Silver Stars Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 nice post, snake eyes. as for chupacabra's response that the m14 uses 7.62mm NATO, that collaborates with machineman's post that 7.62mm NATO roughly equals .30-06, thus meaning that the ammo for the m1 and the BAR are roughly the same(but i'm not assuming they ARE the same) snake eyes also brings back up my original argument as to whether the BAR was an assault rifle or not. frankly, I could go either way with this one. The original intent of use by having a grunt walk towards the enemy while firing from the hip(god bless the wacky french), while very funny, does (sort of)sound like the point of a squad LMG. i.e., providing covering fire for troop advancement. But then again, the article pointed to by machineman says that one of the nice things about assault rifles is that, IIRC, they could provide covering fire by going full auto, freeing them from the constraints of a squad LMG. ugh. I could think about this one for a while. the BAR hit hard and had the range of a LMG, but it didn't really need an asst. gunner like a bren or a mg42(all he could really do is spot targets for him)....anybody elses thoughts? I got equal arguments for both sides..... p.s. anybody have info on the bren gun? I read somewhere that it also used a cartridge, but i'd like to know how many rounds it carried per clip. ------------------ "From the Mountains of the Moon, Down the Valley of the Shadow, Ride Boldly Ride", the Shade replied, "If you seek for El Dorado." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Stars Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 oh..Mark IV already said my first half of my last post...but much better said then my attempt. ------------------ "From the Mountains of the Moon, Down the Valley of the Shadow, Ride Boldly Ride", the Shade replied, "If you seek for El Dorado." [This message has been edited by Silver Stars (edited 11-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 I think we have to define what the question is. Are we asking what role the BAR was intended to perform in during WW2, or are we asking whether it was well-suited for that role? My understanding is that it was used similarly to the Bren and LMG42 - that is, as a squad support weapon. Whether it was adequate for that role (for various reasons, all of which have been pointed out here, I don't think it was) is another matter, really. ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 Bren was .303 with a 30-round box mag. BAR was not an assault rifle in the currently accepted use of the term- the MP44 was the first. Both BAR and Bren used the same ammo as the regular infantry rifle, which was a big advantage. But then, the MG42 used the same ammo as the Mauser, showing you needn't necessarily sacrifice performance to achieve interchangeability in an LMG. However, the originally-stated intent of the BAR was "similar" to the concept behind an assault rifle- the ability of a highly portable weapon to lay down suppressive fire to cover the advance of the rifle-armed infantry. You still needed other guys to carry extra ammo. 20 rounds goes in a hurry and separate mags weigh a lot. It wasn't crew-served but one soldier couldn't carry more than a few minutes worth of ammo at normal battle rates of expenditure. The stupid idea wasn't Browning's (the design was very good, like pretty much all of Browning's), but that of those who thought no-man's land was sauntering country. Who knew? Pressed into WWII, it did a pretty good job (we used it again in Korea), but it always was sort of an aberration. Better than a poke in the eye, but not what you would have designed if you had the luxury of starting from scratch... or just copying the MG42 (which we did, in the still-current M60). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Stars Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 well, since the BAR pretty much needed to be braced against something to be fired anywhere near accurately enough to hit somebody,i guess I would have to say an LMG. You can stand straight up and fire an MP44 from the shoulder without said shoulder bieng ripped off. which brings up another question(Damn, I won't let this thread die, will I?), Does CM model the LMGs not firing/firing wildly while the squad is moving/running? I guess they could say that the gunner stopped, fired some quick bursts, and started moving again under the MOVE command. But what about RUN?there is no way in hell they could hit anything with BAR(or Bren or MG42,for that matter)while running?Is the total firepower rounded down by a factor while moving, or what? ------------------ "Life is pain. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 The heavy machine gun of WWI was great for defensive use, but was lacking as an offensive weapon due to its weight. Many countries realized this problem and during the years between the world wars developed LMG's for use on the offensive. The US, too, had seen the need for a LMG, but having developed the BAR, did not see the need for something more akin to a true light machine gun. The BAR is neither fish nor foul. It was developed to be used as a LMG, but its limited magazine precluded its use in that roll. The US never had a decent LMG throughout WWII. When the Infantry Board finally decided to replace the BAR, the best they could come up with was a modified Browning MMG. The troops were not thrilled with this expedient. The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II classifies the BAR as a rifle, in the same category as the M1 Garand and MP43. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Stars: p.s. anybody have info on the bren gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II Gun, machine, Bren Caliber .303 in Length 45.25 in Weight 22 lbs 5 oz Barrel 25.0 in long, 6 grooves, right hand twist Feed system 30-round detachable box magazine System of operation Gas; tipping bolt Rate of fire (cyclic) 500 rpm Manufacturer Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock, Middlesex The Bren Gun is spoken of with affection by every British soldier who ever used one, and with good reason. Beyond any doubt it was-and still is-the finest light machine gun ever adopted in quantity by any army. It was reliable, robust, simple and accurate, and beyond that no one has a right to ask. It is fairly well known that the design came from Czechoslovakia, but some doubt was thrown on its real parentage and an interesting theory advanced by the late Lt. Col. R. K. Wilson, a noted authority on automatic weapons. In his Textbook of Automatic Pistols published in 1943 and largely written before the war, he included a chapter on light machine guns, and after discussing the French Chatellerault went on to say, ‘Since . . . the Great War, Czechoslovakia has been the most faithful of France's allies, and the connection between the French War Office and the Czech Ministry of Defense has been of the closest. One result of this has been the manufacture of the Chatellerault at the Czech government arsenal at Prague, and its sale as a commercial weapon under the name ZB . . . It has recently been extensively tested by the British Army . . . and now seems likely (1935) to be adopted . . .’ There is certainly some similarity of outline between the Chatellerault and the ZB26, but more recent research has revealed the existence of a ZB24 model, produced before the Chatellerault was revealed, so it looks as if the ZB was, after all, a native Czech product. In view of the disastrous record of explosions and other malfunctions suffered by the Chatellerault during its first few years of service, this is probably just as well. The ZB26 was succeeded by a slightly improved model the ZB30, and this was taken to England in the early 1930s and demonstrated. The British Army were looking for a light machine gun to replace the Lewis, and expressed interest, provided the gun could be made to work satisfactorily with the British .303 cartridge. In a surprisingly short time the Czechs were back with a specially produced model, the ZB33 of which only a handful were made, solely as demonstration and trials weapons; they were ZB30 guns redesigned for .303 with the barrel shortened, the gas port repositioned and the sights graduated in yards. If nothing else, the production of these weapons showed a high degree of salesmanship. The other weapons under consideration at the time were the Danish Madsen and the Vickers-Berthier, and the latter was almost at the point of being accepted when the ZB33 appeared. Subsequent comparative trials showed the superiority of the ZB design, and it was put into production as the Bren Gun Mark 1, formally introduced into service on 4 August 1938. This model was a direct copy of the ZB33, and had a drum-pattern rear sight, a strap which passed over the firer's shoulder, and a grip for the firer's left hand beneath the butt. The magazine was curved, due to the demands of feeding the British rimmed cartridge; the original Czech design, using rimless 7.92mm ammunition, had a straight magazine. Variants Mark 2 The Mark 1 gun was luxurious by wartime standards, and in order to simplify manufacture some modifications were made. The butt fittings were discarded, the drum sight replaced by a simpler tangent sight, the telescopic bipod replaced by a simpler fixed-length pattern, the cocking handle no longer folded, and certain lightening grooves on the body were omitted, resulting in the weight going up to 23.25 lbs. This mark was introduced on 6 June 1941. Marks 3 and 4 Introduced 18 July 1944; were identical with the Marks 1 and 2, except that the barrel was 22.25in long.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop [This message has been edited by Snake Eyes (edited 11-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordfluffers Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 This is like saying whats better? a Colt 45 or a Bazooka? They both fulfill completely different functions. The MP44 is an assault rifle using a small cartridge, designed to be used much like a M16 or AK47 (which is based on the MP44) while the BAR is an infantry support weapon like the modern M60 or the Bren gun, or MG42. Silly comparison really. Just my two pennies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Stars Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 Thanks for the Info, Snake Eyes. Did you scan that in from a book or off of a website or CD-Rom? Just curious, but I wouldn't mind finding a copy of that all around. Quote: Beyond any doubt it(Bren Gun) was-and still is-the finest light machine gun ever adopted in quantity by any army. Kind of flies into the face of the standard "MG42:God of LMG's" Line, but hey, I'm into difference of opinion.... as for Lordfluffers, I can see your point in that comparing the two is a bit extreme(and quite possibly pointless), but for the sheer data bieng vomited up, I think its good to discuss. Hell, just look at that "88mm Accuracy test post".It was orginally about the lack of modelling "bracketing" in the game,and now it's a term paper on Anti-tank gun optics. My head gets numb just reading three paragraphs. And frankly, I have nothing better to do.I couldn't visit the folks for Thanksgiving and everybody I know went to visit thiers so I'm alone in my House <sniff-sniff>. All whining aside, I honestly have nothing better to do then discuss Ammo and small Arms of WWII all day. Besides, it beats the crap out of joining the Peng Thread........(ducking too avoid future flames) oh, and still looking for answers on that modelling less firepower while moving/running.... ------------------ "Life is pain. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Stars: Thanks for the Info, Snake Eyes. Did you scan that in from a book or off of a website or CD-Rom? Just curious, but I wouldn't mind finding a copy of that all around.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I scanned the info from The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II by Ian V. Hogg, 1977, Thomas Y. Crowell Company Inc, New York, New York. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Stars: Beyond any doubt it(Bren Gun) was-and still is-the finest light machine gun ever adopted in quantity by any army. Kind of flies into the face of the standard "MG42:God of LMG's" Line, but hey, I'm into difference of opinion... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is Ian Hogg's opinion. I favor the MG42 as the best MG of WWII. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Stars Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 Funny...Ian Hogg was the advisor on the rand mcnally encyclopedia of WWII that i referenced..... I knew it was the Hogg(wonder if anybody called him "boss")guy who made the comment,sorry if I led you to believe I thought it was you who made the remark....besides, the fact he was a Master Gunner in the British Army definitly makes the remark more then a little biased..... ------------------ "Life is pain. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 M. Hofbauer (I believe the same one who posts here) has a nice page on all German small arms here: http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm Recognize this? ZB 30 (7.92 Bren), in German service. I also didn't realize the British tank BESA machine guns were also a Czech design, this one not converted to 303, and so British tankers had their own special factory producing 7.92mm ammo. [This message has been edited by machineman (edited 11-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Kitty, I've put the .30-06 with standard loads through a roughly 12" diameter hardwood. It'll go through quite a bit more pine. No science here, just my observations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's why I asked what a "good sized tree" was. To me that's skinny. Anyway, I've fired quite a few .30-06 rounds myself, not at trees, but at water jugs, paper targets, tin cans, rocks, etc. I had a Mauser that was rechambered for the round. I really liked that rifle. Ir was way accurate and although the recoil was large it wasn't anything to be afraid of. Here's a picture I took of it in action somewhere in the Southern California desert. =) Kitty ------------------ ICQ 8273286 http://www.fluffkitty.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 The BAR was well liked by the troops who used it, and was very well made. As has been pointed out, the lack of a quick change barrel and the box mag made it inferior to the MG42 as a suppressive fire weapon. It is interesting that US forces have finally adopted a squad automatic weapon with a belt feed and quick change barrel-the SAW. Better late than never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 How can you compare the MP44 to anything when it is in a league of its own? The BAR is comparable to other clip fed rifle ammo firing weapons like the BREN but it, again, is nothing like the German MGs with belt fed operations. Neither the BREN or BAR can lay down a suppresive or defensive firepower like a belt fed weapon. Even if a BAR gunner had ten loaded clips, he would eventually be faced with the task of reloading during a battle. Same with the BREN. The BAR , BTW fired loose ammo that was loaded into clips. The M1 garand had fixed clips of eight rounds. It would not be so easy to take these rounds from a garand and use them in a BAR. I believe that German units that had enough MP44s would reorganize platoons so that one squad was a LMG squad with MGs and the other squads just had MP44s predominately. They felt the MP44 could put out enough firepower for the moving squads and the MG squad was a firepower base. No other nation had a weapon like the MP44 that allowed this. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted November 27, 2000 Share Posted November 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: Isn't the G3 a descendant of the planned MP45 (?) with rollers to lock the bolt. Anyway, the design of the mechanism in the MP44 and the G3 is completely different from each other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for correcting me. Actually, what I was told in the army 11 years ago was that the G3 (or ak4, as the Swedish version is called) is an updated Sturmgewehr 43. The G3 does indeed have rollers to lock the bolt for a short while in the firing cycle. (Side note: I'm trained in using the ak4. Loading, unloading, field stripping, adjusting the aim, cleaning, some drill moves, no problem. But I've never actually fired any shots with it...) Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinCheng+ Posted November 27, 2000 Share Posted November 27, 2000 Is Thompson M1A1 submg the same class as MP44? I suppose the book "German Automatic Weapons of World War II" by Robert Bruce should be a good read. Griffin. ------------------ "+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted November 27, 2000 Share Posted November 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GriffinCheng+: Is Thompson M1A1 submg the same class as MP44?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. It fired a pistol cartridge (.45 ACP) instead of an intermediate rifle cartridge. You said it yourself ("submg"), it is a sub-machine gun. MP44 is an assault rifle, with longer range performance and much better stability on the target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinCheng+ Posted November 27, 2000 Share Posted November 27, 2000 Thanks for the correction Mk. IV. Looks like I have been messing up w/ small arms lately. BTW, I read one mentioned breifly on stopping power and could anyone elaborated on it? OTOH, I read an article of PPK and its lack of stopping power. What is the use of such weapon? Griffin. ------------------ "+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted November 27, 2000 Share Posted November 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Having fired an MP44 (twice) as well as a MP38 (same as MP40 for this discussion), I can tell you for sure that the MP44 has about as much recoil, but far better in every other way (from a firing standpoint). Muzzle climb for 3 round bursts was hardly anything compared to the MP38/40. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then why is the MP44 rated lower than the MP40 in CM if it only has advantages? I'm not a grognard, so please excuse this question. I just never really understood how you derived the firepower ratings of the different infantry weapons. Dschugaschwili Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted November 27, 2000 Share Posted November 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: Then why is the MP44 rated lower than the MP40 in CM if it only has advantages? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> MP40 has a higher rate of fire and more stopping power. While I wouldn't agree MP40 should be rated higher, I don't really have the expertise to say otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted November 27, 2000 Share Posted November 27, 2000 I didn't say that the current firepower ratings should be changed. I'm just curious about the reasoning behind all those values. Dschugaschwili Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted November 27, 2000 Share Posted November 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: I didn't say that the current firepower ratings should be changed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I did. Except I didn't. Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted November 27, 2000 Share Posted November 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does CM model the LMGs not firing/firing wildly while the squad is moving/running? I guess they could say that the gunner stopped, fired some quick bursts, and started moving again under the MOVE command. But what about RUN?there is no way in hell they could hit anything with BAR(or Bren or MG42,for that matter)while running?Is the total firepower rounded down by a factor while moving, or what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In another thread, Charles posted: "Firepower is reduced while running, and in fact most weapons (e.g. rifles) can't fire at all. You pretty much need an SMG." I thought I remembered another post on this too, but danged if I could find it via search. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted November 27, 2000 Share Posted November 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: It is interesting that US forces have finally adopted a squad automatic weapon with a belt feed and quick change barrel-the SAW. Better late than never.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did you forget about the good 'ol M-60, great grandson of the MG-42. WWB ------------------ Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatamus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts