think we all can agree upon one thing. That both Czechs and Germans build excellent machine guns. Oh wait.... was this supposed to be some kind of pro British thing...?
The ZB 26, sorry they added a gas regulator and called it a BREN, was an amazing light machine gun, which is something different to a GPMG, which is what the MG-34, no MG-42, no Spandau (whatever the fuck that means), so it makes heaps of sense to compare it to a weapon in a different class. Oh Lindy.
I’m glad someone pointed it out
According to my copy of Jane's book on Small Arms a Spanish gun maker CETME makes a 5.56 version of the MG34/MG42. As I understand it the MG34 was designed/built first from billets of solid steel. Whereas the MG42 was largely made of stamped parts due to war shortages + more practical.
Yes. it's called the AMELI (Ametralladora ligera). Still has the MG34/42's rate of fire of 1200 rpm.
Tim Blizzard The Spandau was the german version of the WWI Maxim Gun. What an Idiot.
Lindy, I usually appreciate your videos, but this one is rather inaccurate. We are still using a variant "spandau", the MG3 in the german army today, the only difference to the original being, that the maximum rate of fire is capped at 1200rpm rather than 1800rpm and above. So, while I cannot really comment on the BREN, I have some experience with the "spandau".
1. The "spandau" is pinpoint accurate. I will admit, that handling might be difficult to inexperienced soldiers because of recoil, rate of fire and the not so great iron sights, but if used correctly, the gun is dead accurate at first shot up to 400m and above. When fixed in, say, a tank as a coaxial machine gun, the spandaus effective range is as far as 1200m. The limitations in accuracy come from the user, not the gun. The gun itself is very accurate.
2. It is entirely possible to fire the spandau from the hip, we tried. Although maybe not the preferred way to use it. It is, however, not geared to be used for aimed fire while standing up.
3. I cannot comment on the guy from the book, but even an inexperienced shooter can easily hit a lying target out to 200m, so don't know what went wrong in that particular situation.
4. It is correctly assumed, that the german squad relied entirely on the machine gun for firepower and that the mg was used in a central position rather than in a flanking one. Whatever the philosophy behind that was, I cannot imagine.
5. A section machine gun with detachable box magazine? Really? Belt fed machine guns have so many advantages, I cannot count. Most armies today are using belt fed machine guns, while the British army is also using the L85 LSW with detachable box magazine for whatever reason - though they seem to be doing well with it...
6. The german forces where in constant retreat since 1944, but that was (maybe) not because of the BREN LMGs great performance. The german forces where worn out and not at all well trained and well equiped. (My grandfather was captured in summer 1944 by the british - who treated him well, he only speaks good about them - he hadn't eaten in three days, had almost no training and was only 17 years old.) The allies had air superiority, vast superiority both in trained professional soldiers and equipment and they had stuff like proximity detonators for artillery shells. The choice of section mg at that time was negligible.
TL;DR: your description for the spandau is not very accurate. As I said, I appreciate your videos, but this one was a bit off. No hurt feelings, though. Sorry for my bad english, cheers from Germany ;)
+Etienne Nückel Guter Kommentar, vielen Dank für deinen Dienst.
+Etienne Nückel
"Bad English"
O_O
Jesus man, you're a damn perfectionist. Very few mistakes in there at all. Better than most who have English as their first language. Especially for the internet.
"spandaus effective range" spandau's
" at first shot" at the
"so many advantages, I" comma isn't needed
"forces where in" "forces where worn" were
" he only speaks good about them" well of Though your wording may actually be correct, it just sounds odd.
"description for" description of
These are all really minor grammatical points that are easily made, I've even made some of them myself. And your message comes across perfectly despite these teeny weeny errors. Most of them aren't even terribly noticeable unless you are looking for them.
Goddammit man you're making us look bad! You're doing better at English than we are. And don't even ask about my German.
:P
Have a nice day.
+Pascal Severin Danke.
+Comrade Shamrock Well, thank you very much, I knew there was something wrong. Don't worry about your German, it's grammar is from hell :D
+Comrade Shamrock Excusing for our "bad" english is some kind of hobby for us germans i assume, you'll find a lot of us doing it, and it's usually those, you can understand quite well.
The Spandau could also shoot fire arrows, and had a katana bayonet.
Also it could be dual wielded by Berserkers.
And each time you make the team leave then re-crew, it fires twice as much - Erwin Rommel once got an MG42 team to just leave and re-crew for three weeks, and at the end just shoot at Britain once. To this day, there is only a crater there.
Every time a berserker gnawed on his shield, the Spandaus would loose a barrage of flaming bayonets pommels. That's the real reason they were so effective: Noone else was crazy enough to get anywhere near that level of glorious ordinance.
The Spandau make good Breakfast and can drive car. It will be our President.
It also kept some old bloke efficiently behind bars for 40 odd years....Wunderwaffen indeed!
The MG 34 or "spandau" has 2 triggers! for rapid use! one for full auto, and one for single shoot! single shoot is rifle like accurate. What are you talking about dude!?
This entire video is a shitshow
Indeed it is. Lindy is well known for obvious, evident British bias.
Maybe he meant the mg42. It’s fully automatic only.
1:28:
look up Rheinmetall MG 3, and how much countries are still using it even today....
+T2266 and the M60 is based on MG42
yup. my country's armed forces (Danish) have just replaced the mg 3 with the m60e6.
+T2266 True. But far more nations have elected for weapons with a more BREN-like rate of fire, a BREN-like operating mechanism (gas-operated, with long stroke piston) and often lower (BREN-like) weight. And that includes Germany, that are replacing the MG3 with the all new MG4 and MG5. The true greatness of the MG42, was not the complete product, but the use of stamped steel and the supurb belt-feed. The later was used in both the FN-MAG and the M60.
@@gonzomanxx
The M3 is a pretty straight derivative of the MG42 but the M60 was derived from the MG42 and M1941 Johnson machine gun with some similarities to both.
@@gonzomanxx Just the feed mechanism, really
Huh, this video is bound to get quite a few dislikes, not because as some may assume Lindy is busting a popular myth, but rather because he is seriously stretching things. For one the MG34 and the MG42 were not the same gun. Secondly, they were by no means inaccurate. The MG42 had an inherent inaccuracy when fired in full auto from the bipod due to its indeed very high rate of fire. Which is also partly why the modern MG3 has a lowered rate of fire. The Bren and the MGs had similar weights and barrel lengths. They all were/are more accurate than rifles due to having free floating barrels. In the example that Lindy gives, assuming the German crew had a proper sight picture (which in war never actually happens), at 80 yards they could easily land a bullet between the Tommy's eyes. That they didn't means that either they didn't actually see him (they merely knew were he was), or that they hadn't properly zeroed the gun's sights, or that they hadn't adjusted for range.The claim that Lindy makes about the British constantly advancing between 1944 and 1945 is similarly poor. I suppose by the same token the BAR (which was a turd btw) and the DP28 can be considered superior to the "Spandau".I generally agree that the BREN was the better LMG. This was a realization made by others (the Greek army in my case) as well. But Lindy's reasoning is poor.
+xristar
>at 80 yards they could easily land a bullet between the Tommy's eyes
nope. MG42 can't do that. Even when firing from mount
+Вячеслав Скопюк It depends on how literally you take my claim. You can definitely aim and hit a target the size of a man's head with an MG3 at such a short distance, take my word.
xristar
MG42 is surprisingly inaccurate. Thanks to high rate of fire.
+Вячеслав Скопюк That's more due to the operator. In such a scenario the gunner should have fired single or short bursts, not full auto.... the first shot accuracy would have been more than efficient
Shaun Doyle
MG42 surprisingly inaccurate even when fired short bursts.
The MG42 is still in use by most European countries in the MG3 form which is the same weapon.
+Miratesus Yes, and american M-60 (Rambo gun, you know...) is essentially the same system with slight improvements.
Basically, yes. But the MG3 uses "7,62x51mm Nato" instead of the "7,92x57mm Mauser"
And the spanisch CETME Ameli use "5.56x45mm Nato" and is also a bit more compact.
And the swiss Army reduced the firerate to 1000 rpm and so on, and so on.
Well, regardless of MG3, good old MG42 knock-offs were still used in the balkan wars at least, and probably still are in africa, syria and other sad and torn places.
x/variant of x is still used so y which is not in use is worse, it's a fallacy, x being in use only implies that it's still in use, there are many variables/reasons something can be in use over something else. It's a fallacy to assume it automatically means anything other than it is still used.
Ian from forgotten weapons just did a video on the Bren and has ones on the Czech gun it was developed from. Might help to clear up some of the reasons why the Bren is so well regarded
Brens are still in production? MG42s are still produced, as the MG3. Guess they've both stood the test of time.
+GenericFakeName m60 was just recently fell out of favor by the US, which is just a customized mg42
+Alex Sitaras No it isnt, totally different actions. The M60 is a gas operated short stroke action, while the MG42 is a recoil operated roller locked action....
Basically they are different guns!
+Alex Sitaras M-60 was based on the FG-42 as used by Luftwaffe Paratroops .
+alganhar1 and which was based on the Lewis gun at that .
+GenericFakeName I didn't know that. Who uses the Bren today? Is it used as an infantry weapon? Armored cars, tanks?
The mg42 design is still used today in many countries (even germany). After the war they changed ammo type and rate of fire but not much else.
So much bias here because it is not british.
Source: Compulsory Military Service in Austria. (MG74 is it called here)
Also the Origin of the Bren is Czech.
ShareEndorphins l yes and so are you as ur country sided with the. nazis
If they changed it it isn't the original anymore so it doesn't count because you have to be very accurate when you compare the guns
But the ammo type is different
@@Kriegter but they changed the bren in the 1950s aswell. Both were changed from their original chambering to the 7,62x51mm cartridge. Your Argument is invalid
The modern day MG3, which is still in widespread use, is an MG42 with a, adjustable rate of fire, bolt for 7.62x51 so you can go tp lower rate of fire and get more accuracy. It can do between 900 and 1800 rounds per minute.
The Mechanism is still in use in other designs unlike the Bren's, which is pretty much dead.
The Americans were so impressed they copied it and created the T24.
Take the M60 "Pig" which was closely related, or the Belgian MAG, SIG MG-710-3.
The Yugoslavian M53, which actually was manufactured after the war using german war time machinery and using the orginal 8x57 Mauser were used in regular use by the military until almost 2000, and now still serve with the Peshmerga fighting ISIS. This is an MG42, unchanged in most ways.
The MG74 is also a rechambered MG42 and has been in production in Austria since 1974. It's rate of fire is also adjustable but generally slightly lower.
So much for the MG42 being useless after the War.
+MyFabian94 This. Really this should have been Magazine Vs Belt fed. Which would have resulted in the same scenario....
Apples and Oranges. The MG42 and MG34 were different beasts entirely, the MG34 being more similar to the Bren, while the MG42 was more of a "light" heavy MG even with forward infantry use.
But even that comparison doesn't hold up.
The best Comparison would be FG42 v Bren, because they served the same role, similar weights, both magazine fed, fully automatic, full power cartridge and still easy to carry.
+MyFabian94 My uncle got a prize leave in the army for hitting the door sized target with 5 rounds at 200 meters with M53. I believe he shot a whole 100 round belt.
Also, you cannot just replace the bolt and have a weapon chambered in 7.9x57mm fire 7.62x51 with any reliability if at all. M60 was a copy of FG42 actually, although a first prototype was a frankengun with MG 42 belt mechanism. M60 has a spring loaded firing pin that is supposedly completely unnecessary, because it isn't select fire like FG42.
GrimFaceHunter Well, the M60s Top Cover and Loading Mechanism is straight of the MG42.
Rechambering doesn't mean redesigning parts as such, just changing a couple of parameters. Just a different piece of the same Norm.
+MyFabian94 Just can'T see my comment anymore.
Speaking about the spandau, a collegue of mine told me about his great great uncle, who died literally cut in half by a spandau. He was carrying weapons for the french resistance in his 3 wheels bicycle, encountered a german barrage, tryed to turn back and was cut in half by a spandau burst. The best defense machine gun, for sure.
The MG42 was better than the Bren and I have used both. However it has to be said comparing a mag fed weapon to a belt one is a ker rap idea. If you wanted to make a comparison it would be the BAR and BREN.
Well said. The BAR was a great fire-team automatic weapon and far superior to the M-14 Modified fore full automatic use.
Agree. It is like comparing apples and oranges. They served different purposes.
BAR was an automatic rifle. Not a light machine gun. BAR would lose
Two different animals really the Bren was in esscence a big self loading rifle the Mg 42 was the top fire power
machine gun without a doubt.
The BAR is an Automatic Rifle
The Bren is a Machine Gun
The mistake is in thinking that the BAR is a machine gun - it isn't. If you take all the crap off of it - such as the bi-pod - that was put on it to try and make it a machine gun - it is a much more mobile weapon that weights less and is easier to use than a Bren. The proper use of the BAR was in Fire and Maneuver.
When people test these weapons together (R. Lee Irmey (R.I.P.)) they tend to test them in use as machine guns. The concept of Walking Fire - was horse shit - no one did that.
A proper test would included having someone run an obstacle course while carrying one and pausing at firing stations to engage pop up targets.
The Marines used the BAR the best. They had 3 of them per squad in 4 man fire teams, each centered on a BAR. Each BAR Man had an assistant to help carry ammo. There was also a Fire Team Leader with an M-1 Garand and a Rifleman, also with a Garand. This Squad was a highly flexible tactical unit. Part of it could lay down a base of fire while one or both of the other Fire Teams maneuvered.
With 3 BAR's, 9 Garands and the Squad Leader's Thompson Sub Machine gun - this squad had a considerable amount of fire power and more flexibility than a squad based on a single machine gun supported by bolt action rifles.
In the American way of doing things - each company also had a Weapons Platoon with Machine Guns, Mortor's and Rocket Launchers - which could be attached to any unit the leadership saw fit to attach them to. Thus - if their leadership thought they needed a machine gun - he could give them one.
In any case, none of these weapons was intended to be used alone but to exist as a part of a system. Each nation had a system and their personnel were trained to work within it. These systems evolved over the course of the war with different weapons and tactics being developed based on their experience. If their experience indicated that changes needed to be made in the way they were doing things - to some greater or lesser degree - they did. Multiple systems existed in the Armed Forces of all the Combatants so that one type of unit in one place might be doing things much differently than a different type of unit in another place or at another time.
So - there is a basic fallacy to trying to compare two weapons to determine "which is better". For the most part these "tests" tend to be set up by individuals looking to promote "their" weapon as opposed to someone else's.
.
MG 3 Is basically the MG42 only modified for 7.62×51mm NATO cartridges and its still in use in Germany ,the American M60 machine gun is based off the MG42 and so is the T24 machine gun,MG 74,and the Sig MG710. while the Bren only has the Taden gun which was seen as impractical for use compared to assault rifles and never saw massive production
And yugo mg53 is widely used in yugo civil war
Yes, the M60 has very similar characteristics of the MG42. M60 is a better weapon of course, but that's only due to the fact of the R&D folks getting the chance to upgrade an awesome MG.
in fact the NATO version of the MG42 the MG1/MG2/MG3 is still in use by a lot of armed forces like the Baltic states and the Scandinavian states. They just renamed it when they rechambered from 7.92×57mm Mauser to 7.62×51mm NATO.
+Lars F mostly all modern SAW weapons are in someway related to the mg 42
+Lars F Most notably Germany herself of course.
+william butler even the M60 "stole" some of its design out of the MG42 ;)
Vapautta The Bundeswehr is now replacing it with the MG4 and the MG5/HK121
Well the point was that Lindy said the Bren was used for so and so long while the "Spandau" wasn't. But yeah you're right, they're finally moving on.
I bet the germans didn't talk about how much they feared Bren or give it scary nicknames.
The Bren is an amazing LMG and I've been lucky enough to fire them when I was in army cadets. But if i went to war I'd want the belt fed.
The Germans had the original ZB 20 and they were not much impressed by this LMG!
Whether something is considered "Scary" or not, does not mean it's better, that's a fallacy. Being considered something does not equal being something, plain and simple.
@Ankjok Ming Calling something stupid does not make it so, nice poisoning the well fallacy to start. There are many things given names for qualities, they do not process, this is a simple concept. The mg42 was generally considered scary but I was expressing a logical idea and abstracting it to the general where it is true. X can be called something without being it, It's true from a logical bases etc, what you're talking about is the more likely outcome of something being in tune with what it is considered by, please make that distinction in your head.
@@Grazzio558 best comment I've seen
@@gone8913 nice fallacy fallacy my friend. just because an argument is fallacious doesn't make the claim behind it false.
There are some serious mistakes in this video.
The MG42 is not the cheaper successor to the 34, but more of a upgraded version. The rate of fire of the 42 was waaayyy higher than the 34. Ans not at 1200 rpm but above (up to nearly 2000 rpm). Beyond that the MG42 was continued after the war. This gun is still in use as a squad automatic weapon in the german Bundeswehr and on nearly any vehicle. The actual version is called MG3 but there are nearly no differences to the 42 version. Only one thing was changed. The rof was dropped down to 1200 rpm. But there are still some refurbished MG42 in service in the Bundeswehr. Only the wehrmacht insignia have been filed off.
Furthermore the german MG is percise enough to compare with the Bren. It really doesnt "spray" that much unless your barrel isn´t glowing in the dark.
Firing from the shoulder or the hip is possible too but the MG3 weights about 26 pounds, so it is a little bit unwieldy. But it works. You just cant shoot full suppressiv fire from standing position but thats not the idea behind this weapon. If you are commanded to "Sturmabwehrschießen" (attacking and rushing forward whilst laying suppressive fire) you´d fire short bursts.
There is only one thing about the MG42/MG3 i can totally undersign. There is some serious recoil. Big times.
Source of my information: I was married to a MG3 for my basic training at the Bundeswehr. 26 pounds of pure violence and a pain in the ass to carry around. But it doubles the firepower of a 12 man group.
+Tonda Rauðhrafna The MG42 was very much a cheaper version. It took half the time to make and cost a great deal less per weapon, and in wartime, this was a huge improvement. The MG34 was considered to be too good in some ways: too expensive, too precisely built, too intolerant of dirt, too refined. Much of the 'spray' effect comes from the fact that it had more recoil as you say, and was belt-fed. Yes, NATO troops from Canada and the like training in Germany in modern times have often been surprised to see these weapons still in use.
+Tonda Rauðhrafna
Not to mention: The US M60 is half MG42.
+Lindybeige Have you ever handled a Bren/MG42 on the range? I'm not too well versed on British gun laws.
+Lindybeige yepp. the mg42 was in fact a lot cheaper in production due to the body that is completely stamped from sheet steel. but it isn't a "cheaper version" of the 34. it is much more a improvement in every was. rof, reliability, tolerances, handling like barrel cange (5sec for a trained gunner). and another practical improvement was the selfdismantling endless belt. on contact you dont have to think about reloading. your #2 just clips on another 100 shots and you just keep on firing.
But in terms of precision it is comparable to any other 7.62 machinegun. with a erdziellafette (groundtarget suspension?) you'll get rid of the recoil and fight targets up to 1200 maybe 1400 meters. The sights are regularly der to a maximum of 1200 meters. and even with the bipod 800 meters are no problem. the only problem of these distances is the lack of a proper scope or magnifying optic.
for the future conflicts there is a new mg issued to our troops which is based on actual tasks like cqb. it is a 5.56mm Saw-type machinegun based loosely on the g36. but the mg42/mg3 will still be in use for the next 30 years.
+Tonda Rauðhrafna Shooting from the hip is shitty idea if you want to stand showballs chance to hit anything anyway.
Nobody copied after the MG42 war? How about the Spanish CETME Ameli (albeit in 5.56mm), Yugoslavian M53 and German MG3. Plus the MG34/42 really drove the General Purpose Machine Gun idea, i.e universal widespread use of a specific belt-fed machine gun design in different roles from bipod mounts to vehicle and tripod mounts. So even guns that weren't direct copies were still based on the same concept, e.g.M60, FN MAG (MAG 58) etc.
The Bren did this to an extent also with tripods and Bren Gun Carriers, but the box magazine has serious limitations in mounting (e.g. coaxial mounts in tanks, which the MG34 (not 42) was used extensively in) and sustained fire. The MG34/42 could fire hundreds of rounds before barrel/belt change, whereas a Bren would require numerous magazine changes for the same volume of fire (unless you get into the ROF argument with the MG42 running out of ammunition more quickly and thus not providing supporting fire for much longer than the Bren with its lower ROF).
The Bren probably favours single/two man local fire support similar to a BAR (but with 10 more rounds and QC barrel), whereas the MG34/42 probably favours support role of the whole squad like the Browning M1919.
+iNsaneMilesy Not really, it was FG42/MG42 "frankengun".
+Sam Prudden Dont forget the Austrian MG 74, what was almost a direct copy.
MG 42 looks much more stylish!
Андрей Казакевич Nah, the Bren is hot af
mg is better
You remind me of a dear friend of mine who still argues that replacing the binding on the hem of shuttlecocks with a plastics based glue instead of a bone glue has destroyed the history of badminton and rendered all badminton games since as essentially pointless and irrelevant.
This made my day
in other words, he reminds you of an utter idiot
It has
well the mg3 is still being used all over the world and that's just an mg42 moddified for NATO rounds
Hello LindyBeige - I felt compelled to clear up a few comments you made.
I've trained with an MG42 for a year in the army, so I know the gun. The strength of the Spandau is that it is a long range shotgun; you can aim and actually hit _incredibly_ fast with a short burst (3-5 rd). You know that split-second where the enemy jumps from one cover to another? Yeah, no such luck. Just like a shotgun is made for hunting birds, the Spandau is made for hunting soldiers.
Having fired 100 shots from the hip in one go, I can say that it won't get out of control if you know what to expect. It is moot though, indeed you still won't hit anything.
Fired from a position it is quite accurate, even firing a single shot. It is absolutely true that the weapon isn't suited for attack though. You need something to rest it on to hit anything.
+Eupolemos Also, the MG3 which is basicly an updated MG42 was used and is still in use in many countries. I used one in the army, and the idea of not being able to hit someone 80m away for 45 minutes seems rather strange.
@@Alendo The soldier in question was either extremely lucky, more hidden than he thought (even with the single coloured uniforms of the day, someone not moving is harder to see), or the MG team was just that poorly trained. For all we know it was a 13 year old gunner and his 12 year old assistant gunner...
+Lindybeige "Spandau" is a stupid term, for various reasons. 1) Only brits used that colloquial name. 2) It derives from the production place of the MG 08, from WORLD WAR 1 and is a generic term used for a wide variety of german machine guns.
MG42s are actually quite accurate, but single fire accuracy wasn't what the MG42 was purpose-built or even used for. The Bren is a light machine gun and as such, is desinged to be used on an assault. The MG42 is a heavy machine gun, that is not designed to be carried around and fired during an assault. It's like comparing an armoured car against a Tiger tank. Sure the car has better camouflage, speed and terrain passability, but that is not what the Tiger is designed for. A Tiger shoots tanks, an armoured car runs away. Oh and besides, the guy not getting hit by the MG42. an MG42 is accurate enough to hit someone at 80 yards without a problem. Whats much more likely there is, that either he underestimated the cover he had, or the german position didn't allow to depress the MG enough or there was a mechanical error with the gun. E.g. it's quite likely that the barrel of the MG42 was overheated and they couldn't simply switch the barrel for whatever reason. An overheated barrel is quite detrimental to accuracy, even and especially after it had time to cool down again.
Next point is, "Germans running away because their MG42 was out of commission". That isn't based on their fear or whatever you want to imply there. It's based on operational use. The MG42 was the central corner-stone of a defensive positioning. Without the MG, the position thus is deemed unfavourable and of course the troops made a retreat at the point, because defending a position under unfavourable circumstances is stupid².
Oh and if you want to compare a Bren with something similar on the german side, have a look at the FG42, which is close enough in operational use or even the StG 44. Things will look quite different. And if you want to compare the MG42 to something on the british side, take the Vickers or the Browning M2.
Those points aside, the Bren was a good gun, that did exactly what it was built for.
+iNsaneMilesy MG34 was the first GPMG, designed for use as both an LMG and as a static tripod mounted MG.
+MadnerKami
MG42 and MG34 were actually general purpose machine guns, which could be used as both medium and light machine guns depending on how you mounted it. So, as both heavy and a light machine gun if that terminology is used in your country. It was supposed to fill the roles of both a squad support weapon and a company/battalion support weapon without the need to make different weapons for both roles.
I'm not sure there was a comparable weapon on the allied side, really. The closest one could find might be Browning M1919, which had some variants used a light machine guns, but that wasn't exactly the same thing. On weapons similar to Bren from the German side I'd actually go for other Axis countries. Japanese Type 96 or 99 were similar to Bren in their role, as well as Finnish Lahti-Saloranta or the Italian Breda. Bren wasn't really an assault rifle unlike StG 44 or FG42, as far as I know.
Other than that, though, I agree.
Hi Lindybeige - I like your videos. A few comments about this one:
The MG42 was further developed into the modern MG3, which saw service in the Danish army well past 1996 (when I served). With a shoulder strap it could be fired from the hip during attack, but it is a heavy s.o.a.b. ;-)
Using the two forward legs for support under the mouth of the barrel, you could actually fire pretty accurate 3-5 round bursts and knock down individual-sized targets at 100-300 metres. Using the tripod for fixed defense, it was even more accurate and deadly. The main disadvantage of the MG3 is that the barrel gets stupid hot. It is air cooled and the loader / ammunition carrier also carries and extra barrel, which you then switch out as needed. IF you mess up and forget to use the glove - you burn you hand. IF you don't put down the red hot barrel in its casing but drop it on the ground, the metal is so hot that dirt and leaves with "melt" onto it and stick. IF you drop it in snow - instantly cooling it too much - the entire barrel can bend out shape and be rendered forever useless :-D
yes the bren lasted the test of time - but so did the mg 42.
the mg1, mg51, mg74 and mg3 are basicly just mg 42s with 7,62 × 51 mm NATO. Unlike the Bren, they are STILL IN USE.
and its feeding mechanism was used by many machine guns like the m60 or the fn mag.
bren is replaced because its was a light machine gun not a general purpose one and the fact that everyone is using belts on their machine guns at that point and is pretty old mg42 is also being replaced but it's going slowly possibly due to a variety of reasons
but the germans used machine guns to pin the enemy then the infantry would flank and kill the enemy with grenades and small arms. Sooooooo.... Also german gunners were trained to shoot in 5 round bursts for greater accuracy, ammo conservation, and barrel conservation. They were used to suppress, but they were accurate. Oh and Arnhem :^)
Yes. And the MG team was supposed to work together with the highly trained and experienced mortar teams. It was "tower defense" WW2 style. Germans move forward. Germans see enemy. Enemy counterattacks. Germans stop and use MG's. They are very effective. Enemy is instantly pinned. Enemy then is blown to smithereens by a fusillade of accurate mortar fire. Rest of enemy tries to retreat but is picked off one by one by the section's riflemen, then flanked by M40 carrying sergeants and showered with "potato mashers". Love Lindybeige, but he needs some information from the other side.
Worked so well that they lost
+Aragmar Verilian
Yes, which is why.. Oh, right, airdropped light infantry completely smashed the Germans at Pegasus, literal sitting ducks still got past numerous German defences on the five Overlord beaches, and the Germans were pushed out of Normandy and/or trapped in the Falaise Pocket by advancing Allied infantry.
Indeed, it worked so brilliantly that the German military was inferior.
As effective a weapon and general strategy built around it is, there comes a time when it is...no longer that effective. Because the enemy had adapted to it. Rather painfully slow in this case, but still. As for the fact that they lost - yes they did. Any army would, especially the Wehrmacht in the end phase of the war. A pale shadow of its former self, most of those advantages I mentioned earlier lost and never replaced. That is what happens when the whole world is bombing you back to the stone age :)
Btw about those beaches - I do hope you know who manned most of the bunkers there right?
Oh and the rest of the war
Lindy I love you man, however, you've got a few things wrong here.
+Von Depeche More than just a few things.
+Heinrich Berndovsky Oh my!
A few things? He kept mixing up the mg34 and the mg42, thinking they were almost the same gun and claiming a high rate of fire while showing a picture of the mg34 and completely missing the big difference between the mg34/mg42 and the Bren, in that the germans "invented" the gpmg-concept which everyone promptly copied after the war.
The fact that you had to belittle the other side by claiming that their knowledge is in fact based on "video games" instead of research and that you seem to imply that the Thompson and M3 are similar if not the same from the engineering standpoint is not giving you any credibility.
I do agree that the GPMG concept and who invented has nothing to do with the video since it was never really even brought up in the first place. What did irk a lot of people was the fact that the MG34 and 42 were essentially described as nothing more than bullet hoses which isn't true (and dozens of people who've had actual experience of using MG3 during the military service claim as much under this very video). I do get your point being locked up on the details, but there is a fine line between not paying attention to important differences and nitpicking.
Oh, and comparing people you disagree with katanafags is not going to automatically win the argument for you.
*****
I'm from a country where military conscription meant I served in the military, so I have actual experience of machine guns and how they are used in a military context.
Can you say the same?
And if Lindy makes comments about the differences between the Bren and the mg34/mg42, he really should be aware that he is comparing three different squad support weapons that are all called machine guns, rather than just two.
The mg34 could fire single shots, just like the Bren, something the mg42 could not. The early versions of the mg34 had an adjustable rate of fire, going almost all the way down to as slow as the Bren, but that was later removed since there turned out to be little need for it.
But here's a big kicker really, the british troops continued to use the Bren for quite a while after the WWII, including up to and into the Falklands war.
One could wonder why, since they had the excellent FN MAG to use as a machine gun.
One reason was likely the fact that the dumb ass british top brass decided that british soldiers couldn't be trusted with fully automatic weapons as standard armament, and so used a single-fire only version of the FN FAL (as the L1A1 self loading rifle).
Making the british military one of the last (if not the very last) military in the modern world to adopt a full-auto capacity weapon as standard rifleman armament only with the introduction of the SA80 in the 80s....which just also happened to coincide with the sharp decline of use of the Bren....
Would the brits really have continued to use the Bren for as long as they did if they had adopted the FN FAL in a full auto-version?
Or was it more to compensate for the lack of a true select-fire rifle rather than as a machine gun?
I trained on a Bren in the 70's. They were absolutely beautiful. Balanced and no bits digging into you when out on patrol. You knew you could take out anyone up to a half mile or more with a short three shot burst. One awkward thing was when you cocked it, the mechanism stayed back. You had to make sure the mechanism caught properly, or it would fly forward, gathering a round and firing it. Friend of mine was shot like that and was lucky to save his arm, through someone being careless. Like most weapons, correct application in the field made a big difference.
Other than its nickname of "Hitler's buzzsaw", I can't really comment on the "Spandau".
The MG34 is STILL in use by Germany. The MG3 is just an MG34/42 modernized to fire 7.62mm NATO. The Bren that Britain used in the late 20th century was also chambered in 7.62mmN. They were both in service for the same length of time BUT the British supplemented their Bren guns with FN Mag 58 belt-fed machine guns in the late 50's and early 60's.
I have fired both guns and would take the MG34/MG3 over the Bren. Here's why. While the Bren is lighter at 25lbs loaded, the MG34 weights 26.7lbs with a 50 round drum. It carries 20 more rounds for about 1.6 lbs more, so their weight is equal when you consider the MG34's extra "firepower." If you factor the Bren gun's 100 round drum's weight and overall bulk against the 100 round belt of the MG34, the MG34 wins. Belts are much easier to carry and load than the Bren's drum. The Bren's 30 round is easier to load than the MG34's 50 round "assault drum" (which contains belted ammo) though. The MG34's barrel is MUCH faster to change than the Bren's barrel. Both guns are capable of putting a six round burst on a man sized target at 100 meters off of the bipod (I have done this myself). The 43" Bren is easier to shoot from the shoulder than the 48" MG34. The weight of the Bren is more centered towards the shooter and the weight of the mag is exactly at the gun's "balance point." The MG34 is "nose heavy" and the weight of a 50 round drum causes the weapon to point slower to the right than the left. It also "runs hotter" which makes finding a good "hand hold" on the gun somewhat harder than the Bren. The Brens 500 rounds per minute rate of fire is ideal for short controlled bursts. The MG34's 1000 rounds a minute is "manageable" considering that I was capable of shooting six round bursts without too much trouble. The Bren has a higher "profile" in the prone which could lead to detection (and detection equals incoming fire) due to its 30 round magazine's height. This is one area where the 100 round drum is better (it has a lower profile). Both guns were accurate with "walking fire" (shooting short bursts) out to 500 meters. The one annoyance with the Bren is that you run out of ammo about one burst after getting on target. Hitting targets at 1200 meters with either gun would be a joke with irons. YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE A MAN-SIZED TARGET AT 1200 METERS UNDER "COMBAT CONDITIONS" WITH THE NAKED EYE, LET ALONE HIT IT. I didn't even get to try because the range I was on only went to 500 meters.
If I could only take one, it would be the MG34 by virtue of it greater versatility (in belt feed and rate of fire) and its simpler assembly & disassembly. This is important in the field.
Of course, you're comparing "apples" to "oranges" here. The MG34 was the world's first General Purpose Machinegun and the Bren Gun was a Light Machinegun (what we would call a Squad Automatic Weapon today) that should be compared to the BAR or (post war) Soviet RPK. If I had to choose between the BAR and the Bren, I'd take the Bren EVERY TIME (I've had the pleasure of firing a full auto BAR too)!
***** There would have been another MAJOR problem (which the British had to deal with when converting to .308/7.62 NATO) the .303 was fairly short AND RIMMED when compared to the 30-06. When Brens were converted to 7.62mm NATO, they became unreliable until TWO revisions were made to take into account the longer rimless cartridge (which the reason 7.62mm NATO versions have straight instead of curved magazines). The still longer 30-06 would have been a "conversion nightmare" (like when the US tried to convert MG42's to 30-06 after WW2).
I have never shot the 7.62mm NATO version, but I have heard they weren't as reliable as the older .303's.
+MacNutz2 If you ever make it to this side of "The Pond," I would recommend you do a little "machinegun tourism." Contrary to what the media would have you believe, owning Class 3/NFA weapons is prohibitively expensive for most Americans. As a result, several Class 3 gun dealers have taken it upon themselves to offer rentals/range trials to anyone who is willing to pay the rental fee and buy the ammo. It is a good (and "moderately inexpensive") way to actually experience the real world "quirks" of such weapons without the huge cost and hassle of owning them. I highly recommend doing a day at a shooting range. You really don't know a firearm until you have shot it AND taken it apart.
Remember that the Germans were fighting on 2 fronts... Didnt the british have the bren gun in Dunkirk?
This dumb biased person has forgoten to mention how british sucked in dunkirk. By his logic Kar 98 is better than STG44, Because Germans won in france with mauser Kar 98-s, and they lost because later switched to STG44. How dumb and unlogical.
This video is about the Spandau vs the Bren, why are you bringing this up? Isn't it biased to assume that because Lindy had one conclusion he would happen to make this example as well?
This is a video comparing technology, not scenarios.
I think the British left most of their Brens behind at Dunkirk while they were running away....
They lost almost all of their BRENS at Dunkirk
The Brit bias is strong with this one.
Everyone thinks their own way of doing things is better, and he also has the all important well you guys lost so are stuff is obviously better.
+Mikeydmc1 *our
+MrDoubleD97 Care for tea, mate?
+Mikeydmc1 Yea exactly, they're were a lot of reasons the Germans lost, and the German forces were way more spread out having to defend 3 fronts, and their factories being bombed and the British having air superiority.
The war had taken it's toll and Germany was running out of men of military age. As far as the factories are concerned impacting the front? Maybe, maybe not. The last year of the war was the highest production year for the Germans. They did have to spend time, money and man power putting the factories under ground because of the bombing. If they hadn't had to do that they could have more "Black Towers". Would they have done so? Who knows? One study claimed that by just targeting electrical production centers whether they be oil. electric or coal they could have ended the war in less than two years. No electricity no tanks, planes, ammo etc. being built. Too bad he didn't come up with the idea sooner.
www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/griffith.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_tower
Mg 3 is the mg 42 but with some updates used buy Germany and outher country's in Europe bren no one uses
Well, at least in Germany the mg3 gets slowly replaced by the mg5 since 2015.
@@mycrofthirschecke5271 but the mg5 also is just a pimped up mg42
I thought the US M60 was based upon the MG 42 tech, similarly the UK GPMG (GimpyG) ¿? That the 42 was still in service around the world, manufactured under licence and original mint, crated, (and not so perfect eg's), are being located by Russian War Detectorists, even......
I'm calling B.S. on Bren as accurate as a rifle. Bren fires from an open bolt, not as accurate as Enfield.
One of its problems if u shot one shot usually the second bullet would go through the same hole
You're right, but for the wrong reason.
The whole open-bolt-ruining-first-shot-accuracy thing mostly applies to SMG's, since they're typically lightweight with absolutely massive bolt carriers. A locked-breech, gas-operated weapon (those two factors add up to a bolt that can be much lighter than a direct-blowback weapon) that weighs 26 lb and is being fired from a stabilized platform isn't going to be affected nearly as much by the inertia of the bolt.
You could make a decent case that on paper, the Bren should be MORE accurate than the No.4. After all, it fires the same ammunition from a gun with a heavier barrel and a bipod.
In practice, a well-made bolt-action rifle is usually going to be more accurate than an self-loader, simply because there are more moving parts in a self-loader that have to actuate every time you fire.
@@toslowlypoke Your point is well taken, however I disagree. A big issue with open bolt operation is lock time. That is, the amount of time taken from when the trigger is pulled, until the cartridge fires. With an open bolt, there's a lot more time available for you to wiggle around, sending your shot off.
From what i've read and seen, the MG42 is actually quite accurate when fired in short bursts, which is what German MG crews did.
+Alixundr That's probably true and that's probably why it was so effective in defending beach landings, the Germans would just be able to pick them of in short bursts because the enemy was so close...but at long ranges that acurracy would begin to drop off
+Majority Hippo All weapons, tend to suffer the same problem. A majority of the combat isn't fought past 200 meters and the MG42 can still be used to effectively engage targets at 1000 meters.
+Edelweisse Exactly. I've easily hit targets at 500m with an MG 42 and didn't even need a burst, a single shot was enough. And with the incredibly higher fire rate the "Hitler Saw" had, a single burst would be precise enough to take out an entire group.
Majority Hippo "Hitler's saw" or "bonesaw"
Edit: Yay, a troll.
+ArkiosRokuyon
"Didn't even need a burst" - well, the thing is, it's a full automatic weapon and only shoot in bursts - the most skilled gunners are able to deliver a two shot burst - an average gunner is able to do 3-4 shot bursts!
Personally I can hit fairly well with 3 shot bursts at 400M but I've seen a very skilled gunner consistently delivering 2 shot bursts center target at 800M
A video about something British being compared to something not British.
Sure wonder what lindybeige's opinion will be :^)
Not necessarily because he's wrong, but I assume he wouldn't make videos comparing two things and come out saying the British way of doing things isn't objectively superior.
He never said objectively superior. He said neither of them are better than each other overall but instead shine in particular circumstances.
Diederik and it's a opinion. Like the one you have. Everyone is entitled to one.
The BREN was a fantastic piece of kit. Nothing wrong with it. Probably the best LMG of WW2. However the MG42 and MG34 were GPMGs, not an LMG.
MG42's influence can be felt in a plethora of guns to this day. The M60 machine gun was essentially an FG42 with the feed mechanism from an MG42.
The FN MAG (perhaps the most prolific GPMG in NATO) uses the feed mechanism inspired by the MG42 as well. So does the MK48 and the MINIMI (M249).
The PKM ALSO uses the same feed system.
The MG3 is pretty much a modern MG42 in 7.62 NATO.
The GPMG concept is still STANDARD to this day. So even if, mechanically, the guns may not be related anymore; the concept is pretty much copy-pasted. I guess you could say the BREN and BAR concept have evolved into the IAR concepts, but I'd argue that the 20-round box fed LMG concept is virtually dead due to obsolescence.
*EDIT*
Also: please stop calling the MG34 and MG42 Spandau. It's erroneous and kinda cringe-inducing to hear. CMON LLOYD!
Much love from Canada.
@JACK FLORENCE they had a 13mm MG used in aircraft that may have been forced into ground service at some point out of desperation. I know they also used 20mm AA in a ground role.
It just wasn't in their doctrine. I don't really think they felt like they were lacking either.
I think they also compensated for that by simply fielding more MGs...??? Don't quote me on that though.
I feel It would have been a better decision to compare the Bren to the FG-42. As both were designed for similar roles of attacking and light suppression fire. As was clearly stated in the video the guns here were designed for different roles. The MG-34/42 was designed for defensive, area-denial fire. where the Bren was made for offensive fire. This is very much like saying a Ferrari is worse than a jeep because a jeep can go through 2 feet of mud and the Ferrari cannot.
The MG34 and MG42 are not the same gun. They have different operating mechanism: MG34 has a rotating bolt, and uniquely, a dual trigger that allow single shot and fully automatic. The MG42 is roller locked and fully automatic only. The MG42 spawned the MG3, which is an MG42 chamber for the 7.62 NATO, used by the German Army until currently being phased out by the HK121. Another variant is the MG74, used by the Austrian Army. The MG3 is produced with license in a number of countries, including Spain, Italy, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, and Turkey.
But more importantly, the concept of a belt-fed light machine gun at squad level lived on and expanded to virtually almost every country in the world. Everyone create their own version of a light machine gun chambered for a rifle cartridge, with an attached bipod, optional quick change barrel, then distribute them at the squad level. The BREN, which is more or less today called Infantry Automatic Rifle: an individual weapon, more mobile than a light MG, which is more of a crew-served weapon. An automatic rifle higher sustain rate of fire than the usual rifle, can still be seen around, though less popular than a belt-fed light MG.
Definitely an automatic rifle is more mobile and readily shouldered than a belt-fed machine gun. A belt-fed full-sized MG is very heavy and have a lot of recoil. Such is the case that the PK machine gun, a Russian belt-fed, 7.62x54R, do not even bother with a foregrip or similar device: you are gonna set it down and fire, not standing up and rush. The PKP, which is the true squad automatic version of the PK machine gun, also do not have a fore grip. Variants of the FN MAG include a handguard or grips of some kind to allow soldiers to shoulder them.
The reality in modern combat is the most casualty producing weapons in a unit is a crew-served weapon. All units, from smallest to biggest, rely on crew served weapons. A section or a squad is built around one or two light machine gun, the M249 in US service, the RPK or PKP in Russia, The British variant of the M249 in British service. If your gunner is out, then others replace him. A platoon greatest direct firepower is a pair of medium MGs; plus some mortars or anti-tank weapons. The automatic rifle definitely has its place. The US Marine swapped out their MG249 (a 5.56 gun) for the IAR27; however, a platoon/company commander have the choice to retain a number of M249 as he see fits. Then some special forces unit swap their M249 for the Mk48, which is essentially a M249 but chambered for the 7.62 NATO. The Russians used the RPK, a magazine-fed Automatic Rifle in 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 but then some units (mostly special forces) swap them for the PKP, which is a belt-fed 7.62x54R light MG. The trend is back and forth but it slightly favours the belt-fed MGs. Mobility, it seems, can not replace the sheer firepower. There's a bit of reason behind it: if you lose the mobility of 1 man, others with rifles can still rush the enemy; with the guy having the belt-fed MG spraying bullets to suppress. But if you loose a belt-fed MG, other rifles simply can not make up the difference.
When the US Marine swap their M249 for the IAR27, their arguments and the US Army arguments were basically the same as what you said. Marines: "The IAR27, while having smaller capacity (they also develop a 60 rounds magazine for it), is more mobile and accurate. The accuracy adds to suppression, more than volume". Army: "We will not swap our M249 for the IAR27. We value the belt-fed capacity. Also, Army squads have 9 troops, compared to the Marines 13, that means we can not sustain casualties and still maintain the volume of fire needed. The belt-fed stays". Others believe that the IAR27 is basically a ploy to circumvent the lengthy budget, acquisition process inherent to government entities. They said the Marines want to swap their M4s and M16s but the bureaucracy will hamper that. So they just label the IAR as a replacement for the M249s, which are fewer in numbers and apparently, cheaper than to replace all the M4s or M16s.
Finally, a weakness of a German infantry squad is correctly, as you said, the total reliance on the MG42 for firepower, which is alright in an open field battle. German riflemen do not carry much ammo in anyway: 3 pouches of 5 5-rounds clip, so 80 in total. You suppress everyone then drop mortars and shells on them. The problem is in urban areas. The MG42 and Mauser rifles are just too slow to respond the nature of combat in cities. The MG42 is bulky, difficult to handle in close quarters, and slow time to set up. Mauser, well, it's a bolt-action rifle. German units only give SMGs to officers and NCOs, which there were never really enough of them (2-3 per squad). The PPSh SMGs, which were very plentiful in Russian service (entire infantry companies and battalions were armed with SMGs) became a favourite captured weapon for the German infantry in urban combat. So much so that the German supplied their own ammunition, the 7.62x25 Mauser, which had identical dimension to the Russian 7,62x25 Tokarev, just slightly weaker. They even printed instruction manuals for the PPSh.
Still I believe that the perfect set up for a squad should be 1 belt-fed light MG, 1 Automatic rifle, at least one rocket of some kind. The rest should be armed with other light weapons, perhaps grenade/grenade launchers, for rushing. Their other roles are to haul the ammunition for the big 3 weapons and replace their gunners in case the latter are incapacitated.
+Xuan Vinh To Thank you for taking the time to write that. The bolt action rifle was certainly not the weapon I would have wanted in WWII.
+Xuan Vinh To That's more or less what the 'carbine' is for nowadays. A sort of inbetween what lets you run urban conflicts as well as open terrain.
Personally, I'd go 1 LMG, 1 AT, a designated marksman which isn't necessarily a sniper or such, just someone with a more accurate rifle possibly in a bigger size, a grenadier armed with a launcher [though, arguably, you could just give everyone those now a days], and most everyone left armed with carbines.
Preferably, the LMG should use the same ammunition as the rest of the team. Perhaps with the exception of the marksman. I do like how some LMGs are actually designed with that in mind, letting you use magazines as needed.
my thoughts exactly.
+DoktorKebab Personally, I prefer a new cartridge altogether first. The Russian and American special forces swapped out their 5.56x45, 7.62x39, and 5.45x39 MGs for a fullsized 7.62x51 or 7.62x54R MG at the squad level is because the smaller bullet just will not do in the extended range in mountain terrains of Afghanistan and Chechnya. Still, that means in a squad of 9-12, only 2 or 3 men can engage the enemy at that range, which is unacceptable. There are already several bullets that can be accurate and carry enough energy at 1000m to do the job yet still comfortable enough make a small, light weapons with manageable recoil. The British had one, way back in 1951; the EM-2. There are a few offerings in the US in the 6.5-7mm; for eg, the 6.5 Grendel, which at 800m and above, retains more kinetic energy than the 7.62 NATO.
In that setup, the squad level LMG and the platoon level MMG can share the same cartridge, the only difference is their barrel length, weight, and sustained rate of fire. In a squad, I would want to have one belt-fed LMG, you can not replace firepower. As for the automatic rifle, there are reports of the IAR27 accurate enough for DM role. Advances in portable optics can definitely make it so. The Automatic Rifle is also better for rushing. Anti-tank rockets are useful: you can shoot it at pretty much anything. "Swoosh-and-boom" has a powerful psychological effect. You will definitely want those 3. In a pinch, you can left out the Automatic Rifle. Some grenadiers are nice; but it seems that the troops prefer a separate standalone launcher, like the Vietnam-era M79 or the new M320, in standalone config. The underbarrel set up make the weapon very heavy. Very front heavy also (which is why a bullpup might be better; a bullpup with an underbarrel launcher, flashlight, and optics might be more balanced than an M4).
Some LMGs are designed to accept magazines. However, it seems that the latter variants of the FN minimi (the M249 in US service) leaves that out completely to save weight.
+Xuan Vinh The Marines aren't using the IAR for real tactical reasons, they're using it because they're in a pissing contest with the Navy over money - they couldn't get funding to adopt the HK416 as a general issue service rifle, so instead they bullshitted and argued creating an inventory of HK416s for use as an automatic weapon was perfectly justified. The split second the Marines get the money to field general issue HK416 rifles the entire IAR concept goes out the fucking window and the 249s come right back in.
The fact is history has proven Lindy dead wrong on this topic. You *need* a belt fed machine gun to suppress the enemy, even at the fire team level. Hell, sometimes even *that* isn't enough and you need Johnny Riflemen able to lay down automatic suppressive fire too. Hence why the M4 (3-round-burst) is being phased out for the M4A1 (fully automatic).
They are still making the "spandau"
John Doe the MG42 as the MG3, not the MG34.
SvenTviking sooo ? Its basicaly the same gun. Of course rate of fire were a bit slowed but all other things were basicaly the same.
Xylo different cartridge I think
Re-chambered to 7.62 NATO for logistical reasons only, but basically the same weapon.
MG 34 and MG 42 is not the same gun. MG 34 is much complicate it's has a single shot trigger,milled receiver MG 42 is cast metal and much more cheaper. You can find a field strip video on youtube.
The Germans must have been deliberately missing the guy lying on the ground for 45 mins. Lindy you did a video about how most of the time soldiers avoided killing enemy for reasons of humanity but also self preservation.
That makes no sense why woud the german miss a british soldier?
Interesting he does a video almost entirely on this phenomenon
Shitty reasoning for wasting 45 mins worth of ammo for a 1200-1500 rpm gun
@@JaePlay yeah, I think he either was the most inexperienced gunner in the Wehrmacht or a Hitler youth that did not want to kill. Sounds great pretty fake to me. Maybe he was shooting blanks lmao
It's incredibly difficult to hit a point on the ground at distance....
If the guy was standing it would of been a different matter😎
In Spain MG-42 is alredy in service. British and his own "version of history".
well said.
It is said that "history is written by the victor". Sorry mate, couldn't resist
Still has the 5th largest military budget in the world if memory serves. But given that the British ruled 25% of the world's population at the outbreak of WW1, most anything is a step down from that
Admittedly, the A1 variant had a large amount of problems. But they were fixed in the A2 variant. I'd recommend checking this out. ua-cam.com/video/js4d8c7KzCQ/v-deo.html
I really can't argue with the term "cured" when it comes to the l85. Another way to say it might be "made them viable as a military rifle". But my understanding is that the trials of the l85 just weren't really suitable. It was a great shooting rifle, but everything else was easily damaged over time and the british government didn't seem to take the time to notice
I love the vids Lindy, but i must disagree with out on a point of order. The "spandau" is in fact still in production as the MG3 and has been integral to modern machine gun design in most if not all modern militaries squad automatic weapons.
The UK was backed by the entire US and USSR no wonder they won, the UK lost to the Germans constantly from 1939-42 (El Alamein was the turning point)
Nope.
+Conor Buckman The UK and US beat the german because 75%-80% of german soldier died on the eastern front. The germans simply didn't have the numbers to win.
+Hymer300 But... Britain was mainly fighting Italy from 1940-1942 so I'm not sure how it's possible to er 'loose' to them. Other than in the battle of Britain, which the UK won. The only other major conflict which involved Germany, was due to the British giving the Italians such a hard time. XD
And you're forgetting Germany had the other Axis nations and had control over the whole of Europe. The UK is a small island... You can't expect a small island to be able to take over an entire continent on it's own. xD
+Xiolablu3 USSR was actively on the side of the Germans until June of 1941.
Germany built the coalition which defeated them by attacking Poland, Denmark Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Britain, USSR, and declaring war on US, then invading Vichy France, invading Italy. Then they complain about how the entire world was against them. Poor Germans.
+jamie M Well, there was that "Rommel" guy, though he was Swabian, that is kind of a German.
Allies: noooooooooo you can't shoot 1500 rounds per minute. that's unfair.
German's:
haha MG 42 go brrrrrrrrrrrr
It’s pointless. Why do you need 1,500 rounds per minute?
@@thethirdman225 Well, how about you go back in time to World War 2 germany and ask the military command why they put muzzle boosters on their MG42 to increase the rate of fire.
@@baraka629
*_"Well, how about you go back in time to World War 2 germany and ask the military command why they put muzzle boosters on their MG42 to increase the rate of fire."_*
Well, I did training on the Bren. What are your qualifications? Firing 1,500 rpm isn't very helpful. It's too hard to aim and you have to carry three times the ammunition. Try lugging that round on foot for three days. The only time that kind of fire was any use was for defensive fire in aircraft where critical hits with rifle calibre ammunition were hard to score.
@@thethirdman225 bren fanboys coping
@@Amish234 Not a fanboi. Couldn’t care less about guns. To be honest, if it hadn’t been this channel, which was referred to by Ralf Ratz’s Military History Channel, I wouldn’t even watch it. But I trained on the Bren. I’m familiar with squad tactics and nobody needed 1,500 rounds per minute. We trained to fire in bursts of three to five rounds, which saved ammunition and barrels.
"better" or "worse", the mg34 definitely had a bigger influence on the world of firearms as a whole.
+kevin butler yea history tends to tell us of their pill boxes with guns of death, mg34 / 42 def had that award.
Well this got a bit out of hand.
The problem with books such as this is that they are recollections and people who survive such dramatic situations tend to embellish a bit. Sometimes a bit too much. And we rarely ever see both sides of the coin. Both weapons were good. Neither was bad. They just had different attributes and were used to their strengths. The subject on why the Germans were on the back heel since 1944 is such a deep and complex matter that we'd need a series of videos dedicated to just that. It definitely wasn't down to just two machineguns.
There are plenty of videos on UA-cam that compare both side by side. Forgottenweapons is a good start.
The result of those direct comparisons is often that they are both very good weapons, with very good accuracy and very good effectiveness. Bit it's never about the weapon, unless it's fundamentally broken. It's about the men who carry them and the men who tell them where to go and what to point it at.
I agree. You need to look at the numbers as well. 1.3 British was killed per German killed, imply that the MG series was superior. Oh, and the MG series allowed 1.5 million Germans to hold off 14 million Russians and take on the British, French, US, Yugo, etc... Numbers are harsh.
In fact all modern machine guns are belt fed like the MG series, but very few nations use box magazine machine guns. In fact the US M-60 machine gun and tactics was loosely based upon the MG series and German MG tactics. MG is the future, the Bren is the obsolete past.
Those guys who were missing the idiot in the open. They were just having fun I think. Sometimes soldiers do that.
+Teutone +1 I highly recommend that Lindy visits Forgotten Weapons and have a chat with Ian or Karl about these weapons, it's going to be an eye opener for him.
MG42 was a very fast firing German light machine gun yes but it was also very accurate because of its weight and the bolt being very straight and having rollers on either side also it was twice as easy to replace the barrel in fact the gunner didn't even have to move or roll to replace the barrel because i pops out right in front of you. Although with the Bren gun you have to reach towards the front of the gun to replace the barrel and it was more practical to carry around Mg42 barrels.
Also the MG42 has been used all over Europe and middle east even until now, Even the Yugoslavian army used it all through out the cold war. the German military today uses a MG3 which is a Mg42 converted to a 7.62mm round to suit modern bullets, the Mg42 fired a 7.92mm round.
The Bren gun is prone to gun wobble and jams.
German tactics in ww2 made the Mg42 a very useful attacking tool as well as the gunner, assistant gunner and spotter who would all together be carrying around 1-2 ammo tins each which could house over 300 round a box. could smack down on the ground and give ample covering fire towards enemy positions.
Same with the Mg34 and Mg15 which had slower fire rate but was also just as effective.
That's my statement.
Also German quality over Allied Quantity.
The MG42 was actually a GPMG, not an LMG, and the BREN's barrel was almost as easy to change. The MG-34's barrel was a little more tricky as well.
I agree with you about the small arms. However "German quality" wasn't a deciding factor in the Second World War. This is why so many "quality" tiger tanks broke down. They were over-complicated and engineered. In a war, a balance has to be found and was found with the US and it's amazing production capability.
LoganThe Llama dont ruin his dreams, where they all have stg 44s and tiger 2s
LoganThe Llama
I’m under the impression that the german tanks breaking down was mostly due to broken supply lines- they couldn’t even get replacement parts for basic wear and tear because the allies were disrupting the germans supply lines.
He mentioned this in a recent tank video. Even the most reliable vehicles need maintenance and break when they don’t get it.
PS the MG42 is far far easier to change a barrel on than a Bren because of it side instead of forward realise. IDK on a MG34.
Mg42/mg3's are very accurate it was my service mg, got 23 hits out of 50 from 500m with ironsights.. you just have to do short burst of 3-4 rounds
Edit: target was a siluette of a person
Got to add that mg3's are even used as snipers when needed, they can mount any scope with a adapter
But did you do the same 50 targets with a Bren Gun? You have to compare them both to see which is more accurate.
also who would have time to switch to single fire mode in a battle, you have too be at you’re guard the entire time, something can happen at any second
So ur telling me that u hit some over 1600 ft away with 64% accuracy 🤔 🤔🤔🤔🤔🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐
@@thehistoadian good idea💡
This video is a perfect example of a person talking about something they don't understand.
yep..... too often in Lindybeige
+Mathias Laakkonen It would be useful if you also pointed out what exactly shows that he doesn't understand the topic. Otherwise the comment is pretty useless.
+oOQwertyOo7 I can't point out everything, I don't have the time. But go check out the rest of the comments. Go look up the MG42 and MG34 wikipedia pages and also look up the term Spandau, the Brits used it for most machineguns made by the Nazis not as a specific term for the MG42.
Stop pretending to be an expert on things you clearly are not an expert in.
Just to point out one thing when you said that the bren was in use for much longer than the mg 42, thats true. The germans replaced it with the MG 3 during the 1950's wiche was basicly an MG42 but with 7.62mm nato rounds insted of the old mauser rounds, and its being used by around 30 different countries
+lordofdarkdudes Also about nobody copying it. The M60 would probabnly disagree.
+LordDarthHarry The M60 had a horrifically low fire rate compared to the MG42, something like half
+LordDarthHarry The M60 is mechanically more of a copy of the FG42 but with MG42/MG34 beltfeed mechanism and a quick change barrel.
+Revener666 I would say the same. M60 kinda a mix FG42 and MG42 but with the appearance of FG
+lordofdarkdudes can't remember him claiming to be an expert, at which timestamp did he say that?
Seems your own fault if you simply assumed that. this is the internet, youtube of all places. don't go assuming things are correct, no matter how well the are produced. Take them as datapoints and opinions.
Everyone in Europe and almost everywhere else adopted a belt-fed machine-gun after. Germany, France, Austria, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland and other countries used MG42 based weapons (MG1 to MG3, MG74 and MG51). The Americans build the M60 which was a partial copy. Belgium build the FN MAG which later became the american M240 or the british L7A1/A2. The French Army had the AA-52, and the Russians and other Communist nations had the PK series of Machine Guns (they also had the AKM-based magazine-fed RPK machine gun). As you can see belt-fed guns are the way to go. Magazine-fed guns are just niche weapons today.
The modern version of the “spandau” is accurate to 400 meters, it’s called a mg 3 and is still being used by the German army.
yes the modern version he is talking about the original 1942 design
@@kek5109 almost no changes were done. Heck, some of the Bundeswehr mg3 still have Waffenamt stamps and were stamped as mg42.
And that means what? It's better/good? Just because something has been in service or a variant has for a long time doesn't equal being good, bad or anything other than being in service a long time. It's a fallacy to assume so and again just because something is not used now doesn't mean it's worse than the thing that has, there are many reasons/variables for why that can be
@@gone8913 It literally is good. almost every LMG/MMG in use by a modern military is based on the feed system from the mg42. the zb26 was an evolutionary dead end, and lindy should recognize that, as even the czechs who made it ditched its system pretty fast after the war...
@@marcusborderlands6177 one of the reasons we dropped it was because communism/sovets fucked us
Coming up: how the PIAT was actually better than the Bazooka, and how the sten was superior to the P-40.
lol
I hope we get why Panzer II was superior to KV-1...
Taking into consideration the time and design purpose, both the Pz II and KV-1 were good tanks. Though the KV was better, even with those criteria.
dIRECT0R Piat was horse shit... It uses a spring! A spring! XD
+White house gaming If the Brits made it, then the spring was the best choice.
MG 34 and MG 42 are NOT the same gun. They have competely diferent operating mechanisms. MG 34 has a rotating bolt and a rate of fire of about 900 rpm. MG 42 is roller locked and has a rate of fire of about 1250 rpm. Barrel change is a lot different (much faster on the MG 42). MG 34 is milled and MG 42 is stamped...
+mihajlo olujic So...it still lost
+Majority Hippo Lost what?
mg 34 had a rate of fire from about 600rpm bit the rests correct
+Jan Hemmer I think you need to go and check your facts :)
Multipollop The war...BOOM...(Drops mic)
Love your comments but you know your going to get a lot of hate from gun geeks. By the by, the Rheinmetall MG3 - Direct descendent of the MG34/42 is still in use to this day.
+Nguroa There's copies also called the MG1A3 and Beretta MG 42/59. Though today there's a lot more competition from several manufactures and surplus.
+Nguroa Plus, the design was heavily copied for the M60.
+Nguroa Not only that, but the American M60 was directly inspired by the MG42.
WorldOfHurt101
Did you not see my comment? I assume you didn't.
You posted exactly one minute before I did. It didn't update before I posted.
actually, an mg 34 is pretty good in semi auto, and with the double-crescent trigger you could select-fire by just shifting your finger. that feature went away with the 42.
Actually the MG 34 / MG 42 ist still in use in the german Bundeswehr. It is called the MG 3 now. And tactical doctrine for shooting with MG 3 calls for shooting short bursts in order to get precise hits. ;-) I imagine it wasn't much different in WW2. P.S. Another thing is just noticed is that german infantry is trained on all infantry weapons a platoon (section) carries along. Meaning, if the MG shooter gets killed another soldier just steps in and takes over. P.P.S. The conclusion is wrong, too, I am afraid because the Germans didn't lose the war because the Bren was so good at its job. It was because english (and US) bombing of the german industrial areas and thus denial of ressources was very effective. Plus a bunch of other factors as well.
All infantry in a section are trained on the section weapons. For the obvious point you mentioned. It's the same in any army.
+MrTryAnotherOne Germans lose the war because allies-USSR, USA, GB etc. had a huge advantage(manpower, industry, oil etc.)
+MrTryAnotherOne The mg 3 is in use also in Finland
+MrTryAnotherOne And not just the Bundeswehr. The 42 is used by like thirty other countries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_MG_3#Users
I was just pointing out the modern usage of the MG3 in the Bundeswehr as Lindy was hinting towards the usage of the Bren in the british army.
the danish army still uses mg42 today
Indeed. Also the Germans, and the Italians, and the Pakistanis, and the Greeks, and the Turks...
When I was in the danish army (15 years ago) we used the mg3, but they where being replaced as they are not very usefull anymore. But yeah that was 15 years ago. Dont think there is many left still in use in the danish army.
Alot of countries in the middle east also use them. I've known US Army dudes who've found MG42's and Lee Enfields in Afghanistan and they also keep popping up in places like Yemen. Alot of countries put a proven track record over things like all the fancy tactical add-ons most modern armies get a hard on for.
X is still used so y which is not in use is worse, it's a fallacy, x being in use only implies that it's still in use, there are many variables/reasons something can be in use over something else it's a fallacy to assume it automatically means anything other than it is still used.
Actually Brens are of Czeh design..not British.
Czech*
design but not manufacture.. a great design can be poorly manufactured and develop a horrid reputation
@@hitmeinsteadofyourkid4967 Yes, but Czech firearms are usually very well made. I've owned, used and shot several BRNO (now CZ) firearms and found them to be well-made, rugged and accurate. Their rimfire rifles in particular have been well regarded in Australia for decades and I note their ever-increasing popularity in North America as well. So I would dispute any claim that Enfield would necessarily have made a better weapon.
Did you miss the beginning of this? It's stated within the first three seconds.
@@hitmeinsteadofyourkid4967 Light machine gun model 26 was the base of Bren, designed and produced many years before license was sold to Enfield and was widely used in Czechoslovak army for long time before and even after WW II. Czechoslovakia was well-known for established and advanced military industry, especially the infantry one, so there is no reason to suspect that one of their key infantry gun was poorly manufactured.
I had experience firing Bren guns in cadets in school. Greatest difference from the Lee Enfield rifle, both using .303 rounds, was that the Bren had no recoil, a net negative recoil infact, due to the gas reload capability and actions of the butt-plate buffer spring and the piston-return spring. I recall young short slight lads using the Bren on the ground being pulled bodily forward towards the target across the dirt. I took to holding on to their boots to anchor them.
Love those stories.
My father told me he had the same experience as a cadet in the late forties! He was a skinny kid and said they had to hold him back when he shot the Bren. He also said they got to shoot it lots as there was lots of surplus ammo back then, now you can hardly find surplus ammo anywhere
this is not a realistic comparison the bren was a squad gun similar to the BAR the MG 34 was similar to the 1918 browning very different!
@dbenson31 MG34 is a light and heavy machine gun.The definition comes from its use...Not it´s weight or ammo capacity.MG34 in ditch in bipod:LMG,on tripod or even Lafette:HMG
MG34/42 have a rifle/LMG cartridge, but an immense rate of fire, ridiculous for a personal weapon. That somehow gave it an anti-aircraft and anti-vehicle role (if and only if the vehicles weren't heavily armored). That's why it's an universal role machine gun, not the best as an LMG or HMG, but more versatile than any of these ones.
The BAR was better than the bren. Change my mind.
@Lucho Lavalle it looked unique on the western front and was in service long after ww2. Lots of footage+unique+useful gun=iconic.
@Lucho Lavalle larger magazine, similar weight, more modular and actually had a foregrip to improve accuracy while not on the bipod. The M1918A2 Bar used by the Americans was actually the severely overrated weapon. The Belgians used a better BAR, and the FBI used a better BAR too. (FN's BAR and the Colt Monitor). the BAR was too heavy and offered too little, although it still obviously kicked ass either way
The MG 42 (sorry, can't call it a Spandau) is still being used today by the German army and others - sort of. In 1960 or thereabouts the MG 42 design was given a few minor tweaks and re-labelled the MG 3. This is still used today by armies from Chile to Togo to Burma. You make some very good points about its less than ideal nature in advance/attack. Going back to a previous video of yours, the problem would seem to be that the Germans (and the Americans, with their Browning 30-cal) tried to use one design as both a light machine-gun and a medium one, whereas the British (and the Russians with their Degtyaryov LMG and the Goryunov MMG) had two separate weapons - the Bren and the Vickers.
Although it is commonly said that fully loading magazines "tires" out the springs...the primary reason to download a mag, is if you're reloading on a closed bolt, it is much easier with a few less rounds in the mag. Simply filling up a mag doesn't tire any springs. It's the action of repeated loading and unloading that wears out springs.
I operated the LMG when I was a National Serviceman, on the firing range I might add, I had it on repetition & frightened the life out of the boys operating the markers. Great fun many years ago.
British Soldier in the field: 'Blimey, that MG 42 is just inaccurate, they can't even hit me! They should have Bren guns! Bren guns are superior! British technology is obviously superior to anything these Krauts can make! I shall write a book describing this and hopefully middle class British man near the turn of the next century will tell everyone the same thing... A war memoir of how heroic and awesome British forces and technology truly were...'
German Soldiers in the pillbox overlooking him: 'Klaus, vatch zis... I can make zis Tommy viggle and jiggle like a leettle verm every time I fire zee machine gun!' *brrrrrrrrrrrt* 'Oh yeah Hans! Zat ees a giggle! Let me go get zee sergeant, zis vill make his entire veek!'
Reminds me of this civil war general who's last words were "They couldn't hit an elephant from this far!"
Actually they are still using "Spandau" to this day in form of MG3.
+Kharmazov Yeah buddy, the Norwegian armed forces as well as Bundeswehr still use it. Lindybeige is full of shit.
*****
Nah he just "misses" things sometimes.
Kharmazov You're right, I was a bit harsh.
+Mathias Laakkonen Yes plus about 30 other armies still use them. Must be a very unsuccessful design this thing.
+Kharmazov "misses"
*cough* doesn't fit his narrative *cough*
A pretty...bizarre...take, no offence, and likely by someone who has little or no experience with firearms, at least not with military smallarms. Couple of misconceptions from the get-go, the Mg34 has an ROF of 900. Not to mention, they are not really alike in operating principle. But for the love of god: There is nothing "inaccurate" about either the 34 or the 42...inherent accuracy is about 4 MOA which is the same as most service rifles of the day. Seriously, where do these misconceptions arise? I reckon they emerge from a very one sided reading of mostly anecdotal nature. Engaging point targets with the German GPMGS is very much doable, to the point where popping balloons from both the bipod and the tripod is entirely feasible with either to over a km, especially with the latter that is rock stable and has a 4 power scope. Killing a prone individual at 80(!) meters does not pose a problem at all for even a semi-trained gunner. Even if the man in question was positively crosseyed, he would have hit a target that size with the alleged copious expenditure in ammunition. As to why the particular individual in your example was not killed might be explained to several factors, including arguably that the gunner did not actually want to kill him (gasp), but certainly not due to a lack of practical accuracy on the part of the 42. Mind you this gun and its derivatives are used in several armies around the world to this day and people have collected alot of practical experience about their capabilities and shortcomings. Why not ask them instead of apparently consulting memoir literature from one side of the equation whose intrinsic limitations, historiographically and otherwise, should be obvious? Squeezing off single shots with the MG3 is part of basic in the Bundeswehr, standard burst length from the bipod is 4-6. You can also fire a 42/MG 3 from the hip and the shoulder just fine, even though its obviously not a common approach. Mind you, the Germans used the BRENs predecessor, the Czech Vz 26 fairly extensively as well, and it came utterly short in comparison. Frankly, both practically and conceptually, the 34/42 were a generation ahead of the likes of the Bren, which make no mistake, was a fine gun in its own right. Upon re-hearing this. No offence, but lots of non sequiturs and ahistorical conclusions with a final touch of jingo. Expecting better from you.
Well said. I posted something along the same lines but I always restrict myself because I often find people don't believe me. I was an MG3 operator in the Norwegian Army and I agree 100% about the accuracy and the ease of use from the hip and even the shoulder. Using bipod and iron sights it's no problem at all hitting targets (man sized, in semi cover) at 400 m +. Where Lindybeige got this info I hdont know but it's not right at all.
he just exaggerated some.
The mg3, mg1, mg53 and mg74 are nearly identical versions of the mg42, there are no machine guns based on british ww2 designs, blessings
right shoot bursts at a guy for 45 minutes not hitting and no one got the bright idea to just put a rifle round in his head and be done with it...
Sounds like bullshit to me.
+DJ Doc's Videos Yeah, fairly sure no one was actually trying to kill the guy, though i don't doubt that's the story he told, or that it seemed like a miracle to him, but in reality, if they had wanted him dead, he would have been.
+DJ Doc's Videos And you shouldn't forget, the first shot is always accurate. You only start wandering of target with the following shots and if you are an experienced gunner (which every soldier is, bc it's in basic training) you know how to compensate.
I shot with it myself. The first round was always exactly where you aimed it and you always wandered of in a distincitve direction. So you either shoot someone with the first round or you put the next couple in him, because you aimed low/left/right and let the recoil do the rest.
+DJ Doc's Videos It's possible they were busy holding back other troops, only taking a burst at him when they weren't preoccupied with the rest of the battle. It's hard to say without reading the full account.
That's the thing about anecdotal evidence - it's not bloody evidence at all.
Maybe he forgot to tell, that the Germans were yelling at this poor guy, who was crawling desperatly right in front of their muzzles at point blank, in broken english: "Godamm! Go home Tommy! Run back! Nobody will harm you!"
If they had wanted to kill him - they had thrown a helmet at him....^^
Well the Rheinmetall MG3 (MG43) is still being made today and is still in use in Germany and other European countries as the main machinegun. So MG wins over Bren 100%
+Harbard We use them i Denmark.
Nope the German army is phasing the MG3 out. No new ones have been made since the mid 90's. The replacement is from Heckler and Koch.
Silvia Scolaro That kinda suck. Another US controlled replacement! Should use them MG3 to get rid of NATO.
+Harbard the replacement is the HK 121 if you are curious. Though it should be said the are not replacing it cause it was deficient they are replacing it because the tooling to make it wore out and the cost of new tooling is enough that they felt it justified making a whole new design.
+Harbard Lindybeige is so ignorant in this subject, that he tries to compare an automatic rifle with a medium machine gun. What's next, spoon versus fork?
The myth of Bren accuracy was addressed by Bloke and Ian "Gun Jesus" McCallum in another video.
It was propaganda
I used Bren guns in the Brit Army and found them accurate enough in single shot or burst mode. in fact, the only fully automatic weapon that I used that was significantly more accurate than a Bren is the US SF light mg. the name of which escapes me at this remove.
@@dougoneill7266 The Stoner 63?
@@AllThingsCubey Honestly can't recall at this stage it was a long time ago. I remember it had a top mounted Mag same as a Bren.
@@dougoneill7266 Probably a Stoner 63, it was modular and could be set as a top loader.
Well the general purpose machine guns are the standard in every army nowadays but the light machine guns have been made obsolete. MG34 and MG42 were the first GPMGs that were used on mass and to a great effect. So yeah I'd say that they were indeed better than a Bren.