Great video! A WWII tank vet once told me the sandbags helped calm the nerves of greener tank crew by absorbing alot to most of the sound when smaller nonpen rounds impact the tank.

@davidrossa4125

8 ай бұрын

That makes a lot of sense

@mandowarrior123

8 ай бұрын

Pretty valuable addition then.

@Aleksei_Lopatin

8 ай бұрын

They might work vs panzerfaust..

@danschneider9921

8 ай бұрын

My grandfather was a gunner then commander of M4s in the 17th Tk Bn 7th Armored. He said almost verbatim the same

@obsidianjane4413

8 ай бұрын

And artillery fragments. Another benefit was that it would prevent ricochets and splash from travelling up and potentially hit exposed crew or tank riders.

I remember so many safety briefs in Iraq that started with "Troops are doing X, don't do that", Notable examples: Wearing Flea collars Not running the Chameleon jammer because we believed it gave you cancer (something my company believed) Not wearing seat-belts so you would be ejected from an exploding an exploding vehicle and not trapped inside Not wearing Eye protection because it was flammable Preferring the 240 over the 249 because the 249 jammed too much (meanwhile I personally saw a 240 go into a runaway gun condition luckily it was on the range and not fire fight.) Not using the M2 .50 cal because "it was war crime to shoot people with it"

@rusty_from_earth9577

8 ай бұрын

My favorite bulletin was a softskin truck where a Claymore had been ziptied to the grill, and the command wire run into the cab. Apparently the thinking was “Claymores are directional so if we attach it facing outwards it will be fine.” I wish I still had a picture of the poster, which itself had a photo of this rolling hazard.

@Shade01982

8 ай бұрын

The seatbelt one is one we also believed. Most of us were of the opinion we rarely went fast enough to need it anyway and getting pinned under it seemed like a nightmare...

@nirfz

8 ай бұрын

@@Shade01982 so you never went above human jogging speed then... (where i am from they have seatbelt showcase slides where you slide into a full stop with a seat at little over walking speed and that's when people realize how little speed is needed to cause damage.)

@Shade01982

8 ай бұрын

@@nirfz Most of what we did was on foot. And the parts we were driving were only short distances. Was there a risk? Yeah, probably. But it felt like less of a risk to us compared to the alternative we are talking about. Wanna guess why busses don't have seatbelts?

@gr6373

8 ай бұрын

In regards to the 240 vs the 249, you're just facing your personal experience vs that of other Soldiers. I have personally seen far more 249 malfunctions than 240 malfunctions.

My late father in law served with the 50th Infantry Division in WW2 from 19 42 - 1946 and told me of an incident in Normandy when they came across some young Wermacht Infantry holed up in a cottage. My father in law was manning a Bren. Someone called for them to surrender. They fired at the Green Howards, so a couple of volleys went the other way. Half a dozen Germans ran out of the house to the right. Richie fired a short burst which landed in front of the running men. They ran back and then a minute or two ran the other way. Again Richie fired a burst which again fell in front of them. They ran back to the cottage. After more firing the Germans waved a piece of white cloth and they surrendered. My father in law was praised for his accurate shooting. When asked why didn't just shoot them, he replied: "I was trying to, but the bastards wouldn't stand still." A possible commendation went sailing across field.

@riccofernandez3130

6 ай бұрын

How ard? Green howard 😂

I will always remember my fathers friends Vietnam experience. He was a tanker and his crew welded so much shit to their tank that it was apparently twice as slow as the other tanks. The only practical thing they added to the tank was a machine gun I believe.

@grantm6514

8 ай бұрын

There's an interesting corollary to that in a book called Troop Leader by Bill Bellamy, I won't say more so I don't spoil the punchline, but you can hear Lindybeige tell the story on his channel, vid is called Tales of Cromwell Tanks.

@grantforester1864

8 ай бұрын

@@grantm6514 oh fuck yea I love Cromwell tanks. I’ll check it later

@nitsu2947

8 ай бұрын

What the hell did they weld on those poor tanks lmao

@MeeesterBond17

8 ай бұрын

Ah, but dey forgot da red paint job! Common humie mistake.

@danshakuimo

8 ай бұрын

@@MeeesterBond17 If they had painted it red then the firepower will be doubled, what a wasted opportunity. That being said considering the junk welded on they should've painted the tank yellow so that they could at least catch up with the other tanks...

A similar example of this in the gaming sphere is the Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory with the thompson and mp40. The sound design affected how players perceived the weapons resulting in a change to player actions. The weapons were coded to have the exact SAME stats, but players felt the thompson performed better. This is slightly related idea on how belief in something can affect performance. Maybe, men using the bren believing it to be more accurate were less likely to overthink making the shot compared to a scoped rifle.

@LAHFaust

8 ай бұрын

I'll admit that I thought the Thompson was superior to the MP-40 until I read this comment and I played ET for years.

@justin4911

8 ай бұрын

@@LAHFaust The internet being the internet, I'd want to test rather than trusting what the parent commenter said at face value.

@therubberducktube

8 ай бұрын

@@justin4911 There's a documentary/feature about it somewhere on KZread. Apparently the players with the Thompson were much more willing to charge enemies, than players with the MP40 who showed (relatively) more cautious behavior. And apparently charging in gives better results on average when you are using one of the submachine guns. If I remember the video correctly, the developers spent a bunch of time trying to figure out why the guns were behaving differently in the statistics, when they should have the same stats, until they figured out the thing about the sound design.

@timbirch4999

8 ай бұрын

"You can only hit with the shots that you actually take." Most people wouldn't waste ammo taking a few potshots with an LMG at enemy in the distance. But if you think you might make the shot and so you try it a few times, you are sure as shit going to remember the time that you actually hit someone who thought they were out of range.

@Neuttah

8 ай бұрын

​@@therubberducktube Heh. Rush B crowd winning again and again.

Practical small arms accuracy is also a matter of marksmanship. The Bren being a gun with a bipod and mostly shot from the prone, which meant that it would likely see better results from shooters than other small arms, regardless of mechanical accuracy.

@user-se7es6uc8v

8 ай бұрын

Fired one from the shoulder and it was amazingly accurate.

@Noname-rc8uc

7 ай бұрын

@@user-se7es6uc8v The Gun Jesus said it's 4-5 MOA gun, which is way more accurate than 99% of shooters when shoulder firing.

@victoriazero8869

7 ай бұрын

The bren is exactly as accurate as the average shooter 2 MOA in warzone is a myth

@FIREBRAND38

7 ай бұрын

Sell it also fires from an open bolt so there is a practical limit on its precision.

Also on the rounds vs kills thing, there's quite the possibility they were hitting much sooner, but you don't often stop at just one hit. As you've said before, the rule of thumb is keep shooting until it changes shape or catches fire. Verifying a shape change at 1000yards under battlefield conditions with smoke, dust, and so on isn't easy. It catching fire though, is a lot easier to see happening. It wasn't uncommon to put additional rounds into a tank to make sure it's not a threat anymore. This isn't a video game like Company of Heroes where you can see it's almost destroyed or has been turned into a wreck. With threats like a tank, especially one that has the theoretical ability to fire back at you due to its comparable gun, you don't just shrug and assume "good enough" and if you do...well sooner or later you're going to have a "significant emotional event"

@daniellejones5981

8 ай бұрын

I build Models, and researching photo's has shown me that a knocked out tank Never has just one Penetration!!! There are 2 or 3 on average, with many more 'Hits'!

The thing about the accuracy of the 88 mm Flak reminds me of some people who buy several thousand dollar AR-15 platforms and brag about having a half MOA gun. To which my question is usually, 'Can you shoot half an MoA?' I know I cannot. I'm more of a 'can possibly hit a barn wall from inside the barn' shooter.

@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND

8 ай бұрын

Right. The gun nuts all talk like they're top tier shooters. They live in a fantasy world, waiting for the day they'll get to start killing their fellow Americans for some imagined reason. The highest percentage of them have no idea how to operate their weapon system. But boy do they talk a big game. I can't even go to the gun range anymore because of all the lunatics.

@InterstellarTaco

8 ай бұрын

Most weapons outshoot the shooter itself. Pistols are where you notice it the most. Your average pistol is more accurate than 99.9% of the people shooting them. Putting red dots, compensatory and using specific ammo might make things slightly more convenient but it doesn't change the inherent accuracy of the weapon.

@kw9849

8 ай бұрын

It's wild how often people will turn their noses up at any rifle that's said to be less accurate than 1 MOA, as though anything more is somehow unusable. Nevermind the fact most people can't shoot 1 MOA to begin with.

@hedgeearthridge6807

8 ай бұрын

The entire concept of MOA precision is mathematical GARBAGE from the very beginning, a statistician on KZread has demonstrated it. The only real way to measure precision requires Chi distributions, confidence intervals and standard deviation, and THOUSANDS of rounds fired to even gather enough data to calculate it. Any rifle is "sub-MOA", just fire 5 rounds and get lucky with them all being close together.

@hedgeearthridge6807

8 ай бұрын

The video btw is "Science Agrees: 5 shot groups are pointless" by Blackburn Defense

Reminds me of something I read about naval dazzle camouflage. Nobody was ever entirely sure how effective it actually was, but the crews felt better with the camouflage on the ship.

@cheyannei5983

8 ай бұрын

I can say having seen a LOT of pictures of it that most examples are not convincing at even close range. Others were so convincing that even with good quality film, camera, and photographer that I wasn't sure what kind of boat I was looking at from less than a ship length away! I think the value of a well executed dazzle is the same we get from modern digital camo; it blurs the edges terribly. How many guns do they have? What kind of ship? Do they have good anti-air? With a good dazzle camo, these are really hard questions to answer, and I think makes it worth the effort.

@MrNigzy23

8 ай бұрын

Yes, the camouflage effectiveness was zero but that wasn't the point. The point of dazzle was to make it take longer for the enemy crew to dial in your range and bearing which would give the crew of the dazzle camouflaged ship the time needed to make an accurate first shot or to get the heck away. Dazzle was very effective, especially in the turbulent waves of the Atlantic Ocean. Remember that naval engagements take place miles upon miles away from one another with 1930's, or earlier, built optics in most cases. Every line mattered.

@pnutz_2

8 ай бұрын

main assets of dazzle was affecting rangefinding and the intel value of IDing what ship they'd just seen

@novatopaz9880

8 ай бұрын

This is actually covered by drach in a few of his videos, and the funny thing with dazzle camo was that it was designed against rangefinders... The enemy didn't possess. So it was near enough useless, lol.

@olliephelan

8 ай бұрын

@@cheyannei5983 Also , its angle and direction. The invasion stripes on planes on D-day, also gave other pilots indication of angle, direction and orientation in every direction when flying in close formation. Do the opposite and you cant tell where they are.

Perception has always been huge in the military. Even in the Canadian forces we had old timers who would rave on about the accuracy of the BREN, how all the rounds would make a single ragged hole, etc. I can easily see if a section was asked to engage a distant individual, someone would go, "yeah, if I single-load a BREN" and the resulting confidence in the equipment could help the soldier make the hit. I would be hard-pressed to believe that a sniper familiar with the superbly accurate no4(T) would switch to a Bren to make such a shot. But if no such rifle was present, it makes perfect sense.

I would argue there was one test of putting extra tracks on armor that hasn't been tested. Sherman Firefly didn't have a bow gunner, there were more of them lost to infantry attack than to armor attack. The main way being a German soldier would go right in front of it and stick a magnetic mine on the front, right where that bow gunner wasn't there, but where right behind the frontal armor all those extra 76.2mm 17 pounder rounds were stored. Taking the track from a Churchill tank and wrapping it around the hull would help prevent a German infantryman from directly attaching a magnetic mine to the hull at the most vulnerable points. It might be a case of magnetic mines and sticky bombs not attaching very well to things like sandbags and the armor troops noticing that there were more tanks surviving with these improvised armor attachments that caused them to copy the practice. The point being, the tankers attached improvised armor not because it was protecting them from tanks, the improvised armor was protecting them from infantry. The tankers themselves might not have realized they were doing it to protect themselves from infantry instead of armor. They simply saw how the other tankers that were doing it seemed to be living longer than the ones that didn't. After the battles the experts would look at all the tanks that were destroyed by enemy tanks and anti tank guns and conclude the improvised armor offered no protection from enemy tanks and anti tank guns, because that's what they were trying to determine. They weren't looking at whether or not the improvised armor was protecting against infantry weapons.

@sthenzel

8 ай бұрын

Good point! The addons probably were tested with solid shot or similar, but with things like squash head, HEAT or even HE, the additional stuff may add just enough distance or buffer to make a difference.

@grandadmiralraeder9608

8 ай бұрын

That is an interesting point.... and as well the extra stuff will probably offer CE protection (so against HEAT, HE, HE-Frag, HESH), but you are prefectly correct - KE protection is sod all.

@hedgehog3180

8 ай бұрын

Well surely something not made of metal would do a better job of that and be less heavy? Like plywood would probably do the job. Also I feel like the sources would have made note of something like this if it was the case because in other examples, like with the open tops of American TDs you can find several sources discussing it and you can find lots of examples improvised roofs meant to make grenades fall off, which eventually did inspire the creation of official roof kits.

@sthenzel

8 ай бұрын

@@hedgehog3180 This would require logistics! Wooden logs can be pulled from the forest, sandbags are abundant and track links from shot up vehicles are easily avalaible as well. And while a plywood board may trigger a slow Panzerfaust, I highly doubt a tank round would notice its existence. HE or HEAT may be triggered, but the light board would not have any effect on the blast of the former, for the latter it may offer enough standoff

@classifiedad1

8 ай бұрын

It is interesting to note that the experience of USMC and US Army tankers in the Pacific employed wooden armor extensively for the same reasons, as the main anti-tank method of the IJA was the use of magnetic mines. The wooden boards served as a stand-off to prevent the mines from sticking.

The idea of perception has always been a huge thing for me. I knew guys with 30 round Pmags who still insisted on only loading 28 or 29 rounds because it “made them feed more reliably”. Trying to explain to gun people that yes it happened but no it wasn’t useful is a difficult point to make.

@Bladsmith

8 ай бұрын

I just load 29 cus it makes the mags easier to seat on a closed bolt

@Br1cht

8 ай бұрын

My father fought in the 50´s war and he did that, perhaps the springs were less reliable back then? Or a BarackLegend;)

@rusty_from_earth9577

8 ай бұрын

My understanding is that the original run of 20 round magazines were considered unreliable and would be downloaded to 18-19. I do not know if that is mechanically true, but I know a lot of people believed it. The practice kept up in 30 rounders, and it became one of those “pro tips” that floats around inside the military among grumpy old NCOs.

@jarink1

8 ай бұрын

@@BladsmithI once told someone that loading an M-16(or AR-15) on a closed bolt was an improper method. He refused to believe me, even though loading with the bolt open has been the exact method taught in Basic Training for decades.

@Texasplit

8 ай бұрын

@@jarink1 you won’t have seating issues, if your seating into open space for sure.

My father was a bren user in the British army in the 1950's. His view of the weapon's accuracy was that he was fairly confident of getting a 1st round hit on a head sized target moving at walking speed at a range of 100m using single shot firing (as tested against sheep). I have no idea whether that is normal for a bren accuracy claim.

@TheChieftainsHatch

8 ай бұрын

More to the point, was shooting at sheep heads normal for an accuracy test?

@HoltzWorks

8 ай бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch I don't know about accuracy test, but it sure sounds like they were performing a "can we get some extra dinner without the farmer noticing it?" test.

@cirian75

8 ай бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch British army shooting sheep that "accidentally" wander onto ranges is not uncommon, the farmer gets compensated current market value, well 23 years ago it was.

@electrolytics

8 ай бұрын

It is normal for the guy(like your father) who makes that accuracy claim. It's good shooting. It's not that grand of a claim within any circle of decent shooters.

@mpetersen6

8 ай бұрын

Hopefully the sheep got put to culinary uses.

You can still get into a woolly pully from thirty years ago; well done, sir.

@lynnallen1585

8 ай бұрын

Nick is a Good Guy. We lived in the same B Hut at Mehtar Lam, Afghanistan in 2009. He looked after me while I was there.

In “the scene,” the Bren is used as a show-don’t-tell device to communicate to the audience that this high value target requires a corresponding escalation in firepower. There isn’t any drama in telling the sniper to use his No 4 T to shoot the HVT the same way he’s been slotting the faceless enemy infantry thus far. Using the Bren as a literal plot device was a relatively seamless way to build dramatic tension during the setup sequence, that is subsequently released when the Man in White is hit and falls. Yes, we as gun nerds know this is silly, but to the vast majority of viewers, they understand the stakes are being raised without having to be told. It’s a good use of a weapon the audience has already seen used in its intended role, now being pressed to do something new, without having to use some Mcguffin.

@BleedingUranium

8 ай бұрын

This is an excellent point too. And it was also cool to see it done properly in a mechanical sense, with the closeup of the bolt dropping and such.

@donjones4719

8 ай бұрын

Excellent analysis, very convincing.

@mohhamedofthefirstworldjer7488

8 ай бұрын

Everyone seems to miss that brens were changed to 7.62ater in their service life and could be relevant here

@spiffinz

8 ай бұрын

That's a stupid argument. They could have shown him adjusting the sights, someone sporting, relaying wind, etc.

@pluemas

8 ай бұрын

​@@spiffinzwhich the vast majority of film viewers won't understand. Instead, just have him use a bigger, "more powerful" gun.

Hi there, my father was in the Irish Army during the time of Jadotville and whilst he was not there, he knew many of those who were. He did not recall any tales of one shot BREN kills. Then again, the way those lads were treated, there may have been very little conversation regarding that stuff. When he watched the movie, I had a great conversation with him about how accurate all the gear , uniforms and weapons etc. were in the movie. He confirmed that it was indeed pretty accurate regarding what was issued at the time. Dad was qualified on the Vickers, No.4 Enfield, Gustaf SMG, FN FAL and his favorite , the BREN. He retired in 1982, his last posting being with the 12th Battalion in Sarsfield Bks Limerick, so he never got his hands on the Styer AuG. I asked about the single shot scene and he confirmed that it was something that was "practiced" now and again in an unofficial capacity. I asked if he had ever done it and he sort of trailed away Chief Wiggam style....so I reckon that was a yes. He did however question the possibility of hitting a target at the long range depicted in the movie. During his time in the army he had been an apprentice in Naas and qualified as a fitter turner and Gunsmith. He operated and serviced all sorts of guns large and small. He even serviced the coastal guns in Spike Island etc. with the 3rd Garrison Ordnance Co out of Cork in the 60's. In fact, his truck is the one in the gun room in Spike Islands museum. The point being, the man knew his stuff. I would love to ask him for more info for you regarding the official/unofficial practice on the range with the BREN, but sadly he passed away a few weeks ago. Thanks for a great video which reminded me of a lovely chat with my old man. Cheers.

@kieranodea3436

7 ай бұрын

Sorry to hear about your dad man, sounds like an interesting fella

@atomic_godz

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing and sorry for your loss ❤

A sniper borrowing something he hasn't sighted in himself is crazy, he wouldn't have a clue where it would hit in his hands.

This is actually my two favourite subjects when it comes to history. 1. Theoretical effectiveness of technology vs how effective it was in reality. 2. Human preconceptions vs reality. First hand accounts are invaluable but should always be with a hefty dose of scepticism and should be backed up by many sources (katana cutting through machine gun barrels, Tiger tanks showing up hundreds of km from were they really were as just two obvious examples)

As I recall Ian’s upload, iit is not just a matter of the Bren was accurate enough, but the FULL scenario in the movie. It is a sniper shooting. He has a sniper rifle available. With a scope. So yes, Irish soldiers could have perceived the Bren to be accurate enough to do it. Yes, an Irish soldier could have used it to attempt a long shot requiring accuracy, perhaps if nothing else was available - BUT the movie shows a marksman/sniper (whether there actually was such or not) chosing a iron sight Bren over his scoped rifle. Not only is that a weird choice, but if any, a sniper should know what weapon is best for the job.

The wooly-pully is still a great looking piece of kit.

From another grey-haired veteran, I can relate to the Brens accuracy. As a winner of getting assigned the M-60, I discovered how accurate it could be up to 700 yards. I was taught by an even older veteran, how to fire the M-60 single shot by releasing the trigger before the bolt was all the way forward. Shots at 400 to 500 yards were fairly easy. Though I could hit at 700 yards I did need assistance finding the targets.

A personal anecdote from my ~10 years of service, specifically my deployment as M113 driver on a 3 man Forward Observer team, in Helmand Afghanistan. I always drove with the hatch open. Mostly with my head out the top, until first contact, and sometimes even after first contact. If I/we reckoned no rounds were aimed directly at our vehicle. And I never used my seat belt or back rest (designed to also keep me "safe" on a mine strike). All of this dispite direct orders from up top, and a few personal reprimands for me, and the NCO and officer on my vehicle. All of this because of my/our perception regarding survivability and combat effectiveness. Today I'm extremely happy, that I have no way of knowing what would have happened, should I i.e. have hit a mine. But at the time, I was sure it was the best course of action. In my specific role, on that specific vehicle, during that specific deployment.

Many moons ago I read a memoir of the Korean war. Told by a Marine. In this case the BAR was used as a precision weapon by sandbagging it and loading only two rounds in the magazine. In this fashion a Chinese sniper was dispatched. (Sadly I cannot recall the name of the book, but the Marine was proud to show his brother who visited from a nearby army unit that Maine squads had two BAR's. There were also some interesting stories of night patrols with a modified BAR. the user promptly regretted removing the flash hider in his first night action.

@KnifeChatswithTobias

8 ай бұрын

My father was a BAR gunner in Italy. He told me virtually the same thing. The BAR had such a slow rate of fire it was relatively easy to squeeze of single rounds and would be used for take long range shots. In the right hands it could be more accurate than an M1 at long range.

@wfleetwood9307

8 ай бұрын

"The Last Parallel" by Martin Russ. Excellent book.

@kevinalmgren8332

7 ай бұрын

I also heard stories of units fabricating the loss of BAR guns to get more of them. Like, if Joe the BAR gunner died, the report might read “all equipment lost,” even if they recovered the BAR, so they could get another for the unit. No idea if this is true or not.

In Rhodesia in early 1979 my unit was issued with South African-supplied .303 Brens as our first section support weapon. Our rifle was the 7.62 H&K G3. The Terrs almost always opened daylight contacts (when not vehicle ambushes) from extreme range for their AKs, which meant my men's return G3 fire, although better than the AK, was also initially not very accurate. I therefore trained my Bren gunners to take single aimed shots at range so that we had at least something coming down reliably near them while we closed. I cannot report any success as, in perhaps half a dozen such contacts, the Terrs always gapped it before were could close up to them. They left a lot of doppies, some kit, clothing, grenades and AK magazines and once a Tokarev pistol, but no blood spoor. So, while I tried to use the Bren for a form of sniping, I can't confirm anything as to its effectiveness.

@the-letter_s

7 ай бұрын

genuine question, did you ever find any of their AKs with the rear sights dialed into the highest setting?

@markaxworthy2508

7 ай бұрын

@@the-letter_s I never checked. I think we only found five AKs in 1979, four of them hidden, and four just after the ceasefire from some Terrs reporting late to an assembly point. The Terrs (as long as they weren't LTTs) had some basic training, so I suspect it is something of a myth that many, if any, thought turning the sights up to maximum setting made the weapons more powerful. My impression was that most were simply poorly trained and did not keep their weapons in good condition, or know how to use them to best effect.

@the-letter_s

7 ай бұрын

@@markaxworthy2508 that's fair, most of what i've heard about that rumor was that it was just a myth. wanted to check with somebody who was there though, so thank you. though if i may ask, what's an LTT?

@markaxworthy2508

7 ай бұрын

@@the-letter_s LTT - Locally Trained Terrorist. These were youths "trained" inside the country. Necessarily this training was rudimentary as no infrastructure existed internally for them. At best they were issued pistols or a grenade. Others made dummy wooden rifles, sometimes with door bolts to simulate the sound and appearance of rifle bolts being worked at night. Their role was to intimidate civilians and conduct simple sabotage such as bringing down telephone lines, or robbing buses and stores and burning them out, or forcing the locals to dig up dirt roads so they were impassable to vehicles. They ran messages for the Terrs and brought them food in their hides. LTT training, weaponry and discipline was worse than that of the Terrs, but they were useful in destroying government infrastructure and intimidating the population. Colloquially they were known as "Mujibhas". On RSF paperwork they were called LTTs and categorized separately from the Terrs themselves. They had no combat value and helped inflate RSF body counts.

@the-letter_s

7 ай бұрын

@@markaxworthy2508 if anybody would think the range-dial on a rifle is some sort of power meter, it'd be a child soldier. not surprising that Communists would resort to using "youth" in their operations, they've done that in every conflict they've been in, after all. thank you for laying it out so clearly for me, i've done a lot of reading on Rhodesia, but i'd never heard of LTTs.

As a prior service man in the US I can tell you confidence and proficiency is everything. If you are confident in your abilities and equipment you can do thinks others can not.

When an actual soldier explains the difference between entertaining and reality, I heartily concur. Parrot Approved.

The amount of dumb shit we did because we were convinced it was effective was kind of staggering. Soldiers tend to be stubborn and superstitious by nature, and once they get it into their heads that something is important, you're not getting it back out again without a crowbar. I can absolutely see someone using a Bren gun in single shot because they thought it was more effective. We practiced with the 240 like that, too.

These are the kinds of discussions we used to have when I was a Master’s candidate in history. Using film as historical record and how it hardly ever is useful as a primary source but as a mirror on the time it was made. The subtext if you will. In my current profession of fire and EMS service I wholly concur with you assessment on the “lab” values on equipment and how the users perceive them. Our current battle is a nozzle that administrators purchased because the numbers are great. In the field, we don’t like it and have not seen the benefits it claims.

In every proposed weapon parameters, Soldiers demand full auto. When the net result is no target hits, they claim it suppresses. Yet if bullets are not close, no suppression occurs. Examining the enemy positions after a fire fight, often find no dead and no blood. The WW2 studies concluded thousands of rounds fired resulted in relatively few dead. When they fielded SDM, they were getting a high % of the kills. And so it goes. So, full auto is basically therapy for the shooter.

@kiwigrunt330

8 ай бұрын

Yes, firepower is often in the eye of the beholder. If the noise you make gives you a hard-on, then it must surely be effective. Apparently, some Brit soldiers eventually referred to their firepower force multiplying 5.56 Minimis as 'the noise maker'. It was removed from service a few years ago. All of that said, evidence of effective suppression is not measured in bodies or blood. If it denies the enemy the use of ground, movement, initiative, or their ability to hurl hurty things at you, then it is effective.

@TheSnowKingMEC

8 ай бұрын

On the ground field therapy seems likely to help ensure the soldier accomplishes his objective and the other guy does not.

@Rusty_Gold85

8 ай бұрын

But then if said soldier dies trying the Theory it dies with him. If he lived the idea was a success. BTW You may or not not get the nuance I was trying to write here

@George_M_

8 ай бұрын

This does explain civilian desire for auto

@swissarmyknight4306

8 ай бұрын

Full auto is pretty ineffective in assault rifles unless your personnel are very highly trained, I'll concede that point, but full auto on a crew served weapon is a whole other ballgame and a game changer. Having been suppressed by the enemy, I can personally confirm that suppression is real and that crew served weapons and precision weapons both produce suppression. Even if fear doesn't motivate the target to keep his head down, the rational strategy of avoiding being shot will.

My issue with the scene is a shooter that knows the principles of marksmanship really well would make this choice. They know that breathing and even something as small as how you pull the trigger have significant impact on precision at range. The same person would overlook the effect of a massive chunk of metal moving forward and slamming into the end of the barrel?

@bronco5334

8 ай бұрын

And they would also know that the Bren had been zeroed to someone else's sight picture; they should know it isn't going to hit point of aim if a different shooter just uses a weapon someone else zeroed. Close enough for general purpose use, yes, but not for precision shooting. And a trained rifleman (much less a sniper) is going to know how to established a supported firing position without a bipod, so a trained shooter isn't going to select the Bren just because it has a bipod. Were there really no sandbags nearby? No rucksacks laying around? NOTHING to rest the rifle on? The Bren itself would actually make a good rifle rest: just turn it to aim off to the left on it's bipod and rest the scoped rifle on top the Bren barrel in the crutch between the barrel and carry handle (or barrel and magazine). The sniper had innumerable options for firing positions as steady, or more steady, than the Bren's bipod. I agree with Nick's basic assertion that soldiers sometimes believe some ABSOLUTELY untrue things based on rumor alone (having spent a career in the Army, I witnessed plenty of that), but this particular scene doesn't hold up even with that considered. They could have made the scene work much better by either A ) making the soldier taking the shot be some random rifleman and not a sniper, IE someone that wouldn't have been explicitly trained to know better, or B ) just write the scene with the sniper's scoped rifle being damaged somehow (a nearby RPG/mortar/rifle grenade; a ricochet hitting the rifle; whatever) and have the sniper select the Bren as the NEXT BEST choice over a standard Enfield.

Thanks for your perspectives on this Chieftain. The voice of reason as it were.

I fired the original .303 Bren on a range as a cadet, & used the 7.62mm Bren as a TA section gunner just before it was replaced by the GP/MG [FN MAG]. Bloody lovely, it was. With the Bren you always felt like it was a scalpel, combared with the GP/MG bludheon - & this is a light machine gun we are talking about, not a sniper rifle...

We used M240 and M2 as sniper weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we even had scopes mounted on them. M16 and M9 were not suitable weapons for such a task at 800+yds, but the scopes on the machine guns made them very effective in single shot.

@armen6300

8 ай бұрын

>tries to hit a target at 800 yards with an M9 >”There’s got to be a better way!”

@bronco5334

8 ай бұрын

You didn't use M240 as a "sniper weapon". You used it to engage point targets at long range. But I bet you fired a BURST when you did it, didn't you? There is no single shot mode on the M240, and the way the feed mechanism works makes feeding a single round almost impossible. Besides, why would you purposely remove the belt from the feed tray to fire a single shot, when that means you'd be unable to engage a target with actual machine gun fire if you needed to engage an imminent threat? Yes, machine guns are effective out to extended range, against both point and area targets. That doesn't make them precision weapons. You know what's even better at engaging targets at extended range with even higher probability of kill? A mortar. Doesn't mean mortars are sniper rifles.

@SoloRenegade

8 ай бұрын

@@bronco5334 exactly, single shot kills on a point target at distance. That's sniping. Did you know most sniper engagements in OIF happened inside of 200yds? Is that not sniping according to you? "But I bet you fired a BURST when you did it, didn't you?" no, single shot, as I clearly stated. I trained guys on the M2, and set multiple range records with the guys I trained. I taught them that at extreme range their 2nd and 3rd rounds rarely hit the target, and showed this to them, even mounted to the T&E. I advocated aimed fire at distance. Single shot. "There is no single shot mode on the M240, and the way the feed mechanism works makes feeding a single round almost impossible. " it's called practice. you absolutely can do it. "Besides, why would you purposely remove the belt from the feed tray to fire a single shot, when that means you'd be unable to engage a target with actual machine gun fire if you needed to engage an imminent threat?" strawman, now you're just making shit up to try to win. "Yes, machine guns are effective out to extended range, against both point and area targets. That doesn't make them precision weapons." except when some of them ARE precision weapons at those long ranges. The M2 was often Zeroed at 500-1000yds or more in WW2. Look how far out B-29 gunners were able to engage Japanese fighters. The .50cal was so accurate, B-29 gunners had a higher kill ratio than P-51s in WW2. The M240has a high quality barrel too. "You know what's even better at engaging targets at extended range with even higher probability of kill? A mortar. Doesn't mean mortars are sniper rifles." you're such a child. you couldn't intentionally land a single unguided mortar that close to a given point target on command like a bullet can. it's clear you have no actual military experience outside of Hollywood and video games.

@tomhenry897

8 ай бұрын

Good gunners can do single shots Seen it on the m60

@tomhenry897

8 ай бұрын

You were a trainer No wonder had to retrain new troops

My Father was with the Canadian army...trained on Browning pistol, Bren, sten, and the Lee-Enfield...hated the latter (heavy too much recoil he said), said the Sten couldn't hit a barn door, pistol OK (but when you have to use it, may be too late)...BUT absolutely loved the Bren.

Back in the 1970s, I had the opportunity to hear a description of a veteran of the fighting in Northern Europe at the end of WW2. He was a crewman in a Sherman ( a Driver ) and he described how, when the got the chance, they added sandbag armor to the front of their tank. He specifically stated that the bags were NOT filled with sand, but rather were filled with a mixture of sand, gravel, and cement. He described how the bags were wired in place, and then wetted down with buckets of water, and left to harden in place on the Sherman. He referred to this as ' SackCrete . He also described how a Sherman in his unit, which was fitted with this improvised armor, was hit square on by what he described as ' A German 88 '- and how the German shell blasted a hole in the concrete bags, but failed to significantly penetrate the steel armor underneath. He also stated that some units were prohibited by their commanding generals from adding this armor, while others were allowed to have it. He specifically stated that General Patton prohibited sandbag armor, but that the tank divisions under his command, after they had moved into Germany, ignored his orders and began to fit their Shermans with the ' SackCrete Armor ', and high command did nothing about it until the end of the war, when the troops were ordered to remove it from the tanks.

@AB-el1zz

7 ай бұрын

Sounds like they took an HE round and inflated it to an 88 because the 88 was the only gun anyone knew about.

Chieftain x Gun Jesus is the crossover event we didn't know we needed but now can't do without hallelujah

@DefaultProphet

8 ай бұрын

There’s a bunch of videos of them together if you search for them. I believe off the top of my head one is something like guns of the M4 sherman

I'm humanitarian volunteer in ukraine we work at the front and thus wear body armor and helmets but no one in our ngo is willing to strap the helmets to thier head because they heard of a soldier that if you get hit it'll snap your neck I think this is madness the helmets manufacturers wouldn't include it if it was liable to kill you

@TheChieftainsHatch

8 ай бұрын

That myth is still going around?! Hadn't seen it since Korea

@adammccormack33

8 ай бұрын

@TheChieftainsHatch it's alive and well and not using your seat belts though I dont know if that is beneficial or not but We're just aid workers, and most of us have no military experience, so people tend to listen to what they hear of the army

@TheChieftainsHatch

8 ай бұрын

@adammccormack33 The seat belt thing is not entirely unfounded. The Army issues seat belt cutters to help with getting out if the belt cannot be unlatched normally. Worn on the MOLLE gear like a magazine pouch. Note how BAE installed storage for one in my XM1302 interior video

Well researched and eloquently put, totally not actually an excuse to show off the uniform and gun collection 👍

Completely true! As a UK reservist in the 90s, we were (just!) taught the Bren, and in that training we were told that it's too accurate to be a decent "beaten zone" machine gun and to deliberately loosen the tripod mount and smack it about while firing to get that area coverage. True or not, it's what we were taught, and it's not like we had any reason to disbelieve the advice. That said - if I had to kill something at 1100 yards, hell yeah the Bren would be my first choice. But I'd use a full mag obviously!

I have heard at least two veterans state with full confidence to me that the Bren's iron sights were designed "like that" to make the weapon less accurate as then it became "ineffective" as a suppression weapon because otherwise a soldier would only ever hit one point. With the confidence levels where I found myself thinking "that doesn't sound right but your confidence is wearing away my doubt." I think if nothing else there is a great deal to be said about soldier confidence in their weapon. A tool you don't trust, you don't use so well. Commitment is everything, and perhaps there is something to its reputation that because the soldiers believed in its accuracy they were better able to utilise the Bren because they had no doubts regarding it.

I think the thing that really upset Ian about the Bren scene is that everything else about guns in the movie was about as spot on as is possible and then this one scene throws all that away. And while the average grunt may believe that the Bren is more accurate than a scoped Enfield, I cannot see the squad sniper thinking that.

Conclusion: Bren sniper scene was anachronistic, but only because of the presence of a sniper rifle.

track plates on the front will reduce the chances of an incoming round ricocheting off. Fine well reasoned and well explained analysis (as was Ian's). Love both your channels and that you think and research.

@AttiliusRex

8 ай бұрын

It is also softer than hardened armor and may act as soft cap for the AP shot, reducing the chance of shot fracture

@Rusty_Gold85

8 ай бұрын

yet added weight to the Tank then losing mileage and getting stuck in a situation where they will get picked off

@EddietheBastard

8 ай бұрын

yes - as you say reduce their range, slow them down and cross country capability too @@Rusty_Gold85

This video is also a good explanation of how the German Tiger tanks got such a (somewhat undeserving) mythical reputation.

@rusty_from_earth9577

8 ай бұрын

@Shade01982 It's my understanding that the numbers of Tigers encountered were massively over-reported as well. "Tiger panic" turning a lot of Panzer IVs into Tigers in the minds of US troops.

@Shade01982

8 ай бұрын

@rusty_from_earth9577 Yup. That and a book written by a combat engineer who most likely never witnessed a Tiger in his entire tour.

@rileyernst9086

8 ай бұрын

Well kinda and kinda not. Yeah the allies may have thought every tank they saw was a tiger. But you have to remember that when they were formed tiger units were special heavy tank units and were often made up of experienced crews. The fact that you had a vehicle that could take a beating and have the crew survive meant that they generally survived long enough to become proficient. Add this to the aggressive use of the vehicles(the Germans always loved a good spoiling attack, or surprise attack(like Villers Bocarge) and their reputation is actually quite well deserved, especially against green troops, or what the RTR would call cavalrymen who don't know how to handle tanks.

@imperialinquisition6006

8 ай бұрын

@@rileyernst9086Unless you are Michael Wittman apparently. Go on a lucky streak once, mostly destroy light vehicles or under maintenance tanks. Next time, drive right across a field and be killed straight away.

@AEB1066

8 ай бұрын

Tigers were almost always firing on the defensive. Getting in the first shots from a concealed position against tanks advancing without cover meant a lot of kills before the enemy even knew where the shots were coming from. When the Germans advanced they suffered the same fate of being engaged by enemies they didn't see before they opened fire. Tl,dr - whoever fires first is likely to win.

Great shout-out for Combat Mission! Ian is usually spot on with his understanding that soldiers will use weapons as they see fit not as a weapon is designed - his video on the HK11 (Kraut Space Magic) talks about the mechanism being too sensitive to Private Fuckatelli getting a gerber or leatherman into it. Good that there is a civilised debate though. No-one wants to upset Gun Jesus...

@rusty_from_earth9577

8 ай бұрын

Ian is an incredibly well read and knowledgable person. He lacks the experience of being stuck with PFC Jablome while the PFC creates brand new theories of warfare and puts them into practice.

@MediumRareOpinions

8 ай бұрын

I think unlike a certain inebriated swine, Ian is more likely to take it better.

@fryaduck

8 ай бұрын

I'm happy to upset him as he is only an American Gun Nut Civilian

@hedgehog3180

8 ай бұрын

@@rusty_from_earth9577 Tbf to Ian I don't think he's claiming to know that, his criticism is really more from a script writing perspective. Like he makes it very clear that the movie is not historically accurate and that's obviously okay, I think his gripe is just that from a writing perspective it seems odd. These kind of tensions just always exist when writing historical movies, you need to contend with the fact that it is both a movie that will be seen by a modern day audience with little knowledge and that it is about historical people who were probably wrong about a bunch of things.

I had exactly these thoughts while listening to Ian's points. Two things remain to be addressed for me. First is that Ian states that the BREN's accuracy in tests was about 4 MOA which is a little worse than a typical Enfield or FAL but that was in burst not single shot as far as I am aware. Second is heat and it's effect on accuracy. The scene is long enough into the battle that you would expect the light barrel of the Enfield to be quite toasty and it's group size to have opened up quite a bit where as the BREN's heavy barrel may have suffered far less even without the option of barrel swapping as I can't remember if they did that in the movie or not.

Have seen this effect up close and personal. Gun stats are all good and well, but then you put a random human in charge of it, in combat and under all the pressures of that, and your accuracy number from the factory is now just an interesting anecdote. My grandfather talked about his time in Burma in WW2 where they were using 40mm Bofors to snipe Japanese bunkers. He said that only certain gunners could manage it and most didn't have the right touch, so that those crews would snipe weapon slits at up to ~1500 metres with single rounds, while the less skilled and/or more excitable crews would just blaze away as if they were engaging a plane. Both got the job done.

I have used the 7.62mm Bren as a ranging gun on a MOBAT, it is very accurate when attached to a mount that heavy. Note, we were using barrels that had never been used for anything else.

It's like talking about the A-10. These days it's probably less survivable than an F-35 for ground support, but the guys on the ground will fight you to the death over it. That A-10 has the morale boost that the F-35 does not, so it'll be a while before they're gone for good. Besides, they're still a great bomb truck in uncontested airspace, so they're useful for cleanup operations.

Thanks for the info Chieftain. Love the uniform top. Brings to mind images of the Cold War period uniforms.

Looking quite snappy in your Wooly Pully. Similar to the urban legend that a 37mm AT gun on the back of a Jeep took out a Tiger by sending a round down the Tiger's Barrel. Legends die hard.

Nick, once again, you are the master of "making the point" the slight lilt never hurts to my American ears. Thank you.

Great video 😊 I trained on the "LMG" (the 7.62x51 conversion of the Bren for the British Army) back in the day. My perception, and "received wisdom" of the time, was that it was indeed accurate ... for a machine gun. Having a relatively heavy weapon on a bipod should certainly help compared with a hand-held rifle, but against that - if I remember right - it fires from an open bolt (correct me if my memory fails!), which is detrimental to mechanical accuracy, notwithstanding the user's perception and resulting human performance. A confident shooter is generally a more accurate shooter.

As always a top notch analysis by the Chieftain! 12:19

I am at 0:20 and that jumper is so fantastic that it deserves a comment all of its own!

The Rhodesian aspect is interesting. There was some cross fertilisation between British and Rhodesian forces in the 1970s. I served with a Grenadier Guard Lance Sergeant (Guards Independent Parachute Company) who had gone AWOL to join the RLI and returned five years later with virtually no impediment to career or pension. The best skillie I ever learnt from. In the 1970s the SAS did use the L4 Bren gun as an 'automatic sniper weapon come very accurate suppressive fire weapon' in Dhofar. Judging very long distances between opposing mountain sides in heat haze from wildly different altitudes, proved to be something of a difficulty for scoped-aimed single-shots. So they put a scope on an L4 Bren, started with 'close enough' and simply walked the rounds onto target from the splash. Don't know if the Rhodesians picked up on this, but they certainly developed the FN MAG from the shoulder tactic, for walking ambush at range, which sounds very similar in concept.

Great, thoughtful video that complements Ian's offering nicely! The Armourer's Bench also made a video about a year ago, discussing the Bren and movie scene.

I think sandbags can actually be quite useful on a tank. Not for the people inside, but for the ones riding on it. If the tank gets hit by shrapnel or a machine gun, there's a very good chance some of those projectiles are going to ricochet off the armour and do even more damage to the people on top than they otherwise would have. If there's infantry standing next to the tank, they're also vulnerable to ricochets, which the sandbags will largely neutralise. Wood I wouldn't use to cover a tank, on account of splinters, which can do a lot of damage to infantry.

Very nice piece. Thanks for bringing some "soldier's reality" to the conversation.

I always appreciate how well rounded and thought out your analysis is! Fantastic video sir!

My father had the fun of firing a truck load of Bren's to destruction back in the 60's at Canungra Jungle warfare training centre. He was happy with practical accuracy out to 1,000 yards. He was a way above normal shot with incrtedible eye sight. In the 70's he shot a dozen dingo's in half light with a bolt action 22 on my grandad's farm. The pack had defied all attempts to shoot them but dad ended them in one night.

One thing that always gets me in the troops vs. "the experts" discussions is that what is important to the troops may be vastly different than what is important to the experts. For example, on the subject of the "extra" protection sometimes put on tanks by troops in the field: Experts: "Look, putting on sandbags, or timber or track plates is not worth it. It adds an almost negligible extra stopping power and the extra weight makes the tank slower, hurts gas mileage, and puts an added strain on the engine, meaning the engine will wear out faster. Therefore, extra protection not worth it." Troops in the Tank: "Uh, yeah, look Professor, that part about "negligible extra stopping power". So, you are saying it has at least a little extra stopping power, right?" Experts: "Well, maybe. But it is not worth it due to the already mentioned negative factors it adds." Troops: "Uh, yeah, right, I get less gas mileage, and strains engine and all that. But it might protect me a little more right?" Experts: "Well, yes, but overall that little extra protection is not worth it in the grand scheme of things." Troops: "Well, Professor, in the grand scheme of things, my safety is real important to me. So, I will keep the sandbags and track plates."

@tomhutchins7495

8 ай бұрын

I think an element of ignorance of the physics involved is also at play, because penetration of armour plate doesn't follow the logic we are used to in everyday life. Let's take concrete as an example because it illustrates this really well. First off, it is arguable that your typical wartime conscript is unaware that an AT round like an 88mm will laugh at a metre-thick concrete bunker, never mind the 10-30cm you might slap on your tank. The 88mm armour-piercing round was first developed as a bunker-buster. AT gun performance would typically be quoted as penetrating X thickness of plate at Y distance. That thinckness will reduce as range increases and the shell slows. So logically, if I can put something tough on the front of my armour, that will slow the incoming round and act as if I was further away, right? In reality, that only holds if the shell is impacting at a 90 degree angle. The relevant bit of physics here is that a shell impacting at a shallow angle will tend to penetrate armour of a thickness of half its own diameter (at WW2 velocities - modern rounds are so fast that the physics changes again). Remembering that the effective thickness of armour plate increases as you slope it, that confirms what we know: sloped armour or an angled tank are harder to penetrate. But concrete is a lot softer than armour plate, so a shell hitting it at a shallow angle will tend to dig in and "normalise", meaning rotate toward a 90 degree impact angle. Although both penetrating the concrete and rotating will cost energy, the reduced effective armour thickness is more significant. This means that concrete armour will reduce the effectiveness of sloped armour (as found on Sherman) by effectively reducing its slope and thus thickness. Other forms of applique armour need to be considered on their own merits: a mild steel boilerplate will be similar (though probably less bad) to the concrete, whereas a spaced armour employing a very hard outer layer could sufficiently deform a shell so as to significantly reduce its ability to penetrate the main armour. It also depends what you are protecting against: concrete or timber could have a cushioning effect against HE and reduce the effect of early HEAT rounds by making them detonate too far from the armour.

@nirfz

8 ай бұрын

Let's not forget one big argument: None of the experts will be inside the tank when shells are comming in. It is always easier to look at something from a comfortable and safe position then when someone i actively trying to kill you.

@TheBrainSpecialist

8 ай бұрын

The thing is that that it wasn't "negligible stopping power", it was that it wasn't allowing the armor to properly deflect rounds like it was supposed to. Instead of hitting the front surface of the armour, being collected by the angle of it, and riccocheting off, it would hit the tracklinks/sandbags and NOT be deflected, or at least not deflected as much. So it was in essence making it MORE dangerous for the crew of said tank to have that stuff on there. TLDR, you completely missed the point.

@obsidianjane4413

8 ай бұрын

@@tomhutchins7495 But on the other hand, real life performance does not always follow theoretical prediction and modelling. Or even testing. I think you are incorrect about "soft armor" (concrete, wood, track blocks) causing normalization. Normalization is a projectile's ability to resist ricochete from the "lift" generated by interface with the armor. Just as concrete does not have the density to appreciably steal kinetic energy from a projectile, it also does not induce significant yaw drag on it. You don't just need to change the projectile's angle of attack, but its actual trajectory to shorten the path through the armor for it to be a significant contribution to penetration. Concrete isn't going to do that. In fact if its thick enough, you are going to get a spaced armor yaw effect. This is an old, well beaten argument, but I felt compelled to argue its counter because you brought it up. :)

@wildwyatxbox

8 ай бұрын

Along with the physics side of the debate, the mental side is also very important. Someone in that tank is gonna feel a lot better knowing they put extra stuff on it, even if it really is negligible. It can lead to them doing even more risky maneuvers because they think the "armor" added on is genuinely helping. From an enemies view, the larger appearance of the AV could act as a deterrent. "Oh scheisse, das Sherman ist bigger and has more armor!" Then Hanz decided to not shoot off his panzerfaust. Inversely, it could make you even more of a target. Let's say some shermans pull up to a fortified position. Defenders have a 1 Pak 40, and an 88mm. You pick which variant, difference is gonna be negligible. Now, your sherman has all the sandbags, concrete, timber and welded plates you could desire. Which gun do you think is going to target that tank? The 88. The Pak 40 gunner knows he can go through the front of a Sherman relatively consistently, but your monstrosity has him a little weary. He's gonna hold his fire and focus on a more sure target. Your tank could have survived a pak 40 round, or atleast given you a chance to escape after being hit. But now, the 88 is going to target you. He's not playing any games, Wilhelm had his meth that morning and is ready to kill a tank. Then the 88mm procedes to do 88mm things. Tank go boom your dead.

Oh and I am old enough to have fired the BREN on many occasions in the British Army. We all believed the same mythology about the BREN on its accuracy, I even went to Bisley with the BREN... not that I got anywhere in the competition. Sometimes confidence in kit is a boost for confidence that allows one to win an action.

The Chieftain "The gun was probably more accurate than I was" - or words to that effect. Amen to that.

I felt the exact same way about using the FN MAG when I was in the Canadian Army. I also did the whole "2 round burst" during competitions with fantastic results. I think a big part of it was just the weight of the weapon, since I felt my small muscle twitches and so on wouldn't impact the gun as much

@kiwigrunt330

8 ай бұрын

The Kiwi shooting teams use to love the L7 for that, because the many gas settings allowed them to 'balance the barrel' just right. The new MAG 58 does not have that many settings.

I would so love, if the book behind Nick titled "Can Openers" was in fact about various types of military can opening devices throughout the years

I'm old enough to recall firing one of the last Vickers Hy MG in the NZ Army. During my basic, I fired the BREN quite a lot and really enjoyed it. My perception of it was, it would place the shot exactly where I pointed it and because of the slow cyclic rate, I could actually fire it as an auto-loader; restricting it to one round application. The BREN fires from an open breech, meaning when you pulled the trigger, there is a pause while the breechblock travels forward, picks up the round, chambers it and fires then returned to battery. This slow lock time could and did affect accuracy unless you were well versed in the use of the BREN. However, I have very fond memories of the BREN. Some 25 years back, I had the chance to test fire some Russian weapons while in Russia on business and really enjoyed firing the PKM, it in my opinion, surpassed the BREN, and it was surprisingly accurate. We had an array of bricks set up on a log at 100 metres down range and although the PKM was belt fed, it's cyclic rate was slow enough for me to once again use it in single shot mode. In this manner, I simply walked the shot along the string of bricks, hitting every one on my first shot. Switching to auto gave you a lovely slow cyclic rate which was easy to hold on target.

Excellent video Nic! Very good point. Saw Ian's video which was good also,but I'm glad you shared your point. I watch all your videos. Love the US WW2 armour videos and talks about the myths. This tied in perfectly. Keep up the good work and thank you for your service to our country!

This is exactly what I thought when watching Ian's video yesterday. It doesn't matter what the truth is (unfortunately). People will act according to their beliefs.

My Grandfather did his national service as a Bren Gunner with the 27th Battalion Royal South Australian Rifles in the 50’s He used to think it was far too accurate and went to great pains in order to obtain worn barrels in order to increase his cone of fire.

@clasdauskas

8 ай бұрын

That whole 'cone of fire' and 'too accurate for an MG' thing is a whole other argument :)

@andyleighton6969

8 ай бұрын

@@clasdauskas Well it's not really an argument, it depends on task. If you're shooting in an assault team you want to know exactly where your shot is going. If you're shooting a DF/FPF you just want a load of shit downrange blanketing an area. Both jobs a machine gun may be required to do, entirely different requirements. No gun is perfect for both - though the L7A2 has a damn good go.

@juanzulu1318

8 ай бұрын

​​@@andyleighton6969No gun can be too accurate. If u need spraying then it is the task of the gunner to adjust the aiming. Looking for worn out barrels as the guy above mentioned is a completely ridiculous idea.

I will never forget our RAF regiment Warrant Officer telling us about the 7.62mm L4A1 Bren that it could kill at 1 mile distance! I just wish we had a range long enough where we were based. I was a privileged that I had joined the long line of personnel home and abroad to have fired such an iconic weapon!

The US often used sandbags conctete and spare track as armor in WW2. While the British frowned on the idea as it cut speed and agility, though the Canadians and Poles covered their tanks in every spare track link they could find. Though it was for Panzerfaust rather than shot. As for the Bren, I used the L4 in 7.62mm using it to quallify four 4 years 1969-73. Firing single shot at 600 meters it was very accurate indeed. That was our qualifying distance so never got to fire at longer ranges.

Ian is forgetting one minor detail; The bren is going to have spare barrels because it's a machinegun. Military rifles do not have their barrels regularly changed , and they are regularly used in training etc, the 303s the Irish had could well have been mostly clapped out from being having been used in training, or they could have been provided by the British and used heavily during the war. Having a brand new barrel and the bipod is going to put the bren in good stead.

I say this a lot when people say the German Tiger tanks were over rated, constantly broke down and over all a waste of resources. The fact that Allied soldiers were so terrified of them to constantly mistake other tanks for Tigers and believed their own vehicle was so vastly inferior made them worth it.

Bless you for rocking the Heavy Duty Jumper.... 👍

There's an American version that hasn't stuck but is very similar: Anyone who knows long range target shooting knows the M16 is absurdly accurate. It's direct impingement is such that is stays on target and is very easy to aim and point. But in Vietnam, without fail, you'll run into people saying that the BAR, the Browning Automatic Rifle was 'far more accurate' and preferring it. With marksmen beelining towards that rifle, or even old M2 carbines over the M16 because both had positive reputations.

About those statistics for the 88s: You would have to assume a barrel would get less accurate over its service life. Meanwhile the crew would either get better due to experience or worse as casualties were suffered. I do wonder if the sandbags might be helpful against panzerfausts.

@AB-el1zz

7 ай бұрын

Panzerfaust has 8 inches pen. Check out MCWP 3-15.11/MCTP 3.01 Machine guns .50BMG ball - ball, not AP- will go penetrate 14 inches of sand. If something with 8mm/500m pen against steel defeats a foot-plus of sand, how much sand will something with 25 times the pen manage?

As my father in law said about Helmets in ww2 " they weren't much, but by God when the shooting started you felt like you had a tank on your head." Combat is NOT testing.

Another instructive presentation. Thank you.

Glad you brought this up! This was my thought when I watched the 'debunking'.

Interesting example of this is the "sniper button" on AR style rifles. We know it does not affect accuracy, doesn't stop people holding it down to make tricky shots

Yep, the bren was nice an accurate in shooting competitions (University OTC stuff). Given a three man target at 600-800yds I'd kill the centre man all the way. Even won some competitions when the local TA units had GPMGs. But nailing that one guy would still leave two others coming at you. It's similar to the survivor bias problem of the bigger picture.

My father served in the Canadian army in WW2. When the Germans attacked, they would always look to take out the BRENs first. ( SOP for any army ). So, they would only use them on single shot until the enemy got closer. It was AS accurate as an average rifleman with the Lee-Enfield, but no sniper rifle. But it had a slightly different sound than the rifle so they would throw some mats or blankets over the gun to disguise the sound. I don't recall him very claiming any kind of sniper-like accuracy, only that it was easy to hold on target.

Hey Chieftain! Just wanted to say it was really cool watching this video. I started playing World of tanks 10+ years ago when I was a kid. And while I haven't played the game in a long time, I remember watching so many videos about tanks back then with you in it. It was really cool getting to relive that again. Take care!

@danshakuimo

8 ай бұрын

I actually just started playing WoT and that's probably how this video ended up on my feed lol

@sunderbans

8 ай бұрын

@@danshakuimo ayyye! Glad to hear new people are getting into the game! I don't play anymore, but that game has a very special place in my heart from all the years I played it. I hope you are enjoying it, and it brings as much fun to you as it once did for me!

another example of what soldiers believe vs what is actually the case is that a lot of swiss soldiers didn't want to exchange their stgw57 for the stgw90, because of the later ones inaccuracy. the stgw90 that now has a reputation as one of the most accurate service rifle out there. in purely technical terms, the mechanical accurate requirement for both was basically identical. but the new rifle was all plasticy and so light (at least compared to the stgw57) and shot a much smaller bullet, so it couldn't possibly be as accurate. and in target shooting circles in switzerland you'll find people (especially older folk) who to this day will swear that switching rifles was a mistake.

Excellent talk Chieftain. It is so true that the soldier's perception matters. As an old Light Infantryman I learned a long time ago that the reason we spend so much time on the range is to build self confidence in our personal weapons. People argue that shots on paper differ from hunting or wartime shots and they are not wrong. Where they are wrong is in misjudging the mental confidence of the weapon wielder. By the way, I picked up a Bren gun magazine pouch at a surplus store when I was a young soldier, and carried it for years on my webbing with a little butane camping stove in it that let me heat my IMPs on my own rather than waiting on the section Coleman. Today, I still carry that pouch but filled with 12 gauge shells for when I go duck hunting 😃

EXCELLENT VIDEO! I love the way you describe things. You are an excellent instructor and teacher. BZ

so first unnecessarily jumping on the laserpig drama, now jumping on this instantly. You are really working to get your numbers up i see!

My late uncle carried the Bren in the RLI & sung its praises as both a support weapon & for more measured, 2-3 round shots at more distant floppies.

@michaelbond2005

8 ай бұрын

Yea, I spent some time in the Rhodesian army, was quite impressed with the 7,62 bren.

@GARDENER42

8 ай бұрын

@@michaelbond2005 Strangest one I fired (& surprisingly accurate) was a .303 which had been reamed to take Soviet 7.62x54R. Every case split at the neck due to the case being shorter than that of the .303 but it would still reliably hold 3-5 round bursts to "minute of man" at 600yds. Only in the USA...😁

operation think tank was and still is a gem. I wish there would be repetitions of that.

love your videos and respect your expertise. I saw a video on the Canadian tank, "the Bomb" now a memorial in Ottawa. Junk piled on the tank made the crew feel better so they operate better. The video said they were surprised by a Tiger in Caan .They all thought they were dead. The Tiger fired and it hit the tank wheel they had piled on the front hull and deflected. They had all piled out of the tank expecting it t o explode. It hadn't so they climbed back in and retreated. The tank had survived due to junk .Dumb luck or whatever . Life is stranger than fiction .Again I enjoy your expertise and experience.

Not sure were I remember this from. But the sandbags on the sherman were used to seal off the bottom of the tank so the crew could sleep in better safety. Better protect for enemy infantry snicking up in the night.

The same applies to all the M14 rifles brought out of storage for use in GWOT, but that statement will encounter a lot of "internet expert" denial.

@redbasher636

8 ай бұрын

I heard EBR was a good DMR at the very least. Was it not?

@rusty_from_earth9577

8 ай бұрын

I’m not sure I quite see the thread. The M14s were officially issued as a stopgap, not something done by the troops in the field on their own perception. The people being issued the M14s didn’t really have a choice in the matter.

@jasonirwin4631

8 ай бұрын

​@@redbasher636the EBR and M39 variants were good but stock M14 rifles and the M21 variants had issues. The basic M14 was decently accurate standard issue rifle for the 1950's and 60's. When you compare it to modern rifles like the M110, G28, or SCAR heavy it fails completely. The M21 was great for what it was designed for which is national match shooting but it's glass bedded stock makes field stripping in field conditions difficult and the permanently attached scope is easily damaged. The M39 and EBR are comparable to modern rifles for accuracy but they are heavier and due to them having exposed working parts more likely to jam.

@ohredhk

8 ай бұрын

@@redbasher636 I think the argument is that M14 is not really that accurate as some would put it. Can you make a 2 MOA gun work as a DMR? You totally could. But if you put test rig and measure the result, the number may not be that good. Same thing for the Bren sniper. Could the sniper pull it off? May be. But from a technical point of view, it make no sense. If you actually do proper test with measurable data it might just show that the Bren sniper is really a bad idea even if the guy actually hit his target.

@jarink1

8 ай бұрын

@@ohredhk One other thing to consider - 2MOA at 600 yds is just over 12 inches, perfectly adequate for hitting a torso-size target.

We gotta get You and Ian a Bren to play around with

Thank you Chieftain, very informative

Brilliant little video.

Always good to see some other perspective. MGs can be effective at a fairly long range, isn't it? I've seen a tank hitting a human head-sized target with a single shot from coax M60.

As I've learned as something of a story teller over the years. There's true and then there's true enough. Makes sense to me. That and I feel the need to point out that just because the numbers say so, doesn't mean anything. Yeah, you can hit it, doesn't mean you'll do enough damage to make it go away. If that shell goes through the armour and just lost all energy to do it?

For anyone wanting to know more about some of the math/practicality of the single loaded BREN. The Vickers Machine Gun Collection has done an excellent video on the subject

Excellent points.