Jump to content

BAR as a squad support weapon.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

. 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. :mad:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I was at camp, several years ago, the counselors set up an experiment for us where they set up a box thing containing several pine boards (about 1' by 1' by ~1" thick). There was about an inch between each board. They fired a shotgun at the box and the shotgun blast penetrated about 5 or 6 boards. They then fired an arrow from a (compound) bow, and it penetrated 8 or 10 or 12 (I've forgotten exactly how many) boards before sticking outside the back of the box). I think the point was to have us be careful on the archery range...although that may have been the excuse for the counselors to do this cool demonstration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Username:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Psychos drunk on saki and wrapped in bandages can shrug off a hit from this pop gun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As they would shrug off a hit from a Garand in the same spot. The time one would want a fast handling, twenty shot, easy to reload weapon like a carbine is when faced with a horde of foes like the above. Small arms, with very few exceptions, do not "knock 'em down" without regard to shot placement.

The Marines liked the carbine just fine. Lots of rounds quick under short range conditions sounds like a job for the "popgun". The rap against the carbine comes from:

1. People trying to use it like a Garand

at long ranges

2. Failure of the round to stop heavily

clothed North Koreans in sub-zero

conditions, where the carbine froze up

and the firing pin frequently snapped.

The fact that the carbine found its way into front line service speaks volumes about the weapon. The troops wanted it. It was not meant to replace the Garand, nor could it. If anything it was more in demand in the Pacific where firefights took place at shorter ranges, in hot weather where layers of winter clothing were not a problem for the blunt bullet to overcome.

As to small arms fire penetrating jungle or brush, it just ain't done with aimed fire. Very small branches send bullets careening off course. If you want to penetrate a log, than by all means a Garand of BAR is better than a carbine. If you want to aim at a point target you can barely see 50 yards away through the jungle undergrowth, no rifle issued will do that reliably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Micheal, the Bren went out of service with the British Army long before 1982. The GPMG was standard issue at the time of the Falklands unless I am very much mistaken.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right. GPMG is the MAG's British name.

The L4s (Bren) were used for a few units in that timeframe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a BAR man in WW2 I like to add my comments on the use of the BAR.!st it was a holdover from WW1.It was heavy(20 pounds)and although pretty accurate it was not too popular a weapon.It was 30 cal.loaded from a 20 rd. magazine and was a gas operated and fired from an open bolt which left it subseptable to rain,dust,dirt and sand.The ammo belt had pockets for a dozen 20 rd.mags.which we stipped of all the tracer rounds and reloaded with AP rounds.These plus 2 or 3 bandoleers of 5 rd.clips for reloading plus 2 or 3 grenades,canteen,knife,combat pack came to aload we had to carry.The first thing we did with a new BAR was to remove and throw away the bipod.The reason was that it marked us as an automatic weapons man and a prime target.The BAR was considered as support for the rifle squad.Inthe German squad the MG42 was the fire base for the squad and the riflemen were the support.The MG 42 was with its 1100 rd.per min.rate was much more respected by us as the German squad leaders had MP40s.The BAR fired 600 RPMs vs. !!00 RPMs for the MG42.Which on would you rather have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Small arms, with very few exceptions, do not "knock 'em down" without regard to shot placement... (snip)

The rap against the carbine comes from:

1. People trying to use it like a Garand

at long ranges

2. Failure of the round to stop heavily

clothed North Koreans in sub-zero

conditions, where the carbine froze up

and the firing pin frequently snapped.

... As to small arms fire penetrating jungle or brush, it just ain't done with aimed fire. Very small branches send bullets careening off course. If you want to penetrate a log, than by all means a Garand of BAR is better than a carbine. If you want to aim at a point target you can barely see 50 yards away through the jungle undergrowth, no rifle issued will do that reliably.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr. Bucket, you sound like a guy who does some shooting and some thinking about shooting. So my first observation is not so much for you. But...

NO kinetic energy small arms "knock people down", as I know you (but not everybody) are aware. Unless we count 40mm HE devices, etc., and we don't.

"Knock-down" and "stopping power" are some of the most misunderstood terms in gunning. This is where Newton rears his ugly head: the simple truth is that if a bullet could literally knock a man down, the weapon that fired it would also have to knock down the guy shooting it. Only in Hollywood do people literally get thrown backwards by the impact of any handheld weapon.

What we are really interested in, in self-defense shooting, is incapacitation. Real quick incapacitation. And we can NEVER count on a head shot, which is the only guaranteed instant incapacitation there is. Period.

Wounds to the (other guy's) central body cavity are what the tactical shooter strives for. These wounds incapacitate by destruction of tissue and blood loss. Period. The most devastating hit on a person, say a 12-ga. muzzle blast directly over the heart, which utterly destroys the organ, guarantees incapacitation... in about 15 seconds. This is the position of the FBI, the International Wound Ballistics Association, and most other serious students of tactical shooting who aren't trying to sell something... big bullets work best. Fast bullets work well. Big, fast bullets work the best of all, but there is a point of diminishing returns, since as recoil goes up, shooter efficiency goes down. In any case, you ain't knocking anybody down unless his body decides to go down out of shock, fear of death, or extreme pain (it has been argued that the most painful wounds are rarely the most terminal, but involve the extremities).

I think that under 50m, the carbine round is nearly as incapacitating as the .30-06. This is a difficult thing to quantify, due to the difficulty in retaining test subjects. However, it presupposes a soldier in the open and the goal of incapacitation, as opposed to suppression.

Your point about rounds deflecting is right on. Shooters often say they need a bigger, faster round to "hammer through the brush", and this is nonsense. It only means that you will send a more expensive and punishing round careening off in the wrong direction. This has been proven time and again by authorities and amateurs at all levels, including me (definitely amateur, but the results were free).

Of course, we don't have to hit a guy to gain tactical supremacy, because suppression is half the battle. It's the easy half, but who wants to lose either one? Keep lead whistling in his ears and at least he won't be shooting at YOU, or not very well. It's a numbers thing. From this point of view, the carbine round may actually be superior at close range and in heavy foliage, and this (as I understand it) is part of the logic for the high FP of SMGs in CM at close range.

It would not result in more kills for the .30 carbine, only better suppression. Maybe.

But combat troops are required to engage all manner of unfair targets, including distant troops, vehicles, buildings, or wooden bunkers. My experience with CM wooden bunkers is that they couldn't stop a hungry mosquito, but that is irrelevant. The .30 carbine is useless for any of these tasks. Most of them were well-made and accurate at 100m, but they have very little retained energy at that range. Neither does the .357 Mag, to which it was somewhat aptly compared, not counting sectional density.

Which finally brings me around to the bone I meant to pick (and people who want this to stop could send me turns, and I wouldn't have so much time on my hands):

Failure of the round to stop heavily

clothed North Koreans in sub-zero

conditions, where the carbine froze up

and the firing pin frequently snapped/QUOTE]

Well, the M1 Carbine certainly would not be the first firearm to exhibit the snapping firing pin flaw. But if being heavily clothed is sufficient protection against the round (I know we are talking at extreme ranges), I submit that the round is out of steam and has no good reason to be there in the first place. It would by definition be subsonic, way subsonic, and thus of little suppressive value either.

.30 carbines reach that point a long time before .30-06 rounds do. So if a "heavily clothed" North Korean, or any communist of any persuasion (the ideal test subject, btw), is impervious to the carbine due to his wardrobe, you are "trying to use it like a Garand at long ranges".

Good for truck drivers. Bloody popguns, really. Too big for pistols and too lame for military rifles. Accurate, well-made for the most part, better than grease guns, but no thank you.

Old 29er has the right of it on the BAR, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You are right. GPMG is the MAG's British name.

The L4s (Bren) were used for a few units in that timeframe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could have sworn that that was what I said. I did not mean to imply it was commonly issued, in fact, I pointed out that some special service units used them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark IV, your points are all well presented and well taken. The carbine was not a useless popgun, but not a battle rifle either.

Jim Cirrilo, a NYC cop who shot a lot of men on robbery stake out duty, swore by the M1 carbine, modified to feed soft point ammo. They never had to shoot more than once with that combo.

The carbine is just another tool in the toolbox. I don't hammer with a wrench, but I don't dismiss the wrench as useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29er the Bren also fired from an open bolt, but never got a rep for catching dirt - maybe because the resulting opening was on the underside and had a snap-shut cover?

The FN_MAG (GPMG or Gymp to the NZ & Brit & aussie armies) also fired from an open bolt using a side-feed belt, but again didn't have a rep for catching dirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old 29er:

As a BAR man in WW2 I like to add my comments on the use of the BAR.!st it was a holdover from WW1.It was heavy(20 pounds)and although pretty accurate it was not too popular a weapon.It was 30 cal.loaded from a 20 rd. magazine and was a gas operated and fired from an open bolt which left it subseptable to rain,dust,dirt and sand.The ammo belt had pockets for a dozen 20 rd.mags.which we stipped of all the tracer rounds and reloaded with AP rounds.These plus 2 or 3 bandoleers of 5 rd.clips for reloading plus 2 or 3 grenades,canteen,knife,combat pack came to aload we had to carry.The first thing we did with a new BAR was to remove and throw away the bipod.The reason was that it marked us as an automatic weapons man and a prime target.The BAR was considered as support for the rifle squad.Inthe German squad the MG42 was the fire base for the squad and the riflemen were the support.The MG 42 was with its 1100 rd.per min.rate was much more respected by us as the German squad leaders had MP40s.The BAR fired 600 RPMs vs. !!00 RPMs for the MG42.Which on would you rather have?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a good day when a WWII veteran posts to the forum sir. Welcome and I hope to read many more of your posts in the future.

[ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old 29er :

Welcome aboard sir, and thank you for your service.

It is an honor to hear from you on our little board. The voice of experience speaks loudest, sir, and I am grateful for your interest and input.

May I be so bold as to inquire if you've played the game that inspires this board, Combat Mission? I would be delighted to hear your impressions of it if you have, and if you have not but are interested, let me know.

Once again, a real pleasure to hear from you, and thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I could have sworn that that was what I said. I did not mean to imply it was commonly issued, in fact, I pointed out that some special service units used them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

I was trying to suppport your post, but my poor English kick me back ;)

I know you are right as I saw the picture of the Para with a Bren in Malvinas smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

LOL

I was trying to suppport your post, but my poor English kick me back ;)

I know you are right as I saw the picture of the Para with a Bren in Malvinas smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My fault, actually, I intended to respond to Londoner - I appreciate your confirmation; thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone (everyone not talking about 30.06 rounds or FALs) insist on comparing the BAR to the MG42?

A better comparison would be the FG42: A squad-level automatic rifle with a 20-round (7.92mm) box magazine issued to German paras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Originally posted by Username:

As they would shrug off a hit from a Garand in the same spot. The time one would want a fast handling, twenty shot, easy to reload weapon like a carbine is when faced with a horde of foes like the above. Small arms, with very few exceptions, do not "knock 'em down" without regard to shot placement.

It was not meant to replace the Garand, nor could it. If anything it was more in demand in the Pacific where firefights took place at shorter ranges, in hot weather where layers of winter clothing were not a problem for the blunt bullet to overcome.

As to small arms fire penetrating jungle or brush, it just ain't done with aimed fire. Very small branches send bullets careening off course. If you want to penetrate a log, than by all means a Garand of BAR is better than a carbine. If you want to aim at a point target you can barely see 50 yards away through the jungle undergrowth, no rifle issued will do that reliably.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

20 round clip?

http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/M1+Carbine/7/*http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/m1carbin.htm

I think you are very confused. Take a break and think before you make a speach. The M1 Carbine I fired had a 15 round clip and was a WWII issued weapon.

The 15 round M1 semi auto is what I am speaking about. In the M2 form (which I have already acknowled as being a different beast), full auto was possible and a 30 round clip was available. It was good in korea in this form (except for the cold). It actually had these requirements as an initial design parameter but was only met with the M2!

What does aimed fire have to do with anything in the jungle? The fact is that higher velocity weapons like the Garand and BAR were better suited to penetrating foilage than weapons like the M1 Carbine or 45 SMGs. Believe it or not, real jungle stops bullets. If you cant get your mind around that, then thats fine, but dont go twisting my points around with "aimed fire" through foilage.

Another fact is that high velocity weapons set off a shock wave through flesh that is devastating. It will "knock someone down" by this effect (actually snuff someone out if its a body hit, a limb hit can be an amputation). Many troops used AP (like the BAR guy states) because of this effect. This effect is lost when the weapon scrubs velocity (either through the air or from whatevers in the way). Being a low velocity weapon to begin with doesnt help.

Cop stories impress civies. Thanks anyway but I'll pass. Stories about flat nosed, soft tips, hollow points are for off-duty types. Also thanks for backing up my premise; it was not a replacement for a battle rifle.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Another fact is that high velocity weapons set off a shock wave through flesh that is devastating. It will "knock someone down" by this effect (actually snuff someone out if its a body hit, a limb hit can be an amputation)... Many troops used AP (like the BAR guy states) because of this effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

High velocity rounds do create a "shock wave" better known as a temporary wound cavity. It doesn't literally knock anyone down. It may or may not cause them to go down, but the force is actually lateral around the path of the bullet, and is one of the downsides of being composed of compressible tissue and incompressible fluids. Bullets can cause tissue damage well beyond their own diameter due to hydrostatic shock.

I don't know about "actually snuffing someone out" because my snuffology is a bit rusty. If controlled studies have been performed with snuffometers I would be interested in the data.

I will let the BAR guy, Old 29er, speak for himself, but he didn't actually say the BAR was loaded with AP to take advantage of its human knock-down power. I hope he posts some more. It might just as well have been to deal with HTs or poke holes in covering trees. AP rounds wouldn't yield any more stopping power on a human target than regular ball ammo; it might actually be less, since the tip is unlikely to expand in a soft target, imparting less energy to the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah sorry mike i see what your saying. Still I'd be suprised if any of the Parachute battalions that went to the Falklands in 1982, were actually "issued" the rechambered Bren. You think so? My guess would be the para in the question either took it on his own initiative or captured it.

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Londoner ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rightly posted by username:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 20 round clip? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My bust, you are correct. I have a sack full of 'em and they are 15 rounds.

I stand by my statement that minor foliage (branches) will deflect almost any bullet. I doubt that the Garand is vastly superior to the carbine in this respect.

I brought up the cop story to illustrate the fact that at short range, a .30 carbine round is not an insignifigant thing. I love the Garand, make no mistake, but I confess to having a soft spot for the little carbine as well. One of the highlights of my time with the Marines was getting to shoot a BAR that the Green Beanies had. I guess I like them all!

That is the nice thing about these fine old weapons, you can always kick them around for some good conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

I don't know about "actually snuffing someone out" because my snuffology is a bit rusty. If controlled studies have been performed with snuffometers I would be interested in the data.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The airborne guy Burkett speaks about using AP in their weapons and "meat on the table".

I am not a snuff expert but I can point the way.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm

Heres a good website. Its my opinion that HV bullets not only penetrate air, foilage, walls, dirt mounds, etc. but deliver what you need in most MILITARY situations. High Velocity.

Usually some boring civil service guy at a bar will tell you about "knock downs" from pistol fire (which use non-military ammo).

Its my contention that to really take out (kill/incapacitate) you need to penetrate. A good wound is a deep wound (over 12 inch penetration..out the back is better). A great wound is one that get to the vitals. An unknown effect of this "expanding hole" effect that a HV bullet does, is the effect on the spine and other nervous system components.

I wont argue the point. Lots of powder stuffers here that have lots of planks to shoot, etc. But in a military situation; Give me velocity.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From that website....

"Blunt Trauma Concussion of Spinal Cord as the Mechanism of Instantaneous Collapse Produced by Centerfire Rifle Bullet Wounds to the Torso

Why does a felon (or a large game animal) instantly collapse after being shot in the torso with a centerfire rifle bullet when the speed in which this occurs is obviously too quick to have been caused by substantial blood loss?

The reason is most likely due to the diameter of the temporary cavity that is produced by an expanding centerfire rifle bullet, combined with the location of the temporary cavity within the torso. The temporary cavity produced by an expanding .30 caliber rifle bullet ranges between 7-9 inches in diameter, which is about the diameter of a volleyball. Violent displacement of such a large mass of tissue within the thoracic or abdominal cavity can cause the spinal bones to collide forcefully against the spinal cord, disrupting nerve transmissions and causing instantaneous flaccid paralysis, in which the felon (or animal) drops in his tracks like a rock.1 The effect is indistinguishable from a shot that physically severs the spinal cord. Once the felon (or animal) is down, the effects of blood loss take over and a complete loss of consciousness usually occurs in a matter of seconds.

The location of the temporary cavity is an important component of this mechanism, especially with large game animals. A shot that impacts and penetrates low in the chest of an animal may not have the same effect as a shot that hits the middle or upper chest closer to the spinal column. This explains why some animals instantly collapse, and why others might run until blood loss finally brings them down.

For comparison purposes, an expanding .223 Remington bullet produces a temporary cavity that is approximately 5 inches in diameter, and the high-velocity (1700+ fps) MagSafe .45 ACP Defender handgun bullet produces a baseball-sized temporary cavity that is slightly less than 4 inches in diameter. Although the temporary cavity of the 223 cartridge can produce blunt trauma concussion of the spinal cord, the effect is less reliable because it is highly dependent on shot placement and the location where the temporary cavity is formed in the body. In 1989, an Alexandria, Virginia police officer was killed when a .223 bullet failed to quickly incapacitate a felon who was high on PCP and cocaine, and holding a 12 gauge shotgun to the head of a civilian hostage. According to the police report, the bullet "...struck [the felon's] back in the center of his torso, grazed a vertebrae, severed the aorta, penetrated his right lung and liver, and exited his body in the right abdominal area." As he fell to the ground, he was able to fire a shot from his pump-action 12 gauge shotgun into the face of a nearby SWAT officer killing him. He was able to pump the shotgun’s action and wound a second officer before he was finally stopped.2

The temporary cavity produced by common combat handgun cartridges, even high-velocity loads like MagSafe, is too small to have any effect. Handgun bullets simply cannot duplicate the wounding effects of centerfire rifle bullets."

I think I am going to puke.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...

Perhaps a new thread on small arms stopping power is in order. Marshall, Sanow, Cooper, Ayoob and the other experts could be sited, and we can debate stretch cavities, crush cavities, energy transfer and one shot stops.

In CM terms, I would think most soldiers lucky enough to receive a "million dollar wound" stopped fighting and started planning what they were going to do when they got home.

Or,in CM, to make penetration of humans a problem, special units of doughnut gobling heavyweights could be purchased to deal with bailed out crews armed only with paltry pistols. "I laugh at your luger because of my immense bulk!"

I bet you could get 'em with a carbine and a twenty round magazine, though. ;)

[ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Hmmm...

Perhaps a new thread on small arms stopping power is in order. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the present thread is apropo.

If someone would offer me a MP44 soldier to support my M1 Garand squad; I would tell them to get lost. If someone tried to replace any of my M1 garand soldiers with a M1 carbine; I would shoot them (point blank). If someone tried to replace my BAR guy with a MG42,; I would thank them (If they threw in a half dozen guys to carry ammo).

If anyone thinks Steve McQueen could have carried any other weapon in the closing scenes of The Sand Pebbles......

MAN!!!. Oh Man. WOOOOHHHHH I'M gettin pissed...

I think I am about to really lose it.

(sheeeeesh)

Maybe you squirrel jagers and tin can snipers better get away from me real quick.

Lewis

P.S. BARs, Apple Pies and Chevrolets. Nuff said..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

Why does everyone (everyone not talking about 30.06 rounds or FALs) insist on comparing the BAR to the MG42?

A better comparison would be the FG42: A squad-level automatic rifle with a 20-round (7.92mm) box magazine issued to German paras.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but did the german paratroops (who used the FG42) have a Garand based squad? I believe the german paras mainly had MPs and also MGs (when used as infantry).

I kinda like the idea of a FG42 and a MP44 squad. Overall, it allows the greatest flexible assault and defense squad. And they shoot varmits good too.

Lewis

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...