>>30122591
He just sounds like a no guns britcuck. The MG42s killing power was so much better it's not even comparable. Being belt fed too means it had the capacity to really lay down some rape

>>30122591
hold the line pupper

>>30122591
hold the line pupper

Brit here, Bren sucked.

It wasn't a TERRIBLE gun like most of the other guns our forefathers had in the Second World War, but it was still pretty bad compared to the MG34, MG42 and others, reading about the capture of Pegasus bridge by the Ox and Bucks glider troops (first troops to hit the ground on d-day), i found it particularly amusing that the Brits managed to "lose" most of their Brens and STEN guns and instead chose to use the 42's and MP40's from captured/killed Germans, in our defence we also fielded 4 generations of the Lee Enfield, still one of the best all rounder bolt action rifles in service at the time, especially the Jungle Carbine.

It's interesting to think that if we had access to the Panzershrek instead of the PIAT and stuff like the BAR and 1928 Thompson from the outset, Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain may never have been needed, therefore saving us all from d-day.

>>30124780
Didn't the Brits have an opportunity to get the bazooka, but refused them for the PIAT?

>>30124837
Yes, as always, the British government favoured cost-saving over the lives of its men.

>>30124780
>like most of the other guns our forefathers had in the Second World War

Which ones?

>>30125545

Well the STEN tended to jam so frequently that one British officer was quoted as saying they would do more damage to the Germans if it was loaded into a 17 pounder gun and fired at them, it also tended to accidentally fire by itself if knocked about too much.

The PIAT was effective to a range of about 40 yards, which is several hundreds yards closer than you ever really want to get to a Panzer IV, and although offered decent penetrating power, took so long to reload that you REALLY DID only have 'One' chance to get it right, miss, and it would literally be the last thing you did.

The Bren came with a 20 round box magazine loaded into the top of the weapon, fantastic idea, except it's a machine gun meant to be used to suppress groups of enemy for long periods of time, not great when you spend half your time reloading, compare to the 200 round boxes that the Germans were putting into their own machine guns it was literally a pea-shooter.

>>30125600
I was not aware of the STEN's unreliability. From what I've heard it was pretty reliable due to the simplicity - most complaints being about the ergonomics and accuracy (which I'll admit are terrible).

As for the Bren wasn't the LMG doctrine of the time based around short bursts; leave the long-term suppression to stationary MGs? Plus the magazine change is very quick and the capacity, while not as good as belt-fed LMGs, was on par with other box-fed LMGs of the era.

You've got me on the PIAT though.

>>30122591
Isn't this thread still up, delete this shit and go over to it instead.
>>30124837
>>30125511
PIAT wasn't all bad, it had some distinct advantages, namely it could be fired inside a confined space and didn't give your position away with backblast.
Then again, I've no idea whether troops thought that outweighed the flimsy barrel, hard to cock spring, occasionally dodgy ammunition and the severe bruising you got using it.

>>30124780
>most of the guns our forefathers had in the Second World War
>terrible
What? Early STEN guns were pretty rubbish, definitely, but later marks were up to standard. I wouldn't say that British small arms were terrible....
>stuff like the BAR and 1928 Thompson
We did have Thompson's from the outset and BAR's were obsolete, BREN was better by miles.
>small arms would have decided entire fronts and battles
No.

Pupper, hold this line.