Thread: LSW...the Armys view...

Originally Posted by Jaeger

How does the beaten zone of a Bren/LMG compare with that of the GPMG?

The LMG was a little more accurate but it wasn't a sniper rifle as some make out. At the end of the day they are both 7.62mm fully automatic weapon systems, one belt fed one magazine fed. All this shit about the LMG being TOO accurate is just that. Shit. How can you have a weapon that is TOO accurate!!!!

Originally Posted by FNUSNU

They got rid of the Bren becuase they realised that a magazine-fed support weapon wasn't a very good idea, then after the GPMG came the LSW, oh dear...

... and the sections that won the Falklands battles carried 2 x GPMGs each.

Originally Posted by BaldBaBoon

Very slight diversion from the main question,but as you lot seem to know what you are talking about you may have the answer.

This has hopefully changed since I left in 2004,but at that time the actual training and use of LSW or infact any small arm in the Sappers was pretty poor.Totally by the book inflexiable teaching and not enough shooting being the main points then.

I had the great fortune of joining the Corps shooting team as an average shot but with lots of enthusiasm in the beginning.Once there we shot every avaliable weapon at all ranges and in all positions and leant how our point of aim differed from altering the firing stance.I used to shoot low left when kneeling for example.

From actually having fun when shooting and using the weapons in every possible way including auto,my actual ability as a shooter increased tenfold...especially with the LSW which i thought was a poor weapon until I realised it was me rather than the gun being crap.

Could better training make up for poor preformance of some weapons,especially the non-infantry boys and girls.....or shall I post this as a seperate question?

Fun ranges and shooting are the only ways to learn. I spent ages on the range being told how to shoot 'because the book says so' and not getting very far. (Being left eye dominant wang-eyed twat doesn't help.) In the end I gave up shooting guns and started fixing them - I learned more about shooting by fukcing about with instructors and doing all the things you're told not to do on the range and picking up stuff myself than all those wasted lessons and useless info. (I'm not having a go at instructors - Everyone else managed to hit/see the target - I was just 'Speschul' )

Originally Posted by HectortheInspector

Originally Posted by Ulster_Rifleman

Originally Posted by HectortheInspector

I never used the Bren or LMG, but some of the old and bold might be able to tell us what the effective range was. i'm pretty sure it was over 600m.

Not a firearms expert by a long chalk but used to be quite good with the BREN/LMG. It was certainly good out to 600m (but not much more), was very controllable and could put down a good weight of very accurate fire in 2 - 3 round bursts in the right hands, so virtually all rounds aimed.

It also was really a marksman's weapon rather than a support weapon and suffered from being magazine fed.

Some have said that it was too accurate, but it was certainly a pleasure to fire

So, the BREN could engage out to 600m with iron sights. The LSW does the same, but requires the SUSAT. If the BREN had had an optical sight, with the heavier round, I expect it would have been effective to 800m?

Yes, quite possibly - the knack was to keep the the gun in the aim and to observe the fall of shot at the same time (and breathe, and stroke the trigger)... An optical sight may or may not have been of benifit here... I honestly do not know (never having had that choice) ;)

Originally Posted by Canader

Originally Posted by FNUSNU

They got rid of the Bren becuase they realised that a magazine-fed support weapon wasn't a very good idea, then after the GPMG came the LSW, oh dear...

... and the sections that won the Falklands battles carried 2 x GPMGs each.

Exactly the reason why Para Regt never binned the GPMG out of the sections like the rest of the infantry battalions did.

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Originally Posted by Jaeger

How does the beaten zone of a Bren/LMG compare with that of the GPMG?

The LMG was a little more accurate but it wasn't a sniper rifle as some make out. At the end of the day they are both 7.62mm fully automatic weapon systems, one belt fed one magazine fed. All this shit about the LMG being TOO accurate is just that. Shit. How can you have a weapon that is TOO accurate!!!!

If your weapon was toooo acurate the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds in the burst will go through the same whole in the body made by the first round - Simples! :P

Originally Posted by CC_TA

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Originally Posted by Jaeger

How does the beaten zone of a Bren/LMG compare with that of the GPMG?

The LMG was a little more accurate but it wasn't a sniper rifle as some make out. At the end of the day they are both 7.62mm fully automatic weapon systems, one belt fed one magazine fed. All this shit about the LMG being TOO accurate is just that. Shit. How can you have a weapon that is TOO accurate!!!!

If your weapon was toooo acurate the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds in the burst will go through the same whole in the body made by the first round - Simples! :P

Agreed, a support weapon is designed to lay down a beaten zone and supress the enemy with maximum violence. Oh sorry we aren't allowed to say or use violence now are we or someone may get there human rights infringed.... Sorry, off on on.

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Originally Posted by Canader

Originally Posted by FNUSNU

They got rid of the Bren becuase they realised that a magazine-fed support weapon wasn't a very good idea, then after the GPMG came the LSW, oh dear...

... and the sections that won the Falklands battles carried 2 x GPMGs each.

Exactly the reason why Para Regt never binned the GPMG out of the sections like the rest of the infantry battalions did.

My guess is that the others ditched it because it was too heavy, and didn't have biceps big enough to pose with... :D

Originally Posted by Stan_Da_Bout

Agreed, a support weapon is designed to lay down a beaten zone and supress the enemy with maximum violence. Oh sorry we aren't allowed to say or use violence now are we or someone may get there human rights infringed.... Sorry, off on on.

How many are on crack tonight? There hasn't been a fully automatic weapon yet invented where a five round burst will result in all five rounds entering the first firing hole. If there was the inventor would be very rich indeed.

CC_TA

Agreed, to a point.

The LMG was never a 'sniper' rifle nor was it ever intended to be. It was a superb fully automatic and accurate full bore weapon. it was 'too accurate' to ever be considered a 'machine gun' as we understand that term today.

I have never suggested otherwise.

It did however, in it's day, provide a section with reach and firepower and did it quite well.

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Originally Posted by Stan_Da_Bout

Agreed, a support weapon is designed to lay down a beaten zone and supress the enemy with maximum violence. Oh sorry we aren't allowed to say or use violence now are we or someone may get there human rights infringed.... Sorry, off on on.

How many are on crack tonight? There hasn't been a fully automatic weapon yet invented where a five round burst will result in all five rounds entering the first firing hole. If there was the inventor would be very rich indeed.

Again, agreed and... Didn't I just say that? I must be losing it or pissed.....

Anyone do the range shoot at vogelsang,where you would shoot across the lake at the targets on the other bank...I think it was beneath the hill with the eagle supposebly marked out in trees on it?( might be wrong,memory is crap now )

Anyway,I reckon that lake was a good 500 yards across and it was the first time I had ever fired a LMG/Bren.Got told to feel the trigger to get single shots by the instructor as he wanted to show how accurate it was.....and it was damn accurate,got most the targets down that I could only just barely see through the leaf sight...or maybe just luck.

Tried it with a bipod GPMG and being a little skinny thing back I just about managed to get all the rounds flying in the rough direction of the far bank.

#edited to say,nothing wrong with the GPMG....I was just too little to control the thing on my first shoot#

Originally Posted by Ulster_Rifleman

The LMG was never a 'sniper' rifle nor was it ever intended to be. It was a superb fully automatic and accurate full bore weapon. it was 'too accurate' to ever be considered a 'machine gun' as we understand that term today.

Fuck me ragged. Are you on drugs? How can a machine gun be too accurate to be considered a machine gun? I have worked with machine guns for twenty years. I would give my back teeth to have a machine gun which is that accurate my men could pick of individual targets at 800m with a short burst. At that range no matter what the MG it is the skill of the firer, the right weather elements and a bit of luck to hit a target with a 2-3rnd burst.

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Originally Posted by Ulster_Rifleman

The LMG was never a 'sniper' rifle nor was it ever intended to be. It was a superb fully automatic and accurate full bore weapon. it was 'too accurate' to ever be considered a 'machine gun' as we understand that term today.

Fuck me ragged. Are you on drugs? How can a machine gun be too accurate to be considered a machine gun? I have worked with machine guns for twenty years. I would give my back teeth to have a machine gun which is that accurate my men could pick of individual targets at 800m with a short burst. At that range no matter what the MG it is the skill of the firer, the right weather elements and a bit of luck to hit a target with a 2-3rnd burst.

:D Your probably right, again agreed but that is not the role a LMG (not an L4 but a Light MachineGun) was designed for, that's the crux of the discussion, if not a little off topic but still entertaining.

Strapped to a Cheiftain the GPMG was like a fecking hose!

Originally Posted by Ulster_Rifleman

CC_TA

Agreed, to a point.

The LMG was never a 'sniper' rifle nor was it ever intended to be. It was a superb fully automatic and accurate full bore weapon. it was 'too accurate' to ever be considered a 'machine gun' as we understand that term today.

I have never suggested otherwise.

It did however, in it's day, provide a section with reach and firepower and did it quite well.

Don't agree with me to any point - I was taking the piss!