BAR question

[Salkin]

I believe the abreviation stands for :

Browning Automatic (Assault?) Rifle

Anyway I was just wondering what the exact thought behind the BAR is.

I admit my experience with the BAR is through games and movies only so I'm hardly an expert.

It seems the american squads have been issued the BAR instead of a light Machine Gun.

It appears to be a less then perfect choice.

PROs :

* Good stopping power

* Fairly light ( in comparison to most LMG )

* Not belt fed (Increasing maneuvrability)

Flexibility and movement seems to be in focus.

CONs :

* Not belt fed and with a small clip (Making it a lot less suppressive than most LMG)

* Slower rate of fire and clumsier than a SMG (Limiting it's CQB value)

OK grogs . Let's hear your take on it.

What was the idea behind the BAR ?

//Salkin

[Ant]

I'm not a grog so somebody will no doubt come up with some better info but from what I've read the BAR was developed during WW1 to give more firepower at the smaller unit level.....essentially (together with the British Lewis gun) it was one of the first attempts at a squad automatic weapon.

I believe the reason why it was kept to be used in WW2 instead of designing a more modern LMG was because the US army decided that a semi-automatic rifle (in the form of the Garand) was the way to go to give the smaller units increased firepower rather than develope a replacement MG for the BAR

[Pfc Driscole James E]

Below is some text from the 1940 ROTC Infantry manual. This should be taken with a grain of salt.

Accoding to my Dad the best thing about the BAR was that if you qualified expert with it you got an extra five bucks a month.

AUTOMATIC RIFLE

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. Development of the Automatic Rifle. The Browning Automatic Rifle was developed

during the World War to meet the need of the American Infantry for an automatic arm

capable of being operated by one man and of accompanying the rifle squad in all phases

of combat. The design of Mr. John M. Browning was selected as the best of twenty-six

similar weapons which were presented for test. This arm was manufactured in quantity

and issued to American Infantry units, and it proved to be an excellent weapon, reliable,

simple in operation, and sturdy in construction. Until the adoption of the new Infantry

organization, one man in each squad was armed with the Browning Automatic Rifle.

With the advent of the Ml semi-automatic shoulder rifle, the fire power of the squad was

increased to such an extent that there seemed to be no place for the Browning Automatic

Rifle which did not have all of the characteristics desired in a light machine gun. While

the future employment of the automatic rifle was still undecided, efforts were made towards

its modification and improvement in the attempt to develop it into a satisfactory substitute

light machine gun. It was equipped with a light bipod and a shoulder rest for the pur-

pose of increasing its stability and reducing its dispersion, but the most marked improve-

ment was attained by incorporating in the operating mechanism a simple device which

reduces the cyclic rate of the gun from 600 to approximately 350 rounds per minute.

When operating at this reduced cyclic rate, a marked decrease in dispersion is obtained,

with greatly improved accuracy for automatic fire. In fact, as now modified, the Browning

Automatic Rifle is at least equal in performance to the light machine guns used by foreign

armies. It is considered somewhat heavy for the rapid maneuvering now expected of the

Infantry rifle squad, but it finds its proper role as a platoon weapon, where it provides

the platoon leader with powerful automatic fire support to assist the advance and

maneuver of his rifle squads.

In the new Infantry organization a squad armed with two Browning Automatic Rifles

is made a part of the rifle platoon.

Units of the R. 0. T. C. will for some time be equipped with the unmodified automatic

rifle, and the scope of this text is limited to that type. With the exception of the added

parts designed to reduce the cyclic rate of the gun, there is no difference in the internal

mechanism of the modified and unmodified automatic rifles.

[Tank Ace]

I see someone has not watched "tales of the Gun" on the history channel.

created by john browning for World War I.

Didn't seen hardly any service in WWI

Great weapon for suppresion.

AP rounds can go through quite a bit of concrete.

Overall it is a wonderful weapon.

[Ant]

Overall it is a wonderful weapon.

I've never really understood the criticism of the BAR that I often see. I think it's unfairly compared to the MG34/42, which is in a class of it's own.

If you compare it to the weapons in the same class that the other major armies were using ie. the British Bren gun or the Russian DP then it seems to be quite similar. The only real disadvantage is the small masgazine of 20 rounds, but the Bren only has 30 (usually 28 used) and from what I understand you can't really pour out constant fire from a bipod anyway because the accuracy and effective range drops too much. Meaning that you're essentially limited to frequent short bursts. So why does the BAR sometimes get criticised when the Bren or the DP don't?

[Redwolf]

Speaking of squad automatic weapons:

what did the U.S. infantry use between the BAR and the modern 5.56mm SAW? Did they ever carry a 7.62 MG around in rifle squads?

[Mr. Tittles]

US Squads and Rambo used the M60.

The BAR is quite accurate. One GI won a Medal of Honor from taking on a German counter attack. The gaggle of Germans had many automatic weapons and grenade launchers. The German MG42s were notorious for being 'area' fire weapons and not very good at hitting individuals (unless tripod mounted). This guy moved from position to position nailing the Germans as they tried to spray him.

[Pfc Driscole James E]

Over critcal of the BAR:

My Dad liked the BAR but he liked the extra five bucks even more. This was in the late 30's peace time Army. He was out of the Army by WWII and so never used it in combat.

[stikkypixie]

I found this on

modern firearms

read the whole thing to find more information, but i skimmed trough it, mostly technical stuff

It must be noted that while being technically a very good design (typical for Browning's genius), BAR was not too successful in both Automatic Rifle and LMG role. For Automatic Rifle it was too heavy and too uncontrollable in full auto. For LMG, it lacked the magazine capacity and the quick replaceable barrel, being inferior in terms of sustained firepower to the pre-WW2 LMGs like British BREN, Soviet Degtyarov DP-27 and the like.

[Airborne]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Speaking of squad automatic weapons:

what did the U.S. infantry use between the BAR and the modern 5.56mm SAW? Did they ever carry a 7.62 MG around in rifle squads?

Yes, they used the M-60 7.62mm MG. Still in use.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The BAR is quite accurate. One GI won a Medal of Honor from taking on a German counter attack. The gaggle of Germans had many automatic weapons and grenade launchers. The German MG42s were notorious for being 'area' fire weapons and not very good at hitting individuals (unless tripod mounted). This guy moved from position to position nailing the Germans as they tried to spray him.

I think this says more about the quality of the individual soldier than the quality of the respective weapons; there's a reason that modern armies tend to use LMGs and not automatic rifles.

And of course the BAR was a fine automatic rifle; the point is not that the GIs needed a better automatic rifle, but that they would have been better served by having an dedicated LMG instead of an automatic rifle that was more of a light LMG.

It was a very popular weapon though. Also, according to my Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII, the Poles made a tripod for the BAR.

[Michael Dorosh]

BAR was also hampered at first glance by the magazine being on the bottom; this could be awkward to change when lying prone. There was no number two for the weapon, as there was for a Bren Gun. Of course, given that some BAR gunners deleted the bipod altogether, perhaps this was not a huge issue...it's an automatic rifle, not an LMG, so direct comparisons are false. The GIs made up for the lack of an LMG by the firepower of the Garands.

The ability to call down 105s at the drop of a hat and blow the crap out of anything in their way also helped a fair bit too.

[Michael Emrys]

The BAR waould have been ideal for humping through no-man's-land and providing some automatic fire for troops reaching the enemy's trenches, which is exactly what it was designed for. It was still one of the handier squad automatic weapons of WW II, but that was less important in that war. I think overall the BREN would have been a much better choice for SAW, but it didn't happen that way. BTW, notice that at the beginning of 1945 US Army squads get a second BAR to increase firepower and enhance suppressive capability. How that would have compared to a single BREN I've never tried to figure out.

Side note: Re the M60, I thought that was more of a platoon level weapon than a squad weapon, though presumably they sometimes got attached to squads in the field.

Michael

[Airborne]

Don't think so. IIRC, the M-60 was attached to every inf squad. I was in an AT Company (didn't have 60s), but I'm pretty sure the grunts I trained with/supported had 1 per squad.

[wadepm]

I saw a quick piece on the BAR last night on TV (history channel, natch) that said the reason it wasn't used in WWI is they feared it might fall into enemy hands! So the Amis were issued some French piece of crap instead. And the Lewis wasn't issued to the Americans because of some poltical squabble between Pershing and the British command. Any of you guys see that?

[Mr. Tittles]

I think of the BAR as an individuals weapon. Even Mag fed weapons like the BREN and its relatives are still crew weapons (more than one man, extra parts, etc). Belt fed weapons are in another catagory altogether. It would be better to compare the BAR to a MP44 than a MG42.

The BAR was noted for its mobility. Even in Korea, when communist forces would probe/attack defences, the BAR would stymie attempts to KO the MG defenses. Its a mobile assault personal weapon even in defense. I have seen footage of BARs being fired from the shoulder on 'full' auto. If the firer is not a slight man, it is not that wild at all.

Firing the BAR was like firing a shotgun. It would put a nice burst into a nice tight area. Firing full Mags at once was a waste. But still, I bet 99 out of 100 users would have prefered a 25 or 30 round Mag.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/m-a.htm

Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty.Despite intense machine-gun fire and his own safety, in the course of the action, he personally killed 9 Germans, eliminated 3 enemy machine-guns, vanquished a specialized force which was armed with automatic weapons and grenade launchers, cleared the woods of hostile elements, and reopened the severed supply lines to the assault companies of his battalion.

When his company was stopped in its effort to drive through the Mortagne Forest to reopen the supply line to the isolated third battalion, S/Sgt. Adams braved the concentrated fire of machineguns in a lone assault on a force of German troops.

Although his company had progressed less than 10 yards and had lost 3 killed and 6 wounded, S/Sgt. Adams charged forward dodging from tree to tree firing a borrowed BAR from the hip. Despite intense machinegun fire which the enemy directed at him and rifle grenades which struck the trees over his head showering him with broken twigs and branches, S/Sgt. Adams made his way to within 10 yards of the closest machinegun and killed the gunner with a hand grenade.

An enemy soldier threw hand grenades at him from a position only 10 yards distant; however, S/Sgt. Adams dispatched him with a single burst of BAR fire. Charging into the vortex of the enemy fire, he killed another machinegunner at 15 yards range with a hand grenade and forced the surrender of 2 supporting infantrymen.

Although the remainder of the German group concentrated the full force of its automatic weapons fire in a desperate effort to knock him out, he proceeded through the woods to find and exterminate 5 more of the enemy.

Finally, when the third German machinegun opened up on him at a range of 20 yards, S/Sgt. Adams killed the gunner with BAR fire. In the course of the action, he personally killed 9 Germans, eliminated 3 enemy machineguns, vanquished a specialized force which was armed with automatic weapons and grenade launchers, cleared the woods of hostile elements, and reopened the severed supply lines to the assault companies of his battalion.

[Hun Hunter]

Originally posted by wadepm:

I saw a quick piece on the BAR last night on TV (history channel, natch) that said the reason it wasn't used in WWI is they feared it might fall into enemy hands! So the Amis were issued some French piece of crap instead. And the Lewis wasn't issued to the Americans because of some poltical squabble between Pershing and the British command. Any of you guys see that?

Well, my information is not from the Hitler Channel but rather an actual book, US Infantry Weapons of World War I (by Bruce Canfield). Yes, the Americans originally used the French Chauchat Automatic Rifle and yes it had serious quality "issues" but it's not like we were hiding the BARs from the Huns as the first production sample wasn't finished until March 1918 with full production not until July/August (the weapon went from prototype to production in 10 months). BARs arrived in France in July 1918 to the US 79th Division. First combat use was on September 13, 1918 by Lt. Val A. Browning (son of the inventor). By the time of the Armistice 43,368 BARs were in France.

Oh, and the Lewis Gun was a LMG not and automatic rifle. Also, the lack of US use of the Lewis Gun appears not to be because the British wouldn't give us any but rather the lingering politics (and bad feelings) from when Col Lewis had first demonstrated the gun to the Army (he was an American). The Army did purchase 350 guns in 1916 (in .303) and the AEF also acquired some from the British which were used in combat. But generally we seemed to shy away from it because the Army considered it to heavy for an automatic rifle and not capable long range sustained fire in the role of a standard machine gun. In fact the AEF had the Marine units that had the Lewis Guns give them up for Hotchkiss MGs and Chauchat ARs in the name of "standardization". again all of this information is from Canfield's U.S Infantry Weapons of teh First World War.

Greg

[Aco4bn187inf]

I saw a French movie about a French platoon in Indochina (made by French vets as I recall), in which one soldier declares that one good BAR man is worth a squad.

The Polish were using a licensed version of the BAR when they were invaded.

About the M-60... US Army platoons, when the 60 was in use, had two 60's in the weapons squad and they could be attached to particular rifle squads if desired.

Before the M249 SAW, one man per rifle team was designated in the AR (automatic rifle) role, but he had only a regular M16 so the desination was basically nominal

(This is based on the 101st in the '80's which was pretty standard I think.)

[Lawngnome]

well, all i know is the BAR has been described to me very eloquently by my grandfather... and i quote

"We always gave the Big Ass Rifle to the new guy... that thing was a bitch"

So, testing and field operation are two different things... the fact is most American soldiers didn't like it when marching long distances because it weighed so much (especially in the winter campaigns).

[JasonC]

The US used 5 different automatic weapons firing full rifle power ammunition, not one.

The BAR was the lightest. It used a 20 round mag and weighed 18.5 lbs unloaded. It's ammo was the same as that used in the M-1 rifle, allowing ammo sharing between riflemen and the BAR. The gunner carried 240 rounds in a 12 mag bandolier, in addition to 1 mag in the gun. An assistant gunner could carry as much again.

The M1919A6 Browning 30 cal MG was the next lightest. Despite being described by many as an MMG, it is really an LMG much like the German MG 34 or 42. It weighed 32.5 lbs with bipod, and fired 100 round linked ammo or 250 round cloth belts. This fired a larger round, 174 grain bullet rather than 150. It was the standard automatic weapon in the paratroops.

The M1919A4 Browning 30 cal MG was tripod mounted and a true MMG. But it was also the lightest MMG in use. While the German MG34 and MG42 were lighter on their own, there was no light tripod for them and with heavy tripod they were much heavier than an M1919A4. This gun weighed 29 lbs while its tripod weighed 14 lbs more. It fired 250 round cloth belts of the 174 grain full sized ammo. This was the standard MG and brought along on all attacks, not left as an emplaced defensive weapon.

The M1917A1 water cooled 30 cal was a true HMG. Tripod mounted, it weighed 93 lbs assembled - a 33 lb gun plus 8 lbs of water coolant plus a 53 lbs tripod. Far too heavy for offensive use, it was a defensive emplaced weapon, and also used from vehicle mounts. It was the standard emplaced defensive MG of the rifle battalion. It was meant for sustained fire of industrial quantities of ammo to bar infantry from approaching prepared positions.

The M2HB 50 cal HMG was a vehicle mounted HMG allocated largely with a view to air defense. Since its round was so much heavier than 30 cal ammunition, it was unsuited to offensive infantry use, since far less ammo could be carried for it. From a ground tripod mount it also weighed 128 lbs, split between 3 heavy 40 lbs loads for barrel, main bolt assembly, and tripod. It fired 110 round linked belts. When a vehicle hauled the gun and the ammo, there was of course nothing wrong with twice the range and vastly greater penetrating power compared to a 30 cal MG.

These weapons were coordinated in an integrated scheme of automatic weapons support. Comparisons of single elements of that scheme to systems of other nations based on a single weapon miss the point.

For the paratroops, vehicle support was not available and therefore the automatic weapons force had to be based on light weight weapons. So they made no use of the M1917A1, and very limited use of 50 cals (typically on the few jeeps that gliders might airland). The battalion level held 8 M1917A4 MMGs in a pair of machinegun platoons. This was as close as the paratroops came to a defensively oriented unit.

The bulk of the paratroops automatic weapons firepower was in the form of M1919A6 LMGs at the squad level. More were available at platoon level - the battalion allocation came to 44 LMGs. So when moving on foot was all important, the US used LMGs just like certain other leg armies.

In the regular infantry, vehicles were available. Weight was accordingly not a serious problem, although tactically the infantry of course still had to operate forward of safe soft vehicle areas especially when attacking. For this the whole range of automatic weapons were used, each in definite roles.

A battalion had 6 50 cals, all vehicle mounted and all assigned to platoon HQs, as individual weapons. They were not massed.

There were 8 M1917A1 water cooled 30s in 2 MG platoons at the company level. These were meant to hold 2 locations the battalion designated. They were the anti-infantry direct fire counterparts of mortar and ATG platoons; the mortars obviously had an offensive use as well. Nobody expected them to attack things, though their could support by fire from favorable terrain.

There were 12 M1919A4 MMGs available. Originally 2 per platoon in heavy weapons platoons, with an additional 6 at the battalion heavy weapons level. These could be assigned downward as needed, so a company often had 4 of the things and might occasionally be supported by 8. The bulk of the MG ammo thrown in an attack would come through these.

Lessons learned reports quickly noted that the prime determinant of MG firepower was how much ammo the infantry could hump forward to the positions they needed to fire from, not the number of tubes they had. Forget the heavy stuff when attacking, bring (light for a tripod MG) M1919A4s sufficient to thrown what you can haul, and for the rest carry more ammunition.

Understand that a company was the basic attacking unit. A battalion typically attacked by sending one company onto the objective while another supported by fire or by a diversion or feint nearby. The third was in reserve and was tasked with immediately relieving the attacking company and defending the ground won. Attacks by units smaller than a company were rarely attempted. Heavy weapons support was expected in all attacks, from company level weapons. Platoons and squads did not fight without their supporting M1919A4s, whether defending or attacking.

Below all of that come the rifle platoon and squad. Here the BAR was the basic supporting automatic weapon. It is not meant to do the work of the M1919A4s. The basic job of covering wide open areas, of firing continuous streams of belt fed ammo at important targets to suppress them throughout an attack, of final protective fire of a position under assault - these are already taken care of by other parts of the automatic weapons scheme.

What the BAR added was the ability to get an automatic weapon as far forward as possible. Its job was to go where the tripod mounted air cooled guns could not. If it is a matter of defending the house you just took, of delivering fire past a crest you just crossed, etc, you aren't going to have a tripod MG there yet. You want something that moves as fast as the infantry, with interchangable ammo with the riflemen, firing 6-9 round bursts at individual targets 250 to 500 yards out. That is what the BAR does.

By the time you are into an objective the reserve company is coming forward with tripod MGs to hold it. You have to deal with any instant counterattacks. In half an hour, there will be belt fed, stable MGs in position. You don't need to throw enourmous gobs of ammunition for hours on end. You do need surge firepower when an enemy attack calls for it, or when only intense cover fire can free pinned friendlies, etc.

For its role, the BAR was a splendid, reliable, and easily transported weapon. That role was *not* to replace all MGs in the roles other nations used MGs for. Compared to other nations, the US fielded the lightest tripod MG there was. It relied far more on tripod MGs maneuvering forward because of this.

Others had very capable tripod MGs, but they used them in roles much closer to those filled by the US heavies. They used bipod MGs for most of the role the US performed with M1919A4s, as well as the role performed by BARs. In the paratroops, without vehicles to move ammo etc, so did the US (via the 1919A6). When it had vehicles to move stuff, the US simply used a much wider range of automatic weapons.

[JasonC]

"Weigh so much". Actually the BAR was quite light for a SAW, at 18.5 lbs. It is lighter than that used by any other nation during the war. The perception that it was heavy undoubtedly came from hauling its ammo as well as the gun itself. 12 mags in a bandolier plus one in the gun was standard. With bipod and gun, the total load could come to 40 lbs, half of it ammo. If an AG helped carry the ammo, the load need not be appreciably higher than that of any other rifleman.

[Siege]

Also note on those M1919 and 1917 Brownings that the 1919A6 featured a bipod and buttstock for firing similar to a rifle and all the other versions using the tripod had only a handgrip and basically required either the tripod or other form of sturdy mounting to fire accurately.

I have to look up and see if the LMG version of the Johnson rifle ever saw any combat, I know the battle rifle did in limited numbers but ended up being unreliable compared to the Garand, despite having better features for combat use.

Also, the M-60 IIRC was never used as a squad level weapon. Being belt-fed, it's always been considered a crew-served weapon. A fire team consists of a primary gunner to carry and fire the M-60 itself, and an assistant gunner to carry the ammo and spare barrels.... just like the MG-42 LMG which it is partly (and badly) derived from.

-Hans

[flamingknives]

The British army has used belt-fed weapons at squad level (GPMG)

[Salkin]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"Weigh so much". Actually the BAR was quite light for a SAW, at 18.5 lbs. It is lighter than that used by any other nation during the war. The perception that it was heavy undoubtedly came from hauling its ammo as well as the gun itself. 12 mags in a bandolier plus one in the gun was standard. With bipod and gun, the total load could come to 40 lbs, half of it ammo. If an AG helped carry the ammo, the load need not be appreciably higher than that of any other rifleman.

When JasonC delivers , he delivers...

Well if you read my pro-points above Jason you will see that I drew some of the same conclusions as you did in your small post below it .

Good post by the way and very informative. It gave me the big picture I missed ...

For BFC guys :

Does a BAR supported squad tire slower then a LMG supported squad ?

For the average grog/ubergrog (yup thats you Jason) :

I suppose the pros of the BAR over the average LMG was that it had a wider use , while your average LMG (in for instance the german squads) only were of use in a stationary situation; like holding a recently captured building.

Point beeing you rarely fired the LMG in an upright position (unless you are Rambo), but this was possible with the BAR.

//Salkin