Bren gun > MG34-42

British noguns talking about guns

Then again most medieval historians aren't actually medieval nor do they have combat experience.

Yes, communists talking about economics.

Which is why most information we have about medieval tactics and weapons are restricted to firsthand accounts.
That's not really a good analogy anyways when we have people that have used and operated with these weapons as opposed to some retarded Brit who probably hasn't held a gun in his life.

>reading first hand accounts from a period can give us an insight into that period
>reading first hand accounts from a different period is no good, because reasons

Careful OP. Calling out Lindyshit on the nonsense he spews is a bannable offence.

I feel like this is more of a question for /k/.

>I like Lindys videos but in this one he makes too many bold statements.

He does this at least 75% of the time. The only videos where he doesn't talk out of his ass at least once are on dancing.

Are you retarded? I was saying that taking the word of the guy in the video was dumb when you could read firsthand accounts from people who've used Bren guns and MG-42s

And he's basing his video content on first hand accounts.

I probably should've watched the video

it's not the content of that post that got you banned

I've read a couple posts criticizing this guy but nothing specific. Might you have something to offer, or perhaps even facts to back it up?

Hello lindymeme.

Are you stupid
Do you really think that's deserving of a ban?
Maybe you should go back to le ddit if you want a mods to decide what you can say an can't

He's autistic or something isn't he?

The real autists are those who failed to watch the entire video/pay attention.
Bren =/= Spandau

he's right about the mg's bark being worse than that of its bite

youtube.com/watch?v=Oyj-ZHXFKQI

Just British

wew retards i just fucked off for hours but I have to reply to this

>reading comprehension

He didn't even know about the MG3, he knows fuck all abou the Bren and MG34/42.

Also he is also comparing apples to oranges, since they had entirely different doctrines and the use of the machine guns were different. I'd beg to call the Bren Gun a machinegun.

>Is he right?

Thoughts on this? Pretty good channel, I like his videos.

RE: Bren vs Spandau - which was better? @Lindybeige
youtube.com/watch?v=JCl1FqD7n6k

the bosch is sufficiently rustled :^)

people who don't participate in historical events talking about historical events?

Why should the fact that he's British mean he hasn't shot? I'm British and I've shot plenty times (including a 105mm light gun, which was boner-inducing).

He is wrong though, the Bren and MG34/42 were not really comparable because of the difference in doctrine. The Bren was used to supplement rifle fire for suppression at section level, whereas the MG34/42 WERE the suppression allowing the rifle group to close.

I knew he was going to favour the other gun of the thumbnail over the MG's before even watching the fucking video.
80% or more of the videos he makes are about how something british is superior to x, or why the empire was the greatest thing the world has ever seen.

he's British so I'm guessing he's gonna take the objectively wrong view that the Bren was better
even the BAR was better than that pile of shit, at least you could aim the BAR if you were left-handed

He used the term Spandau when referring to both the MG-34 and MG-42 two very different guns. He seemed to believe that they where interchangeable in function and only differed in manufacturing simplicity. He was wrong about this.

This mistake threw his entire argument into shit. When referring to the "Spandau" is immaculate he would be correct in some ways if talking about the MG-42 not the 34. I understand his mixup. Spandau was the name of the German world war one machine gun the MG-08 and it was common for the British army to call the MG-34 and 42 it during the war however it was not a universally used term nor is it a particularly good one as it leads to this confusion.

The bren as a basic light machine gun was logistically and functionally more effective than the MG's. It was easy to carry, durable and carried a smaller logistic footprint in terms of ammunition carrying and general parts. It's slower rate of fire made it also more manageable than the 42 but not the 34 which was known for accuracy however neither of the German weapons could be fired effectively from the hip, the bren on the other hand could.

Lindy was correct on the point that the MG's where more effective in defensive combat, exceedingly so and the bren was generally more manageable when attacking however it was by no means as good at attacking as the German guns where at defending.

He also makes the argument that the British gun was in continued service after the war whilst the German gun wasn't. This is true only when regarding the MG-34 which fell out of use at the wars end however the 42 continued and is still in German service now with the bundeswehr under the name MG-3. The bren stopped being a front line weapon really after the Falklands war. It was relegated to training and reserve arms until complete replacement. It would have been done sooner however ecanomic problems in Britain in the years following the war prevented R&D and military improvements.

My grandfather used to spin dits about how they'd actively search for well used barrels and gladly give the new guys new ones. He said they'd drop red hot barrels in puddles to try and fuck them up to a point where they were still usable but weren't painfully accurate.

It's pretty weird when being too accurate is a bad thing for a firearm.

Cont'd...

So just to clarify, the bren gun was a better light machine gun however the MG-34 was nearly as good and the MG-42 was a very different weapon entirely; more of a "medium" machine gun if you will. It was most effective in a well supplied defensive role in which it could trump all other competition.

Also Lindy did also make the point that the bren must be better as soldiers carrying the guns where able to push the Germans out of France and the Netherlands in 1944. The machine guns used would be irrelevant at this point. The Germans where fucked since D-day, there was no way they could win then anyway.

Also I am a britbong so I may be biased towards the bren considering I have never actually fired the alternatives. From what I remember the brand shoulder guard was bare metal and hurt my shoulder but besides that is was quite fun and more comfortable than the Kalashnikov's I fired

>it's another Lindybeige wishes the British Empire were still around episode

As an American, Lindy's videos pain me deeply. I can only imagine that 100 years from now some sad American will be making videos titled "Why the M1 Garand Won WWII"

The question isn't are they equal, the question is which is better. Now he made it vague so he could stroke his small British dick.

M1 Garand was perfection
Fuck off cuckold

Lindybeige is cool and all, but he really should stick to talking about ancient and medieval weapons and far, far away from guns. The whole "it's better because it's British" thing is cute but only in moderation.

No military history visualized already fucked him 9 ways to Sunday

He's Austrian

Patton agreed, don't bother him about.

>en bloc clip
>long and heavy as fuck
>chambered in an incredibly overpowered cartridge
Close but no cigar. The M1 Carbine was superior to the Garand in every way.

This is just a training video that compares a metric which the US knows that will come out in their favor in order to instill confidence in new troops.

I wonder what the parallel German video would look like?

>heavy as fuck
shitpost discarded

MG34-42 is overrated regardless of whether or not it's better than the Bren gun. High rate of fire doesn't do anything for ground troops other than fuck with their logistics.

It's a prime example of a meme gun.

>The M1 Carbine was superior to the Garand in every way.
Literally no.
>heavy as fuck
Hit the gym, noodlelimbs

It was the heaviest service rifle of WWII, when it absolutely did not need to be for its intended tactical role.

>inb4 armchair general says weight doesn't matter

Was there an advantage to the mg42's ridiculous rate of fire, or was it just inherent to the action it used

it put the suppressive in suppressive fire

making a sick sound

not really
an overly high rof is not an advantage for the main uses of a machinegun

>By the British army in 2006
That isn't true, the last army to stop using the Bren gun was the Irish defence forces and 2006 was the year they ceased to use them.

t. wehraboo

kind of unfair to expect a brit to know anything about guns

>I wonder what the parallel German video would look like?

Amerika kaput!

From the video:
>So which was better? Neither was entirely better...
OP is a faggot.

The carbine was considered underpowered and unreliable.
The Garand was really good for its time, however the test variant in .276 Pedersen was clearly better than the .30-06 that they ended up adopting for (dubious) logistical reasons.
>Lighter recoil
>smaller and lighter
>2 more rounds in the magazine
>.276 was apparently more prone to yaw on hits, and so was deemed more lethal than .30-06 M2 ball

The Bren was really relegated to second-line use by the early 1960s. The British infantry section for most of the Cold War period was divided into a GPMG group and rifle group

>lindybeige video on anything even vaguely related to the British

Don't even bother watching