BAR question

[JonnyBlademan]

Originally posted by Airborne:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Charlie Rock]

Another point to be made re: the BAR is that the M1918 variant, ehich fired single shot and fully automatic, was later replaced by the 1M1918A2, hich fired a slow rate of 400 ish RPM and a high rate that was more around 600. Approx numbers. At slow late it was not too hard to control.

In the Pacific it was a very popular patrol weapon; it was a one man weapon that combined controllable automatic fire with more penetration then 45ACP or 9mm SMGs when fired through jungle underbrush and the like. The fire team concept devised by Carlson's raiders, later the USMC, and the US Army in 1945 revolved around a 4 man element with one BAR and a mix of M1s, SMGs, and carbines. So in that sense it is more of the historical predecessor for the SAW then an LMG. Favors less well when compared to the MG42--different weapon for a different concept.

On another subject, the thompson M1928 had a 50 rd drum which was phased out because it was noisy--the MG34 or 42 came with a 50 round drum or a belt. My point being that if noise discipline, like a night patrol, was the order of business a bren or BAR might have been more useful. So for mobile types of squad patrolling the BAR wasnt poor ly deisgned; it was a well desgigned weapon for a type of tactical situation that probably wasnt that important.

It was a function of a mobility-oriented doctrine and a great deal of thought went into keeping the weight down, as JasonC said previously. Remember it came out in 1918, the MG34 16 years later. Some contemporary accounts (one book of note was written in 1940 by the inventor of the Johnson automatic rifle) relay that US authorities thought their concept of BAR and M1 was better then MG34+Kar98k. They had a few years to look at it and decide whether they liked it or not.

The BAR followed the concept. In modern terms, the USA has decided to split the difference. They kept the BAR in the form of the fire team SAW and added the MG42 role at platoon level in the form of the M240--two pler platoon.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

"Also, according to my Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII, the Poles made a tripod for the BAR".

What, no BAR tripods in CMAK? BFC, fix or do sumfink!!!

Regards

Jim R.

[Maj. Battaglia]

K.R. I was afraid somebody would notice that tripod reference. I was wondering if it was a cruel joke designed to whip up froth on the forum! But I will be the first to say that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THE BAR WAS EVER FITTED WITH A TRIPOD!!!

Well maybe.

Originally posted by Ant:

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.

I've seen mixed reviews of the BAR from accounts of those who used it. Criticisms have included weight and lack of reliability. When you consider its firepower, it might be justified. But there is also a lot of praise, and I think members of a squad would have been happy with anything automatic to help suppress the enemy.

While you are correct that it should not be compared to the MG34/42, the fact is that is what the US Army (and Marines) did do: they assigned it as a squad automatic weapon, just as the Germans did with the MG34/42. Therefore, criticism might be directed at the organization which fielded the weapon, rather than the weapon itself or the firm that designed it.

Personally, I think the US should have gone with something like the M1941 Johnson LMG (which, by the way, was inspried by the MG34).

As for what came after the BAR, the US adapted the M14 for use as an automatic rifle, although this was not so successful. Not until the US adopted the M249 was this addressed. The M60 may have been used as a stop-gap measure, but generally it is not a squad-level weapon. Whether it was ever in TO&E as one, I do not know.

[Mr. Tittles]

Operation Air cooled, gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder type

M1918A1 selective fire (fully and semi-automatic)

M1918A2 fully automatic

Caliber .30 (7.62 mm)

Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)

Capacity 20-round detachable box magazine

(1) Bandoleer (BAR belt): 12 magazines

(2) Magazine changeable in 2-4 seconds

(but averaged 6-8 seconds in combat)

Weight 8.33 kg (18.5 lbs)

Overall length 119.4 cm (47 in.)

Rate of fire 550 rounds per minute

Effective range 550m (600 yds)

Ammunition (1) Ball M2; 150 gr bullet, 50 gr charge

(2) Tracer M25, M1: for designating targets and signalling

(3) Armor piercing M2 (black tip); 165gr/53gr

(4) Armor piercing incendiary: for lightly armored flammable targets

One Field Manual: FM 23-15, Item No. 2315, 5/51

The initial M1918A1 version of the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was first used in combat by American soldiers during World War I, and many saw service in World War II. The BAR received high praise for its reliability under adverse conditions.

In 1940, the model M1918A2 was adopted. Unlike earlier models, it could only be fired in two automatic modes--slow (300 to 450 rpm) or fast (500 to 650 rpm)--but not in semiautomatic mode. Both versions were widely used in the second world war. The USMC preferred the semiautomatic mode in some tactical situations, and modified most of the M1918A2 guns to include that capability. A buffer spring in the butt greatly reduced recoil, to the advantage both of firing accuracy and shooter endurance.

The M1918A2 also mounted its folding bipod (2.38 pounds!) on a special flash hider near the end of the barrel. Since the bipod could easily be detached in this model, it very frequently was! but not often in defensive positions, where it was very effective. The flash hider, which was the point of attachment for the bipod, was not usually removed. Hiding the flash from enemy troops when firing on them isn't the purpose of the hider, all automatic weapons are easily visible when fired at night. It blocks the muzzle flash from the vision of the shooter, maintaining his night vision. That's important!

The Army infantry squad of nine men was tactically organized around a single BAR. The Marine squad of thirteen men was organized around three fire-teams, each organized around a BAR. The much greater fire power of a Marine platoon with its nine BARs over the Army platoon with its four BARs was a great combat advantage.

The BAR was a popular weapon in WWII and Korea, because it was very reliable and offered an excellent combination of rapid fire and penetrating power. The BAR's only serious drawbacks were its lack of a quick-change barrel (to reduce the chance of overheating), and its weight (BAR, with bipod and a loaded bandoleer, came to about 40 pounds).

In Korea, the much greater range and penetrating power of the BAR and the .30 caliber air cooled machine gun, firing rifle ammunition, usually more than offset the light weight and rapid fire capability of the variety of submachine guns the North Koreans and Chinese used, including their burp guns modeled on Soviet weapons such as the Shpagin PPSh41 , which fired pistol ammunition.

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/browning.htm

[Mr. Tittles]

I think that JasonC gets it and others here don't.

The BAR was an individuals weapon. It was a riflemans weapon. The automatic rifleman. The other members of the squad did not have to rely on him for the squads firepower. They had the squads firepower themselves in the semiauto rifle they carried. The US had more of a distributed firepower at the squad level.

Other nations with bolt action rifles and heavier squad automatics or LMGs should not be compared to the US 'slots'.

The Germans had a belt fed LMG at the squad level. As the war wore on, and the gun increased in rate of fire, and the operaters became younger and much older, this weapon became more of a defensive system.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

The US had more of a distributed firepower at the squad level.

Other nations with bolt action rifles and heavier squad automatics or LMGs should not be compared to the US 'slots'.

The thing is other nations used more SMG's than the Amis.

The LMG's (which BAR also is) were comparable to each other. AFAIK only the Germans fielded a belt fed SAW while the others used BAR-like SAW's and SMG's.

The perceived advantage of the American semi-auto prolification drops out with the decrease of the range. At longer ranges the semi-auto is not that superior to the bolt action rifle since the accuracy of the semi-auto rifle suffers if fired rapidly. And the SMG's superior rate of fire over the semi-auto more than makes up for the suppression/kill efficiency at shorter ranges.

[flamingknives]

In Korea, it was found that the bulk of the squads effective fire came from the BAR.

It was considered superior to the M1919 as it was more mobile and therefore used in the front line.

[Tero]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

In Korea, it was found that the bulk of the squads effective fire came from the BAR.

It was considered superior to the M1919 as it was more mobile and therefore used in the front line.

Any info on the semi-auto rifles and how they fared ?

[Redwolf]

The squad also cannot be viewed on in isolation.

The big US rifle squads (up to today's Marines) fight differently, in particular the U.S. rely more on fire support from higher up. The rifle squad has more of a holding and observing function than in other WW2 armies. The 12-13 men squads are also frequently split into more teams than a standard 9-10 man squad does.

Trading movement speed and range for less supression makes perfect sense for them.

Plus, the BAR sounds cool :cool:

[Mr. Tittles]

Section 12. The Browning Automatic Rifle

The BAR has proved an excellent weapon and needs no modification. There were no complaints as

to its mechanical functioning and very few stoppages were reported. Most officers suggested adding 6 more

BARs to the [Rifle] Company without adding to the number of magazines per BAR team.

[p. 179]

Many suggested leaving off the bipod to save weight, figuring that in a defensive situation, when the

bipod is of greatest value, machine guns (lights or heavies) could be brought up to provide defensive fires.

The LMG with bipod and shoulder rest was considered excellent but should not replace the BAR, whose

firepower is ample if handled by a man who really knows how to use it. The BAR was unanimously

acknowledged to be the backbone of the Infantry squad. Related experiences of junior officers and NCOs

indicated that the Germans also held this view. In all Infantry engagements the enemy constantly gave

priority attention to the BAR in the squad. The BAR was credited with the disruption of many enemy

counter-attacks. Consequently our present BAR, and LMG with bipod and shoulder stock attachments, are

considered highly satisfactory. Here again, as with other weapons, the need of a flashless and smokeless

powder is paramount.

Section 13. The Heavy MG Cal. .30 Compared to the LMG Cal. .30

In general in fast moving situations the LMG is considered the better weapon because of its

maneuverability and lighter weight. More ammunition can be carried by its crew, and it has been found that

fire is never sustained long enough to injure the barrel. When the situation has become stabilized the HMG

can always be brought up in time to establish an FPL or to deliver overhead fire. Rifle Company

Commanders preferred the addition of one LMG, and the dropping of one 60mm mortar in the weapons

platoon, since normally only two 60mm mortars were used. They also favored an increase of personnel in

the LMG squad to provide additional ammunition supply and to provide replacements for the LMG squad

casualties which were heavy.The following modifications to the LMG were found desirable:

(1) A modification on the front barrel bushing. This device did not lock securely enough and

was too easily lost.

[p. 180]

By the addition of two small link chains on either side of the bushing which will fasten by insert pin on to the

bipod or jacket, the bushing will always be secure. Loss of this bushing is a serious matter as the gun will

not fire automatically without it.

(2) Adoption of a metal or plastic link-type ammunition belt. The cloth belt was highly

unsatisfactory when exposed to wet weather. The resultant swelling of the cloth did not permit smooth

feeding and automatic firing.

(3) Adoption of the German principle for change-over of the barrel; the German method is

smoother, faster, and easier.

[Mr. Tittles]

I am not sure why pistol ammo weapons are being thrown into the discussion.

Its really about "Where do you want your automatic full powered weapon?".

In the German case, it was at the squad level and a belt fed crew weapon. Having this weapon at the squad level meant the squad members were all ammo carriers for this weapon.

In the US case, it was at the squad or section level but it was a lighter mag fed individual weapon. The belt fed options were at higher echelon. The light BAR only needed two ammo carriers per weapon.

Not many nations equip squads with full-powered 30 cal LMGs at the squad level anymore. These weapons are more platoon assets.

[Richard Morgan]

I will add my own two pennies worth on this one. BAR: fires from open bolt, 20 round mag set under the weapon, gas regulator, no barrel change, and a truely awful bipod that flops around when you run. (Most soldiers took the bipod off). BAR was also an individual weapon.

Bren: Also fires from open bolt, 28 round mag, set on top of the weapon (easily accessible in prone position) gas regulator quick barrel change, brilliantly designed bipod plus semi auto option. Bren is crewed by two men and can sustain a much higher rate of aimed fire than BAR but cannot(much as it pains me to say) compete with belt fed weapons such as MG 34/42.

And now I digress... A much more meaningful comparison can be drawn between BAR and LSW. For any non Brits reading this, LSW stands for Light Support Weapon. Two of these were supposed to replace the single GPMG in the British Army section. Essentially, the LSW is an SA80 with long barrel and bipod.

LSW has no barrel change and fires from the closed bolt position. This means that after a few mags, it gets VERY hot. Closed bolt means that a round is left in the chamber. This causes cook-offs!!! LSW does have a 30 round mag, but the a*se about face bullpup configuration means that you have to be a contortionist to do a quick mag change in the prone position with bipod in use.

You guessed it: I loathed the bl**dy thing :mad: :mad: :mad: It seems to have all of the BAR's vices and none of its virtues and it is a complete mystery why it was ever accepted for service in the first place. Now AT LAST the British Army has seen sense and acquired Minimi

Red herring over... back to WW2

Richard.

[flamingknives]

AIUI, the LSW is more of a replacement of the Bren gun (1 per fireteam) as a precision fire support weapon. The trouble was the Bren could do SAW work as well, but the LSW can't.

The Minimi aquired by the British army is a suppressive fire weapon, and complements the LSW. A fireteam now consists of: 1Minimi, 1 LSW, 2 SA80, one of which has an AG36 40mm GL.

Originally posed by Tero:

Any info on the semi-auto rifles and how they fared ?

[/b[

IIRC, it was found that riflemen were often loath to use their weapon until they had a positive use of them. Prior to this, they would rely excessively on grenades.

The report is in here somewhere.

[Mr. Tittles]

The BREN was actually providing much of the full powered automatic fire for the common wealth units that used them. The next weapon up the chain of command would be a water cooled belt weapon (Vickers). There was nothing like the US air cooled tripod/bipod belt fed MG. The BAR and LMG(30 cal) and HMG (30cal) system of full powered automatic weapons was not that bad for an attacking army.

The BREN really needed a bipod and an extra man to fulfill its mission. It would also need at least one barrel and plenty of ammo. It was and is a great weapon and used by the other side also.

[gunnergoz]

I know it's been said here often enough, but it's worth recalling that the WW2 German infantry squad was described by more than one author as an LMG accompanied by a bunch of ammo bearers. US squads, with Garands and 1 or 2 BAR's were actually a better balanced assault or defense force, in theory anyway.

A BAR with a 40 rd mag and quick-change barrel would have been wicked, but it would no longer have been a BAR, as they say...it would have been a BREN and we all know how well they were regarded.

[Mr. Tittles]

Its actually all about the bullets available. Since all warring nations had similarly sized bullets, they all had to find solutions around them.

Only Germany was bold enough to introduce a new round. They should have ramped up the assault rifle concept and maybe even developed a BREN-type weapon around the shorter round. This could have made the MG42 more of a support weapon and not a squad weapon. In the case of dismounted panzergrenadiers, the dismounts would leave the MGs with the carriers.

I think the MG42 tripod was a bit too 'high-church'. A simpler lighter piece would have been a better accesory. The more expensive tripod being a specialized asset.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Its actually all about the bullets available. Since all warring nations had similarly sized bullets, they all had to find solutions around them.

Only Germany was bold enough to introduce a new round. They should have ramped up the assault rifle concept and maybe even developed a BREN-type weapon around the shorter round. This could have made the MG42 more of a support weapon and not a squad weapon. In the case of dismounted panzergrenadiers, the dismounts would leave the MGs with the carriers.

I think the MG42 tripod was a bit too 'high-church'. A simpler lighter piece would have been a better accesory. The more expensive tripod being a specialized asset.

I think that you would find that you cannot load the ammunition from an M1 carbine into an M1 rifle or vice versa. The carbine uses a smaller, lighter round to bridge the gap between rifle and SMG.

[Mr. Tittles]

dont quite follow.

[Siege]

What he is saying is that the M-1 Carbine used a totally different round (and was a completely different weapon) than the M-1 Garand.

The M-1 Garand fired the .30-06 full sized rifle cartridge, while the M-1 Carbine fired the .30 carbine round, which had a short bullet and a significantly smaller shell casing. It was more in the performance range of 9mm pistol rounds.

Prior to the war, the US had actually developed a different round for infantry rifles, the .276 Pederson and had intended to introduce the Garand rifles in that caliber. But with war about to begin, and huge stockpiles of existing ammo, it was decided that it was a bad idea logistically to introduce a new caliber for front line infantry without the time to stockpile sufficient ammunition.

-Hans

[Mr. Tittles]

I think he is saying that also. But why? Who said that anyone would put a carbine round in a Garand?

Ok. Don't put mortar rounds in bazookas either. Makes sense. Has nothing to do with anything but makes sense none the less.

[JasonC]

Tittles, you said previously "only Germany was bold enough to introduce a new round." This is simply false. The other fellow merely pointed it out to you. The US introduced the M-1 carbine at much the same time Germany introduced their cut down MP44 round. It was certainly "bold enough to introduce a new round". Both added a carbine caliber round of 1200 and 1500 joules respectively, for a role between that of full rifle cartridges and the pistol ammo of SMGs.

[flamingknives]

Exactly.

During the Korean war, units which liked the automatic version of the carbine were few and far between.

[Mr. Tittles]

So the M1 Carbine bullet was a newly developed round for that weapon? Is this what he is saying?

Ive fired a m1 Carbine and a AK47 (similar to a MP44). There is no comparison.

[Mr. Tittles]

The Carbine was the most unusually produced service rifle. It was designed by David M. "Carbine" Williams, a convicted killer. Williams helped engineers at Winchester perfect his basic design. The Army was looking for a semi-automatic rifle more powerful than a handgun, but less powerful than the M1 Rifle, effective out to 300 yards and light enough to be issued to personnel who needed a weapon, but didn't need the M1 Rifle. The Carbine was one of over twenty designs submitted to the Government. It took over a year and a half to decide on this example. There were over 6 million Carbines produced over a span of just 38 months (the first carbines were delivered in June 1942, the last in August 1945). The original gun was designated by the US military as the M1 Carbine.

and

M-1 / M-2 / M-3 Carbine:

The M1 Carbine was originally developed from the unauthorized use of the Winchester Model 1907 Self-Loading Rifle during First World War. The reason was that the light weight Winchester rifle was appreciated by soldiers. During the fall of 1937, a suggestion by the Chief of Infantry was given for a semi-automatic rifle more powerful than a pistol but less powerful than an M1 Garand and with a range of 300 yards and lightweight as well.

In response to this, the Ordnance Department and Winchester Repeating Arms worked to develop a new round firing a 110-grain bullet with a 2000 feet-per-second muzzle velocity. The round was standardized as the "Cartridge, Caliber .30SL, M1." on 30 September 1940. The US Military also needed to develop a new rifle for the round and released specifications for the new round and the requirements for a "light rifle." and firearms designers from around the country began work on a new rifle. The military also paid close attention to European conflict. Observers noted that German Wehrmacht's "Blitzkrieg" tactics were able to bring troops deep into the rear areas of their enemies and attacking support personnel who were previously considered safe behind the front lines.

My thought was that Germany was the only one bold enough to introduce a new round during the war. The US was working on this weapon before Dec 7 , 1941.

In any case, most nations were locked into full powered 30 caliber class ammunition (not carbine or pistol rounds) for automatic rifle and MG designs and that is what brought about Mg34/42, BREN and the US BAR and 30 cal MG weapons. Germany made the only attempt to design a new round during hostilitys and implement it into a full auto weapon. I really believe the BAR has more in common with the MP44 than the BREN or any other weapon.