BAR as a squad support weapon.

[Tank Man]

Recently I had a discussion with my friend about the BAR and ots role in WWII. I say that it was less effective than the MG42 and the Bren as a squad support weapon. I also say that the BAR was ineffective as a squad support weapon in general.

He says that when you take into account the other weapons in an American squad the BAR is well suited to its role as a squad support weapon and the Bren and MG42 were oversuited for the role. One of his arguments was that you wouldn't have to maintain supressive fire for long and the 20 round clip was fine for that.

I have searched the boards and done outside research but I would like a few things clairified and under one topic.

1. In the squad support role how was the MG42 handled? Did it have an ammo canister or was it belt fed? Was it ever fired from the hip? Did another squad member man the belt?

2. How did American troops feel about the BAR as a squad support weapon? Did they like it? Did they hate it? Did they feel it inferior to the Bren and MG42?

3. Was 20 rounds enough for decent supressive fire?

4. With all things considered, which was the better squad support weapon? The BAR? Or the MG42?

[Jarmo]

1. I'm not exactly sure about this, but I think it had a clip

with the belt in it.

2. From what I've read, they liked it very much. But still (correctly)

felt it inferior to MG42.

The average soldier would have little chance to compare it with bren.

3. Decent, yeah. Good, no.

4. MG42

Later in war the squads started taking a second BAR along,

to have enough firepower.

[Franko]

I was going to expand on this, but since I agree with Jarmo 100% and he put it so briefly and elegantly..to hell with it.

Frank

[Tank Man]

Another thing I couldn't find, how much ammo did the MG42 (in the squad support role) clip/belt/clip-belt-canister contraption have?

[chasd]

In reply to your questions about the lMG42 and its properties, I have decided to give you an overveiw of some of the weapons/ammo/equipment of a early war German rifle squad

The German Rifle Squad (Schutzengruppe).

Leader: 1939-Rifle, 1941-MPi, 3 MPi magazines (32 rounds each). He carried 6 x 30 binoculars, message bag, flashlight, marching compass, signal whistle.

Gunner 1: Eariler-lMG34, later-lMG42, 50 round belt. Also a Type 08 pistol. He carried the machine-gun tool kit, with spare parts and cleaning tools, and sunglasses. Gunner 1 fired offensivley and defensively, with the lMG supported by a bipod either in front or in the middle, and during an attack or penertration, with the bipod folded up, he fired the lMG from the hip.

Gunner 2: Carries four 50-round ammunition drums (with belts inside) as well as an ammunition box with 300 rounds plus a sheet-metal barrel protector with two spare barrels, all for the lMG. Guner 2 was Gunner 1's assitant with the lMG. He supported the machine-gunner by supplying ammunition, changing a barrel or breech, and by removing hindrances. If Gunner 1 was wounded/killed he took the firing position behind the gun himself.

Gunner 3: Armed with rifle, carried two full ammo boxes of 300 rounds each. (later in the war gunner 3's role was eliminated and the boxes were divided up evenly for the rest of the sqaud).

Remaining six men were all shooters, armed with rifles. Each man carried the ammunition for his rifle and as many hand grenades as they could carry.

Now this isnt the 1944 pattern squad as in CM1, buts pretty similar

[This message has been edited by chasd (edited 12-03-2000).]

[Pak40]

1. Usually belt fed, fired from the bipod. I think the ROF was too high to accurately fire it from the hip. Yes, another man handeld the belt.

2. From what I've read the BAR was a very well liked weapon by the GIs. It served the support roll very well although not as good as the MG42 which had a much greater supressive firepower. The BAR was liked so much (and needed so much) that most squads picked up an extra BAR when they could find one. In 1945 two BARs became standard in every squad.

The only differce that I know of between the BREN and BAR is that the BREN had a larger clip and that the clip was loaded from the top which is more convienient when prone.

The BAR, however, was complemented by semi-automatic rifles which gave great firepower to the squad as a whole. The BREN and MG42 didn't have that luxury.

3. Two main things kept the BAR from being as good as the MG42: limited to 20 round clips and no quick change barrel. I don't think your friend is correct when he says 20 rounds is enough to maintain supressive firepower. It's good but not enough. The pause between frequent reloading gives the enemy some breathing room. I've read a couple of accounts where the BAR was fired so much that the barrel started to warp from the intense heat, hence the need for a quick change barrel and a larger clip size.

4. The MG42 lmg was superior to the BAR. The increadible ROF was great supressive fire. But it had some faults: It wasn't very accurate because of it's high rate of fire, the bipod has it's faults. It wasn't as mobile as the BAR(The BAR could be fired from the hip decently, I think.) The MG42 needed lots of ammo because of high ROF. A member of the squad was used to feed the belt.

[Los]

RE: The MG442/34 cannister vs belt.

When a gunner is conducting a movement he carries the weapon with a 50 round cannister or pack. (I know in the movies you always see the gunner lugging his MG drapped up like Rambo but it's not very practical to do for anything more than a very short movement.)

SO anyways, it's best to have a pack loaded so if you have a chance contact you have something loaded to fire back. once you get into position, normally they will switch to belt fed.

This is don even today in many Armies with their LMGs.

RE: BAR.

The BAR was very much loved by GIs and Marines. That's not to say that it was better as a squad suport weapon than a MG42 or BREN, it wasn't. But the BAR was a good weapon with ood firepower and it was what they had and it was very much loved by those that lugged it. I'm at work right now but if you need references I can post them later.

Remember when we are sitting around with our lattes discussing all this in the comfort of our homes it's easy to look as this or that stat or feature and say, oh that weapon blew or this weapon sucked, but when it's your weapon and you're in the field with it, often other things/features endear a weapon to it's users that the pure stats which are the only measure the armchair types have to judge merit on.

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 12-03-2000).]

[Pvt. Ryan]

From a different perspective, the BAR must have been a very popular weapon based on its presence in most war films. If it wasn't so popular, the filmmakers would have just left them out. In "Combat," the squad never went anywhere without Kirby, the BAR man, no matter how few members of the squad went on a particular mission. In "The Sand Pebbles" the main character played by Steve McQueen manned the BAR in the firefight at the line of junks. My dad was in the US Army in the 1950s and when he told me of his experiences he always talked about the BAR even though he never fired one. These are just a few examples, but I believe they are an indication that the BAR was well liked enough to have taken its place in popular culture/history.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I think that even German squad LMG doctrine called for the LMG to fire in about 5-round bursts. It is, of course, better to be able to do this with belt-fed ammo and a better gun, but the fact that the BAR could get off four five-round bursts before having to change the magazine suggests that it was not ill-suited to its role.

[ScoutPL]

A couple points to add fuel to the fire:

Towards the end of the war the US tried to come out with a stripped down model of the M1917 MMG to serve as a squad support weapon.

The Marine Corps had THREE bars in each squad by TO&E, but squads in all services tried to get their hands on as many as possible.

The US Army gave up on the heavy barrel squad support rifle (the last version was a heavy barrel, full auto M14) in favor of a belt fed LMG in the early 80's for use as a squad support weapon.

I dont know much about what happened at company level in WWII but I think you could take the points illustrated above and draw your own conclusions.

[Jarmo]

It should be regognized, that the BAR was not a bad weapon.

It actually was a pretty good one.

It's just that there were better alternatives...

[Los]

"The US Army gave up on the heavy barrel squad support rifle (the last version was a heavy barrel, full auto M14) in favor of a belt fed LMG in the early 80's for use as a squad support weapon."

Umm, I've been in since 1978 and even back then we had no heavy barrel full auto M14 in the squads. There were M60s, M16s and M203s, that's it.

Los

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

the fact that the BAR could get off four five-round bursts before having to change the magazine suggests that it was not ill-suited to its role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The BAR was a well-designed and well-made weapon. It was simply not designed to be a true LMG.

Because it was what we had, we used it. Because it was well-designed and well-made, it worked.

It did not hold enough ammo, the too-small mag had to be changed from the bottom, it weighed too much and really had too heavy of a cartridge for a shoulder-fired weapon, and not enough ammo capacity (nor replaceable barrels) for an emplaced weapon. But it worked.

It really shouldn't be compared to the MG42 or much else directly, because it is a fairly unique weapon, in a class of its own. It was less effective than MG42 and Bren as a squad support weapon and that's one reason why squads started getting 3 of them.

It was still a good automatic rifle.

[mortarforker]

The long delayed sucsessor to the BAR is the Squad Automatic Weapon. About 20LB's, insane ROF (somthing like 1200 rpm), fed with a 100 round box hooked on the side to facilitate assault fire and an easy to change barrel, 3 in each 12 man rifle squad, total ripoff of the MG42. Unfourtanatly for a few generations of grunts it took the US military procurement system 40 years to come up with a counterpart to the German Mg's of WWII.

[von Lucke]

I'm suprised nobody mentioned what the Browning Automatic Rifle was designed for: In WWI the need for a easily (relatively) portable assault weapon that could be lugged across no-man's-land and then used as a trench clearer.

It proved effective in that role (as did lobbying by Browning to the Appropriations Committee), so the Army had quite a few BARs in it's arsenals when we entered WW2, and like much of our equipment between 1941 - 1945, it was good enough to get by with and easily mass-producible. I believe there was an updated version known as the BMR ('M' for Machine) that served on into the 50's. Comparing it to the MG34 or 42 is an apples and oranges kinda thing tho...

Oh, and I agree about the SAW being the true successor to the BAR --- by way of the MG42!

[Stefan Fredriksson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortarforker:

...Unfourtanatly for a few generations of grunts it took the US military procurement system 40 years to come up with a counterpart to the German Mg's of WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, instead the US went with the M60.

Only in later years have they found out what "most" countries already knew - FN-MAG is one of the best ever produced 7.62 MGs. Now adopted I think it's called M240 in the US.

As an example, here in Sweden the FN-MAG is called "Ksp58" (Machine-gun 58), where "58" stands for the year it was adopted, if I'm not totally wrong.

On another note, I believe the SAW's (FN-Minimi) ammunition-box carries 200 (belted)rounds.

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

From a different perspective, the BAR must have been a very popular weapon based on its presence in most war films. If it wasn't so popular, the filmmakers would have just left them out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In my experience, filmmakers go more for what looks good than what looks right. The BAR can easily be handled by a single actor, whereas the other LMGs will need a full crew that block camera angles.

One classic example is the Ingram MAC SMG series. These are far more common on film than in real life, simply because the filmmakers thought it looked cool the first time they saw it. From what I've read, the vast majority of all MACs produced are now stored in Hollywood armories.

Conclusion: If it's common on film, it looks good on film. How common are hand-held miniguns, on film and in real life?

Cheers

Olle

[Pvt. Ryan]

Olle, you are correct, but the point I was trying to make is that the BAR looks more like a rifle than a MG to the militarily uneducated person. Hollywood could have just left the BAR out completely and used MGs, but the weapon was important enough to make the cut. Plus, I am sure plenty of ex-GIs were working in Hollywood after the war and made sure the BAR was represented.

[Tank Man]

I didn't really ask about hollywood. I just wanted to know about the various nationalities squad support weapons as compared to each other.

All this is very informative, but one thing I noticed is that the Volksgrenadier heavy smg squad LMGs seem to have a lower firepower than the LMGs in other squads. Why is that? anyone know?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tank Man:

All this is very informative, but one thing I noticed is that the Volksgrenadier heavy smg squad LMGs seem to have a lower firepower than the LMGs in other squads. Why is that? anyone know?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, because BTS were so bleedin' clever they even thought of the fact that when the MG 42 is manned by a crew member you're forgoing all that firepower that would normally be contributed by the 1 machine pistol the crew member would normally be armed with. Compare this with the loss of only a rifleman when he is crewing the MG 42 for a normal Heer squad.

Smart buggers weren't they!

Regards

Jim R.

[Tank Man]

I'm not sure you fully understand. When I look at the sheer numbers the LMG42 in the Volksgrenadier Heavy SMG squad is smaller than the LMG42 in any other squad. Why is that? Is it becuase other squads had crewmen aid the gunner with the belt and what not, while the VG LMG SSW gunners only used the 50 round belt-canisters?

[Echo]

The BARs strength was in its penetration power. A plaster or wooden wall was not effective cover against it, so it was not only good for suppression, it was leathal to those hunkered down in cover.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tank Man:

I'm not sure you fully understand. When I look at the sheer numbers the LMG42 in the Volksgrenadier Heavy SMG squad is smaller than the LMG42 in any other squad. Why is that? Is it becuase other squads had crewmen aid the gunner with the belt and what not, while the VG LMG SSW gunners only used the 50 round belt-canisters?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I think you'll notice the firepower factors of the MG 42 drop away as the target is closer. The reason for this is that BTS has coded in the assumption that the crew member to the MG will cease crewing the weapon as the enemy get closer to then use his own personal MP40 machine pistol. This would naturally lead to a reduction in the firepower factors from the MG 42 due to the lack of a crew member feeding the bullets through etc.

This very query was raised to BTS some time ago & they answered it in much the same way although, no doubt, more eloquently.

Regards

Jim R.

[KMHPaladin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortarforker:

The long delayed sucsessor to the BAR is the Squad Automatic Weapon. About 20LB's, insane ROF (somthing like 1200 rpm), fed with a 100 round box hooked on the side to facilitate assault fire and an easy to change barrel, 3 in each 12 man rifle squad, total ripoff of the MG42. Unfourtanatly for a few generations of grunts it took the US military procurement system 40 years to come up with a counterpart to the German Mg's of WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree completely. While you can draw a correlation between the FN "Minimi" (or M249 as it is called in the US) with its high rate of fire and the MG34/42, they are not rifles of the same type. The MG34/42 was designed to fit a number of roles - in the LMG role it was really an HMG with a lighter barrel sitting on a bipod. It could just as easily be picked up and put on a heavy tripod and used as an HMG. The M249 on the other hand, so far as I know, behaves very much like a true LMG in that it is used only with a bipod and is smaller and lighter than the MG34/42. If you want to draw a picture showing the evolution of the MG34/42 into the modern US military you would be much better off showing the M60.

[Stalins Organ]

Echo all full-size rifle rounds weer capable of punching through walls - when I was in the infantry we weer told that 3 feet of tree timber wouldn't stop a 7.62mm NATO bullet!

as to why the BAR was popular - well IMO, despite it's shortcomings, it still had moer firepower than a couple of M1 Garands, so adding more to your squad increased your overall firepower.

Nothing more is needed to explain why it was seen as desireable by the troops!