Sandbags and Sniper Brens: When Troops Act on Unfounded Belief
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Troops are usually not equipment experts or mechanical engineers. They will often act in what they perceive to be their best interests no matter what the reality says. Warfare is full of various myths, and the question of whether the sniper scene in "Siege of Jadotville" has any foundation is probably more difficult to answer than some may think. In addition, there is more at play than just the technical specs. Note update at the very end on the behind-the-scenes of the movie.
Prompted by videos such as • That One Terrible Gun ... and • Siege of Jadotville & ...
Financial donations:
Patreon: / the_chieftain
Direct Paypal: paypal.me/thec...
Utreon: utreon.com/c/t...
Merchandise
the-chieftains...
Public facebook page:
/ thechieftainarmor
Twitter:
/ chieftain_armor
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.
That makes a lot of sense
Pretty valuable addition then.
They might work vs panzerfaust..
My grandfather was a gunner then commander of M4s in the 17th Tk Bn 7th Armored. He said almost verbatim the same
And artillery fragments. Another benefit was that it would prevent ricochets and splash from travelling up and potentially hit exposed crew or tank riders.
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.
How ard? Green howard 😂
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.
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.
@@LAHFaust The internet being the internet, I'd want to test rather than trusting what the parent commenter said at face value.
@@justin4911 There's a documentary/feature about it somewhere on TH-cam. 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.
"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.
@@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.
Fired one from the shoulder and it was amazingly accurate.
@@SteveDonaldson-r5k The Gun Jesus said it's 4-5 MOA gun, which is way more accurate than 99% of shooters when shoulder firing.
The bren is exactly as accurate as the average shooter
2 MOA in warzone is a myth
Sell it also fires from an open bolt so there is a practical limit on its precision.
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 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"
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.
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...
@@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.)
@@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?
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.
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.
Sorry to hear about your dad man, sounds like an interesting fella
Thanks for sharing and sorry for your loss ❤
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.
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.
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.
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.
The entire concept of MOA precision is mathematical GARBAGE from the very beginning, a statistician on TH-cam 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.
The video btw is "Science Agrees: 5 shot groups are pointless" by Blackburn Defense
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.
More to the point, was shooting at sheep heads normal for an accuracy test?
@@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.
@@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.
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.
Hopefully the sheep got put to culinary uses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"The Last Parallel" by Martin Russ. Excellent book.
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.
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 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.
You can still get into a woolly pully from thirty years ago; well done, sir.
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.
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.
Well researched and eloquently put, totally not actually an excuse to show off the uniform and gun collection 👍
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
genuine question, did you ever find any of their AKs with the rear sights dialed into the highest setting?
@@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.
@@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?
@@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.
@@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.
Conclusion: Bren sniper scene was anachronistic, but only because of the presence of a sniper rifle.
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.
The wooly-pully is still a great looking piece of kit.
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.
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.
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
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
Thanks for the info Chieftain. Love the uniform top. Brings to mind images of the Cold War period uniforms.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
>tries to hit a target at 800 yards with an M9
>”There’s got to be a better way!”
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.
@@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.
Good gunners can do single shots
Seen it on the m60
You were a trainer
No wonder had to retrain new troops
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...
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.
I think unlike a certain inebriated swine, Ian is more likely to take it better.
I'm happy to upset him as he is only an American Gun Nut Civilian
@@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.
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 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
Nick, once again, you are the master of "making the point" the slight lilt never hurts to my American ears. Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
Certainly and interesting point about the unit marksman (if there was one) probably armed with a standard No.4 and the perception that the Bren was a precision weapon. Fascinating to hear that it was all the armourer's fault, I thought it might be haha. All in all a good film though!
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.
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.
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.
I am at 0:20 and that jumper is so fantastic that it deserves a comment all of its own!
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.
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?
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!
As always a top notch analysis by the Chieftain! 12:19
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.
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
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.
Bless you for rocking the Heavy Duty Jumper.... 👍
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.
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!
From this video what i have concluded is even Chieftain has a small gun museum in his house
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.
That whole 'cone of fire' and 'too accurate for an MG' thing is a whole other argument :)
@@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.
@@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.
It's funny how the experts of war history and gun mechanics and their fans can discuss the probability of such an event happening ad nauseam, back and forth, with all little tidbits of information about the weapon, the soldiers, battle reports of similar events etc, and then the truth is that the director needed the sniper dude to do something that would look cool in the movie.
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.
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.
This reminds me of the plaque on "Young's Range" at Ft. Benning. "Here lies the student who used the school answer."
British Army veterans at the moment, used the SLR and preferred it to the L85 weapons. Largely because of the comforting thump in the shoulder it gave you on firing. This then became elevated to mythical proportions to it being known as "that weapon." As in, "Afghanistan would have been over in a week if we had, that weapon."
The early L85s being... What they were certainly did some work in making that rumour as well
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.
People who haven't served really don't understand how important this video is
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.
Yea, I spent some time in the Rhodesian army, was quite impressed with the 7,62 bren.
@@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...😁
I have no idea why this came up in my feed and I barely understand it, but I like it.
A very good friend of mine works in a police ballistics lab, which includes under water test firing, etc. Once I asked him how tests and demonstrations can show one thing, but when actual combat vets will say a contradicting thing (especially in the water example) and he gave me a great, simple answer: "Well, real life is a hell of a thing."
This whole thing feels like it's fitting into the trope "Reality is Unrealistic" but in a weird recursive Moebius-strip kind of way.
We gotta get You and Ian a Bren to play around with
I remember being instructed on the LMG/Bren and was told by a British Army small arms instructor that the LMG was essentially too accurate as a machine gun and that he had seen one bench fired on Repitition (single shots) create a sub 1 min group at 50m - just another anecdote though..... 🤔
If it's without any special timing or sequence rules, a set up weapon at 50 meters shouldn't go too far off from each other shot in single fire anyways.
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 😃
I have no military experience myself but still find posts like this very interesting. The points you make are actually more relative to human nature in general than to the actual weapons themselves. I sometimes think that people are genetically programmed to believe anything that will make them feel safer. I remember when the wearing of seat belts became a legal requirement in the UK, many motorists actually believed you were safer without due in some part to stories of people being trapped in burning vehicles following a collision due the seat belts jamming. This was mostly nonsense of course. It would make perfect sense for inexperienced tank crews to believe adding sand bags and the like would increase protection. Basically people will often believe what they want to believe regardless of the actual evidence.
That is pretty cool chieftain, I cannot get into any of my original uniform, royal navy ! So good effort sir.
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.
My father, a tanker in the Korean war, was told by veteran Sgts that the 30 carbine would not penetrate the enemy's quilted winter coats. What's a green and scared private to believe?
Find an enemy with a quilted coat and test it?
Same with the M16 in Vietnam.
This one isn’t too far out there if we consider the huge variation in combat ranges during the Korean War. A .30 carbine round might plausibly struggle against padded winter coats at 500-800 metres, which wouldn’t have been unusual for shooting from one ridgeline to the next (say, during the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir or some of the positional battles around the DMZ). On other occasions, firing at point-blank range against Chinese infiltrators or night assaults, the round would have gone through just fine.
The thing is that North Korea can get really cold in the winter. Carbines didn't like that nd often jammed or misfired under harsh conditions - which may led to such conclusions.
@@LafayetteCCurtisAnother thing to consider is the extreme cold making the propellant fucky would significantly reduce velocity. Also, it could just be the soldier missing and blaming the weapon
The British sweater uniform always struck me as a very good look.
In terms of the added weight from extra armor, I would rather have the tanks powertrain die from the added load than be killed myself by a penetration of the tanks front.
>tank totally immobile
>German infantry approaching from one side while a Panzer IV approaches from the other
>freezeframe
>record scratch
>”You’re probably wondering how I got in this situation.”
Hillary Doyle: Tank Track plates make the armor worse and the German officers told troops to stop
Gaijin: Tank Tracks turn a Panzer IV into a Tiger with a 75mm
Cope cage is perhaps the ultimate modern "feel confident" addon - laughed at by many experts yet implemented by many crews in combat
The Irish uniform jumpers look so good. Its a really stylish uniform.
It's not 'Irish'; more like Britosphere - UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and possibly others all used them - I still have one somewhere.
The 88s were feared because they could kill at range. A 88 flak gun is a large target, so they tended to be firing at longer ranges than the 37mm and 50 mm atgs at the start of the war. Firing at moving targets at long range equals lower accuracy. Hence you may fire 10-11 rounds per kill but you were getting that kill. Allied tankers feared the 88 in the Western desert because it could knock out their tanks at ranges they couldn't hit back at.
In Germany was the Zeiss factory, world famous for optical glasses, not reached by other glasses round the world. Therefore the 8.8 and the principle of working could not be copied. It was not the barrel, it was the aiming device.
Another example ist the Norden aiming device of American bombers and the German bombers. Norden was an analogue computer, very expensive, top secret. The Germans had blueprints before the war but did not try to copy it. They used simple Zeiss lenses and it worked as well, same precision.
I know some of the British troops during the gulf wars who were using the old chieftain engineer and recovery variants filled all the space they could under the floor plates with sandbag's to help protect against mine strike's. Not sure how effective that would have been but when you're in an obsolete vehicle which has never been upgraded to deal with the threat any improvement has to be worth the effort. Not sure if having your added armour inside your hull or dealing with mines rather than armour piercing projectiles is comparing apples to oranges or not though.
That seems plausible as an anti-spalling measure. (Awaiting any documentation on effectiveness)
In any case, I can't see a downside to it, assuming the tank could easily handle the weight of some floor sandbags.
In regards to the Rhodesians, I recall that the FALO (heavy barreled bipod variant of the FN FAL) was not well liked for its limited capabilities, but the 7.62x51 converted Brens were. Though they were not standard issue like the FN MAG, I’ve seen photos of them mounted on vehicles or carried by soldiers (most likely not a part of the RLI) despite their obsolescence.
During his training for the draft my dad was trained by the Italian Army on the Bren and the SMLE, before there were NATO standards and EI unified on the Garand, and he said that the Bren was very accurate.
After training, he being a PhD in Mining Engineering he moved to the HQ of the Army Corps in Turin where, in the morning, as a private, he ignored orders from any rank below colonel, as the colonels and generals found his knowledge too useful.
In the afternoon he was an assistant professor at the Turin Polytechnic School.
Funny fact is that at the time an Italian serviceman always had to wear his uniform, even during leaves.
So he taught while wearing his uniform.
A tradition of PoliTo is that the students have to stand until the teacher comes into the classroom, and gives permission to sit.
Some of the students were already officers of the EI Corps of Engineers. Who had to wait, standing, until a private came in and gave them permission to seat.
Interesting general point, with good examples.
AN ex partners Grandad was a member of the Coldstream Guards in the 30's and 40's. He mentioned that "you could snipe with the Bren in single shot mode". No details or instances, so could easily have been something he just heard from others.
Perception and reality can also be confused when an individual does something non text book, which if discovered by the enemy can give the mistaken impression of universality.
Nice to see Ralph Riccios AFVs in Irish Service on the shelve. I helped write the book ith Ralph but turned down co authorship for various reasons. We tested the Bren theory at 400 years some years ago with an all army marks man on the trigger against a falling plates target, the Steyr was more consistent, the grouping of the bren at 400 yards bearing g in mind it was a MK 3 bren with less than 2000 rounds fired in its life time . The quality of the ammunition comes into play as the 90s most of our .303 ammo came from Pakistan
I made the mistake of loaning mine to somebody from work. He moved jobs, I never saw it or him again...
Stopped lending books after my third copy of Irish Army Vehicles by Karl Martin
In fairness, I would strongly suspect a modern AUG with sight to put rounds downrange with greater accuracy than an early cold war LMG shooting irons.
Damn where did you get a 400 year old Bren? /s
My favorite example of this is soldiers debating whether or not to use the chinstrap on your helmet
Thats one thing I did figure from the scene
The sniper just figured his best shot would come from a heavy, emplaced weapon to make sure he had the best possible chance for a first round hit
I still don't get why you'd single load in that situation. If your first round missed, you'd want a quick follow-up shot.
(havent seen the film) maybe if he had been using the rifle alot during the battle and the barrel had got hot lessening accuraccy then he may have felt more conifdent in the bren. just a thought
@@jarink1 how to make sure your target is dead dead.
A - put a bullet through the heart
B - sandblast that sod and the immediate area with a torrent of supersonic lead.
no i've not watched the film but i suppose a single very deliberate precision shot with a heavy weapon makes the whole scene seemed more marvel superhero. they are trying to sell a movie after all.
The best example of this was in WW2, how almost nobody in the US military wore the chinstraps on their M1 helmets. They were worried that overpressure from a nearby explosion would lift the helmet away and break the wearer's neck. I have seen plenty of documents from the time which refuted this, but hardly any GI ever wore them in place (though it was SOP in a few units regardless, such as in the 29th Division early on in France)
*Nick: **_"Gun Jesus knows his firearms..."_*
😊😊😊
I read in the book “Rogue Warrior” and in other places that SAS commander Paddy Blair Mayne insisted his troops use the Bren use in semi automatic mode, and leave the automatic fire for the other MGs. By the time this was being ordered the SAS. We’re primarily using M1 Carbines instead of Enfield rifles so the Bren might have been their long range precision weapon. I don’t know. What I thought was odd about the movie was why he just took the single shot as opposed to emptying the entire mag in the bad guy.
The Chieftain: *casually pulls out FAL from off frame*
(beautiful gun BTW, whether it be replica, deactivated, straight pull, or proper semi)
It's a proper semi.
Building on the troops with trust in their gear, some people will perform better under pressure. This makes some good athletes great in sports, other good athletes mediocre in practice. Others just get lucky, some of them five or twelve times in a row. If it's statistically possible, it might happen and sometimes will. Especially when the numbers get very big. With every ten million rounds shot in the ongoing invasion in Ukraine, ten soldiers will have a literal one-in-a-million shot. And before the end of the conflict, there is going to be a soldier who landed more than one. In short: the human factor happens, especially much so in human conflict.
My grandfather was a bren gunner in the scot's guards who was at Salerno and/or Anzio and I heard from him that the Bren was a very accurate weapon, and the sniper myth as well. And as I recall, both grandfather's fired the Bren in their service and remarked on the gun pulling you towards the target.
Why is this scene getting so much attention? The movie is fairly old now.
Well the movie is not even 10 years old. Regardless it's an interesting topic of discussion and Ian picked it as a topic because the past few days have been the anniversary of the battle.
because it's popped up on Netflix recently, I believe
It's been on Netflix since release. A similar type movie also on Netflix is Danger Close, Long Tan
3:17 Appreciate the Combat Mission shout out!
True story: in 1965 I won a shooting award for scoring 15 hits with a bren gun loaded with a 12 round mag. I did not ask the score of the guys shooting either side of me.
A good example of a soldier using a different rifle for sniping was Carlos Hathcock “White Feather” in Vietnam. He attached a scope to a M2 Browning and got a kill a mile away
We will never beat Gun Jesus in terms of dressing up for the occasion.
Chieftain has bonus points for having been issued the uniform