Beta1 Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Post more! Its as simple as that. (Great info BTW) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Some questions about the BAR: 1. Did you load individual rounds into the magazines or use stripper clips or some other method? 2. Did you use all armor piercing rounds? tracers? 3. Did US ammo really give off clouds of smoke? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BARMAN1950 Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Mr Tittles, Yes we loaded the BAR magazines with loose rounds. I have heard of stripper clips, but the only ones that I ever saw were 5 round stripper clips for the '03 rifle & for the Carbine. They may have used stripper clips specifically designed for the BAR later in the war. I left Korea in April of 1951. There were times when we used tracer & Armor piercing ammo in the BAR, but usually used ball ammo. We might load a magazine with every 4th or 5th round being tracer. As I remember I always had a magazine or two loaded with armor piercing, but frankly I don't remember why. Just in case, I guess. I don't remember that our ammo was any more "smoke" producing than any other ammo. What caused you to ask this question?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 In WWII, many accounts describe the US Garands, BARs and MGs giving away the position because the powder used was not smoke-less. Accounts from Italy describe units changing over to all AP rounds as the war went on. I have read that US Paratroopers used AP exclusively also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: In WWII, many accounts describe the US Garands, BARs and MGs giving away the position because the powder used was not smoke-less.I have read this more than once as well. ISTR this was changed very late in the war, but have no particulars at present. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Code13 Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 A great thread and fantastic to read some comments here. One bit of trivia is that aledgedly the BAR (cut don barrel and stock) was the favoured weapon of Bonnie and Clyde for its stopping power and accuracy, even when cut down. That speaks a lot about its mobility really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 I recently came across some fascinating info on the use of the BAR by the Marines in the Pacfic, and thought it was worth reviving this great thread. According this website, which focuses on TO&E for all nations in WWII, the Marines started using 3 BARs per squad in 1944, based on their experience with jungle and bunker fighting. Here's the key part of the description of the "F" style Rifle company: The Rifle Company - the amendments to the Rifle Company were quite startling and centred on the Rifle Platoon. The twelve man squad seemed to provide only an interim solution to the search for the best tactical unit. Following extensive trials, a new [thirteen-man] type appeared in 1944. The Squad was now no longer the basic tool of the Marines, instead appeared the Fire Team. The Fire Team fielded a Corporal, Automatic Rifleman with BAR and two riflemen. One of the two rifleman acted as assistant to the gunner. The original tables armed him with a Carbine, but this was quickly changed to an M1 Rifle as carried by the Corporal and second rifleman. Three Fire Teams were led by a Squad Sergeant with a Carbine. Three such Squads served under the same Platoon HQ as previously. The firepower of the squad was now immense, but it did not stop there. Each Squad was given access to a man pack flamethrower and a demolition kit while each Platoon could call upon a Bazooka from company HQ So we've now got a 13 man squad with one squad leader and 3 four-man fire teams, each built around a BAR. --In effect, each squad becomes a mini-platoon and instead of 3 BARs per platoon you've got 9. Plus, the squad can call on flamethrowers and/or bazookas as needed. Must have packed quite a punch. This focus on the BAR suggests the must have been indeed an effective weapon in the Pacific context because of that good old "mobility and firepower" and one wonders how this would have worked out in the ETO. Such a squad's firepower in CM terms would have been very impressive, both short and long range. The whole site is well worth a visit for its extended treatment of TO&E's. I think I'm finally starting to understand the British system... [ January 02, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 They're making semi auto BAR's now and I'd love to buy one were it not for the $2500 price tag...ouch! But whatta plinker! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BARMAN1950 Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 I just finished reading all of the posts(so far) regarding the BAR. Most of them quite good! I found that the article by "SLA Marshal" especially well done. I've always admired his writing. He mentions some problems with the BARs that were reconditioned in Japan during the Korean war. I can't disagree with him on that topic but I personally never ran into that problem. I can state from my own experience that the "only" problem that I (or any of my unit) ever experienced was with the magazines. If the "feed lip" of the magazine got beat up (bent) than feed problems might occur. Also, if the magazines were not cleaned on a regular basis they may have problems. It was SOP that when you cleaned the magazine you would also give the Magazine spring a slight stretch. Now our concept of using the BAR was to use it in the team context (most of the time). however if you were using it within the Patrol context then it would be used as an individual weapon. Many (most) of our patrols were run using one or two squads (ocasionally a platoon). You can bet that a patrol never went out without a BAR or two. We never (in my memory) had problems with GI's not firing there M1s. Let me correct that: Rookies not under strong leadership might tend to duck & not fire their M1s. After getting a boot up their ass a few times by a concerned squad leader they came around OK. It was quickly learned that to survive a firefight every weapon had to be used. I have heard (and I'm sure it's true) that many GIs did not fire their rifles when first in combat. Constant training and good leadership will usually solve that problem. In my particular case I never wore out the barrel on a BAR. The BAR, as you all know was not designed for sustained automatic fire. It was rare that 10 rounds or more were fired in a single burst. The weapon was happy as hell, and lasted all day firing four to six round bursts. It was used in marching fire by putting the sling over your shoulder (loose sling,no bipod), and moving along with the riflemen. I read time and time again about how dificult it was, with this heavy SOB, keeping up with the riflemen. This was simply not so. The only time that that weapon seemed heavy was on long marches. In the heat of a firefight I never noticed how heavy it was. Please understand that I'm speaking from my own experience. Others may have had a different point of view. I was BTW at that time 5'10" and only weighed 140#. In our outfit the BAR went to the person who could use it well (to be honest we sometimes had a big guy carry that sucker on an approach). When the chips were down the gun went to someone who could use it. The Bar was initially replaced by the M14A1 which was a"heavy barreled" version of the M14 ( 7.62 NATO). The M14A1 as not as successful as the BAR. I think that the current SAW is the M239 which I believe is a French design (I am not positive of this). The M239 can use a 30 round (M16) magazine but it is more usual to use a 100 round (prepackaged) linked belt. that attaches to the side of the weapon. BTW I attended a reunion of one of the units I served with in Korea (The 29th Infantry Regt) it is the school Regt of the US Army stationed at Ft. Benning GA. They allowed all of the "Old Fart Vets" to fire ALL of the current Infantry weaponry. What a hoot!! We even got to fire the new 50 Cal. Sniper Rifle (M107) It has a special "low recoil" stock, it has a 5 round magazine (standard 50 cal ammo). The weapon is semi-automatic with a fantastic sighting system. You can easily reach out 1000 yards and touch someone (I'm sure that a trained sniper could do better). All in all a very satisfactory day. They even let us fire the 25mm "chain gun" in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, awesome!! Thanks for reading my rememberances! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Just a word about the SAW - you're just about right, the correct designation is M249. As indicated, it can fire from 30 round mags, but belted ammo is more common. In Canada, we use a 220-round belt in a plastic assault drum attached to the gun(those 5.56s are really small), not sure if the US uses a different standard. The name you are thinking of for this weapon is "Minimi"; it may be a French design but in Canada it is built under license by Diemaco and called the C9 Light Machine Gun. We issue them out two per section (a section is what we call a squad, and is only eight men now. With two LMGs as well as two M203-grenade launchers, there is a lot of firepower these days, in addition to the six C7 assault rifles (our improved version of the M16). The M249/Minimi/SAW is great for battle ranges, but a heavier gun is still required for distance shooting. In Canada we issue the C6 GPMG (what the Americans call the M240, and other countries call the FN MAG) one per platoon (three sections) as part of the weapons det to provide support. It wasn't long ago that this FN MAG was laughingly called a "light machine gun" in British infantry sections; weighing in at 25 pounds, it occupied the same ground as the Bren or MG34/42 and even the M1919 with bipod and butt - ie a "light machine gun" firing rifle ammunition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: a heavier gun is still required for distance shooting. Could you please define "heavier gun" and "distance" more clearly? Your friend, Kitty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 If you have ever seen a German FG42, you might think it is close to a BAR. But with its light weight (10#), I doubt it could fire full auto unless prone and with a bipod. It could fire single shot also though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 I think he means 7.62mm as opposed to 5.56mm ("heavier"), and for "distance" read beyond 500m or so, especially targets out to 1 km. The 5.56mm bullet is rather light, has a muzzle energy of a little under 2000 joules (carbine level energy), and it therefore doesn't carry as well at long range as a 7.62mm, which has about twice the muzzle energy (3500-4000, full rifle muzzle energy). Lower ME means it drops more at long range, and lighter also means the rounds drift more with a crosswind, that kind of thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: If you have ever seen a German FG42, you might think it is close to a BAR. But with its light weight (10#), I doubt it could fire full auto unless prone and with a bipod. It could fire single shot also though. Even with the bipod (which in early models folded the wrong way, its recoil was so bad that full auto fire was very hard to control. Also its muzzle flash was VERY severe. Kitty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BARMAN1950 Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Hey Michael, you are absolutely right about the nomenclature of the SAW. It is the M249. Frankly it is a clutsy looking thing but it fires nicely. I guess, to me, the BAR had a nice look to it that the M249 does not have. The troops seem to like it just fine. The M240B as you said fires the 7.62 round. Again for myself, I liked the fact that all of the light infantry weapons that the US used in Korea, other than the Carbine, fired the same ammo. Logistically much more pleasing. The M240B is "fairly new" replacing the M60. I have never fired the M60, but I know that the Vietnam Vets thought that it was a good weapon. Wasn't the M60 kind of a knockoff of the MG42? Thanks for your response! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Originally posted by BARMAN1950: Hey Michael, you are absolutely right about the nomenclature of the SAW. It is the M249. Frankly it is a clutsy looking thing but it fires nicely. I guess, to me, the BAR had a nice look to it that the M249 does not have. The troops seem to like it just fine. Thanks for your response! You have personal experience with the M249 then? I was under the impression you had retired . . . my bad. Please tell us more about M249, I would love to know! =) Kitty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BARMAN1950 Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Hi Kitty, I don't have any combat experience with the M249. You are right I am retired. What i was relating with respect to the M249 is my experience at my last regimental reunion at Fort Benning Ga in September of 2003. The reunion (29th Infantry Regt) was in some respect an "official Army" thing. On the 2nd day of our reunion they took us out to one of the ranges at Fort Benning to demonstrate for us "old Farts" the "New Infantry" The demonstration, as I said, was Awesome They had a couple of Bradleys speed out of nowhere and stopped in front of the reviewing stand. Quick as a wink two Squads deployed from the Bradleys and proceeded to the firing line where they and the Bradleys started firing at various targets out at various ranges (very noisy). After this demo they had any interested parties come down to the firing line to try for themselves the various weapons. In a way it was kind of funny watching these "old farts", some using canes etc to get around limping down to the firing points. The 29th Inf Regt assoc. is made up of a few WW II vets, a fair number of Korean vets and a few active duty troops (the 29th Inf Regt had no participation in the Veitnam war). In any case at the various firing points they had active duty instructors standing by to assist anyone who wanted to fire any particular weapon. It was here that I got to fire (among others) the M249. They pretty much let us fire as much as we wanted. I got to fire about a hundred rounds or so from the M249. As I said it fired nicely. It just was not, In my opinion, a "pretty weapon". Being as it is 5.56mm there was very little recoil, and it wasn't to loud. (they had given us earplugs but I didn't use them). One of the weapons that we fired was the M4 rifle (a take off of the CAR15). it was agreat little weapon. It has an opticle type sight (I heard someone refer to it as a "laser sight" although it doesn't throw a beam). When you look through the site you see a small red diamond, you place that small red diamond on your target squeeze the trigger and down that target goes,Fantastic! As an aside, I was VERY impressed with the troops in todays army. When I was in most of the guys had not completed high school. Todays troops, by and large, are much more educated, and still persuing more education. In my day if you gave the troops time off they persued "booze & broads". These new guys may do the same, but they finish their school work first. Sorry to Ramble so much Kitty, but I find it very refreshing to find so many people interested in things military. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Well, BARman, welcome indeed; if you like talking military, you'll feel right at home around here. This is as about a "militarized" bunch of civilians (mostly) as you'll ever meet. Actually, its a pretty well balanced bunch who I find to be well-read, well-traveled and very curious about nearly everything. And some are just plain curious. Keeps me coming back, anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 "I have heard (and I'm sure it's true) that many GIs did not fire their rifles when first in combat. Constant training and good leadership will usually solve that problem." SLA Marshall (Who I also think makes lots of sense in his writing) chalks a fair amount of this up to, no surprise to us mil types here, training. The vast majority of soldier marksmanship training was done on the flat range against visible known distance targets. In combat the vast majority of time you don't see anything to shoot at. Troops need to be trained to fire at area targets something not done often early in WW2 and something that comes up over and over in comments from WW2 AARs and in many of the Published combat bulletins from 44-45. It's been a tried and true fact throughout several millenia of soldiering, you fight like you train! Los 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Originally posted by BARMAN1950: It has an optical type sight (I heard someone refer to it as a "laser sight" although it doesn't throw a beam). When you look through the site you see a small red diamond, you place that small red diamond on your target squeeze the trigger and down that target goes,Fantastic! I've fired pistols in IPSC competitions using the same "red dot" targeting scopes you're talking about. Curious to know how stable you feel they are when are mounted on a bipod weapon, as the first time I tried them the dot jumped all over the target . . . I guess my hands are a lot shakier than iron sights can ever tell. =) Kitty [ January 05, 2004, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Kitty ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 He's talking about the aimpoint on the M4 rifle not the SAW. And contary to popular belief the vast majority of firing with M4s is done on semi. Use of the aim point on that weapon provides no problem at all. If you are firing at room distance the jump of the dot when you double tap or controlled pair won't throw your aim off much at all. For long range shooting it's single rounds anyways. (though the ACOG is a better choice for that environment) As for SAWs, one should be sing it with very short controlled bursts anyways. Los 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 They're pretty stable when mounted on anything that you brace against your sholder. The 'Red dot' sights are simply a non-magnifying (usually) optical sight with the red dot as the aiming graticle. Having said that, there is a snazzy sight for pistols that uses ambient light,a prism, lens and filter to create an orange dot that one eye can see and the other can't. when both eyes are open, you see the dot floating about on your aimpoint. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: They're pretty stable when mounted on anything that you brace against your sholder. Thanks. That was what I needed to know. =) Kitty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Kitty: the Dame with aim. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Kitty: Please keep stories about 'Booze 'n Broads' in the Peng thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.