BAR - what was it ?

[edward_n_kelly]

With all the "interaction" in another thread on the role of the BAR versus the Bren (and others) just what was the BAR ?

What was its purpose when conceived by Browning ?

What was its role when it adopted by the US forces (in WWI)?

What was its role in World War II ?

How did it compare with "section/squad automatic weapons" in other countries in World War II ?

Were its advantages or disadvantages in this comparison as a result of its design, employment or doctrine on the part of the US ?

Edward

[ April 17, 2002, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: edward_n_kelly ]

[Doug Beman]

Single paragraph overview plus stats:

http://www.microsoft.com/games/closecombat/cc1/campaign/armament/guns/example_guns/browning.htm

More info: http://www.philaord.com/products/bar.html

Video of the gun firing:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mickay/bar.htm

DjB

[ParaBellum]

Whoa, lot's of questions.

OK, let's start...

1.) What's a BAR?

Well, usually a place where alcoholic beverages are served. Also called a Pub (in merry old England), a bistrô (in France), a Kneipe (in Germany).

In Russia there is no need for bars since everybody is drinking Vodka at home, at work or in the kindergarten...

2.) What was its purpose when conceived by Browning ?

Hmm... Difficult. Maybe get drunk, get laid, something like that. Let's call it socializing.

3.) What was its role when it adopted by the US forces (in WWI)?

That's rather easy. Motivate the GIs to fight for democracy, to bring peace and freedom to the world.

Ah, and get drunk and get laid.

4.) What was its role in World War II ?

Again, difficult.

It largely depended wheter its customers where fighting for king and country, the Führer, or the japanese emperor.

Besides cultural differences (Sake/Bourbon...) it boils down to:

...get drunk and get laid.

5.) How did it compare with "section/squad automatic weapons" in other countries in World War II ?

Don't understand the question...

Just my 0.2$:

Going to a Bar with automatic weapons in your hands usually will yield trouble.

Unless that Bar is in Texas, where even the GoGo-girls carry them...

6.) Were its advantages or disadvantages in this comparison as a result of its design, employment or doctrine on the part of the US ?

Well, US Bar doctrine differed only marginal from the other countries in WW2. The strategic goal was fairly unchanged from '39 to '45. You know, get drunk, get laid...etc...

US design was fairly identical to other countries' Bars. It was in fact after WW2 when US Bar designs changed, in order to accomodate the customers need for football-on-TV, basketball-on-TV, girls-mud-wrestling-on-TV and that stuff...

Hope that helped, beware of the grogs!

[CMplayer]

Just some quick, wrong answers to see if I can mess it up enough to provoke someone else to answer more correctly and informatively.

just what was the BAR ?

The gun you see the big guy carrying in WWII movies.

What was its purpose when conceived by Browning ?

To kill bad guys faster, at greater range and behind heavier cover than was possible with a Springfield, and yet still be portable and ammo compatible.

What was its role when it adopted by the US forces (in WWI)?

Nighttime suppression of raking MG postions along pre-chalked lines of fire. Firing from reinforced loopholes in earth parapets. An MG you can take with you over the top, fire all day from a shell hole using scrounged ammo and bring back home after dark.

What was its role in World War II ?

Squad automatic weapon. Suppress/kill baddies. Pretty good at shooting through masonry/trees and stuff. Portable.

How did it compare with "section/squad automatic weapons" in other countries in World War II ?

Roughly comparable to the Bren--smaller magazine but better penetration and very reliable. Much lower ROF than the German bipod LMGs which could really reach out and touch someone.

Were its advantages or disadvantages in this comparison as a result of its design, employment or doctrine on the part of the US ?

Design, design, design. Employment and doctrine evolved acc to battlefield contingencies. But the design was tooled in.

[Captain Wacky]

Big Ass-kicking Rifle

[lcm1947]

With all the great response from everybody, well at least Doug nothing or no body mentioned that it shot the 30-06 cal. cartridge. Some may not know what a 7.62 cartridge is.

[Doug Beman]

I posted weblinks to information like caliber, etc, because I didn't know off the top of my head, and even if I had, why hog up storage space with a block of text when a URL does the same job?

DjB

[ramor]

Just to add a couple of things. Browning initially demonstrated the weopon to the U.S. army at the same time as his demonstration of the 1917 machine gun hoping to fill a percieved need for a light machine gun. The army adopted it as an over the top assault weopon to provide walking supression fire during advances across no mans land( the operators were trained to fire one round from the hip every time their left foot touched the ground). This concept was short lived and with the addition of a bipod the gun was moved into a light machine gun squad support role and was used by many other nations as well in the interwar period. Although the gun was reliable it was never perfectly suited to this role because of a lack of a quick change barrel and only a 20 round magazine capacity( always wondered why they did not extend the bipod and create a 30 round banana clip for the weopon much the same as the soviet RPK). Since it was pretty much an interim weopon there were few tactical adherents for its use in the theoretical field but G.I.'s swore by the BAR and wanted more than could be made. F.N. also produced variants in many calibers before the war which ended up in the hands of soldiers around the world even as far away as China. U.S. BAR's were also supplied to Allied nations including the British home guard in WW II and the ARVN (pictures make the gun look massive in the hands of small statured Vietmanese soldiers). Hope this helps to answer some of your questions.

[ April 17, 2002, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: ramor ]

[Slapdragon]

The original BAR was the result of a long design process by Browning, starting in the previous century and running to the first world war. Before the war his idea did not get much notice, although his use of gas operation and other public elements of his design (which were in fact also in use in his shotgun and in the potato digger) formed the basis of almost all light weapons -- because it was very difficult to size down the Maxim and the Gatling was a non-starter as a manual weapon.

[Richard Morgan]

A couple of points to add to Parabellum's excellent summary. American/Canadian BAR - waitress service, (mostly) cold gassy lager served, brought to the table in bottles. British bar - (usually) draught Bitter, Mild or Stout beer served at BAR, and drunk at room temperature. To any Americans, Canadians Europeans or people from far away places on this board, be warned BRITISH LAGER IS KNATSPEE Avoid at all costs

With regard to CM player, Ramor, Slappy, et al, the Browning Automatic Rifle bears interesting comparison with the British Army's LSW (Light Support Weapon) variant of the SA 80 Both suffer from fixed barrel and magazine feed. However, the LSW's arse about face bullpup configuration makes rapid mag changes a contortionist exercise, particularly in the prone position with the bipod in use (As I know from experience.) LSW also works from the closed bolt position (unlike BAR which is open bolt) which leaves a round up the (red hot) spout, which after sustained firing results in cook-offs!!!

The BAR is in my humble opinion, no great shakes as a weapon, it is inferior to the Bren, but it knocks spots off the LSW. How the latter ever got accepted for service is quite beyond me :mad: :mad: :mad:

Rant over: best wishes to all of you,

Richard.

[BloodyBucket]

I have been told that the bipod on the M1918A2 BAR was often chucked by the men using it. Picture

Probably an effort to cut down on weight and noise. Interesting that the original version had no bipod.

There was also an adjustable stock rest available. I have never read of that device being used in the field, or noticed any pictures of BARs with that gizmo attached.

The fact that it was reliable, accurate and available probably accounts for the popularity of the weapon, rather than it being being better than what the Germans, Japanese or others had.

I can only guess that the BAR was never replaced during WWII because it was "good enough". When the Germans came up with the MG34, they were prohibited from having heavy machineguns, and were forced to come up with an all around MG that could be classified as light, IIRC. The Americans probably figured, in the low budget, post WWI years that the BAR was what they won the last war with and let it go at that.

The Marines were the first to come up with a three BAR, fireteam based squad. Probably a result of the Marines not having access to the same fire support that the Army had. You could argue that the Germans, not having the luxury of a surplus of fire support, had to rely on the MG to provide the oomph that the Americans had in the form of artillery and air support. That might be another reason for the BAR lasting so long.

As to what JMB was thinking of when he came up with the design, I would guess, since I really haven't read anything on his thoughts, is that he was trying to provide the infantry with fire support that could go "over the top". I would wager he was after an "assault" rifle, and since the tripod mounted HMG was showing itself to be more than up to the task of defensive fires, the lack of a changeable barrel and the twenty round magazine were small matters.

Twenty is still four times what went in an 1903 Springfield, and a charge is not supposed to be a prolonged, barrel changing event.

I have heard that the BAR lives on, in some form, in the mechanism of the new US GPMG.

If we are going to have holidays to honor great Americans, I wouldn't mind having a Monday off in honor of John Moses Browning.

[Brian]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

The Americans probably figured, in the low budget, post WWI years that the BAR was what they won the last war with and let it go at that.

Errr, are you claiming that the USA won WWI and it was the BAR which facilitated that victory?

[Doug Beman]

Errr, are you claiming that the USA won WWI and it was the BAR which facilitated that victory?

Doesn't seem like it. Looks like he's claiming

in 1919, the US Army had to choose between keeping the BAR or spending some cash to replace it. The high-ups looked at WW1 and decided that "well, we (Allies) used the BAR, and we (Allies) won the war, so the BAR must be a useful weapon."

DjB

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

As to what JMB was thinking of when he came up with the design, I would guess, since I really haven't read anything on his thoughts, is that he was trying to provide the infantry with fire support that could go "over the top". I would wager he was after an "assault" rifle, and since the tripod mounted HMG was showing itself to be more than up to the task of defensive fires, the lack of a changeable barrel and the twenty round magazine were small matters.

Given that

The original BAR was the result of a long design process by Browning, starting in the previous century and running to the first world war. Before the war his idea did not get much notice, although his use of gas operation and other public elements of his design (which were in fact also in use in his shotgun and in the potato digger) formed the basis of almost all light weapons -- because it was very difficult to size down the Maxim and the Gatling was a non-starter as a manual weapon."

And that the supremacy of the tripod machine gun had not been demonstrated until the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 (and indeed its lessons seem to have been ignored generally as far as the armies that went to the Great War were concerned), I find the two statements a bit hard to reconcile....

Browning and his backers would not have undertaken such a lengthy and costly development process without some indications as to its (BAR) employment according to the doctrine of the time (pre-1914), but what was the market he aimed at (and therefore the doctrine that drove his work) ?

Edward

[Olaf]

I have fire the BAR and would agree that it added alot of firepower to an infantry squad/platoon. Very accurate and the powerful round gave it a long range and the ability to engage enemy personnel through cover such a large trees, and buldings not made out of stone, concrete or brick. Light armored vehicles such as half tracks and gun shields would not provide much protection at close ranges either. The high rate of fire would also have been good at suppressing the enemy. Easier to handle (ligher) than a crewserved weapon such as the MG 34/42 but with no barrel change to enable a large sustained rate of fire.

Another disadvantage would have been going through the 20 round magazine more quickly than the larger capacity Bren magazine and the belt feed bachine guns used by the Germans and Japanese.

Removing the bipod would would make it a little lighter but firing the BAR in this fashion would have been very tiring and the accuracy would have been greatly reduced.

The weapons construction is very impressive but also complicated as there are many parts machined to exacting standards.

The 1960s TV show "Combat" has one of the actors employing this weapon against the Germans in WWII.

My first Post. CMBO is very impressive game. Lots of fun. My wife does not like it at all though. Oh well.

[Zitadelle]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

[QB]....

The Marines were the first to come up with a three BAR, fireteam based squad. Probably a result of the Marines not having access to the same fire support that the Army had.

.... QB]

It was not a matter of lack of firepower, compared to the US Army, that the Marines over-equipped their squads with BARs. Initially, the standard TO&E was for a Marine squad to have a single BAR; similar to the Army.

Rather, during the island campaigns, the Marines quickly recognized the value of squads being equipped with multiple BARs. The weapon was extremely robust, a single individual could handle the weapon, and the penetration/firepower of the weapon was a definite advantage (Unlike the M1, the BAR's .30 round could penetrate sandbags and some stone.).

The practice started informally, TO&Es were eventually changed. Initially, the Marine raiders started over-equipping their units with BARs; there are reports of raider platoons have 1/3 squads solely armed with BARs. Later, Marine rifle squads changed their equipment organization.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by edward_n_kelly:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

As to what JMB was thinking of when he came up with the design, I would guess, since I really haven't read anything on his thoughts, is that he was trying to provide the infantry with fire support that could go "over the top". I would wager he was after an "assault" rifle, and since the tripod mounted HMG was showing itself to be more than up to the task of defensive fires, the lack of a changeable barrel and the twenty round magazine were small matters.

Given that

The original BAR was the result of a long design process by Browning, starting in the previous century and running to the first world war. Before the war his idea did not get much notice, although his use of gas operation and other public elements of his design (which were in fact also in use in his shotgun and in the potato digger) formed the basis of almost all light weapons -- because it was very difficult to size down the Maxim and the Gatling was a non-starter as a manual weapon."

And that the supremacy of the tripod machine gun had not been demonstrated until the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 (and indeed its lessons seem to have been ignored generally as far as the armies that went to the Great War were concerned), I find the two statements a bit hard to reconcile....

Browning and his backers would not have undertaken such a lengthy and costly development process without some indications as to its (BAR) employment according to the doctrine of the time (pre-1914), but what was the market he aimed at (and therefore the doctrine that drove his work) ?

Edward</font>

[MikeyD]

Don't be too hard on the poor BAR. I understand the ubiquitous FN GMPG seen in practically every modern army (including the U.S.) was based largely on the BAR design.

[gredeker]

The BAR is either a light machine gun or a heavy assault rifle, depending on the situation, the orders, and the shooter.

To draw an example from everybody's favorite movie to nitpick, SPR:

In the beach scene, the BAR is used as a LMG to lay down suppressing fire on the MG nest. Later, when storming the MG nest under the radar site, the BAR gunner joins the attack and uses his weapon as an assault rifle.

It's kind of like asking if a StuGIII is an assault gun or a TD. The answer is "yes".

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by Zitadelle:

(Unlike the M1, the BAR's .30 round could penetrate sandbags and some stone.).

The info I've seen indicates that they used the same round, at the same muzzle velocity (2800 fps). Why did it penetrate when fired from the BAR but not when fired from the M1?

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Zitadelle:

(Unlike the M1, the BAR's .30 round could penetrate sandbags and some stone.).

The info I've seen indicates that they used the same round, at the same muzzle velocity (2800 fps). Why did it penetrate when fired from the BAR but not when fired from the M1?</font>

[Zitadelle]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Offwhite:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Zitadelle:

(Unlike the M1, the BAR's .30 round could penetrate sandbags and some stone.).

The info I've seen indicates that they used the same round, at the same muzzle velocity (2800 fps). Why did it penetrate when fired from the BAR but not when fired from the M1?</font>

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Zitadelle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Slapdragon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Offwhite:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Zitadelle:

(Unlike the M1, the BAR's .30 round could penetrate sandbags and some stone.).

The info I've seen indicates that they used the same round, at the same muzzle velocity (2800 fps). Why did it penetrate when fired from the BAR but not when fired from the M1?</font>

[lcm1947]

Maybe they were speaking of the M1 carbine which shoots a entirely different round the .30 Cal.

Big different as everyone knows. This has to be the answer as the 7.62 can only be beefed up by so much and even then no noticeable difference would be seen in power to speak of. My guess anyway.

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Maybe they were speaking of the M1 carbine which shoots a entirely different round the .30 Cal.

Big different as everyone knows. This has to be the answer as the 7.62 can only be beefed up by so much and even then no noticeable difference would be seen in power to speak of. My guess anyway.

In all probability it refers to the fact that any weapon firing two or three or more rounds in a compartively small group in rapid succession (as in full auto fire) will actually cause a certain amount of disruption in a target because of shock waves and heat. The sum of the effect is greater than the individual rounds...

Effectively the target is "chewed to pieces".

Semi-auto and individual rounds do not have the same effect because the target has time to "settle" and heat effects are largely lost.

Edward