JoMac Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Ok, just noticed that in Dec 43' half my Standard U.S. Squads are armed with 2x B.A.R's, instead of one that it's suppose to have...I didn't expect this many B.A.R.s until around Normandy (at the earliest)...It was't until Sept-Oct 44' when standard Squads where issued 2x B.A.R.s till end of War. I guess were having B.A.R.s giving out like Candy from beginning of War to End :-( Please, BF, Tear Down these B.A.R.s... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Does this reflect the fact that frontline squads would scrounge every BAR they could regardless of TO&E? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Holman said: Does this reflect the fact that frontline squads would scrounge every BAR they could regardless of TO&E? Sounds like it. And not only BARs. Any kind of equipment that they thought might offer some kind of advantage, whether in firepower or comfort got picked up and lugged around...at least until they got tired of the weight. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobetco Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 although i despise the BAR i have to agree with those above, these BARS are probably being scavenged, in the same way that Thompson where scavenged more or less in CMBN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 In general, during WWII for US forces there were a lot of unofficial TO&E alterations in the field. BARs were prised because they have the squad more firepower, and after coming up against so many Germans with MGs, they could use all the extra firepower they could get. Another popular change was discarding the Springfield rifle (standard issue to a designated marksman in every squad) for a regular M1. Many preferred the higher rate of fire and adaptability of the semi automatic rifle over the Springfield. This is actually something I wish was more prevalent in CM, as I view the Springfield as being utterly useless. In a firefight I want as many rifles firing as possible. A precision weapon just reduces the firepower of the squad. Just my opinion. Finally, many officers and other soldiers issued the M1 carbine would discard it for an M1. Maj Winters from Band of Brothers is an example of this. Per the airborne TO&E he should have had a carbine, but he used an M1 instead. This was for a few reasons, one being that many did not like the carbine due to performance issues (it was basically a pistol with a stock, not the greatest in a firefight) and because officers didn't want to advertise their importance by looking differently than everyone else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 39 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said: Another popular change was discarding the Springfield rifle (standard issue to a designated marksman in every squad) for a regular M1. Many preferred the higher rate of fire and adaptability of the semi automatic rifle over the Springfield. As was eventually discovered, the M1 also made a better sniper weapon as long as it was in good shape. The reason being, with the bolt action weapon after every shot the firer has to work the bolt and motion attracts the eye, ergo it gives the shooters position away just that quicker. 39 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said: Finally, many officers and other soldiers issued the M1 carbine would discard it for an M1. Maj Winters from Band of Brothers is an example of this. Per the airborne TO&E he should have had a carbine, but he used an M1 instead. General James Gavin of the 82nd. Airborne also carried an M1. I suspect his rationale was that if he was going to shoot someone, he wanted to be sure they stayed down. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougPhresh Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Best example of this is the endless debate over Airborne BARs. Almost any wargame forum or historical discussion board has a thread full of debate on the question of did U.S Paras have BARs before the Bulge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 minute ago, DougPhresh said: Best example of this is the endless debate over Airborne BARs. Almost any wargame forum or historical discussion board has a thread full of debate on the question of did U.S Paras have BARs before the Bulge. Individually, absolutely. There are plenty of personal stories out there of airborne infantrymen grabbing BARs in Normandy after the gliders landed with the glider Infantry and supplies. However I'm sure there could be a raging debate over how official the unofficial TO&E changes were in reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted May 8, 2017 Author Share Posted May 8, 2017 (edited) Ok then, we now just need the CW units to receive 2x Brens in a Squad, and will be happy Edited May 8, 2017 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 25 minutes ago, JoMc67 said: Ok then, we now just need the CW units to receive 2x Brens in a Squad, and will be happy Why? Did British squads historically have more than one Bren gun? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.