Jump to content

BAR as a squad support weapon.


Recommended Posts

Reminds me of the report I saw about the Falklands war (remember that war?) Brits had NATO 5.56 cal FN rifles, Argies had the older 7.62 cal FNs. In close combat the 7.62 round would knock a man over. The 5.56 wouldn't. One Tommy recalled how during a night fight he hit an Argie soldier at least three times with 5.56 from less than 20 feet and the guy didn't give up the fight til a round struck his own weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warren Peace:

The reason the BAR was so well liked by troops is that it was essentially the first American assault rifle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then it's no wonder they didn't revisit the concept for half a century.

"Assault rifle" as generally understood (it is a nebulous term) goes hand-in-hand with the intermediate cartridge concept, and most date its origin to the G43/StG44/MP44 family. Assault rifles are made for general issue to all infantry, and give each man suppressive capability with intermediate rounds. BAR was a squad support weapon, with great honking bullets. Even in the original design concept, which included walking fire (which is not what assault rifles are for), it was a squad support weapon. It was a poor choice for that role in WWII, except that it was the only choice the troops had.

The reason the troops liked it was because it was all they had, and it was a reliable weapon, whatever it was. I don't think many would have chosen it over an MG42, given a choice, but if it saved their ass once, it was great.

MG42s do not take much time (seconds) to "set up", and could be fired by a single soldier if necessary, with reduced efficacy. BARs were also meant to be crew served, with another guy loading to keep up the fire from the pathetically small box mag. One man could indeed handle it like a big rifle... and used in that fashion, it becomes simply one more big, fat rifle.

The BAR was a little more mobile than MG42, but at the expense of all that nifty suppressive ability. You already had 10 guys with M1s in a squad, so the BAR didn't represent much of a force multiplier anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the MG39 and 42 were standard machine guns being capable of deployment in either the light or heavy role: i.e, the same weapon with either belt/magazine or box feeds, and tripod or bipod. The Allies both had an LMG and an HMG (Bren/BAR & Browning/Vickers/m1919) for each role. The MG39/42 also used a changeable barrel as a cooling system rather than air or water cooling, which considerably lessens weight. strictly speaking there is only the light and heavy version of any mg; the medium is basically a heavy mg with a smaller team operating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Reminds me of the report I saw about the Falklands war (remember that war?) Brits had NATO 5.56 cal FN rifles, Argies had the older 7.62 cal FNs. In close combat the 7.62 round would knock a man over. The 5.56 wouldn't. One Tommy recalled how during a night fight he hit an Argie soldier at least three times with 5.56 from less than 20 feet and the guy didn't give up the fight til a round struck his own weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

5.56 FNs? Are you sure? Some special forces used M-16s which are 5.56.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

5.56 FNs? Are you sure? Some special forces used M-16s which are 5.56.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FN FNC is a 5.56mm although I'm sure the British used the modified FN FNL aka SLR (7.62 mm)during the conflict.

[ 05-04-2001: Message edited by: Bastables ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like MarkIV sayed.: you could not compare the Bar with the 43/42 mg...other leage..

And i hear allways, the mg 42 isnt accurate!!..hmm..if you look how they use it..imo like a riffle...sometimes the 42 on the tripod r used with optics. The other thing is targeting....you do it like a riffle..press it on your shoulder that minimize the recoil...

I have here in a old book a nice picture..a man standing in the open with a mg 34 on his hip...(without a tripod) with full autofire...you will see no recoil...the picture was really clear..if not, you must see it due to the poor cameras at this time...

Another good feature is unjamming..really fast..

The allied counterparts you cold allways forget in the assault view...0.50, 0.30 you must put on the tripod... with the mg 34/42 you have so many choices to use it...in trenches (standing) on walls..laying down position...on the hip..(ok not verry effektive)..

Someone sayed 2,5 sec`s- 50 shoots!! I say..every commander will kick your but, if you use it with autofire...bursts is the keyword..

Just my 7,92mm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BAR was the M1 Garand equipped squad's support weapon.

The K98 was the MG34s ammo bearer(s) counter weight (luckily the MG34 had about 10 of these counter weights in his squad...).

The poor British had neither a MG34 nor a Garand. They had a super-BAR with some bolt-action-running-targets called infantry.

In any case, I would rather squeeze off 45 (you could pop single rounds from a grease gun) slugs and maybe hit nothing than shoot a M1 carbine and have a guaranteed miss. In any event, a full auto burst of 45s has a serious "get the hell away from here effect".

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Reminds me of the report I saw about the Falklands war (remember that war?) Brits had NATO 5.56 cal FN rifles, Argies had the older 7.62 cal FNs. In close combat the 7.62 round would knock a man over. The 5.56 wouldn't. One Tommy recalled how during a night fight he hit an Argie soldier at least three times with 5.56 from less than 20 feet and the guy didn't give up the fight til a round struck his own weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British used the SLR as main weapon for his infantry. They also used the M16 in some SBS and SAS troops. The account you saw must be from the combat in Top Malo House... I think were SAS against Argentine Commands...

Some British regulars picked the FALs from the Argentines as they get full auto with it... The Argentines used also the FAP, a heavy barrel, bipod mounted version of the FAL, as Squad support weapon.

I saw a picture of a British Parachutist with a Bren in the Malvina's war. smile.gif

Some Argentine Special Forces used the Steyr AUG 5.56mm as his weapon of choice.

Both sides used the FN MAG as LMG, but I think as a Platoon Weapon in both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Reminds me of the report I saw about the Falklands war (remember that war?) Brits had NATO 5.56 cal FN rifles, Argies had the older 7.62 cal FNs. In close combat the 7.62 round would knock a man over. The 5.56 wouldn't. One Tommy recalled how during a night fight he hit an Argie soldier at least three times with 5.56 from less than 20 feet and the guy didn't give up the fight til a round struck his own weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British used the SLR as main weapon for his infantry. They also used the M16 in some SBS and SAS troops. The account you saw must be from the combat in Top Malo House... I think were SAS against Argentine Commands...

Some British regulars picked the FALs from the Argentines as they get full auto with it... The Argentines used also the FAP, a heavy barrel, bipod mounted version of the FAL, as Squad support weapon.

I saw a picture of a British Parachutist with a Bren in the Malvina's war. smile.gif

Some Argentine Special Forces used the Steyr AUG 5.56mm as his weapon of choice.

Both sides used the FN MAG as LMG, but I think as a Platoon Weapon in both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I saw a picture of a British Parachutist with a Bren in the Malvina's war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Bren at the time of the Malvinas was still current issue for some British special forces troops, rechambered for NATO and designated the L4 (if I recall correctly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's unfair to the BAR to draw straight lines of correlation between it and the MG42, because their reason for existence is not the same. The German squad tactics were based upon the machine gun as the primary focus, with troops supporting the machine gun, whereas the American's use of the BAR was to support the squad's primary focus of maneuver. Or at least, that was the History Channel's take on it, from Tales of The Gun. We took a lot of lessons from the German's in WWII. The very core concept of AirLand Battle Doctrine is simply a highly refined version of Blitzkrieg. The MG42 is no exception. It is today's M60 medium machine gun, right down to the spare barrel swap concept, tripod, bipod, or shoot from the hip mode. Heck, the Navy Seals use it as an individual soldier weapon with a second pistol grip mounted under the front handguard. Both of my Grandfathers, and their friends say that the BAR was a dream. It was an inspiration to have one along, especially in the presence of the pants filling sound of an MG42 spouting off 1000 rounds per minute. The BAR is just a step in the evolution of the assault rifle we know today, with many "children." Vietnam showed that the M-16 just didn't cut it in full auto. The M-60 was just too cumbersome to effectively maneuver with in an assault element, and was more likely to reside as a member of the base of fire element, as it does today in conventional infantry platoons. Enter the M249 SAW, which is the current step in the BAR lineage. It fires at a greater rate than the BAR, variable from 750 to 1000 rpm with a twist of the gas cylinder, and carries a 200 round belt in a box linked 5.56mm round compatible with the M16. With two M249's in a squad, it allows enough firepower to the squad leader to take care of smaller size forces on his own without calling the platoon leader to send up an M60, and can be carried effectively in a combat rushing situation across an objective without exhausting the soldier too much. While the BAR had good punch but little pack, it still served it's purpose of supporting maneuver. They just didn't find out that the 20 rounder wasn't enough until it was in combat for awhile. It was designed in WWI mentality, after all, when automatic weapons made there debut. I believe it was Clyde's favorite weapon of crime, in the Bonnie and Clyde days. The FBI used it to kill them, paradoxically... If you ask anyone veteran from the WWII era, that had front line combat experience, and lived to tell about it, it's probably because there was a BAR keepin' Kraut heads down. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Heck, the Navy Seals use it as an individual soldier weapon with a second pistol grip mounted under the front handguard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with most your comments, but a bit of clarification here: The M60E3 (With the forward hand grip) was not a SEAL innovation, just part of the evolution of the pig. They are unique in the M60 being a single man weapon, their ammo loads are considerably lighter than a standard infantry squad, so an assistant is not required.

Gyrene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew! Lots of different points being made.

In no particular order:

Username:

The M1 carbine is not all that bad. Try shooting a pistol course with one that is not completely worn out and you will quickly see how much of an improvement over a handgun it is. It has roughly the power of a .357 magnum up close, but the bullet sheds velocity quickly. Anyone who thinks it is a "guaranteed miss" is hereby invited to watch my wife send soda cans flying with one at 100 yards.

Mikey D:

Any small arms round does not have "knock a man over" power. "Stopping Power" has a lot more to do with hydrostatic shock, bullet tumbling or deformation, and of course, shot placement. The terminal effects of the 5.56 round at infantry ranges are well documented. Read Evan Marshall or Dr. Fackler for more info on this subject.

LtShotgu: The M-60, or "pig" is dead. Long live the MAG. This excellent Belgian MG has replaced the M-60 in US service. The MAG, oddly enough, is almost a BAR upside down in the inner workings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be impolite or rude but in an effort to simply correct something the 7.62 NATO round is actually a 308 cal. Cartridge. It could never go thur 3 ft of anything, well maybe jello. The BAR is actually a 30/06 cartridge and it also couldn't go thur 3 feet or even 1 solid foot of wood either. Just for what it's worth. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The listed penetration for the 6.5mm Mauser round, circa 1905, is 59 inches of pine. That is with a standard, not AP round.

Source is an old document from the US Army historical lecture series. I will try to find the stats for the 30-06 with AP ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Source is an old document from the US Army historical lecture series. I will try to find the stats for the 30-06 with AP ammo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where's a hand-loader when you need one? My old room-mate was an avid precision shooter and hand-loader and his dozens of ballistic tables would be handy right now. smile.gif

Gyrene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Where's a hand-loader when you need one? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the range, it's Saturday.

Start here:

.30-06 historical data

There's another great site on WWII-era issue load data and it's driving me crazy trying to find it... the search goes on...

Ahh, here it is:

.30-06 military loads

[ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Not to be impolite or rude but in an effort to simply correct something the 7.62 NATO round is actually a 308 cal. Cartridge. It could never go thur 3 ft of anything, well maybe jello. The BAR is actually a 30/06 cartridge and it also couldn't go thur 3 feet or even 1 solid foot of wood either. Just for what it's worth. ;)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be technical it is a 7.62 x 51 round.

I direct you to actually read the posts and consider ball ammunition vice soft-nose civvie ammo; or did you have some hard data to share?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to speak up in defense of the M1 Carbine I have a 44' GM/Inland and have found that it is extremely accurate out to about 150 yards, beyond that performance does drop off. It was intended as a weapon for those who had no need for a full sized infantry rifle and in that capacity it performed very well. Would it drop an enemy at 500 yards, probably not, but it wasn't designed to. At close ranges I'm sure it was more than capable of stopping an attacker. As for the BAR, I carry one in my

re-enactment unit and have come to have an even greater respect for the men who lugged it for real. It is very easy to fire accurately from the shoulder and with practice well-aimed 3 round bursts are easily possible. I have yet to see any of my German counterparts be able to do that with a 34' or a 42'. Recoil is actually lighter than my Garand because of the buffer system and weight of the weapon, muzzle climb is easily compensated for and is no worse than that of the Garand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dorosh- very good, but the actual technical term is 7.62x51 NATO, not just 7.62x51, if you want to get technical that is? And yes I was speaking of hunting bullets not steel jacketed bullets. I had not taken that fact into account when saying it wouldn't go thur 1 ft, but I stand firm on it nor any other bullet being able to go thur 3 ft of wood. With the exception of the 50 cal. That one I have not shot. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out "Hatcher's Notebook". Major Hatcher was a ballistics geek of note during the WWII era. There are a couple of pictures there that are of interest. One shows a standard .30 M2 round penetrating 32 inches of oak at 200 yards. Another shows the same test at short range with much lower penetration. The bullet had not stabilised at the shorter range, so it yawed, following a curved path in the oak.

Oak is pretty dense, so the idea of a .30 M2 or M2AP or M1 cartridge making it through 36 inches of soft pine seems reasonable to me. I will continue to hunt for proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. One shows a standard .30 M2 round penetrating 32 inches of oak at 200 yards.

Well, I stand corrected then. I finally found one of my old manuals and sure enough they state that a full metal bullet of .30 cal. will penetrate 58, 7/8 in. pine boards at 15ft. where the soft nosed only 13 of these same boards. So, I was right on the not 1 ft at least but not by much. I'll read up before posting off the top of my head in the future. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hatcher actually received the rank of Major General. His "Notebook" is one of the classics of military gun lore, and a top-ten grade military ballistic reference work which is still valid today.

Hatcher is to the M1 Garand, what Jentz is to German armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ts9:

I would also like to speak up in defense of the M1 Carbine I have a 44' GM/Inland and have found that it is extremely accurate out to about 150 yards, beyond that performance does drop off. It was intended as a weapon for those who had no need for a full sized infantry rifle and in that capacity it performed very well. Would it drop an enemy at 500 yards, probably not, but it wasn't designed to. At close ranges I'm sure it was more than capable of stopping an attacker. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what part didnt you get? The part where I said it WAS issued to front line troops and/or made its way to the front line? So you need to go on record as saying you agree with me?

At close ranges a knife or grenade is good too. But unless the terrain is such that close fighting is the norm (city, bocage, etc); I wouldnt want one. I believe the marines prefered the M1 Garand and BAR even in jungle or not. Since Marine doctrine is built on markmansship and dropping targets for good, they made wise choices. Jungle growth has the need for a penetrating round. Psychos drunk on saki and wrapped in bandages can shrug off a hit from this pop gun.

So all you beer-can-hunters and slayers of woodchucks, buy an M1 Carbine. If you are under 5 foot tall or just need to carry ammo or drive a truck; then get one also. But in a battlezone, get a weapon that can put out determined firepower in the 200-400 meter range.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey lcm1947, don't sweat it. I'm the one who can't tell a major from a major general.

I like to poke fun at the folks who get into the different variations of tanks, and here I am all worked up about the difference between the .30 1906, .30M1 and .30M2 cartridges, not to mention AP, API, tracer, frangible and dummy versions of the old 30-06.

:rolleyes: Everyone is a geek about something, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...