BAR is better than MP44 ??

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dschugaschwili wrote:

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

Somewhere on this BBS is at least one long thread about the MP40 and MP44 ratings. I won't try to replicate all that info here, but will try and sum it up.

Overall, the MP44's FP rating in CM is far superior to the MP40. Just check out the ranges. At very close range the MP40 (and I think all SMGs) does get a slight advantage because it was smaller and easier to move with. In all but close range situations this "advantage" was irrelevant.

Accuracy was, of course, reduced when firing wildly, but at close range the effect would be definately better in terms of suppression. Remember, FirePower doesn't simulate lethality alone, but also suppression and "fear". i.e. the equations that determine how the target unit reacts is heavily dependent on FP and not just casualties.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I just never really understood how you derived the firepower ratings of the different infantry weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are several threads on this topic. Basically, the weapon's practical rate of fire, ammo supply system, size of the bullet, ease of use (size/weight), basic accuracy, and probably some other things were looked at for the various ranges noted in the unit's details.

Back to the question of the BAR's intended role...

The BAR was utilized like a LMG in terms of tactical use. As others have said in this thread, it really wasn't great in that role. But it also wasn't good in the role of an "assault rifle". Running while firing the weapon from the hip does not an assault rifle make The MG34/42 could be fired from the hip on the run as well, but this required a bit of preparation. However, firing the Bren, BAR, or MG34/42 from the hip was not standard practice nor that beneficial.

It is my opinion that the overall impression of the BAR was mixed at best. It was too heavy and had a limited loaded ammo supply. It was also a beast of a weapon to fire. I have also read that if it got modestly dirty it would foul up.

So was the BAR a squad automitc weapon (LMG)? Yes, at least through its use in combat. Was it very good at its role? Eh... it did OK. But compared to the German LMGs, it was totally outclassed. And that is why the M60 replaced it with a derivative of the MG42 and not some sort of successor to the BAR.

Steve

[Dschugaschwili]

Oops. I forgot to include "at close range" when I asked about the lower firepower rating of the MP44. I know it's higher beyond 40m.

Thanks for the reply though.

Dschugaschwili

[Guest wwb_99]

One thing mentioned above which is not seen in CM was the tendency of late-war american squads to pick up an extra BAR or two. While one MG-42 beats a BAR any day, three BARs take one MG-42 in terms of firepower, mobility and reliability.

WWB

------------------

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatamus.

[David Aitken]

Silver Stars wrote:

> 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....

> the fact he was a Master Gunner in the British Army definitly makes the remark more then a little biased.....

The Bren is a light machinegun. The MG42 is multi-purpose. Ian Hogg is by no means the only person to hold this opinion. It's hardly a matter of national pride, considering the gun is Czechoslovakian.

BloodyBucket wrote:

> US forces have finally adopted a squad automatic weapon with a belt feed and quick change barrel-the SAW.

SAW is just a generic term. What's with all the generic terms for machine guns? The US Army has SAWs, and the British Army has LSWs and GPMGs. To my knowledge these are the FN Minimi, FN MAG and Enfield L86 (ie. FN, or Fabrique Nationale, a Belgian company, makes both the US squad automatic and the British heavy machinegun). It's interesting to note that the L86 is crippled in the same way as the BAR, in being magazine fed and lacking a quick-change barrel. It's just a long-barreled version of the British Army's assault rifle.

David

New map!

------------------

'Wake up darling.'

'What is it dear.'

'Those awful Germans want fighting dear.'

'Not again. I killed three yesterday.'

'Here's your sandwiches and rifle. Try and not use the bayonet dear, you know what a mess it makes on the carpet.' – Spike Milligan

[Guest Big Time Software]

WWB:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One thing mentioned above which is not seen in CM was the tendency of late-war american squads to pick up an extra BAR or two. While one MG-42 beats a BAR any day, three BARs take one MG-42 in terms of firepower, mobility and reliability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is correct. The Army found out, the hard way, that one BAR did not stack up very well to one MG42. But two or three BARs closed the gap somewhat. I can't recall if the adoption of more BAR's was official TO&E for late war squads (I think it was), but it was commonplace never-the-less. Kinda helps to be a member of an Army which belongs to a gun loving freak of a nation like the USA "You want more BARs? Sure, just back the truck up and take what you want. There's plenty to spare"

Steve

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

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

I think the M14 was derived from the M1 Garand, not the other way around. Not sure about the M14 caliber though.

GAFF<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

M14 is 7.62, the M14 came after the M1, and was used until mid vietnam. It looks like a M1 with a BAR barrell minus the bipod and with a damn big clip. I've fired M1's and 14's, and the M1 is MUCH more accuarate at close range. I love how the M1 bandoliers pop out when all the rounds are gone.

BTW: We had a couple on a Field Ex. a while back, a corporal in my company chopped his thumb up pretty bad loading the thing.

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I can't recall if the adoption of more BAR's was official TO&E for late war squads (I think it was), but it was commonplace never-the-less.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't recall any official increase in the number of BAR's per squad in the ETO, but the PTO US Marines officially allocated three BAR's per squad towards the end of the war.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[:USERNAME:]

The germans built their WWII squad around the LMG and the MG34/42 were very good at what they were trying to implement. It took a revolutionary weapon like the MP44 to change things.

The US did not believe in the LMG basis of squad firepower but rather implemented distributed semiautomatic M1 garand fire. The BAR was not a squad weapon but an individual weapon to augment the US squad firepower. The BAR in this role was mobile and perhaps better than the BREN because a dedicated mag changer guy wasnt needed. The US had their various 30 and 50 cal brownings to lay down a base of fire.

The US attempt at a LMG (that browning bipod thing with the stock) was not very good. The US next attempt was actually to make EVERYONE have a "BAR-ish" weapon, namely, the M14. So Steve is somewhat wrong. The US went for a BAR type weapon after WWII. They even investigated a heavy barrel/bipod version of the M14 as a "BAR" type weapon to supplement the M14s! I would like to fire a M14 full auto and compare it to a BAR full auto.

It wasnt till Vietnam that the US finally developed a true assault rifle (M16) and the M60LMG combo.

I have read that the BAR had a selective automatic rate. That is, it could fire full auto fast and slow. Something like 600RPM and 300 RPM. The marines liked the BAR in the jungle because of this feature. They emphasised small burst fire and using it like a shotgun. It had good penetrative powers through dense jungle and the 4 man marine sections was built around it.

But it was no MP44 or AK47. It isnt fair to compare it to a belt fed weapon either. It was what it was. I would love to fire one full auto in all positions to see for myself how it behaves.

As far as I am concerned, Steve McQueen would look funny in the Sand Pebbles with anything else.

Lewis

[Silver Stars]

In response to David Aitken's response....

True, I did waltz over the fact that the Bren is a pure LMG, while the mg-42 is a jack of all trades. yes it could spit out 1200 rounds per minute, but when it was used as a HMG,i.e. belt-fed, extra barrels, extra men, tripod, etc. of course the straight lmg version only had a gunner ,(maybe)an assistant, the standard bipod,and IIRC used a cannister(?) of ammunition instead of the belt-feed mechanism. Without these accompaniments(forgive spelling) the ROF would be considurably less.We should be comparing the mg42 stats IN LMG MODE to the bren, not the HMG stats.

As for the Ian Hogg "biased" line, I

retract the statement. I didn't realize how condemning it sounded.It's just that from what I read all I ever really heard was the "supremacy of the mg34/42" and just sort of accepted it. But I am all for debating the trueness of that statement.

I didn't think the fact that it was czech-manufactured made much of a difference since it is remembered for its use with the British Army. Everyone thinks of the Mustang as the greatest American Fighter, even though it was only fair plane without that nice Rolls-Royce Merlin engine in it .

So again, if the comments sounded a little too much like "dem dar damn anglish peeples always think dey got the best stuff", I wholly apoligize.

------------------

"Life is pain. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something."

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis, thanks for the correction. I never heard about the bipod M14 nor its intended role. I always thought the M14 was a straight replacement for the Garand. [stupid typos fixed ]

And you are correct, the US Army had a different concept of firepower distribution at the squad level. IMHO, CM simulates this very well. In most situations, when I have time to set up my MMGs, I have few problems.

However, the US squads in WWII developed tactics similar to the Germans (which is not surprising at all). They would use the BAR very much the way the Germans used their LMG. It was used to lay down suppressive fire while a section of the Squad went forward. But obviously this did not work as well as when the Germans did it

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-28-2000).]

[Red Dog]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Stars:

quote:

Actually, the intended role of the BAR may have been as an "assault rifle". The intent was to advance at a walking pace across no man's land firing it from the hip, with sling support.

Jesus.....firing .30-06 ammo full auto from the hip?while walking?????

my god.....talk about Rambo of the Marne...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's nothing, Clyde Barrow (of Bonnie and Clyde fame) was known to use a personally modified BAR with the barrel cut down and the stock cut off just after the buffer tube. He was only 5'7" and weighed in at a 130lbs...

Apparently the BAR was quite popular with several American gangsters in the 1920's.

[This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 11-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 11-27-2000).]

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red Dog:

Apparently the BAR was quite popular with several American gangsters in the 1920's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and it was the BAR that took down Bonnie and Clyde.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Kitty]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Stopping power" is a widely misused and misunderstood term. The only way a bullet, regardless of caliber, can immediately incapacitate an assailaint is by piercing the central nervous system. Instead of making this into a huge post I'd suggest going to http://www.gunnery.net/hwfe.html for a good article on this subject.

As for your second question, when you say "PPK" are you referring to the Walther PPK? The most obvious asset that this weapon possesses is it's small size which makes it easy to conceal. My father, who was a Superior Court Commissioner in L.A. County, used to carry one with him when he wasn't in the courtroom for just that reason. He could easily carry it in his pocket or the inside of his boot, etc. without drawing it attention. However when he WAS in the courtroom, he had a 6" Colt Python .357 under his desk.

Kitty

------------------

ICQ 8273286

http://www.fluffkitty.com

[GriffinCheng+]

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

"Stopping power" is a widely misused and misunderstood term. The only way a bullet, regardless of caliber, can immediately incapacitate an assailaint is by piercing the central nervous system. Instead of making this into a huge post I'd suggest going to http://www.gunnery.net/hwfe.html for a good article on this subject.

As for your second question, when you say "PPK" are you referring to the Walther PPK? The most obvious asset that this weapon possesses is it's small size which makes it easy to conceal. My father, who was a Superior Court Commissioner in L.A. County, used to carry one with him when he wasn't in the courtroom for just that reason. He could easily carry it in his pocket or the inside of his boot, etc. without drawing it attention. However when he WAS in the courtroom, he had a 6" Colt Python .357 under his desk.

Kitty

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the answer.

I came across Walter PPK issue from an article in a Taiwanese defense magazine. It is about the history and mechanism of this gun. It also talks a lot how this infamous gun related to James Bond.

"6" Colt Python .357"? Cool!

Griffin.

------------------

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"