The Bren Gun and the Lewis Gun

[phylo_roadking]

[Split off from The British Army at Home, September 1940 at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=200966 and recaptioned by the moderator - DT.]

Perhaps the AA platoon had Lewis guns instead of Brens; not that it makes much difference in terms of firepower

Firepower, no...but the drums for the Lewis Gun were cumbersome to carry and couldn't be conveniently shared out among a platoon or section like Bren magazines. There was of course the larger drum, holding more rounds...but that made the carrying issue worse

Assuming that this Coy was organized and equipped as in other Bdes of the 45th (and 1st London) Div., it had 10 Bedford OXA armoured lorries (1 Bren, 1 Boys) in two platoons, with the third platoon on bicycles (yet more bicycles ...).

Leaving aside all the issues with making assumptions...these sound like the legendary "Lorry, 30cwt, Anti-Tank"...not something you'd want to try to engage a panzer in!



The above is one of Steven Guy's pics from his "Thunder and Steel" website...now sadly defunct.

So these could have been rushed to any threatened part of the line, in principle

Any part, that is, with road access They had little or no rough terrain capability, being only 2x4 wheel drive.

[Dunserving]

And the weight of a Lewis Gun, compared to a Bren?
And the accuracy of both weapons?

Better off with Brens I would have thought!

[phylo_roadking]

Yep, better off with Brens, of course...

The Lewis gun with 47 round drum was 6 lbs heavier...three when the Bren was loaded...and was eight inches longer to manhandle about! It doesn't look its length when mounted on vehicles etc. but it's a remarkably large weapon I don't have a weight for the Lewis gun and 97 round drum.

Rate of fire was around the same...500-525 rpm for the Bren, 500-600 rpm for the Lewis gun. Suprisingly - it might be the longer barrel length - the Lewis gun was the more accurate! Effective ranges were 880 yards vs 600 for the Bren, and a maximum of 3,500 yards vs the Brens' 1,850! While the muzzle velocities were identical...

So the Bren was easier to lug about, and its ordnance could far more easily be shared around an infantry section and magazines reloaded, and it had an relatively similar rate of fire.

But that "regular" units were being issued with the Lewis gun again as they were pulled out of store, as well as the Home Guard etc., demonstrates the parlous state of affairs after the withdrawal from France, and the extremities the Army was forced to to bring even infantry units up to nominal establishment.

[Dunserving]

I'm not in complete agreement with you Phylo.

Effective range is not the issue. You are not going to be able to see a man two miles away over iron sights, let alone aim at him. Even at the sorter (?) ranges of 880 yards or 600 yards it is a very big call to see, aim at, and stand a chance of coming close to hitting a man who does not want to be hit, ie moving, camouflaged, taking advantage of cover presented by vegetation or hollows in the ground - or a combination of all three. In practical terms of using the weapons, given that we are thinking Kent not Bisley, the Bren would be a far better bit of equipment to be using under practical conditions. A far easier weapon to shift point of aim rapidly to different targets - field firing ranges are so different to conventional target ranges, so much trickier, and so much more like the situation defenders would have been in. I am in complete agreement with your last two paragraphs.

[phylo_roadking]

Effective range is not the issue. You are not going to be able to see a man two miles away over iron sights, let alone aim at him. Even at the sorter (?) ranges of 880 yards or 600 yards it is a very big call to see, aim at, and stand a chance of coming close to hitting a man who does not want to be hit, ie moving, camouflaged, taking advantage of cover presented by vegetation or hollows in the ground - or a combination of all three. In practical terms of using the weapons, given that we are thinking Kent not Bisley, the Bren would be a far better bit of equipment to be using under practical conditions. A far easier weapon to shift point of aim rapidly to different targets - field firing ranges are so different to conventional target ranges, so much trickier, and so much more like the situation defenders would have been in. I am in complete agreement with your last two paragraphs.

Don't worry, I'm actually in FULL agreement with that What you originally asked was which was the more accurate - what I should have written more on was indeed which would have been more accurate in the circumstances. There's also the aspect that the Lewis gun was very much a product of static warfare, after all. And more suited to it - zeroed-in "kill zones" in front of trenchworks that might not change for weeks or months etc. - whereas the FAR more portable Bren - even down to "minor" aspects like its carrying handle! - was more suitable to the British Army's new, more mobile infantry tactics of the late 1930s on It was far more "organic" to an infantry section than a Lewis gun.

Although...thinking more about it, I wouldn't underestimate the effectiveness of the Lewis gun in the Home Guard's hands - given the number of WWI veterans likely to be in any Home Guard unit! A lot is made on Clark's thesis on Home Guard weapons of the modernity of the Home Guard's main weapons compared to those of the regular Army - what he doesn't give enough attention to is the experience of some of those Home Guard hands! We can laugh at the thought of the Home Guard tackling tanks and other armoured vehicles with petrol bombs etc...but for some reason we ALSO forget that just twenty years before, many of those men were creeping out into No Mans' Land at night armed to the teeth for the medieval barabrity of trench raids, or were prepared to advance behind the first...and not necessarily well-timed!...rolling barrages

[Juha Tompuri]

Armament: certainly not over establishment, if anything under. WD for 16 sept. "Large German bomber passed over B.H.Q. Fire opened with Bren Guns, A/T rifle (?), and Lewis Guns. Bomber was hit and deflected from its course".

Perhaps the AA platoon had Lewis guns instead of Brens; not that it makes much difference in terms of firepower

Firepower, no...but the drums for the Lewis Gun were cumbersome to carry and couldn't be conveniently shared out among a platoon or section like Bren magazines. There was of course the larger drum, holding more rounds...but that made the carrying issue worse

Yep, better off with Brens, of course...

The Lewis gun with 47 round drum was 6 lbs heavier...three when the Bren was loaded...and was eight inches longer to manhandle about! It doesn't look its length when mounted on vehicles etc. but it's a remarkably large weapon I don't have a weight for the Lewis gun and 97 round drum.

Rate of fire was around the same...500-525 rpm for the Bren, 500-600 rpm for the Lewis gun. Suprisingly - it might be the longer barrel length - the Lewis gun was the more accurate! Effective ranges were 880 yards vs 600 for the Bren, and a maximum of 3,500 yards vs the Brens' 1,850! While the muzzle velocities were identical...

So the Bren was easier to lug about, and its ordnance could far more easily be shared around an infantry section and magazines reloaded, and it had an relatively similar rate of fire.

But that "regular" units were being issued with the Lewis gun again as they were pulled out of store, as well as the Home Guard etc., demonstrates the parlous state of affairs after the withdrawal from France, and the extremities the Army was forced to to bring even infantry units up to nominal establishment.

Effective range is not the issue.

At the above mentioned case (by Knouterer) The range was the issue.
And at that case it seems (by the unsourced data posted) the Lewis suited better to that role.

Regards, Juha

[phylo_roadking]

At the above mentioned case (by Knouterer) The range was the issue.

To be fair, we don't actually know that;

WD for 16 sept. "Large German bomber passed over B.H.Q. Fire opened with Bren Guns, A/T rifle (?), and Lewis Guns. Bomber was hit and deflected from its course".

We don't know which of the three weapon types hit, we don't know at what altitude the target was flying (range from the ground), we don't know how fast the men on the ground reacted, we don't know how skilled they were...as Pioneers...with their weapons - although Knouterer does mention many of them being posted to the battalion with only a few weeks' basic training. Nor do we know if they were schooled in "deflection shooting" with their weapons...as in shooting to the front of a moving target so that the rounds arrive there at the same time the aircraft does.

However...

And at that case it seems (by the unsourced data posted) the Lewis suited better to that role

...it's certainly fair to say that apart from the brief "emergency period" of post-Dunkirk shortages, and the Home Guard's use of the Lewis Gun in the traditional squad LMG role...the Lewis Gun WAS most often seen during the Second World War in various more "static" mounts, including AA roles...




...which to a lesser or greater extent would obviate the weight and cumbersome-ness issues. And release Brens for their Army role.

The Lewis Gun had, after all, become a capable light AA gun during the First World War - as IIRC the Red Baron may have discovered to his cost.



But the least said about THIS the better...

[Juha Tompuri]

At the above mentioned case (by Knouterer) The range was the issue.

To be fair, we don't actually know that;

WD for 16 sept. "Large German bomber passed over B.H.Q. Fire opened with Bren Guns, A/T rifle (?), and Lewis Guns. Bomber was hit and deflected from its course".

We do know that it was a AA-case, and at AA-role the range is/was the issue.

However...

And at that case it seems (by the unsourced data posted) the Lewis suited better to that role

...it's certainly fair to say that apart from the brief "emergency period" of post-Dunkirk shortages, and the Home Guard's use of the Lewis Gun in the traditional squad LMG role...the Lewis Gun WAS most often seen during the Second World War in various more "static" mounts, including AA roles...

Yes, it seems that it was better than Bren at those roles, as the numbers of the unsourced data do point out.
Even not all of that info seem to be quite correct.

Regards, Juha

[phylo_roadking]

We do know that it was a AA-case, and at AA-role the range is/was the issue.

It is far too general an assumption to say this - for non-fragmenting AA ordnance, the skill/ability to put said ordnance where the target would be is right up there with range; there's no point having all the range in the world at your disposal....if your rounds arrive where an aircraft was.

Yes, it seems that it was better than Bren at those roles, as the numbers of the unsourced data do point out.

Note what I said -

...the Lewis Gun WAS most often seen during the Second World War in various more "static" mounts, including AA roles...

You're choosing to assume that it was regarded as better than the Bren. It's use in those many and varied other roles is also an indicator of who got first call on Brens. The British had a habit of re-issuing redundant weapons for other, "second user" applications - such as the Vickers G.O.s issued to the SAS in 1942-43 as they were withdrawn from front-line RAF service.

Note that for at least ONE major service branch, the Lewis Gun was as of 1940 still "current issue" both with and without the cooling jacket - I.E. the RAF. They used them in various ground and sea-borne configurations (such as the ASR launch above, in various configurations as airfield protection LAA etc.) in addition to aircraft defensive armament because they had them, had the skills to maintain them, and the training to use them.

However - one important area where the Lewis was NOT better than the Bren was reliability The 1940 manual for the Lewis Gun, "The Lewis Gun Mechanism Made Easy"....lists fifteen possible reasons for stoppage, grouped according to where in its travel the cocking lever stopped when the gunner took his finger off the trigger - whereas the equivalent years' manual for the Bren lists only eight. IIRC Harry Patch's memoir details a lot of the issues that could be experienced with this "very delicate" gun, and that he experienced as gunner's no.2 and was expected to rectify. It also didn't help that to discriminate between WHICH of these particular groups of potential problems had affected a stopped Lewis Gun, a "drill", a routine of successive checks, had to be gone through; NOT what you wanted to have to do with the Germans bearing down on you - what if you had to get all the way through the drill to Number Fifteen to clear the problem?

But to go back to the actual accuracy issue - in WWI it seems that there were complaints about its accuracy as being TOO good! It wasn't regarded as fitting the bill as a true "machine gun" because it couldn't simply be swung back and forth on precise, pre-set lines on a solid tripod mount like the Vickers - and was regarded more as an "automatic rifle" because of this; and that the accuracy really depended on the users' skill with the Lewis Gun. As long as the Vickers was kept fed - the man with his hands on the firing handles could move the MG from side to side and kill whatever was between the metered limits of traverse set out in front of him - but the Lewis gunner had to actually aim his weapon.

[Juha Tompuri]

We do know that it was a AA-case, and at AA-role the range is/was the issue.

It is far too general an assumption to say this - for non-fragmenting AA ordnance, the skill/ability to put said ordnance where the target would be is right up there with range; there's no point having all the range in the world at your disposal....if your rounds arrive where an aircraft was.

At AA-role the range is/was the issue.
The better range, the better.

Yes, it seems that it was better than Bren at those roles, as the numbers of the unsourced data do point out.

Note what I said -

...the Lewis Gun WAS most often seen during the Second World War in various more "static" mounts, including AA roles...

You're choosing to assume that it was regarded as better than the Bren.

Judging from the earlier posted more or less correct unsourced data, Lewis gun seems to have been a better AA-weapon.

Regards,Juha

[phylo_roadking]

At AA-role the range is/was the issue.
The better range, the better.

The number of times you keep saying it doesn't make it any more correct, range is not necessarily the pre-eminent issue; you're choosing to neglect this -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection_(ballistics) A skill that needs to be taught/trained...as we're not all naturals like Annie Oakley. All the range in the world is no use if you don't know how to hit a moving target with it.

Judging from the earlier posted more or less correct unsourced data, Lewis gun seems to have been a better AA-weapon.

Judging from the earlier posted more or less correct unsourced data - what we can say is the Lewis Gun had the longer effective and maximum ranges. The Bren was extremely accurate on repetition fire and gave densely-grouped bursts on full automatic...and was less prone to a smaller range of stoppages. The Lewis Gun's range superiority was courtesy of its longer barrel length - one of the things that made the weapon heavier and more bulky.

Which weapon is "better" in any role - one that's "very delicate" and prone to nearly double the number of stoppages of the other - or one that's more robust and suffers from half the reasons for and numbers of stoppages?

THIS weapon for example has a longer maximum range than the Bren - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat - but noone would say it was the "better" weapon!

[Juha Tompuri]

At AA-role the range is/was the issue.
The better range, the better.

The number of times you keep saying it doesn't make it any more correct, range is not necessarily the pre-eminent issue

Not only the range but all other unsourced(/reliable?) qualities earlier mentioned point out to that direction that Lewis seems to have been better at AA-role:

The Lewis gun with 47 round drum was 6 lbs heavier...three when the Bren was loaded...and was eight inches longer to manhandle about! It doesn't look its length when mounted on vehicles etc. but it's a remarkably large weapon I don't have a weight for the Lewis gun and 97 round drum.

Rate of fire was around the same...500-525 rpm for the Bren, 500-600 rpm for the Lewis gun. Suprisingly - it might be the longer barrel length - the Lewis gun was the more accurate! Effective ranges were 880 yards vs 600 for the Bren, and a maximum of 3,500 yards vs the Brens' 1,850! While the muzzle velocities were identical...

you're choosing to neglect this -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection_(ballistics)

No.

A skill that needs to be taught/trained...as we're not all naturals like Annie Oakley. All the range in the world is no use if you don't know how to hit a moving target with it.

Yes.

The Bren was extremely accurate on repetition fire and gave densely-grouped bursts on full automatic...

However:

the Lewis gun was the more accurate!

was less prone to a smaller range of stoppages.

That is not that important.
What would be interesting to know (sourced) is the stoppage rate, say per 10 000 rounds fired.

The Lewis Gun's range superiority was courtesy of its longer barrel length

Not only that. See your own postings above.

one of the things that made the weapon heavier and more bulky.

Not that meaningful at AA-role.

Regards, Juha

[Clive Mortimore]

The Bren gun was the replacement for the Lewis gun. This had not been achieved by the time the war started. The Lewis was issued to many units including front line ones until enough Brens were available. It was also issued to many units including the newly formed light AA regiments in lieu of Bofors guns. Most of these were in areas of the country that were less likely to see enemy aircraft.

The Lewis gun was a good weapon, just the Bren was even better as an infantry squad support weapon.

Any machine gun used as a AA weapon with open sights is only as good as the gunners eye within its ballistic capabilities.

[phylo_roadking]

Any machine gun used as a AA weapon with open sights is only as good as the gunners eye within its ballistic capabilities.

Which is indeed the point; what makes a weapon a "good AA weapon"....or a weapon good for ANY role - is a combination of factors, mainly human, something which Juha is continuing to refuse to take on board.

The Lewis gun was a good weapon, just the Bren was even better as an infantry squad support weapon.

As discussed previously. Also - having looked around the internet this morning, a comparison of the number of spare parts and their weight a Lewis gunner's no.2 had to carry, as opposed to that carried by a Bren gunner's no.2, might be interesting...

Not only the range but all other unsourced(/reliable?) qualities earlier mentioned point out to that direction that Lewis seems to have been better at AA-role:

phylo_roadking erlier wrote:
The Lewis gun with 47 round drum was 6 lbs heavier...three when the Bren was loaded...and was eight inches longer to manhandle about! It doesn't look its length when mounted on vehicles etc. but it's a remarkably large weapon I don't have a weight for the Lewis gun and 97 round drum.

Rate of fire was around the same...500-525 rpm for the Bren, 500-600 rpm for the Lewis gun. Suprisingly - it might be the longer barrel length - the Lewis gun was the more accurate! Effective ranges were 880 yards vs 600 for the Bren, and a maximum of 3,500 yards vs the Brens' 1,850! While the muzzle velocities were identical...

Really? "ALL" other qualities??? What a remarkably obtuse generalised comment to make - perhaps Juha would care to illustrate how the fact that the Lewis Gun was a heavier weapon than the Bren, and physically more cumbersome than the Bren to manhandle about made it "better" in the AA role? :roll:

you're choosing to neglect this -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection_(ballistics)

No.
phylo_roadking wrote:

A skill that needs to be taught/trained...as we're not all naturals like Annie Oakley. All the range in the world is no use if you don't know how to hit a moving target with it.

Yes.

So you're just making the personal-opinion judgement call that it's not as important as range. I see...

The Lewis Gun's range superiority was courtesy of its longer barrel length

Not only that. See your own postings above.

Actually - yes. In Neil Grant's The Lewis Gun (Osprey Books) the range and accuracy....the over-accuracy compared to the Vickers' MMG...are put specifically down to the extra barrel length. The two weapons fired exactly the same round with exactly the same propellant charge, after all...and as I'm sure you know the longer the barrel the greater the muzzle velocity and the greater the effective and maximum ranges with an identical round.

The Bren was extremely accurate on repetition fire and gave densely-grouped bursts on full automatic...

However:

phylo_roadking earlier wrote:
the Lewis gun was the more accurate!

And? The Lewis gun was the more accurate generally out to a longer effective range - but in certain specifics the Bren was an improvement.

was less prone to a smaller range of stoppages.

That is not that important.

The fact that the Bren was more reliable in use, had half the number of causes of stoppage...and that fault-finding in the Lewis Gun meant going through a long "drill" of eliminating faults before finding the correct one...is not important?

Grant uses the example of a Corporal Harry Fellowes, Northumberland Fusiliers, who was sent on a two-week NCO's Lewis Gun training course during WWI. Halfway through a lecture on the fault-finding "drill", he asked if any of the instructors ever been in the front line actually using the weapon. He was asked WHY he was asking such a question...and answered - because if there was a wave of Germans crossing No Mans' land straight at you, and your weapon jammed, you did NOT start a two-minute check routine....you threw it away, grabbed a rifle and started firing with that!

A weapon with a large number of point causes for stoppage and an overly-long drill for establishing which and clearing it - leaves the user potentially MORE vulnerable than a weapon with half the number of potential point failures, and which did not require a lengthy drill to be gone through.

[Juha Tompuri]

The Lewis gun was a good weapon, just the Bren was even better as an infantry squad support weapon.

I agree.

Any machine gun used as a AA weapon with open sights is only as good as the gunners eye within its ballistic capabilities.

Which is indeed the point

No, not that simple.
As mentioned here before, there are several other factors too.

what makes a weapon a "good AA weapon"....or a weapon good for ANY role - is a combination of factors, mainly human, something which Juha is continuing to refuse to take on board.

No.
I explained my point of view at my previous post:

A skill that needs to be taught/trained...as we're not all naturals like Annie Oakley. All the range in the world is no use if you don't know how to hit a moving target with it.

Yes.

The Lewis gun was a good weapon, just the Bren was even better as an infantry squad support weapon.

As discussed previously. Also - having looked around the internet this morning, a comparison of the number of spare parts and their weight a Lewis gunner's no.2 had to carry, as opposed to that carried by a Bren gunner's no.2, might be interesting...

As interesting or even more would be the number and weight of the spare parts the AA-gunners had to/were carrying around.

Not only the range but all other unsourced(/reliable?) qualities earlier mentioned point out to that direction that Lewis seems to have been better at AA-role:

phylo_roadking erlier wrote:
The Lewis gun with 47 round drum was 6 lbs heavier...three when the Bren was loaded...and was eight inches longer to manhandle about! It doesn't look its length when mounted on vehicles etc. but it's a remarkably large weapon I don't have a weight for the Lewis gun and 97 round drum.

Rate of fire was around the same...500-525 rpm for the Bren, 500-600 rpm for the Lewis gun. Suprisingly - it might be the longer barrel length - the Lewis gun was the more accurate! Effective ranges were 880 yards vs 600 for the Bren, and a maximum of 3,500 yards vs the Brens' 1,850! While the muzzle velocities were identical...

Really? "ALL" other qualities??? What a remarkably obtuse generalised comment to make - perhaps Juha would care to illustrate how the fact that the Lewis Gun was a heavier weapon than the Bren, and physically more cumbersome than the Bren to manhandle about made it "better" in the AA role? :roll:

I understand these from that point that you either don't know, understand or have not experienced that weight absorbs recoil.
I admit that having slightly more lenght is perhaps not an advantage, but seems not to have been an issue at AA-role.

you're choosing to neglect this -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection_(ballistics)

No.
phylo_roadking wrote:

A skill that needs to be taught/trained...as we're not all naturals like Annie Oakley. All the range in the world is no use if you don't know how to hit a moving target with it.

Yes.

So you're just making the personal-opinion judgement call that it's not as important as range. I see...

No.

The Lewis Gun's range superiority was courtesy of its longer barrel length

Not only that. See your own postings above.

Actually - yes. In Neil Grant's The Lewis Gun (Osprey Books) the range and accuracy....the over-accuracy compared to the Vickers' MMG...are put specifically down to the extra barrel length.

Which of them had longer barrel?

The two weapons fired exactly the same round with exactly the same propellant charge, after all...and as I'm sure you know the longer the barrel the greater the muzzle velocity and the greater the effective and maximum ranges with an identical round.

Which to believe?
The above or this?

Suprisingly - it might be the longer barrel length - the Lewis gun was the more accurate! Effective ranges were 880 yards vs 600 for the Bren, and a maximum of 3,500 yards vs the Brens' 1,850! While the muzzle velocities were identical...

The Bren was extremely accurate on repetition fire and gave densely-grouped bursts on full automatic...

However:

phylo_roadking earlier wrote:
the Lewis gun was the more accurate!

And? The Lewis gun was the more accurate generally out to a longer effective range

Yes, an accurate weapon

in certain specifics the Bren was an improvement.

Also true.

was less prone to a smaller range of stoppages.

That is not that important.
What would be interesting to know (sourced) is the stoppage rate, say per 10 000 rounds fired.

The fact that the Bren was more reliable in use, had half the number of causes of stoppage...and that fault-finding in the Lewis Gun meant going through a long "drill" of eliminating faults before finding the correct one...is not important?

No.
As I explained before, the stoppage rate might be more relevant here.

A weapon with a large number of point causes for stoppage and an overly-long drill for establishing which and clearing it - leaves the user potentially MORE vulnerable than a weapon with half the number of potential point failures, and which did not require a lengthy drill to be gone through.

The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of WWII by Ian Hogg about Vickers Mark 1 machine gun:

...Vickers gun became synomyous with reliability. Failure in action was almost unheard of; it could-and did-jam sometimes, and there are some 25 different types of stoppages noted in the drill book as being possible...

Regards, Juha