Bren vs Spandau part two - or Lloyd against the fan-boys
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- The WW2 German fanboys didn't like my first video on this topic, some were quite hostile. Here I explain myself even more fully.
Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
The original video on this topic: • Bren vs Spandau - whic...
Buy the music - the music played at the end of my videos is now available here: lindybeige.ban...
More weapons and armour videos here: • Weapons and armour
Many people didn't read the description on my last video, and so missed my dealing with most of the objections. People don't read descriptions, so here I come back at my critics in video form. So terrified were some people to think that someone out there might be suggesting that German WW2 equipment wasn't superb in every way, or that British equipment might have been as good as adequate, that they were very quick to misinterpret me, and to jump to wild and erroneous conclusions. Most people were not like this, and I was blessed as ever by many pleasant comments, but when a TH-camr concludes that a piece of WW2 German or medieval Japanese kit was sub-perfect, then he will face the wrath and wails of the fan-boys.
Musical stings kindly contributed by David Bevan.
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige"
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
/ user "Lindybeige"
There are a couple basic misconceptions that are repeated in the video that spurred this followup.
1) The MG34 and 42 are not inherently inaccurate as Lloyd proposes. There would be no problem using a 42 for flanking cover fire during an assault. In addition, the Lafette tripods used with the 34 and 42 are excellent at allowing the guns to be used very precisely at long ranges (much better than the Bren tripod, which was also not used nearly as much). The example of a man prone 80 yards from a 42 being impossible to hit for an extended period it not representative of the gun. It may indicated that the gunner was a very poor gunner, or that he never actually saw and targeted the British soldier, or maybe he just had his sights mistakenly set for a very long distance and never realized it (i.e., not a skilled gunner).
2) The Bren is an accurate weapon, but not to the point of being a flaw. People who say that you cannot provide area fire with a Bren have never fired a Bren - it's easy to do.
A few minor points...
Where does one find people who say the Bren is rubbish? I have never met an informed person who claims this, and most of them consider the Bren a serious contender for best LMG ever made.
The obscure reason the the MG34 continued to be produced until the end of the war was than the 42's barrel changing procedure would not work in the mounts that were built for the 34. Simpler to continue making 34s for vehicular use than to redesign the mounts.
While the 34 and 42 may have been called "Spandau" by some British soldiers, this was not the case in the US (not with the British collectors I know, FWIW). IMO, it is better to use proper names than inaccurate slang. This is why I would not call the MP38 and MP40 "Schmeissers" despite that term being widely used by American troops at the time
For all that, though, Lloyd's original conclusion was basically correct: they are both excellent guns, and not directly comparable because they were used in different ways.
To find someone who says the Bren is rubbish simply ask the average Brit. If we've designed it, it must be terrible - either that or it's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum and it's the best in the world. There are a huge amount of misconceptions relating to the Second World War in the UK. For some reason people seem to blow everything German out of proportion and reduce everything British to comical levels of inferiority - leaving only the British man's fighting spirit as our most valued weapon. I suspect it's a way of making our role seem more heroic (especially with the Battle of Britain and the Blitz).
well now that's not true. ask who had the better aircraft us or the germans and 90% of people will say us. because they would be right. jokes. jokes. definitvely better stragetic bombers though. better than the damn yanks as well. oh yes look us with our 'flying fortress' oh la dee daaa.
Alistair Shaw Of course everyone in the UK would say the Spitfire was supreme. But the average person will overrate German equipment and underrate ours massively. The majority of people think of little old England fighting the Nazis against all the odds.
XXXpallisterXXX where did I mention spitfire? did I say that no Lancaster's Lancasters
Alistair Shaw I never said you mentioned that. You mentioned ask who had the better aircraft, 90% of people will say us. I was reinforcing that by saying everyone automatically thinks of Spitfires being the top dogs, at least in the UK.
thank you for mentioning my video. Glad you liked it!
keep up the work
We all love you videos mate!
I just watched a video by you guys (I believe) about the steel ammo used by the Germans, Im curious if that could have had an impact by increasing recoil, or perhaps by wearing the weapon out faster.
As a further compliment, I totally knew it was your work (by name) without having seen that particular video. You definitely have a 'brand'
If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion, don't start with naming people that point out your inaccuracies "fanboys" and comparing them to people that perpetuate misconceptions about the katana.
You've got a lot of commenters that actually used the MG3, or at least read a lot about the MG line, because - surprise - that gun was used last century, so within the lifespan of many of our grandparents.
"B-but a lot of people actually left short and stupid comments!" - why focus on them, then? Why wouldn't you just admit inaccuracy when it's pointed out with sources? Why not argue the comments that actually challenge you with those sources? This goes completely against what you've said in the "feel free to disagree with me" video.
First off, the MG 3 is not the MG42, it is a modernized version of the same design, although influenced by other guns. Second "People who've read about the MG42"
So what? Do you honestly believe Lloyd hasn't read about it? He literally reads this stuff for pleasure, hell, he wanted to do a series of videos discussing war memiores
Well some of the factual errors were so obvious to anyone with a little bit of knowledge on the subject that if he did the research he used TERRIBLE sources.
Just a small correction.
The MG42 is essentially still in use today in the form of the MG3, same gun different calibre. And in use by a impressive amount of countries including Germany, Italy, Turkey, Finland, Sweden Denmark and many others. So not only are there people that have used the MG42 but quite a few people would have been firing the MG3 within the last year.
+Dracarys Blackfyre the mg-3 is the exact same weapon as the mg42 the only thing that's change is the caliber used instead of 8mm Mauser(7.92x57mm) it uses 308 caliber (7.62x51mm) other than that the only thing that's changed Is they have added a rail on top in later models to added night vision optics. but the original mg-3 when it was first introduced quite literally where marked mg-42 and where rebarreled to fire 7.62 NATO.
Anusideral
"OMG He was so wrong I'm not even gonna bother supporting my argument, because he's so wrong!"
The nearest I've seen him to genuinely annoyed.
I think he has every right to be annoyed....having read some of the ridiculous comments made to his first video.. He makes wonderful videos, cut the guy some slack
@@rmcguire7033 Most of the comments on his first video were perfectly reasonable, and his annoyance doesn't change how wrong he was.
@@lowesmanager8193 How was he wrong? I am confused so maybe you could enlighten me as to what points exactly he was incorrect?
Precise as possible if you will please.
@@elijahshafer8956 Ian from Forgotten Weapons left an excellent comment on this video explaining many of the issues, it should be easy to find as I'm pretty sure it is the most liked comment.
That being said I'll try to explain myself.
1. He claims that the MG42 was inaccurate, and in this follow up video he claims that it was accurate enough for purpose, but still inaccurate, which is still wrong. In reality the MG42 was very accurate up to 600 meters especially when fired in short controlled bursts.
2. He perpetuates the myth that the Bren's biggest problem was that it was too accurate, and that this prevented it from being used effectively for area fire, which is false. The Bren was accurate to be sure, but it wasn't as laser accurate as Lindy implies, and you can use it for area fire, quite easily in fact.
3. He claimed that you could not shoot an MG42 while standing without being thrown off balance. While it might be difficult, and it certainly wasn't the guns intended purpose, you could shoot it standing up if you held it porperly.
4. He claimed that while the Bren didn't leave British service until 2006, the MG42 had long been taken out of service, and I believe he aslo said that the Bren was more influential for the designs of future MGs. In reality the MG42 is still in service to this day with some European armies, and the MG3 which is only a slight modification of the MG42 is still in service with the German army, as well as several other armies. And in terms of influence, practically every belt fed machine gun has been influenced by the MG42.
5. He claimed that the MG42 had overheating problems, which makes it sound like the MG42 didn't have a cooling system, or that it was poor. The MG42 actually had a very effective air cooling system, and the heating of the barrel was perfectly manageable with a trained gun crew.
6. He claimed that "English speakers" use the term "spandau" to refer to the MG42. He clearly doesn't mean people from England, but rather all people who speak English which is just nonsense. As an American who loves WW2 history I had never even heard the term spandau until his first video, and this sentiment was shared in the comments as well. He tried to use a dictionary to defend himself, but apparently he doesn't realize that dictionaries don't dictate how people talk, they only explain the meaning of words, no matter how obscure.
7. Even after coming to the conclusion that both guns were better at different things, and that neither was inherently better, he goes on to imply that the Bren was better by saying that the British consistently won against the Germans. This is absurd because there were tons of factors that influenced these outcomes, and yet he absurdly tries to boil it down to two machine guns. He does bring this up in this video but he condescendingly dismisses the criticism without a satisfying response. He also claimed that the Germans using the MG42 were "very determined" when in reality German morale was practically nonexistent late in the war.
This is mostly from memory as I didn't rewatch everything just to leave this comment, but once again I implore you to look for the comment left by Forgotten Weapons.
For American viewers that think firing a gun makes them an expert
Coming up next: Lloyd explains why Tornado ADV is better than an F-15
Lol
Coming up next: Lloyd explains why Challenger 2's inability to use regular NATO tank shells is actually an advantage and thus makes it superior to Leopard 2, Leclerc and M1A2 combined.
+Heinrich Berndovsky you mean that terrible rifled gun? takes two piece ammo, has a miserably low rate of fire and short tube life? it's gotten to the point where the RM 120 is better the it in nearly every way, the M1 can manage a 7 second reload, the Challenger would be lucky to make a 15 in combat......also the LEP program is replacing the rifled gun with the smooth bore 120, even the Brits are starting to get that it's outdated.
Brass 'n Barrels Firearms Channel
Well, to be perfectly honest with you, as a tank, Challenger 2 is better due to its excellent protection (in fact, M1s use the British Chobham armour plates that have been in use since Chally 2, if memory serves). The only problem with it is that the MoD is unwilling to throw as much money on it as is the DoD in terms of their Abrams fleet.
+Heinrich Berndovsky not really, the first M1 used pretty much a copy of the challengers armor, the SEP updated it, DU backer plates and some other armor ju ju, but as I was saying, the only real problem with challenger 2 is gun life, mobility and engine reliability.
nonsense bren and the spandau have nothing on a man throwing a pummel to end someone rightly
Still?
Yo Momz Nothing beats a sharp piece of steel giving someone a major concussion. I myself bought a Judicial Sword, also known as an Executioners Sword, for personal protection. Designed to take off heads? Then hands should be pretty easy. And I would rather take off a hand then take a bullet myself.
whyamihere Stalin yes psycho very good
Aye aye!
Oh no. Describing those with legitemate opinions as fan-boys, thereby trying to discredit them. Bad, Lloyd, bad
ThuleanPerspective Yeah, I agree with you. Some perspective is lost.
Don't think so, his research seems varied and more importantly, from a variety of primary sources. Sources from the time.
If the sources of the time record inaccuracy in the part of the German weapons, then surely it has to be of note for it to be in the books. At least if you accept that people will not record the common day stuff, assumed knowledge but only record those things of note, beyond and out of the ordinary.
There Be Game All of his sources was from British soldiers, those facing the gun. He never mentioned a source written by a German operating the gun in a battle scenario.
Tiaan De Swardt And?
Depending what you want to read about, there's only so many sources out there. Not only that, there's only so many sources in your language.
Unless you have the time to offer a translation service for Lindy, then what else what was he to do? If he has primary sources (he has), from other sources outside his own country (he has) and referred to a variety of them.
Research does not have to be 'balanced' or does it have to show sources from everywhere on everything. If he's got documents that support it, or the books he has are of good academic quality, hence my question in another post, then everything he said was on point and is hard to argue with.
At least I find it hard to argue with, I can't find a whole in his stated position that in terms of the end product, the Bren and Spandau were both good and bad at things and that the Bren is under appreciated.
If you're comparing an automatic weapon to a sniper rifle on rate of fire, the automatic weapon is going to win. So at least be fair in your comparison and the grounds on which they are done.
There Be Game There should be tonnes of autobiographies from German perspectives, even translated ones.
I actually just googled 'German Common soldier autobiographies" and found these:
In Deadly Combat: A German Soldier's Memoir of the Eastern Front
Blood Red Snow: The Memoirs of a German Soldier on the Eastern Front
I Was a German - The Autobiography of Ernst Toller
Soldat: Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936-1949
They aren't hard to find. A person operating a phsychological weapon such as the MG 42 would give a different opinion than the person fighting a phsycological weapon. This would give his research more balance and credibility.
Is his books of good academic quality though? They might be or they might not be. Therefore more info from more sources regarding the subject would better flesh out a persons knowledge on the subject.
I agree that the Bren was a good gun. That wasn't what the hypothesis was about though. The question was, which gun was better, and from a scientific standpoint this hypothesis, and subsequent explanations, is flawed since the Bren and the MG 42 belonged to two different classes of guns. Both had their uses in different roles.
And if we can use his criteria that the Bren was better than the MG 42, then logically we can assume that the MG 34 was a better gun than the Bren, up until it wasn't. The Germans won everything up until 1941-1942. Was the MG 34 then a better gun than the Bren?
P.S: Sorry for my long comment :(
But my grandfather during WW2 grabbed his mg-42 and sliced through an ancient magic katana with a single slash!
LOL
Sadly he was shot immediately afterwards. By a Bren gun😂
@@simonmorris4226 *katana
My comrades sliced through 10000 people with 2 artillery batteries in the battle of Mukden
Look man, there are a ton of problems here, but you are the #1 problem on this issue. You waffle more than Belgium in this video. But I will keep my comment to something you brought up in THIS video.
You claim that 'the best troops' manning the MG42 lost to the Bren, but in reality for the majority of the later half of the war it was the M1919 and BAR at the squad/platoon level in the hands of US troops that met the MG42 most of the time (along the western front).
Then when someone points out that the best trained and most seasoned German troops had already died in Russia, and the people manning MG42s in the later half of the war were either conscripts or kids just out of basic training, you completely dismiss the impact this has on those battles... How often did a German officer drop mid-combat just to have his entire company immediately surrender?
So even if it was Bren vs MG42 the majority of the time, I have a 16 year old German kid scared out of his mind spraying bullets, and you have a seasoned British soldier that has used that Bren gun for years. Who are you putting a fiver on? Cause I sure as shit am not betting on my guy.
You brought up the issue of later war skirmishes, which means you don't get to dismiss all factors at play in later war skirmishes as 'irrelevant'.
@ThuleanPerspective So the Russians lost 13 soldiers for every 1 German and ended up with ~1:2 KIA ratio how?
Out of curiosity, where did you get those numbers? Germans suffered very high casualties. How come, if they killed a platoon for every one of them? Everyone else should suffer more than they did...
so now you are basically doing the same as the previous commenters did, he never explicity said, the best german soldiers lost to the bren.... he just said overal the german lost the war every day
Myth. In small scale tactical engagement one soldier tended to be about as good as the other, perhaps the Soviets excepted, whose troop quality took a massive nosedive after the disasters of 1941 and 42 and took a long time recovering both individual training and junior officer leadership abilities.
There were relatively minor difference in troop quality as the war progressed but the Germans certainly were not having it all their way.
Strategic considerations tended to dominate individual combat skill. If you read up on small tactical fights you get the strong impression that the well trained British regulars ran rings around the less experienced Germans during the campaign in Belgium and northern France of 1940, right up until the Brits were standing chin deep in the waters of Dunkirk!
German troop quality steadily climbed during the war, giving the Germans a slight (and I do stress slight) advantage until the casualties of the war started to weigh heavily on troop quality after which a steady decline in troop quality took place handing the advantage back to Brits in small scale infantry combat.
It is also worth mentioning that the British wrote the book on most current infantry tactics and doctrine. The way sections are used today in modern western armies? British. House to house and urban combat doctrine? British. Mortar usage? British.
They really had their shit together during WW2 even if it is popular to say they had not.
ThuleanPerspective back at you bro. 27 million - 17 million civilian deaths, versus 5 million german military losses on eastern front gives which ratio?
Don't bother to answer. I've got all the answers I needed to hear from your last comment.
"Well, that changes everything!" xD
They're not Katanaplonkers or whatever. They're called: Weaboos.
Aka weebs
lazzer+FISK004 actually a weaboo is some one who is obsessed with modern japanese culture not anything japanese
Found the weeb :^)
Mentelpe Jenkins no im friends with a Grammer nazi who is
Gman Grammar*, if you were really a friend with a grammar nazi, you'd know this.
The MG-34 was in use with the Norwegian home guard until the early 90's, and by then they were simply worn out from years of use. From what I've been told by the older instructors who've used it, it was VERY accurate, and gunners could actually earn sharp shooter badges meant for the Mauser (also in home guard use) using semi auto.
The MG3 (and also MG42, I guess) is not as inaccurate as you seem to think. The high rate of fire means that, when firing bursts, you have the rounds down range already by the time recoil knocks you off your sights.
I have a feeling the comments arn't going to be kind to you here Lloyd.
RIP
And for once, the comments would be right.
*****
Listen to both sides, do a bit of your own research and read between the lines. That's the probably the best thing you could do.
*****
Oh no, I didn't mean that you'd choose someone to side with. It was an advice in general.
Good. Let the Fanboy butthurt flow like wine. They deserve every bit of discomfort they can get in their lives.
Lindy, I dont feel like you were being attacked by "fanboys". The discussion under your video was very civil and informed, probably not only for TH-cam standard. Sadly you werent able to take the criticism and engage in meaningful discussion, but made a video defending your position without mentioning anything new.
I dont have a problem with the topic or information presented (everyone makes mistakes), but your character and attitude towards criticism. There are few places better suited for discussions like these on the internet and its sad to see you disagree.
Respectfully, one of your so called "fanboys"
The One The discussion under the video was not the only input as he said. He was emailed too by not so polite people.
He didn't provide the actual e-mails, now did he?
It would be easy enough to show them on here, names redacted of course.
Sorry heard claims like that too often in recent years, and I demanded proof of every single one, can't give Lloyd a pass there if I demanded the same of others.
@@BigHenFor then why he didnt answer them there? what now, if a teacher got some nasty emails he start doing shit in classrooms? Anyway, is not about emails here, is about people, his people, his watchers and followers having a different point of view, with arguments and called fanboys by lloyd, mocking them and noone of their arguments in disscution.
I feel that one of the main reasons people get the idea that british stuff was terrible and german stuff was so good, was to make us look like even more of an underdog, and thus making our victory a greater success.
Is a very good point.
That might be overthinking the issue just a bit
CornishPasty it anoys me though as our stuff was just as good if not better than the germans eg. the halifax bomber the spitfire even the lee enfield was better than the kar98k even the churchil tank was able to trade blows with tiger tanks there is a story of a 12hour showdown brtween a pzkpfvi tiger where they kept bouncing of eachother so our stuff wasnt bad
I think Kar 98 vs Lee-Enfield is probably hair-splitting. I don't think you could definitively say one outclassed the other.
Brit Lurker well the enfield could fire faster had more stopping power and looked cooler thats what matters
Defending the Stem is like defending Katanas, Lindy, not making the obvious statement MG34/42 is clearly superior. Drop it, it's a bad design, proof in case being, UK no longer use ANYTHING like it, while Germany and a lot other countries still use MG3 based machine guns.
HM Armed forces do use something almost exactly like the BREN it's the SA-80 LSW (Light Support Weapon) Box fed (30 round) .
edmundscycles1 Not surprisingly, not top fed, is it?
Almost every army will use several machine guns for several roles nowadays. High RPM ones for suppression, low RPM for precision and ammo efficiency, high caliber for cover piercing, autocannons when you just need more range and penetration and have no problems carrying ammo, miniguns when you just want an area REALLY suppressed and also have enough ammo, etc, etc.
Problem is not the caliber or rate of fire, is the top feed design. Belt x box is a non issue, both have their uses.
It was a bad design and time proved it. If you can only field a single MG for logistic reasons, it's better to field both really functional MGs and assault rifles instead of a "less specialized MG".
I'm sorry for Lindy, but germans invented the AR too.
The point is that LMG like the BREN are stil being used and while it my not have a top mounted magazine ( though when your prone it allows for fast changes and getting lower to the ground (see FG-42 and prototype M-60) .
The use of a box can aide in mobility over a belt system if you are in a squad and don't want to rely on others helping you move quickly .
During WWII the British army also had the Vickers light machine gun (which is very much comparable to the MG-34 with weight of fire and being belt fed)
edmundscycles1 The Vickers was an old design, based on the brilliand Vickers used since WW1. Too heavy and water-cooled.
They just tough they didn't need to upgrade the Vickers, and the MG34/42 proved them wrong. Not too hard to accept,I take?
Erm not all Vickers were water cooled . The Vikers K gun was air cooled and quite light . often twin mounted on jeeps and used as aerial guns on bombers . The LDRF and SAS had up to 9 Vickers K guns mounted on jeeps for raiding patrols in North Africa and Normandy . A jeep would have a twin linked K gun for the front passenger , two twin linked K guns on the rear storage of the jeep one fixed for the driver and an optional twin linked in a central plinth
I would like to just say the American guy who picked up a water cooled browning and held off a Japanese attack was a total badass that is all
If he had a Spandau, he could've killed a Japanese officer, nicked his katana, and conquered all of Japan in a matter of days by himself.
No, because the Spandau was not designed by our lord and savior, John Moses Browning.
B DeWit uh oh, katana fucktard is here to weebify the comments -_-
Minedweller329
The worst thing about communication on the internet: social cues are missed since they don't translate well into text.
So either you don't know I'm goofing around (personally I think the katana is an over-hyped rubbish weapon which should've never made it out of the 14th century) or I'm missing that *you* are adding to my sarcasm by saying I'm a katanatard.
Kinda thought my initial comment was obviously sarcastic. I don't believe that even katanatards or katana-plonkers think that a single man with a katana could've conquered all of mainland Japan on his own... well, maybe *some* of them do.
'Manilla John' Basilone.
if the British actually held the idea to keep the good stuff and get rid of the rubbish then they wouldn't be using the l85's
Your claims based on what? After being upgraded by H&K the L85A2 is a great weapon.
+RyanRyzzo Took them long enough, though.
Charlie Massey
What 15 years?
History is a long time.
+RyanRyzzo it's such a great weapon that the special forces never wanted them, and commandos are getting new guns, that the sf use.
fact remains that there's still better guns that the forces could be using, and it's a shame the engineers and manufacturers messed up with the l85.
"fan-boys"? Generalization, bias? What happened with your objectivity? (reaching a conclusion only after both/all sides of an argument were equally taken into account and equally researched). What books written by ex Axis soldiers have you read? If so, why don't you cite their experiences against the Bren or using the " Spandau"? (It would be relevant to your video since you "experienced" both weapons by proxy)
Lindybeige, that's beneath you! (or it ought a be)
I'm disappointed.
Oh well... At least, now I know a bigger grain of salt is needed when watching your points/videos.
Lloyd, while I appreciate it that you dont back down even under pressure from your supporters, you have to sometimes face the realities. When you compare two MGs and point out different facts about the guns (and admit it, you were a little biased towards the Bren Gun [which is perfectly fine since I am willing to admit that I am perhaps a little biased towards the MG42/Spandau due to being german]). For example, you never adressed the really SMALL magazine size of the Bren Gun (what is it exactly? I think 20-30 bullets?) which is redicilous for a machine gun, seeing how a machine gun's purpose is to lay supressive fire and lay down heavy fire to pin/mow down the enemies while more accurate weapons (rifles for example) pick off single targets one by one. Or for guys with submachine guns to close in on the flanks (or to smoke them out with granades if they are sheltered somewhere). In that regard you got to admit that the bren gun is terrible at that role (simply because you chew faster through a magazine than you could say 'Spandaus come from Spandau'.)
In that regard, couldnt we agree that the Bren gun might be a sur-pas machine gun, but perhaps the first step in the direction of a very bulky assault rifle? (good range, good accuracy, full-automatic and around 30ish magazine size?)
I mean you could have done it quite simply, lisitng some very simple facts (like effective range of fire, usual magazine sizes, rate of fire etc.) and then establish what the general definition of the role of a machine gun is in a modern army and then etablished the various army/military doctrines of the time and the role of their respective weapons.
(for example the part where you kind of painted the germans to flee as soon as their MG was taken out, you could have simply explained that due to the fact that the germans mainly used bolt action rifles (except a few exceptions of the G43 and later on the Stg 44 (Sturmgewehr/Assault rifle) and perhaps the FJG (Fallschirmjäger Gewehr/Paratrooper Rifle) which meant that while they were accurate and reliable and effective on long ranges, they were ill suited for engagments on a lower range or against enemies with a higher rate of fire. (for example in an engagment on 50 yards/Meters or lower if it was a K98 against a Garand, I'd usually put my money on the Garand, simply because the Garand has a higher ammo capacity and higher rate of fire and requires less input to work properly in contrary to the bolt action rifle.) Which is the reason why most german positions were hard to hold against a determined attack once the MG was taken out. (though that is the case with most infantries on all sides of the war I'd claim.)
In any case Lloyd, thanks for the video though. (since you adressed a few points which I mentioned earlier which came not so clearly across during your last video) Still you shouldnt call your own supporters fanboys either due to word of mouth of personal experience with an MG which with slight alterations is still used all over the world, while the Bren Gun is... well probably less known. :)
Still cheers mate, still love your other content, dont hate my because I disliked your Bren vs. Spandau video :'(
"Spandau"? more like "Spamdau" amirite?
Spam,spam,spam and spam with MG42
>Has probably never so much as even touched a gun in his life
>Still claims to hold authoritative opinions on firearms technology
Lloyd. Please, no.
Please make more realistic accusations, even in this video he said he handled a MG42 and a Bren, and perhaps even fired other weapons.
You're whole argument is made invalid by one sentence, well done.
boohoo boohoo boohoo WAAH WAAHH WAAHHHHHH
Seems like somebody didn't finish the video. 18:10
@SNIperofDARKness02 Go watch the ending of the video. He specifically says he hasn't fired guns. But he then also explains quite well why that doesn't really matter. FYI, I think he made quite a few factual mistakes in his first video (and repeated some of them in this video) and I find it childish he's calling people fanboys in this video.
You do know that there is really, technically nothing wrong with comparing apples with oranges. Honestly why not?
I'm a big fan of the Bren gun. My Grandfather was a Bren gunner in world war two in the Welsh Guards. As good a weapon it was, I don't believe it was better than the MG42. Which was a superbly engineered support weapon for its time.
He didn't explicitly say it was better. Just because they are different doesn't necessarily mean that one is better than the other.
No doubt ot was superbly engineered. But answer me this. What country still used the german guns, in numbers, into the 90s. And as a follow up, how many countries still used the BREN on 7.62 into the 90s, and still in most lesser colonies now?? India, Timor, PNG, Fiji, Solomon Islands, that I know of. We gave PNG 184 000 in 90s alone.
@@ozdavemcgee2079 um, Germany, Austria and about 30 other countries. They use the MG3 which is nothing more than a product improve MG42 to the point where several parts are interchangeable. Not to mention the fact the concept of the universal machine gun that originated with the MG34 is used by almost every single military today and the countless design details of modern machine guns that were copied from it.
Nah. The MG34 is the Go-To. the Mg42 was meant to be cheaper and easier to manufacture than the 34.
My Grandfather was a Bren gunner in WW2 in the Monmouthshire rifles. Attached to the 11th Armoured division. He always said the german equipment was better and that they would pilfer from dead German soldiers what they could especially Luger pistols and the ammunition because for short range personal defence that was the weapon to have.
Spanny was too superfluous and the bren was only useful because infantry had bolt action rifles. Neither are particularly good at being general purpose mgs because spanny wasn't flexible enough and the bren wasn't specialized enough for its roll. Fight me.
You are completely right. As someone else pointed out, the Bren was more similar to modern assault rifles than an MG, and the Spandau wasn't that well suited to most situations.
I say sir, good show!
Nah, I agree. I'd take the Bren over the MG 34/42, just because it'd be more useful on the battlefield. But it's a shit general purpose MG, with funky design elements.
I think the main advantage of the Bren could well be that it basically took one man to operate and a few other guys could carry a spare mag or two. the Spandau on the other hand took basically the whole section to supply and operate, so wasn't a very tactical gun
Loyd, just read this comment to the camera and all will be solved.
All 6 riflemen in the British infantry section carried 106 rounds for the section's Bren. 2 mags with 28 rounds each plus a bandolier with 50 rounds in chargers.
The Bren gun was operated by a team of 3 men with 4-5 magazines carried per man.
Neither a Spandau or a bren is as effective as superior artillery
@@brokenwave6125 Not retardeed or deaf, but intends to make you both with his superior artillery.
I once blew up a tank with helium
NOTE BEFORE I GO FURTHER: I have a high respect for Lloyd and he makes good points, but on this I have to disagree
It's not quite the same thing as katana worship, because katanas and European longswords had pretty much the same purpose and function so that was apples to apples, but comparing the MG42 and the Bren is more like comparing Scotch and Bourbon or Apples and Pears. Saying one is better than the other isn't exactly wrong, but it doesn't convey the whole truth either. The MG42 was made specifically for pinning down enemies and keeping them from advancing due to the endless barrage of bullets. A better comparison might be the FG42 to the Bren or the Japanese type 99 light machine gun.
The Battle of Tilly and the other books you show are written from the point of view of a British Soldier, Americans didn't call it that, Canadians may have but I couldn't find any info about them or the Australians using it. It is NOT an effective and clear term for a specific weapon. In the context of world war 2 it could mean the MG34 or MG42, similar but distinct weapons. It would be like calling the Bren and the Besal Lewis Guns. You see how it makes no sense?
The rebuttle video you showed gave many of the points stated by the "fanboys" in the comments. The people on your first video about this weren't saying the MG42 was magical like Katana Plonkers, they were actually making decent points which is why their comments got so many thumbs up but the Katana Plonkers get very few.
Also, calling people fanboys just for giving points refuting your inaccuracies is rather disrespectful, so try not to do that.
Reminds me of the people that seem to think that the AK-47 was crafted by a god and it never has a single problem, will never have a malfunction and is the most accurate rifle ever while on full auto capable of shooting through 5 inches of solid AR500 steel.
The thing I like about Kalashnikov rifles is their simplicity. They are easily produced in very poor conditions. Assuming you can buy the barrel, you can basically build one from scratch.
On an individual scale, the AR design is far better, but also far more costly.
But I think the thing people forget is that it's an AK-47. As in 1947. Whereas the AR-15 design we know and love didn't come around till the eighties
+Dracarys Blackfyre the ak47 didn't see full mass production til late 49 and it didn't use stamped parted it used milled parts. the AK your referring to is the AKM which is a 60's designed weapon. and as for the AR-15 it was adopted into service around the same time.
Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 in the 1950s. The modern AR-15 is based on a rifle that went into service shortly after the end of the Korean War.
Some of the _design features_ are new, but the rifle itself is only a little younger than the AK.
Even if you didn't know a single thing about Eugene Stoner, the inventor of the AR15, you should have known the M16 was used in Vietnam and therefore came earlier than the 1980s...
+Xaro Xhoan Daxos The original M16 was a poor weapon. Modern designs based on that weapon are far better, but were not available until the 1980s, so the poster you replied to is correct. (You may have misread.) The AK design has also been modernised through several redesigns, and modern variants in service with Russia are also better than the original design.
'A gun is good because the British used it for a long time'
[Laughs in L85]
This is me when I shoot an l85a1 and the magazine just falls out
you reference two videos, would be nice to see those links in the description text as many devices for viewing can't actually use the embedded link in the video.
+1
Love the bren hated cleaning it , great to fire , used it while training the Irish FCA par time lads was great craic in the early 2000s 3 round burst's. the bipod was a handy feature but made her heavy. I remember a young lad melting his hand after touching the barrel while replacing it
Ouch
Is it me? some things sound odd. You were comparing weapons? I thought so.
So in the last Video, im Memory serves right you claimed the Spandau not to be accurate. Now you say it was Doctrin (and a little bit of hey, i can shout fast and loud with this thing). That is quite a difference. Because in that way, you would have two compare the Training and Doctrin of the Soldiers.
When you compare Two things and praise one for something, it is quite sure to assume you think the other has not that quality. You should never ever compare things and leave qualities out onesided if the quality was on both sides.
Same would go with the continuity of use.
At 18:00:
I've seen historical footage of a ss-man going full rambo with a "spandau" somewhere.
could u sent a link? would be amazing
I feel like you should have made the last video longer by those 20 minutes to get your message and point through.
I still don't entirely agree with you Lindybeige, because those are two different weapon ideas, so comparing them is not exactly fair to both, as both poses qualities other lacks.
Oh and can someone post me a link to video he linked, for some stupid ass reason I can't see link in his video.
Hello Lindybeige , great vids both of them. Thats my professional opinion as a german military historian and reservist who actually has fired the MG3 which really is a MG42 (sometimes we use a heavier bolt to lower the cyclic rate). You really hit the nail in both vids. Even our shooting exercises in the reserve exemplify your explanation of the tactical use on a german section MG: You aim at three different targets and you are suppsed to hit the supposed target person (with a suprisingly wide range) as well as a number of hits in a second wider circle, meaning you are supressing an area with tight bursts between 4 and 13 rounds, rather then picking of that one guy. I would argue that handling the MG42 is a way more specialized job then using a Bren in an Infantry squad, especially considering how much more responsibility for conducting your squads firefight lands on that gunner. In my personal experience it requires a lot of training to use effectivly because the rate of fire keeps you very busy in numerous ways(ammo, barrel changes) while you are trying to control an insane snake. But as an area denial weapon or rapidly waste any fools who move in the open at inappropriate times it remains unbeaten below mini gun level. And its very foolproof in use proper instruction provided.
Best regards Robert Wenzel
P.S.: I hear and read little complaining about the Bren (from people who actually used it) apart from the magazine capacity.
How does this comment have NEITHER a ton of likes nor a ton of skeptical comments.
THIS IS A PRIMARY SOURCE WITH A DIRECTLY STATED AND DETAILED OPINION. IT'S EITHER AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE OR REQUIRES ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT IT. COME ON TH-cam COMMENTERS WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU
my uncle is a cop here in rio de janeiro, he often goes to operations and very often he is assigned a bren gun, he told me once a burst hit 2 bandits inside of a abandoned house behind of a wall
The katana is with facts and proof not as good as the claims are and has been over glorified since forever.
The MG42 is not overglorified to the same extent as the katana and yet unlike the katana is actually an amazing weapon for it's time and even today. So your comparison of katana fanboys and MG42 fanboys is abit unfair.
it is a bit,I was a big big fanboy of the MG42,but looking at it now,I don't think it as godlike as I think it was,the best post war gpmg is the FN.mag,which takes more from the Czech VZ.26,which the Germans used a lot of in the war.
Yeah, people can be fanatics when they see a youtube video about someone arguing against reality itself. Thats what you call a stupid person, someone who completely ignores facts and makes bullshit out of nothing, like lindy
*****
What else would he be, stupid maybe not. Biased? Definitely.
MG-42 vs Bren gun. they both are MG that work fine. I will point out one small thing The US M60 MG was partly derived from the MG-42. I am not sure that anyone make a copy of the Bren gun. I know when I first saw the Bren I thought it may have not been so good because the sight is off to the side. But later I had read from troops that used it. That the Bren was a accurate gun. Now I like to see you do a video if you have not on the French WW I MG the Chauchat. :)
Lindybeige, you framed the video as "Which is better?". That's why people interpret points in favor of the Bren as points against the MG42.
ElGeecho I have to agree with Lindy in that just because he said pro one side doesn't mean that is con the other.
Except for his point about the Bren's longevity, which was poorly worded and actually did come across as a con to the Spandau.
I used a Bren when I was in the Army Cadets on a couple of occasions on a range. Nice gun and very simple to use...
What an outrage! What is the next thing you are going to say? That the Bren is better than the Katana? I cannot stand for this!
I would generally agree with your points with one exception.
The Russian front, contributing to the western allies' massive superiority in air power & materiel meant that attacking infantry had most of the time massive support. In these circumstances even moderately inferior infantry (which they certainly weren't) could triumph. The consistent strategic victories on the western allies' side therefore cannot be attributed to a particular tactical weapon when (I would assert) the strategic & operational conditions were the dominant factor.
Is that relevant to comparing the Spandau and the Bren?
Its relevant only in so far as stating the British could have consistently won from D-day onward even if the Bren was crap (which it wasn't) thanks to their overwhelming material & aerial superiority. (They were also very tactically/operationally competent)
So saying the Brits consistently won cant prove the Bren was either good or bad.
You dolt, he means that the comparison between the two weapons doesnt change because of the russian front are you american by any chance
The MG34/42 were essentially like a shotgun and were less accurate. The Bren gun was like a sniper rifle and could therefore use its accuracy to pin those opposing it tightly down. Both weapons had quick change barrels. A fire team was responsible for bringing several barrels for use in hot switching. The Bren was more portable and were a helluva weapon. On the American side we were stuck with the BAR which was good but not able to maintain sustained fire because you couldn’t change barrels. This was corrected on the FN-D after the war was ended.
After the war, did the British army ever give Brenda her gun back?
Nope, and she was bloody livid.
Bruh how did the Allies win. The Japanese issued Katanas combined with the German issued Spandau should’ve meant that the Allied forces were utterly torn to pieces by these perfect and superior weapons.
First of, personally i think the whole "Our stuff was so horribly rubbisch compared to what the germans had" comes from the tendency to make ones own victory seem even bigger, by making the opponent look even stronger than he was.
Second, is it really necessary to use a term like "fanboys", where there is a huge chance that people who just have a slightly different opinion, or try to add some of their own insight to an argument where they maybe felt they could offer said insight ?
I think using that term (and a few similar ones) unnecessarily heats up every debate they're used in.
On the other hand i of course notice how people in comments go way overboard with the way they defend their own point of view. There is no need to get aggressive over something like a simple youtube video, an opinion. Reminds me a bit about another video Lindybeige did (i'm not going to say which, to not start a heated debate about that as well), where i very very strongly disagreed with Lindybeiges presented opinion. But in the end i decided starting a little war in the comment sections just because i think his opinion on that are completly wrong, is just not worth it. 99% of his content i highly enjoy, so why not stay civil on the remaining 1%, or even ignore it.
Lastly, as a non-native speaker, i apologize if i managed to slaughter the english language.
I think the our stuff was rubbish is more of a woe is us view that British society has fallen into. We know deep down that the British were actually a very effective fighting force but most of the media we get about the world wars is all made by Americans and the British are almost seen as side characters or annoyances to the Great American Triumph.
actually its not at all, in my view, people who want to make ones own victory bigger..its often, maybe not always, people who are neo nazi or at least right winger who basically believe the wrong side lost and how its so unfair with all the cool uniforms and tanks that the Germans lost and the Russians are all commies and look at Europe today and its all down to the Jews etc...basically Neo Nazi Wichser Schwanzköpfe
Outnumbered Germans who had very limited resources lost the war, so their infantry weapon was inferior， very good argument.
Exactly what I was thinking. I am actually suprised about his ridiculous arguments concerning the german war effort.
Lloyd, I don't care how horrible the things are that they say about you, you're alright. ;-). Great video as always mate. Cheers.
PS Although a different style of comparison due to circumstances during the war, if you could do a video regarding the Bren vs BAR, that would be lovely. I would love to see your take and the firestorm that would ignite. Again, brilliant job, cheers.
*Edited to add PS
Really? Really? People got butt hurt over someone talking about a TOOL?! I'm a gun lover from the States and own firearms, I own an AR-15 which a lot of people say the AK-47 is better. Do I care? No. People need to grow thicker skin and take it like a man or woman. Good job Lloyd.
"Russian front is completely irrelevant"
Ok (
He was talking about how the Russian front was irrelevant to the discussion. I'm sure he knows how important the Russian front was during the war.
The biggest factor in the war were definitely the Russians.
I mean the Russian front didn’t need to be mentioned in a discussion for a British vs German MG, but throwing shade at the Russian front was a low blow.
*Suddenly gets a headache*
Because he's comparing the Bren to the MG 34/42. The Bren wasn't used on the Russian Front. And he wasn't "throwing shade at the Russian front." Again, these videos are comparing British weapons to German weapons. The Russian front isn't relevant in that context.
"He's disparaging the Russian contribution to the war!!"
No, no he isn't. Stop being stupid.
@@genericereal he mentioned the Russian font is irrelevant in context of the Germans loosing against the brits and Americans. I doubt this is as irrelevant as he believes since the military force of Germany had to split up. This is a major disadvantage. In the case of bren vs mg42 its irrelevant for sure, but in his argument of front movement it quite is.
@@erebostd Bruh this discussion was two years ago smh
And what’s worse is Schmeisser had bugger all to do with the design of what the allies called a Schmeisser. He did however have a patent on the magazine design. And there weren’t all that many Germans called Fritz or British called Tommy!
If you clump together the MG34 and MG42 to the spandau because they are so similar, then you should also consider that the MG3, which is still in service around the world including in Germany, is even more similar to the MG42. But you are happy to compare the old revisions of the "spandau" with post-war versions of the Bren and don't even mention the MG3. Big fail.
Count me as liking part one and part two. Great videos.
Not to knock the British, but it should be noted that the Bren was originally a Czech design--who are definitely NOT slouches at weapons design!
No. The Bren was a British machine gun from the very start.
The Czechs could never, ever make a proper machine gun. Why? Because they are not British.
One day... you will realize that the ZB26 is simply a more accurate, more controllable myth. Its just a myth!
Face it! The British are a race above all others.
If you want to enjoy this channel, you better get used to that, son!
Did you know that the British are the best jungle troops?
Did you know that the Crocodile variant of the Churchill tank was the most effective weapon of the entire second world war?
Son... not even the most seasoned veteran of ruthless debate has the power to change the mind of a British public school's success. Those schools program you for 2 things and 2 things only: "British good. British great".
Getting back to the point, the ZB26 NEVER influenced the Bren design, therefore its not even worth mentioning it! The western allies won the western campaign because they were fight with BRITISH bren guns. OKAY????
God save the Queen.
So, now that I've heard your original video and extrapolated opinion video, I have a question. Which rifle was better in terms of accuracy, survivability, and battlefield reliability: The Lee-Enfield Rifle, No. 4 Mk I or the Karabiner 98 kurz?
Or, instead of having another British vs. German 'contest', what about the Arisaka Type 99 Rifle vs. the Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 Rifle (or the M38, I can't remember which one was used more)?
Calling it a Spandau is a perfectly good word, yes. On a battlefield. Not in a video about it. It's a slang word. What you did is similar to calling police "pigs" in a documentary. It is a slang word to, people use it. So I guess there is no reason not to call them that in a documentary?
Apples and oranges - in the same way you could compare a handgun to machine gun. Yes, you can compare them, but the comparison is not a good one.
Bren didn't suck because they made it for years after the war. Yes. And the MG is made even today. Soooo... What does it give us in terms of comparing the two? Praising Bren because of that, is like praising one red car over other red car, because it's red. Bullshit.
You say that "German fanboys" are bad. But the things you say make you seem like "British fanboy". Yes, you do not say, that MG34 and 42 are bad, but what you say is almost like saying that out of two equal objects one is more equal than the other.
Yes, I know that not everything made in Germany during WWII is brilliant. But the style that you presented it all in your first video made it look like you think that everything British from that period is superior in every case.
Also - calling people that defended the German machine gun "German fanboys" is childish. Perhaps there were some, perhaps you are talking only about those extreme cases, but, again - what you say indicates, that you mean everybody that defended the MG's is a fanboy.
You tried to make the first video shorter - that's a bad thing, if you're gonna ditch out some important things. Taking shortcuts is not always the way to go, it's better to make longer video, but to say everything that matters.
And lastly - if a point of the first video was to point out that Bren does not suck (even though I've never seen anybody make that claim), then it would be better to name said video something like "Bren - it's not that bad" or "Bren - it didn't suck". Or you could at least point that out in the video
Calling a police officer a 'pig' is a slur, more akin to calling a German a 'kraut'. Calling a machine gun a 'Spandau' isn't even the same ballpark. Be edgy somewhere else, please.
Alexander DeLarge You missed the point I tried to make. What I'm trying to say is that you don't call a thing with slang/slur/whatever, if you are making informative video about certain topics. That's why when you talk about sabres you call them sabres, when you talk about rapiers you call them rapiers, that's why when you talk about riffles you don't call them pistols, but riffles. And that's why when talking about MG34 you call it MG34, and when you talk about MG42 you call it MG42.
I didn't miss your point. You failed to make one.
'Rifle' and 'pistol' are actual technical terms used for two distinctly different classes of firearm. 'MG34' and 'MG42' are model designations for two firearms that already belong in the same class. Same with 'rapier' and 'sabre'; two VERY distinct classes of sword. This is what people mean when they say 'apples and oranges'.
I don't consider myself an expert, but my understanding is that the MG34 and 42 were both used in the same strategic role, and that the 42 was introduced as a successor to the 34. This also seemed to be the vein in which Lindy compared them. If you want to see a video on the specific technical differences between the 34 and the 42...go watch the video Lindy linked (it's quite a respectful, informative rebuttal, one which earned him another sub). Lindy's video seemed more about the effective strategic difference between the Bren and the two MG's.
If someone makes that documentary you mentioned, but prefaces the whole thing with the statement that when they say 'pig' they mean 'cop', there isn't any confusion. I would consider that to be in poor taste, but it wouldn't make the documentary any less informative: being uninformative would.
The Biggest Problem with Loyd is that he's just trying to self confirm that his country is the best at everything they do and no one comes close. Plus the MG-42 (Now the MG 3) is STILL use the gun today (Mexico, Norway, Italy, Austria, Australia still has some, Finland, Spain, Turkey, Lativia, Iceland, Greece, Canada, Iraq, Iran, Ghana, Denmark, Estonia, Chile, Brazil, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Australia, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Lithuania, Myanmar, Portugal, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, I'm sure you get the picture by now) So clearly the MG-42 was doing something right if it's still being used today by a lot of Modern military's
you are just being patriotic. i mean bran gun is not bad but was not better.
also stop calling them spandau we dont call brans as something ridicolous we call them as their name you should respect and do the same
+TheSavageopress Spandaus fucking suck
"we don't call them something ridiculous we call them as their name"
and yet you call it a bran gun. What's a bran gun? Does its bipod not work? Is it high in fibre?
^ rekt.
But seriously you said the point of the video in your first comment. (I hope unless you really meant bran flakes) "i mean bran gun is not bad but was not better." They both had their strengths and weaknesses.
Guy Sajer refered to them as Spandaus as well in his eastern front account, 'The Forgotten Soldier'. That is where I first heard the term. Not sure if it has to do with its English translation now.
I'm still going to cling onto my point about the vz. 26. It is the weapon that the Bren was based off of and saw extensive use in the European theater by the Germans.
Also, you wouldn't defend your base with Brens, you would use a Vickers or one of Browning's guns. The mg 34/42 was used as a defensive weapon because of the points made in this video, only making the two more different. (I'm not saying that the mg34/42 was better though, just that they are VERY different)
Also pt.2 You of course can compare apples to oranges, but in a question of governments forcing students to eat one or the other, the focus is immediately drawn away from the fruit and to the governments. Instead of discussing the health benefits, the motives and power abuse over such a menial thing would be debated more.
Also pt.3 Lloyd you are one of my favourite youtubers.
Also pt.3 Fuck you youtube for saying that favourite is misspelled. I may be American but I know how to spell.
Also pt.4*
If you're American, than "favourite" is indeed a misspelling. Standard American English is "favorite".
"Also, you wouldn't defend your base with Brens, you would use a Vickers or one of Browning's guns"
If its what you had you would fucking defend your base with it
Both the Bren and its German counterparts were used in many roles, just so happens the mg42 and 34 happened to be better at just about everyone.
When you need to make a video to stand for your other video. You fail.
edu88 no, it just means idiots like you whine every second just to complain because you're bored
Take it from somebody who used the 7.62 version for over a decade -THE BREN IS SIMPLY SUPERB and yes I'm shouting. The German MG's started a whole new family of weapons - the GPMG.
Exactly right? The Bren was a lmg while the Vickers was being used as the mmg. The Germans just made them both into one gun, an excellent mmg but not an excellent lmg.
I really like your channel LLoyd, but this response feels childish. Anyone who disagreed with you, even respectfully, is a "WW2 German fanboy"? That's not how an adult addresses criticism.
The main difference between the guns is use. The Bren is there to support the rifle section. The Spandau, which is what British troops called them, is supported by the rifles in the section. Point, you never see an opposing soldier ever carrying a supposedly magic Mauser rifle in exchange for what he was issued with, a perfect example of the superiority of German weapons.
The problem is that the bren and the mg38/42 were made for different porpoises, the bren was designed to be used like the m1918 Bar or the chauchat in a trench raiding role and mainly fired from the hip. It would be more accurate to compare the German MGs to say the Browning m1919 or the besa. That fact of the matter it that both gun were extraordinary at there designed rolls, but when pressed into service in a different roll while they still work perfectly well they will never be as good as a weapon for that specific purpose.
I used to work with Germans. Prior to that, when I heard the phrase: "fine German engineering, a well oiled machine", I immediately thought of a nice BMW rolling down the road. However, since my time working with Germans, I think of an old VW Beetle, rattling down the road, an oil leak in the engine compartment and a nice, over complicated paint job.
My grandad, machine gunner with the Cheshires, oft spoke of his nemesis “Spandeau Pete”
Well done mate !
Reports were also made that on occasion Bren gunners would over heat a barrel (Making it less accurate) in order to use it in a suppressive role.
Apparently some gunners expressed a preference for worn barrels to achieve the same effect
You will never please every one all of the time.... especially here on youtube.
You don't even know what the correct name of the weapon you are discussing. Have you even handled either weapon or a variation such as the MG3? You shouldn't be upset people are calling you out for your gross lack of knowledge. For the record, it isn't called a Spandau. Its as inaccurate as calling a AKS-74u an AK-47 because some American soldiers during the Afghanistan war called it such.
AKS-74u is obviously called a Krinkov, duh. ;)
He's explained it twice now, he calls it the Spandau because the British called both the MG-34 and 42 the Spandau, thus its easier to say Spandau and not MG-34 and MG-42 every time.
OR he could call it an MG, wich covers MG-34 MG-42 M53, M3, and other variants I forget about!
siouxsettewerks "MG" covers every MG, which makes it quite confusing.
+PanzerFaust 360 well then he's a moron as he is now comparing two very different weapons to one while giving them his own name. I did fam fire on an MG3 (the MG 42 chambered in 7.62 NATO) in Afghanistan and found more impressive than the M240/FN MAG. The Bren however has no successors and is a relic. Mr. never used a semi automatic gun in the video thinks the Bren is superior solely due to it's country of origin.
So I am wondering was Spandau Ballet named after the spandau gun?
Nope. The ballet
refers to the antics of enemy soldiers as they are mowed down by machine gun fire. Or to the Jerry movements of Nazi war criminals who were hanged in Spandau Prison.
Either way, it's a horrific thing to name a soppy synth-pop band.
Jerky
Of course that czech gun was superior, the men behind it were _Brits_ but nevertheless they won one or another battle.
It's even worse than that. It's a french/czech gun. There was for a part a joint devlopment, the czech made the ZB24 leading to the Bren, the french the FM24...
canicheenrage Its even worserererer it was actually a french/chzech/german/spaghetti/polish/liechtensteinish weapon. Those jewish brits! Just because they developed,produced and founded it,they think they could steal the glory from the glorious Chzechs,French,germans,Spaghetti,polish,liechtenschteinish people!
Hello Lloyd! I am a bit german fanboy, and i think, you should make a video about the Spandau vs .30 or .50 cal MGs, and a Bren vs STG-44 or FG-42.
My opinion is the Spaundau was an area suppressing weapon, like you said, but Bren was more likely an assault rifle to me. Magazine feed with 30 rounds, rifle bullets, relative slow fire rate, accurate. Granted the germans dont have any such weapons until the STG-44. But the British dont have area supressing weapon?
Good video by the way, im from Hungary, so i dont heard a lot about British infantry weapons. It interesting stuff, please make up the good work!
As a guy from Brazil, with no prior specific interest for WW2, all this german warfare fanbase thing is pretty new to me, I didn't know it was a thing. It's funny that I imagined this topic being brought in a conversation here and I believe it would go something like *mumble mumble machine guns, they are both fine or wathever*. But when Lloyd said "here is this photograph of Bren machine gun in used in Falklands" people would actually get triggered over the fact that you didn't say Malvinas. I believe it would be an even touchier subject in Argentina.
16:53 i thought you werent trying to take away from the spandau... 😂
What i, as a german, find weird is that ppl want to argue that we had all the best stuff and the best soldiers but we lost...
I think we lost bcs we had no oil, had to rely on badly trained troops in the last few years to get the numbers on all fronts and our allies hurt us more than helped us.
I dont think that all our equipment was superior, especially in every way. I think that for various reasons many of the most useful and advanced weapons were neglected...
such as lacking ressources and especially oil
And i dont think that late war recruits were better than british or american or soviet troops.
However. Early war troops were exceptionally well trained, very fit and later on greatly experienced. These were excellent
Romania gave you most of your oil and 700 thousand troops to fill the gaps in the Eastern front, the largest number behind only the German army itself. They may have been less well-trained and equipped, but without them I would say Germany would have lost the war far quicker.
Artificial Intelligence without the oil for sure.
But lets not pretend as if anyone had to give it to us. Would have been taken.
There were lots of foreign troops. Most didnt do very well to put it mildy. Simply bcs the stakes and motivation was never the same and the training wasnt either.
@@kloschuessel773
Yes, I agree the foreign troops, including Romanian ones, weren't quite as crack as the German ones, but they did free up a good number of Germans to attack instead of defend. Since Romania fielded the largest Axis army in the Eastern Front besides that of Germany itself, and provided a good deal (dare I say even the bulk) of Germany's oil, it is often considered a more valuable ally than Italy.
Artificial Intelligence yeah, maybe.
Italy turned out to be a negative help, since it caused many problems.
Italys navy was useless and the ground forces werent that good either.
But romanias oil could have been taken.
I wouldnt go so far to put them over the italians.
Pre eastern front the soviets were probably the most helpful...
@@kloschuessel773
I mean, Italy's navy held considerable numbers of the Royal Navy in the Mediterreanean by simply being there. The Royal Navy might have shut down the Kriegsmarine sooner through a more effective blockade had more capital ships been free from duties in the Mediterreanean.
What will be next, will you compare a MC to a tank? You didn't think this through.
you were dead wrong. Have the intellectual courage to admit it.
You said that the allies won every single day??? So u mean that basically losing france, poland, all of the benelux, egypt, algeria, marocco, yugoslavia, greece, crete and much more, is an everyday win???
Dude look up the casualties, the german k/d was incredibly good. Loosing land, manpower and industrial power isnt winning duh. Even in the very last months of the war (early 1945) the allies, especially england (salty brits?) and 'murica had MASSIVE losses in manpower. They simply could only beat germany because of the fact that basically the whole world was fighting a single country.
And even more important: you cant say an english gun is better than a german one, only because the germans lost the war? Dude get your stuff together and watch forgotten weapons. at least that channel isnt biased like crazy lol
So what was the weapon that the Canadian officers thought was most effective?
Shot an MG3 at the Bundeswehr which is basically a MG42 with halved cadence (interestingly they saw it as more practical at 600 shots/minute). Manual says the Barrel has to be changed at 150 shots. At 300 shots the barrel glows red and is hard to remove without harm. Shooting halfway precise with the Bipod is possible, but you have to really dig in and put all your weight into it.
I’m curious when guns and arrows were being used at the same time, why were many people across the world still using arrows? Is this an apples vs Oranges reference?
Can't we just rely on technical characteristics? MG42 effective firing range 2000m (3500m mounted on tripod), maximum firing range 4700m; Bren effective firing range 600m, maximum firing range 1690m. I think it is pretty much settled.
In the 90's I've done my military service in the german Bundeswehr. The MG3 is exactly the same as the MG42, only in cal. .30 nato. I never heard anybody call it Spandau. The 42, the saw or the zipper are the common names here in germany. If you ask any german what the Spandau is, you will get one of two possible answers: the airport, or the second answer: the prison. No gun.
But that's peanuts, the video is very good.
As a section Gunner you are suppose to fire a 3-5 rounds burst the longer you hold on a trigger you waste the rounds you would know this if you fire it supposed to do a barrel change every 1-2 belts of ammo 200rnds to 400 rnds
Since you are good at this, what can you tell us about the FN, used by the "British South African Police" (BSAP) in Rhodesia?
But I still consider the mg42 a better gun
This statement fits perfectly with your Samurai PFP.
An MG42, yeah, that FIRES Katanas!!!! You'd be invincible!
Agree with almost everything except one point. Yes, BREN was being made after the war, and so was the MG. But the BREN is not being made anymore(or at least no army fields it anymore), while the MG is, the MG(and it's descendants like MG3 which have only two differences from the MG42: plastic stock and lowered rpm) outlasted BREN and even without change of the caliber(not to mention that BREN was a descendant itself, it came from VZ26... which the germans also used since they took Czechoslovakia).
if you anger lindy he rolls over your house in a WW1 era tank while listing the exact specs
Looking back at these I got confused, the term Spandau Ballet, from which the group took its name, was it from the dance a corpse did being shot by the fast firing Spandau or as I thought the twitching when being hung at Spandau prison?
Neither the Spandau or the Bren could ever match half a dozen guys shooting off fire arrows.
lols
Good one there XD
I used to be an explorer, but then I got a fire arrow into my knee
Or one man Tossing a Pommel
Artificial Avocado ha ha.
"What was the #1 weapon? That's a subject for another video."
*Looks at newest video*
My god. It was fire arrows.
I believe it's the PIAT.
Good joke
I thought fire arrows, but decided the pommel. Could be the katana, but the pommel destroys the katana anyway, and the katana has no pommel. Perhaps the Cromwell was effective?
nuclear weapons
Karabiner 98k, followed by the M1 which the yanks still paid the $10 surcharge to Mauser for every rifle they produced, whilst shooting Germans with them, proving business trumps poor people's lives everytime.
I think you could have avoided the shit storm if you simply named your original video: "Bren gun - why it doesn't suck."
He couldn't. He's a Bren gun fanboy!
No velikiradojica you muppet because the Bren gun doesn't suck and no one thought it does. If it did the British Army wouldn't have used it for so bloody long!
+CLIn7 l33tW00d tru dat
The Iron Guild
That's a crappy argument. Armies have tendencies to use outdated guns and tactics. WW1 being the best example.
The Iron Guild It's quite obvious that Lloyd is trying to correct the wide-spread opinion that Bren sucks. I had no reason to believe it did, since it's a licenced Czech gun that underwent heavy testing before it was approved for production.
But it's not unheard that Brits used shit guns *cough cough L85A1 cough*.
Why don't they just duct tape a katana to a Spandau? With that as a weapon the war would have been over by Christmas.
Of course, katanas can cut through 18 machine gun barrels in a single stroke so you would be careful when attaching them together.
better yet,attach katandaus to tigers and panzers, tge war would've been won in 7 hours
I heard the japanese Kamikaze fighters had a katana on their plane tips to cut through US battleships and carriers :P it was so sharp that you could cut yourself only by seeing the blade. Thats also the fact why japanese people have narrow eyes. The chinese just copied it.
Hahaha jolly good!
That would a truly glorious sight to behold, MG42/MG34 with katana bayonets
Even better: katana bullets can't be THAT hard to manufacture. Instead of typical conical-ish bullets - load those little bastards into a spandau! You could slice through reality itself with a gun like that :D
This is quiet different from the Katana videos.
In the comments of the previous videos I don't see fanboys but I see people who know the subject with valid arguments.
-Your video contained factual errors, like saying MG34 and 42 are "essentially the same guns" when they're entirely different in every aspects of the engineering. The barrel change system which you use as another point, are totally different. MG42 has one of the quickest LMG barrel change system ever designed.
-You also said "Not everyone copied the "spandau" after the war!", which is another factual error. The MG42 design can be seen in a M60 or a M249 for instance. Let it be said that in the world of small arms enthusiast, this is part of "basic knowledge". Saying the MG42 was not influential would be like saying Elvis wasn't influential in Rock music.
-There is a valid reason why German WW2 weapons are "overhyped", it's because most of them are at the roots of a lot of modern firearms designs. Maybe it's a lack of knowledge on firearms history on your parts. German weapons engineering during WW2 was a key moment in the history of small arms design and manufacturing. First intermediary cartridge, first assault rifle, first stamped steel weapon manufacturing, first portable individual rocket launcher, etc. etc. etc. All of that, on the industrial scale.
-Another argument you use is "if the Bren was rubbish they would have stopped giving it to the troops", but that's not how military logistics works. Take the US troops still using the BAR in WW2 when it was already an outdated weapons at the end of WW1. Armies use what they have in stock, not what they can potentially develop from captured enemy weapons.
-The "the German constantly loss" part was also, "heh?". It was true at the end of the war indeed, when the Germans were vastly outnumbered and barred from ressources. The quality of the equipment is not really a factor in this. But actually, one could make the counter argument by just looking at the kill/death ratio of Germans troop at the end of the war and despite their defeat.
-To expand on that, I wanna add that Germany mainly lost for two reasons: the USSR, and the massive bombing of the civilian German population. But making a video on that is not really "British nationalist bias" friendly. "Let's not forget that the British consistently won from 1944 the Normandy landing onwards". Indeed, when the war was already won by the allies.
There is nothing wrong with not knowing a specific subject, no one can be an expert at everything. Just don't go calling fanboys people who correct you on obvious factual errors.
M60 is based on the Fallschirmjägergewehr, not the MG42
Konine
Guns are never "based on a single gun".
I made a generalization, if you want to get into the specifics, the M60 belt feeding tray/mechanism is directly copied from the MG42's. And yes, the M60 also borrowed designs from the FG 42 (which is yet another ahead of its time German designed small arms).
Proving again the point that German small arms in WW2 were way ahead of their time, and created designs still used today in small arms.
The M1918 BAR outdated by 1918?
OH look, one of them can actually give examples instead of just insisting they're right and calling anyone who asks for examples an idiot. Bravo sir, bravo.
(that probably comes across sarcastic. It isn't)
Yep, it would be like saying that "Allied airpower was technologically superior to German airpower" because they had air superiority during the waning years of the war.
That's not really a fair assessment, because the Luftwaffe was already severely weakened by wartime attrition (you WILL lose enough planes given a long-enough war) and supply shortages. Strategic bombings and sabotage of supply lines destroyed crucial oil supplies, so a lot of the German airforce was essentially grounded by then.
"Almost all the criticism coming in were for things I never actually said."
You perfectly summed up what it's like to try to argue a point on the internet.
@Avery Chance I see what you did there.
@@kr00k3d100 lol
Fun fact: Germany is still called "Deutschland" in Germany.
And to get more Formal you can add a Bundesrepublik before.
and the 'Weimar republic' was officially called das Deutsches Reich.
Soon to be known as "ألماني"
Hagen thanks for the supplement, I'll continue to learn.
+maglorian you're welcome! Thank you for nit flipping out because of me being a 'grammar nazi'
You should ask forgotten weapons to test the two.
He already posted a comment. And he mentioned, that the german guns were not at all that bad for aimed fire...
All 4, BREN and BAR vs MG 42 and MG 34
As far as whether it's accurate in actual usage, line up a bunch of cardboard Tommys and go at it. Regarding supression, even if you're a veteran that was confident it was more spray-and-pray than targeted fire, I think it's still a safe conclusion that the more bullets you have flying by your head, the less you'll want to poke your head up, don't you?
I have shot and hit man sized targets out to 600 m with an mg 42. Its accurate enough.
Well, it was obviously able to hit targets...how many thousands died from machine guns in the Normandy and Stalingrad landings? His point was I think about sustained accuracy. Have you been able to try to simulate the sweeping suppression/area denial the gun was designed and used for? I'm sure you would want to, not many places to do it though, and the ammo must be quite expensive. If so what results? I've seen entire bursts hit a silhouette at 100 yards from a Bren. It doesn't seem like the 42 could do that, except maybe mounted? It sure seems to jump around a lot.
When i served in the British Army in the 1980s, i used the Light Machine-Gun (LMG) which was a re-calibred Bren Gun. The weapon i carried had a manufacturing date of 1942.
Did that not make you a touch nervous? Obviously with parts getting worn down and replaced over time I doubt much of the original 1942 gun was there, but that must have been a little bit uncomfy?
@@awordabout...3061 I think wielding a weapon that has been proven in combat but perhaps worn is a lot less concerning than wielding a weapon that could have been shoe-horned into service by some rich gunmaker, a fancy rigged demonstration, and some bribed generals. I would be really nervous if my machine gun had batteries, or connected to my smart phone. 1920s technology was unfortunately insanely effective at its purpose of ending human life, 2020s technology is not really better at it just better at dealing with certain new political realities involved.
James Beil To draw a similar comparison, I would feel more nervous driving a car sold second hand with 2000 miles than a second hand car with 40,000 miles. (Provided both have a service history.)
British manufacturing at it's best :)
@@francissaunders4050 ummmm akchuly....
The problem I had with the original video was the omission of facts. When you would mention that, for example, the BrEn was used after the war and neglect to say anything about the use of the Mg-34/42, it's probably fair to think that you are saying the Mgs were discontinued. Saying that you didn't actually say the Mgs went out of service is missing the point of the argument.
Then you're just purposefully misinterpreting what he said. That's on you not on him. As he stated he mainly wanted to point out that the Bren wasn't completely awful and saying that it continued to see use was part of that.
he did a really bad job showing that the Bren was a good machine gun, and mostly seemed like he was saying it was better than the MG34 and MG42.
A Spandau that shoots pommels and has a katana as a bayonet = The ultimate weapon
*A Panzer that has Spandaus that shoots pommels and has Katanas as bayonets.
The ultimate way to end your enemy rightly. :)
*A spandau with a pommeled katana bayonet that shoots fire arrows
You're thinking of the Japanese Type 99 light machine guns, with their somewhat incongruous bayonet fittings. :)
Ryan Hall is that a skallagrim reference by any chance?
This is completely and 100% true.