Jump to content

BAR as a squad support weapon.


Recommended Posts

The BAR, as has been stated here several times, was very popular with the troops, even in Korea where it performed flawlessly in the sub-zero weather.

An interesting quote I read (I forget the source) on the invasion of Okinawa was "It seemed every other man had a BAR"

They really like to get their hands on them when they could.

One big advantage of the BAR vs the MG42 (Possibly the only one) is that it is much handier in confined spaces.

Gyrene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One indicator of the success of the BAR is how much the enemy targeted it. I've heard the life expectancy of the BAR man was pretty low in combat. Perhaps this was due to the enemy trying especially hard to knock the BAR out.

Or perhaps the BAR man was simply less able to hide unnoticed behind a wall. You can imagine the troopers yelling "Hey, man, we're being fired on out here- where's the freakin' BAR?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the Volksgrenadier heavy smg squad LMGs seem to have a lower firepower than the LMGs in other squads. Why is that?"

The MG42 is really a 2 man weapon, not a one man weapon. A single 50-round belt only lasts 2.5 seconds. The AG (assistant gunner) has to link belts to belts, feed the ammo, keep the intake clear, etc. He or a 3rd usually had to give directions on where to fire too, because the ROF is so high the target can be obscured rapidly for the gunner.

The reason the VG SMG squads have lower firepower is that the second man has an MP40, not a rifle. Counting the MP 40 and the full fp of the MG 42 would really be double counting. In other units with a MG-42, there is a rifle in the squad that is not really firing. In the VG Hvy SMG, it is an MP40 that isn't firing.

Instead of having the fp of the MPs drop to -1 shooting, they subtracted the difference (rifle minus MP) from the fp of the MG line. The result is the squad does not simultaneously get the full fp of the MG, and of the assistant gunner's side arm.

I hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a pretty good BAR thread a while ago. So a real search could dig that up.

A squad with a BAR is enhanced when everyone had M1 Garands. A squad with springfields or K98s WASNT such a lucky bunch if it had a BAR to rely on. They NEEDED a belt fed to make up the difference. See? A guy with a BAR can give adequate cover to an advancing element (guys with garands) CAUSE THEY WILL BE FIRING ALSO FROM THE HIP!!! This distributed firepower has a suppressive effect.

Its a subtle point but unless you have actually done the "COVER ME WHILE I MOVE OUT!!!" drill, you dont get it. Would it have been better to have a belt fed "MG34-clone" covering a squad of scrambling M1 garand squad members? Maybe. But the scramblers will have to carry alot of ammo for the "hog".

I think the US doctrine was OK. Grab real estate with LOTS of arty/tanks providing cover for fast moving troops with personal arms (that means 1 man weapons). M1919 could get up and defend these guys and sometimes assist the assault but wasnt a true manuver element.

M1917 could KEEP the real estate and give serious covering fire in an attack. Water cooled weapons, Maxims, Brownings and Vicks do this like no other.

But lets get down to brass tacks. I HATE THE GODDAMN M1 CARBINE!!!!

Any fool that would carry this piece of crap into combat was a certified fool. I firmly believe a strong fart would blow this weapons bullets off course. It cant penetrate a deck of cards and without full auto (later versions might have been OK) was just a defensive weapon.

I almost bought one for two hunnerd bucks but insisted on firing this girl scout can opener first. ITS FOR FAGS MANNN!!!

Its a twenty round pistol.

The full auto M14 was called the M15 BTW. The M14 had a really short time in service and never had a war of its own. It was on the out before nam.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpt from Terry Gander's book "Allied Infantry Weapons of World War Two", highly recommended.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

THE BAR

One of the mysteries of the Second World War was why the American armed forces never armed themselves with a viable light machine gun. In almost every other aspect of modern weaponry American industry was able to provide combat personnel with weapons of excellent quality and in the numbers required, but for some reason the American light machine gun never materialized. (It still has not, for the current US Army light machinegun, the 5.56mm M249, is Belgian in origin.) But that is a European opinion. American soldiers saw things differently for they had the Browning Automatic Rifle, the BAR. For the Americans the BAR assumed the role that the light machine gun undertook in other armed forces, even though in operational and design terms it was unsuited to the task.

The BAR was born before the Great War when the French doctrine of attack overcoming all obstacles had been widely accepted by many armies. The French outlook was that massed bayonets, backed by the famous 75mm mle 1897 field gun, would enable waves of soldiers to attack any opposition and overcome it by sheer ferocity and determination. During the attack, fire support could be provided by light automatic weapons, such as the Chauchat. There was even a 'walking fire' drill devised by where Chauchats would be fired in bursts from the hip every so many paces.

This doctrine of attack permeated as far as the United States, for before 1914 French military philosophy was widely embraced there. It also came to the attention of John Moses Browning, perhaps the most talented and prolific gun designer during any period, with a string of pistol, rifle and machine gun designs to his name. He noted the need for light automatic weapons during the expected massed attacks and duly devised a gas-operated mechanism light enough to provide a single soldier with automatic firepower. That was during the early 1900s. At that period intrest in such a weapon was non-existent in the USA; the design was therefore duly filed away against some possible future requirement.

That requirement duly arose during 1917 when it became apparent that the USA would, despite all earlier efforts to remain remote, become involved in the war on the European continent. At that time, following years of neglect, the US Army had only 1,100 light machine guns and most of those were obsolete or worn out. It was forecast that the planned Army divisions would need 100,000 machine guns, and matching qualities of every other type of weapon as well.

Fortunately the machine gun requirement could be met fairly directly. That was because the genius of John Browning had already devised two machine guns and in such detail that they were tailored for mass production. One was to become the tripod-mounted, .30 Model 1917 (see chapter 6). The other was that light automatic weapon devised a decade before and filed away. During 1917 prototypes were prepared and demonstrated to high-ranking audiences for possible adoption. The enthusiasm generated by the appearance of an all-American light automatic weapon was such that type classification was almost immediate, with volume production demands following closely. The M1918 BAR had arrived.

The enthusiasm, however, overlooked the fact that the BAR had been devised to meet a tactical situation that no longer applied. The doctrine of the attack overcoming all obstacles had been proved horridly wrong during the 1914 Battle of the Frontiers, when attacking French waves were simply mown down by machine gun and rifle fire. By 1917 trench warfare had prevailed.

The BAR was a heavy machine rifle intended to deliver short bursts of fire from the hip or shoulder to relatively short ranges. The BAR fired the standard American 0.30-06 cartridge, therefore prolonged bursts were not really possible due to the significant recoil forces generated by such a powerful round. As will be described, the fixed, air-cooled barrel could overheat rapidly and there was no bipod or firing support.

Yet the BAR had one prime asset in that it was highly portable and portable firepower was much in demand in 1917. The infantry badly needed automatic firepower under their direct control both for the attack and in defence. The Lewis gun had already indicated how light machine guns could be employed, but the US Army had never adopted the Lewis. In fact, the impetus given to the BAR when it first appeared meant that the ground-based Lewis gun was never to be deployed by the US Army in France before the war ended.

The rush to get the BAR into immediate volume production brought difficulties in its train. By 1917 most of the American defence infrastructure was already working hard to supply weapons for the British and the French, but capacity was found at the Winchester Repeating Firearms Company and the Marlin-Rockwell Corporation, both of New Haven, Conneticut. At that time most of Brownings patents were held by Colt, but they were already overstretched. Colt's work on the BAR was mainly devoted to preparing working drawings, tools and jigs for others, so their M1918 BAR production was limited.

The same could not be said for the other two contractors. Although the first production examples did not appear until February 1918, the first 1,500 were not considered suitable for front-line issue because there were too many components that could not be readily interchanged between guns. But by July 1918 the number of BARS had already reached 17,000. By the time of the armstice the number accepted by the American government was 52,238; outstanding orders stood at 288, 174.

Those particular orders were never completed, for once the armstice was signed there was no longer any need for BARS. The huge army so swiftly formed within the USA was just as rapidly wound down. BAR production continued for a while until about 85,000 had been completed (some sources mention even more - over 100,000). It then ceased, with most of the delivered output remaining in storage cases awaiting some future role. The few BARS that reached France before November 1918 did see action, there first recorded use during late September. What feedback did emerge from those frantic last days of the Great War was mainly favourable to the BAR, so the seeds of the weapon's future favoured position within the American military were well sown.

After 1918 Colt launched a campaign to sell the weapon to both home and overseas markets; the US Army already had as many as it was likely to need for years to come. Some home-based sales were made to police and prison authorities while the US Cavalry procured a few hundred examples known as the M1922. Despite the introduction of a bipod to the M1922, it was not considered a success and was later withdrawn. Between the wars BARs were sold to several nations, the most important being Belgium, Poland and Sweden, all of whom obtained local production licenses. All three nations introduced their own modifications to the base M1918 BAR in attempts to make it a more viable light machine gun. The most drastic change involved the Swedish guns being provided with bipods and a barrel-change system.

One little-known aspect of the BAR was that as ealy as 1922 it was under serious consideration by the British Army. At one stage it was recommended that the BAR shold replace the Lewis gun but, thanks largely to a lack of the necessary funding, nothing every came of that proposal.

The addition of a bipod to the BAR made it more accurate, for the M1918 was a hand-held weapon. Burst fire from the M1918 was therefore inaccurate as recoil forces soon forced the muzzle away from the target. Prolonged bursts had two effects. One was an overheated barrel. As the barrel was a fixture this had to be avoided by careful fire discipline and short bursts. The second result was an empty magazine since it only held twenty rounds, a quantity that soon vanished during combat. These two features limited the utility of the M1918 as a light machine gun, rendering it more of a heavy machine rifle.

Time was to show that these limitations were either overlooked by the US military or simply accepted as such. To offset the recoil and aiming difficulties parially, a programme was undertaken from 1937 to modify in-service M1918s by the installation of a folding bipod, a butt strap and a tubular flash-hider at the muzzle. The result was the M1918A1.

Not all stockpiled M1918s underwent the conversion to the M1918A1. By 1940 there were still thousands of unused M1918s stacked away in the Springfield Armory. They became a godsend to the hard-pressed United Kingdom in the period after Dunkirk. Some 25,000 of them were shipped over to Britain to arm the newly-formed Home Guard (the regular forces did not receive the BAR). This American munificence was later regretted by the donors, for the following year the USA itself became involved in the war and BARs, soon to be demanded by the thousand, were then in very short supply.

Mass production therefore commenced once again, but this time the BAR involved was the M1918A2. This model had been type classified in 1940 and featured several changes from the earlier models. One was that the fire controls were altered. Single-shot fire was done away with while there were two automatic rates of fire, 300-350 or 500-650rpm. Another change involved a relocation of the bipod to beneath the muzzle , while the return spring was moved away from under the barrel to a position inside the butt stock to prevent the distortion caused by barrel heat that could occur on earlier models.

The M1918A2 was manufactured by the New England Small Arms Corporation, a group of six engineering concerns which had never before participated in defence production. IBM also became involved with the M1918A2 at one stage but soon switched to other priorities. It took time for the Corporation to prepare and train for the M1918A2, but once the usual initial difficulties were out of the way the production totals soared and eventually met demands - the total M1918A2 production total by 1945 was 188,380, plus the associated spare parts. This total was reached only after some of the usual production short cuts had been introduced. Although Browning had designed the BAR to be mass produced, he was working in a period when the full demands of modern war had not been foreseen and many components on the BAR were time-consuming and expensive to produce. Castings and pressed parts therefore took the place of some items that had previously demanded careful machining.

The BAR was deployed wherever American troops fought between 1941 and 1945. Despite its limitations, it was employed as the standard squad fire-support weapon and American soldiers came to depend on it and swear by it, for it was rugged, reliable and well understood. They learned that if the M1918A2 fire-control lever were set to the slower rate of fire, single-shots could be squeezed off. Once in action, the weight and bulk of the weapon were often considered onerous so that it was not unusual for the bipod, butt strap and muzzle attachment to be discarded, reducing the BAR almost back to its 1918 origins.

Gradually, some senior soldiers came to accept that the BAR was not the ideal light machine gun. Front-line soldiers frequently disagreed and were anxious to retain the BAR in any form, ignoring the firepower and performance potential offered by many other contemporary light machine guns. Thus the BAR was still in front-line service during the Korean War (even being placed back into production for a while) and after, remaining with many NATO and other armed forces long after it had passed from American service.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Phew. This book also includes similiar discourses on French, Soviet, and British infantry weapons, from rifles, mortars, portable flame-throwers, to AT weapons, et. al. for these nations. I like it, I'd recommend it.

-John

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Tiger ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father was issued a M14 in the mid 60's. I believe they did not get the M16 till 67 or 68. this was in the marine corps and they way the navy would budget things it seemed like they always got the last stuff. He said he once got a C-ration that was almost 15 years old!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my conversations with veterans of the 70th Infantry Division (US), a good BAR man was highly valued. The weapon was good for its intended role; support for the squad. Easy enough to carry while executing fire and movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father was a BAR gunner in the 28th Infantry Division. He loved the weapon because it was reliable and accurate. They used it as a sort of sniper rifle on occasion, aiming low and letting recoil work rounds up the target. The BAR had two rates of fire available. They used the slow rate for this sort of shooting. He used to load the mags entirely with AP when they were in the Huertgen forest, the better to deal with trees.

He thinks the BAR was completely outclassed by the MG42. He once got the best of a German MG position with his BAR in a night time firefight, and felt it was a huge accomplishment.

Other members of the squad would carry extra BAR magazines. He says that wounded men did not take BARs to the rear, they stayed with the squad, and they were always trying to scrounge up more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that the BAR shot the 30-06 round? And not to be impolite but the round will not go through 3 feet of wood not even 1 feet. I tested them on many many types of material and it won't do it. Sounds cool though. The 300 Win Mag won't go through 3 feet either but that's another subject. Also, just for interest the 7.65 Nato round is just a 308 cal. and it's not as powerful as the 06. We went to that round due to the bulk factor. Course look at us now using the 5.62 mm or as we civilans call it 223 cal. Most states won't even allow it for large game but it works on humans pretty good. Course the idea is not to kill in war but to wound. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Did you know that the BAR shot the 30-06 round? And not to be impolite but the round will not go through 3 feet of wood not even 1 feet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were you using soft point ammo, or military ball? My .303 Jungle Carbine will go through foot-thick trees - I don't see why military cartridges fired form a .30-06 would not do the same.

[ 05-04-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You shoot a jungle carbine? My sympathies to your shoulder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you - you must speak from experience? actually, the steel butt plate on the Mauser 98k is worse - at least they tried to pad the Jungle Carbine with a little bit of rubber....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That little bit of rubber was hard as a rock on the one I fired. Maybe it is the nasty muzzle blast that makes it seem so bad.

Anyhow, on the point of penetration of the .30-06, FMJ or AP ammo is a different beast than civvie soft nose stuff. Depending on the wood involved, three feet at close range seems possible. Before chronographs, they use to shoot bullets into soft pine to get an idea of the power of the round. I will check some of my old loading books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

"the Volksgrenadier heavy smg squad LMGs seem to have a lower firepower than the LMGs in other squads. Why is that?"

The MG42 is really a 2 man weapon, not a one man weapon. A single 50-round belt only lasts 2.5 seconds. The AG (assistant gunner) has to link belts to belts, feed the ammo, keep the intake clear, etc. He or a 3rd usually had to give directions on where to fire too, because the ROF is so high the target can be obscured rapidly for the gunner.

The reason the VG SMG squads have lower firepower is that the second man has an MP40, not a rifle. Counting the MP 40 and the full fp of the MG 42 would really be double counting. In other units with a MG-42, there is a rifle in the squad that is not really firing. In the VG Hvy SMG, it is an MP40 that isn't firing.

Instead of having the fp of the MPs drop to -1 shooting, they subtracted the difference (rifle minus MP) from the fp of the MG line. The result is the squad does not simultaneously get the full fp of the MG, and of the assistant gunner's side arm.

I hope that helps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the VG SMG squads are eight men with MP 40. No other weapon is present in the squad. VG Fusilier SMF squads are nine men with MP 40.

The MG-42 and the BAR just cannot be compared. The more appropriate comparison would be the FG-42 to the BAR.

PS. There was a special on American small arms of WWII on the History Channel two weeks ago that covered the BAR quite well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Military and machinegun ammo is also packed with more powder than some civvie hunting ammo, which will also make a difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many hunting loads are actually more powerful than their military cousins, for the reason stated by lcm. It is more humane, meaning quicker kill, to hit an animal as hard as possible; it is also a better practice to shoot as flat a trajectory as possible (so higher velocities, thus more power), and the emphasis on rapid fire is much less (or ought to be) in hunting. These are incremental differences to maximize performance under specific conditions, though.

This is partly achieved through more powder, and also through different types of powder with faster or slower burn rates, the idea being to consume all the powder within the barrel before the bullet exits.

.303 British was designed for a full-length rifle barrel, and use of the same cartridge in the Mk V jungle carbine version of the Lee-Enfield caused the large muzzle blast, which in turn led to the conical flash dispersor. The muzzle blast is from unexpended powder igniting outside the muzzle, which is wasted energy, resulting in slightly lower velocities and unoptimized bullet performance. Fortunately, the flash hider and the muzzle blast look cool, which is ample justification. Since you have nearly the same energy pushing back on a lighter weapon, you have more felt recoil than with a full-sized Enfield.

One nice thing about the M1 is that the gas operation has a dampening effect on the recoil. It is noticeably more shoulder-friendly than the same round out of a bolt action. It still kicks more than a jungle carbine because it is a very mean load.

One-foot trees are easily penetrated with the 7.92mm and .30-06 (I don't remember trying it with my jungle carbine; while technically the lightest load of the lot, it is still an incremental difference and it would probably do it). I don't think 3 feet (1m) would be possible due to bullet deformation and fragmentation. I could try it, but in California I would probably be brought up on assault charges.

What WWII taught us, some of us more slowly than others, is that the heavy loads mentioned above were overkill for infantry rifles, though it could be argued that they work well for MGs, except you have interchangeability issues then. To me, the perfect infantry cartridge is the 7.62 x 39 Soviet. The 5.56mm is too light for my taste, though a better sniper cartridge. I have killed several deer with the Soviet cartridge and now consider it inadequate as a hunting cartridge; I wouldn't even try the 5.56/.223 on deer-sized game, though I'll include the obligatory "shot placement is everything" disclaimer and I'm sure some idiot has killed a moose with one. Personally, I went back to the .270 Win... :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

No kidding, Lewis. That's what it was designed to be - a replacement for the pistol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was carried also by main line troops as a battle arm. It was used by the US paratroopers (folding stock) as a standard weapon.

I would rather have a grease gun than this pea shooter. In the full auto M2 version (sort of a poor mans assault carbine), it might have been OK. But if you have ever fired one (or more specifically, tried to hit something with it), then you would know. Its a daisy rifle.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I would rather have a grease gun than this pea shooter... Its a daisy rifle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's where I would draw the line. It is kind of a Daisy rifle, and a curious thing to give a soldier (does make a heck of a pistol cartridge with the right loads, the Ruger Single Action Army used to be available in .30 carbine). But you'd rather have a grease gun? To each his own... I'd rather have a prayer of hitting something with the lightest of loads, than the virtual guarantee of harmlessness that the grease gun represents over 20m.

At anything over crack-house distances, I'd rather have my revolver... and after that, maybe the M1 Carbine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As was said before the M1 Carbine was designed to replace the pistol for truck drivers and cooks, ect, it was not designed for front line combat. Now just because the front line troops decided to use it for a role it was not intended does not make it a bad weapon, if you try to use a hammer to take out a sparkplug does that mean the hammer is a bad tool? No, it means you are using the wrong tool for that job. I would much rather have a Carbine than a 45 any day, and yes I have fired both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, the M-1 Caribine was Audie Murphy's weapon of choice, so it had to have some worth on the field.

I own one, a Winchester- and it's an enjoyable (and accurate) weapon to shoot (given it's 50+ years old)

-Back to the BAR, though. One of the advantages was that you could slow down the ROF by adjusting the gas port. One man could lay down the accurate fire of 2 or 3 Garands, (at range) and stretch out the contents of that 20 round box. Just what you need when maneuvering a squad. You can leave fewer soldiers behind to establish a base of fire and send the bulk of riflemen forward.

For a weapon designed for WWI, they got their money's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents.

The reason the BAR was so well liked by troops is that it was essentially the first American assault rifle. Unlike the MG42, a SINGLE soldier could carry, fire and reload the BAR. In addition, it could be fired while standing (although not accurately) and was not restricted to its tripod. As such it gave the soldier mobile firepower. It should be noted that American infantry in WW2 were generally advancing, not defending, and needed highly mobile firepower.

It should not really be compared to the MG42 which was generally belt feed and not quite as mobile in that it took time to "set-up" before use.

The BREN served exactly the same role as the BAR and from what I have read is probably better (larger Magazine, reload from the top).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...