![]() Originally posted by Able Jones:Correct for pre-war costs of the Mk1(1937) in $$, but as most of those were lost before Dunkirk, I was basing the costs on the Mk2(1941) which was (due to war mobilization) vastly cheaper to manufacture and saw more service. I would love to see where your price for a Mk2 Bren gun is below the price of a M1 Carbine, but it seems at a fundamental level flawed. Hell if you use some simple inflation calculators online you can see that a Bren gun made with the only other number I can find 40 pounds equals about $1800 US today while a M1 Carbine adjusted for inflation is $785 today. I just find it hard that you could cut costs on a milled light machine gun by $135 Hell, an MG42 which is a far simpler and cheaper weapon to make than a Bren gun (it's all stampings) was about $100ish to make. ![]() I have never heard of a milled light machine gun being that cheap to make. Hell, you need 4 M1 Carbines just to equal the weight of one Bren gun. Considering the raw materials alone to make a Bren Gun is significantly more than an M1 Carbine. Can you give me a source on that cause I am sorry but that sounds way off. My point was that it's cheaper to buy a Bren than spend millions on a procurement or R&D of a semi-auto at the time. The cost to mill the main platform being the only money sink, all other aspects of the weapon had been simplified. Correct for pre-war costs of the Mk1(1937) in $$, but as most of those were lost before Dunkirk, I was basing the costs on the Mk2(1941) which was (due to war mobilization) vastly cheaper to manufacture and saw more service. Originally posted by JohnnyBanana:Might wanna check your math on that one lol considering a Bren gun cost about 180 and a Carbine was 45. I am interested in how they are going to structure the weapons and if we are going to get some US cross over in the veterans kits. In terms of costs the Bren cost around the same as the M1 carbine to produce, the Garand being double that cost and the Thompson being six times that of the Bren, with later variants being even more cost effective to manufacture. More importantly all soldiers in the section could operate the Bren to a decent level of skill.ĭue to the box mags and the subsequent slower rate of fire compared to other LMG's, fire from the Bren could be sustained longer without maintenance, providing a decent amount of suppression to aid the rifles.Īdd in the cheapness of the Sten and the potential of the Thompson the cost of procuring a semi-auto just wasn't worth it. ![]() The theory of a British rifle section is one Bren to four rifles, all soldiers in the section would carry extra ammo, magazines, barrels & cleaning kits for the Bren. ![]() Originally posted by UKMessy Super_Kyle: thoughts on this? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |