Browning Automatic Rifle

[Mini D]

The history channel ran a "Tales of the Gun" special which had what the editors rated as the "Top 10 guns in history" or something like that.  Basically, guns that revolutionalized the face of weaponry.  Which guns would make that list for you?

This is what I guessed before seeing the show:

The Brown Bess
Kentucky Long Riffle
Gattling Gun
Winchester Model 92
German Mauser
Colt 1911
B.A.R.
AK-47
The first Machine Gun (German... can't recall what it's called)
M1 Carbine

I think I had like 70% or so.  The BAR was second overall.

MiniD

[Dune]

Most of the other people have already stated the reasons:

1. The rifle and it's ammo was heavier
2. It was not as accurate

Plus, most Marines I've talked to threw the bipod away.  They used it as a rifle.

[rpm]

The first thing you have to remember is Full Auto is basic "Spray and Pray". If you have a wave of enemy attacking you stand a good chance of wounding more enemy with a full auto burst. In Semi-Auto you change to basic "Sniper" tactics. 1 shot 1 kill. You also run thru a LOT of ammo in full auto, so you better have a good supply with you. Sucks to run out of ammo in a firefight.

[cpxxx]

I don't think the BAR really should be included in the top ten, as someone said the Bren or MG34 is better. The inability to change barrels is a big flaw in my opinion. It makes it almost useless in the sustained fire support role which after all the main use of the machine gun.  Having said that I've only fired the Bren but that was a sweet handling machine gun. Accurate and reliable but heavy.  Being magazine fed was a flaw too.
I was an infantryman and weight does count. What is often forgotten when people try out a weapon on the range is that the infantryman will be carrying a lot of weight, helmet, ammunition, rifle. After a few hours it all begins to feel twice as heavy. I never envied the radio operator or the section machine gunner. Usually the biggest guys in the unit got the job.  

The other reason that not everyone got a machine gun to play with was simple tactics. The idea was that an infantry assault would take place while the machine gunners covered them by keeping the enemy's heads down. Try running a hundred yards carrying 40 pounds of dead weight in your hands.

In any case the US forces with the semi automatic capability of the M1 Garand had a lot more firepower thatn any other army without the BAR.

With the development of the assault rifle the machine gun seemed on the way out.  But everyone seems to have some kind of support weapon like the SAW these days.

[davidpt40]

Its not 'one or the other'.  Having full auto gives you options.  A 3 or 4 round burst might kill an enemy rather than wounding or missing him if only a single shot was fired.

Having a bi-pod also makes the BAR a much better defensive weapon than the M1.

The M1 evolved into the M14 (7.62mm but slightly shorter round than m1/bar ammo).  It took about 15 years for this happen.  If the U.S. was looking for a fully automatic 7.62mm battle rifle, seems like they could have just used the BAR (which had been around since 1918).

I think it was doctrine, not weight or inaccuracy, that prevented troops from being equiped with it.  The rifle itself was only 18 pounds, and it would have made the whole squad automatic rather than semi-auto.

[Dune]

David, the BAR was a much more complicated weapon than the M1.  Which means it was more expensive.  And because of how they were designed the M1 is a much more accurate weapon.  I've shot both (actually I own a M1 and my dad owned a BAR).  It was also 4 inches longer, making it more unwieldy.  Also consider this, I've shot the BAR from the shoulder and it's very hard to keep a full-auto 30-06 anywhere the target.  That's one of the reasons they went to .308.

[drone]

could you imagine a whole squad dragging around with B.A.R.s and all the ammo you would need? Well if ya didnt need anything else (like clothes) I guess but after a 100yrd sprint I think they would be done for the day........

The best auto rifle in WWII was the STG 44 anyway... was light, accurate and the recoil was reasonable.

[Animal]

The role you believe would had been ideal for the BAR was very well performed by the Thomson.

The US G.I unit were the best armed soldiers during WWII. They had a weapon that did what it was meant to do very well. The BAR was a support weapon, it was meant to make the enemy take cover while the riflemen took position, and the person with the Thomson to move forward.

A squad full of BARs would have been a mess. The BAR really was not the assault rifle you are thinking it is.

[_Schadenfreude_]

For the civilians on this thread...

1. You need HUGE amounts of ammo in a firefight.

2. Most of the time you never see anybody to shoot at.

3. You NEVER fire on full auto with an assault rifle

4. After 200 rounds of lmg fire you have to change the barrel

5. Each member of the section carries about 200 rounds of belted ammo for the LMG

6. The LMG team are the killers, everyone else is just there for support.

We used to use the MAG as our LMG team supported by BREN's chambered for 7.62 x 51 - was easier to do an assault with the Bren while the MAG could put down serious fire. Bren was easier to carry but not being belt fed was a problem.

Burst fire is fired in 3 to 5 rounds bursts, no more.

Hit someone with a 7.62 x 51 just about anywhere and they are as good as dead -  if not dead they will certainly have lost all interest in the fight.

Most people have no idea just how fit you have to be to be a combat infantryman - we used to run 10 clicks every morning sharing a 8 foot length of telephone pole between two men.

http://www.lib.sun.ac.za/military/military.exe?ML=1&EX=Smoke61

[flakbait]

You're missing a few things about the BAR. First off, the fore-end was made from wood and perilously close to the barrel. Too much automatic fire would cause the fore-end to start smoking, and possibly burst into flames. At 18 pounds loaded and four feet long, it was neither handy nor very packable. To boot, the magazines only held 20 rounds a piece; not effective in terms of providing fire support. To pull a "then and now" comparison, back then the average BAR man packed his gun along with twelve magazines (240 rounds). A modern SAW gunner carries his gun (15 lbs) and 300 rounds. The weight difference between the two being in the neighborhood of twenty pounds. The BAR was designed during WWI for infantry support, and like most weapons during the first year of WW2, it got pressed into service because we didn't have anything better.

For defense in a fixed emplacement, with at least several canteens (to cool the gun) and a constant ammo supply, the BAR was still an ad-hoc solution. The twenty-round mags didn't allow for sustained fires, the gun's fore-end was made of wood, and you couldn't change barrels to get rid of the heat. If given a choice, I'd take the extra seven pounds and pack a captured MG-42. Belt-fed, barrels could be changed in under five seconds, and no wood at all to catch fire. Or, I'd pack a Bren. Four lbs heavier than the BAR, but a few inches shorter and fed from 30 round mags. To boot, there's nothing flamable forward of the grip.




-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High

[Saurdaukar]

Almost everything's been covered.  Ive never fired a BAR, but I have fired M1's, and while the semi automatic fire is a great feature in a combat situation, I still prefere the Mauser 98K.  Apparently the Germans did too, becase you never heard of any Wehrmacht soldiers picking up disgarded M1's to replace them.

PS:  David, there are 3 automatic riflemen in each Marine squad because one is assigned to each fireteam of 4 men.  Watching a squad advance is impressive considering the amount of firepower that can be brought to bear by only 3 men (armed with the M249 today).

Alot of people have fired Thompsons apparently - but I wonder - has anyone here fired an MP38 or MP40?

Id like to get my hands on one of those two and an StG44 for a day.

[davidpt40]

Ok lets get down to facts here-

(1) Post-Vietnam study showed that the 3 round burst was the most effective type of firing for kills.  Fully automatic fire is needed for supression.

(2) U.S. forces in World War II were unable to effectively supress German troops due to lack of long firing automatic weapondry. (source:Study cited by Stephen Ambrose- Citizen Soldiers).

(3) German squads were based around Mg34 or Mg42 machine guns.  U.S. squads were based around the BAR.  How can you say the U.S. had the best armed troops Animal?

(4) Standard tactic of U.S. army was somethng called "Shoot and Scoot".  BAR would fire on enemy position, troops would try to flank the enemy while BAR was supressing them.  Didn't work very well because of (a) poor supressing fire and (b) most of the time you don't know where the enemies sides and flanks are.
(source:Study cited by Stephen Ambrose- Citizen Soldiers)

(5) The Marines used 3 BARs per squad.  They usually modified them to also fire semi-auto.  

(6) Tommy gun had effective range of 50yrds.  Most combat engagements take place at 300yrds or less.

So the reasons why I think U.S. troops should have each been issued BAR:
(a) Capable of firing 3round bursts (due to full auto)
(b) Capable of full auto supression
(c)  Bipod could be attached
(d) Magazine fed

And the reasons against it are:
(a)Bit too heavy
(b)Inaccurate on full auto

[Animal]

But WWII was an offensive war - he who moves forward wins.

Yes, the Germans had the best machinegun, but that is mostly a defensive weapon - the Americans had the Garand - an extremely versatile rifle, the Thomson - best SMG in the war combined with the very light and accurate carbine and troops could move forward and around Mg42 nests, and of course the BAR which was a great rifle for the troops that could handle it and use it as accurate supression weapon.

(6) Tommy gun had effective range of 50yrds. Most combat engagements take place at 300yrds or less.

It was meant to be used by agressive and fast runners. Sort of a quarterback weapon. While the riflemen are fighting at 300yards, the agile submachinegunner had to be running forward and around the enemy to get in range and either distract them for the riflemen to finish the job, or hose them down themselves with .45

US tactics were not based around the light machinegun, like the germans did. That is a defensive tactic. US tactics were based around the rifleman - and they had the best rifle.

The BAR was a fine weapon, but not all G.I's were 6 foot tall with the stamina of a bull. Maybe it should have been issued as a standard weapon for the Aussies though

The G.I's had some crappy tanks, but on a small arms level, they had the best equipment for fighting a mobile war.

Sorry pal but there is no arguing that another rifle should have replaced the Garand. It was the perfect rifle for the job and I have not read or heard a US veteran say he would have liked to switch his for anything, except maybe a thomson which was seen as a bad-mother****er gun, but that weapon required a certain breed of maniac to use properly, people who were able to run forward in spite of apparent certain death. Unlike the ETO, were Thomsons were given to officers and people of rank, in the PTO you had to earn it with some crazy deeds in the field. G.I's in the Pacific say they never asked soldiers how they got their Thomson.

[Fishu]

Animal,

MG34 and 42 weights 23-26lbs with a bipod and then add the weight of 75 round drum or 50 round *assault belt*

MG34/42 were very similar for germans as BAR for US and Bren for brits and they used it somewhat same..

Difference is that germans used MG34/42 from squad support weapon to a fortress weapon, whereas americans for example had machineguns which weren't very adaptable to work as a squad support weapon with the same flexilibity as BAR or MG34/42.

MG34/42 had different kinds of mounts, varying from simple bipods to different kinds of tripods.

So I'd say you have very errorneous view of the usage of MG34/42.
It was pretty much superior to BAR in most aspects.

[Animal]

I thought the Mg34/42 were comparable to the American Browning machinegun, not to the BAR.
The BAR being basically a big rifle operated by a single person that could be used on the move, and the MG42 a machinegun that had to be deployed to be used effectively.