|
Post by Mike Powell on Apr 12, 2013 8:16:06 GMT -6
The BAR of 1918 differed from those LMG's you listed in two respects. First, it was designed and issued without a bipod which favored its intended use as a shoulder or hip-fired assault weapon. Second, its magazine projected below the receiver. As a result, magazines greater than 20-round capacity would have made awkward use when firing prone. As we both know, in later US and in foreign service it grew a bipod and in some iterations also a monopod beneath the butt. Thereby, in the eyes of some, becoming an LMG. I see Wikipedia refers to it both as an automatic rifle and as a LMG: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle#BelgiumWhich makes perfect sense to me. I suspect that at least in the US the name of the thing may have had something to do with its classification, "Browning Automatic Rifle Light Machine Gun" sounds too odd for its own good. I fired the BAR once for familiarization. This was done prone, off the bipod and in grass deep enough to prevent seeing anything beyond the muzzle, that and the front sight being occasionally in view. I learned that when you pull the trigger it makes a loud noise and bumps your shoulder. Other than that, I recall it was big and heavy. An outfit called Ohio Auto Ordinance still manufactures them, in semi-automatic only. It'd be a nice thing to look at.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 12, 2013 8:58:33 GMT -6
Hi Mike, I am sure I read somewhere that the Belgians made a belt fed version of the B.A.R. but I cannot locate it in my data. Didn’t the U.S. Infantry men ditch the Bi-Pod to make it lighter? As your link states it could adapted to fire different ammo. Belgian use = Fabrique Nationale mle.1930, Calibre 7.65mm Polish use = Wz.1928, Calibre 7.92mm Those clever Poles adapted the B.A.R. to take a 91 round pan magazine. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karabin_maszynowy_obserwatora_wz.37I recently had a go at listing the various Rifles used by the French in 1940, I was sorry I tried but I got there in the end. Mousqueton Modèle 1892 M16 Mousqueton Modèle 1886/93 R35 Fusil "Automatique" Modèle 1917 Fusil "Automatique" Modèle 1918 Fusil Modèle 1886 M93 Fusil Modèle 1907/15 Fusil Modèle 1916 All used 8x50Rmm Lebel Fusil mle 1907/15 M34 Fusil Modèle 36. Both used 7.5x54mm MAS M29 ammo All of these Rifles were still in use when the Germans invaded in 1940. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 12, 2013 10:47:32 GMT -6
Ian: In those days, and I was on the tail end of them, just about nothing that the American Infantryman carried was not particularly well though out in terms of the ability to carry what you had to carry. My particular hate relationship was the PRC6 Radio. There was just no good way to carry it. It was cumbersome, and you had a hard time communicating across a room with it. Literally everything was a pain in the butt to carry, and that included the BAR. Such things as ammo belts were so designed that while in the prone position you had to raise your body to get more ammo after each 8 rounds (with the M-1) or 18 (we never loaded the mag full for the BAR) Raising your body from the prone is the last thing you want to do in a combat situation.
I guess long story short, we stripped ourselves of everything we could and still be competent for mission purposes.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 12, 2013 14:02:04 GMT -6
If the BAR did not make use of a bipod for automatic fire the accuracy of all rounds following the first would be greatly reduced.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 12, 2013 15:43:59 GMT -6
An absolutely startling revelation. Did you also know the earth is round instead of flat, birds chirp, and ice cream tastes good?
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 12, 2013 16:16:48 GMT -6
An absolutely startling revelation. Did you also no the earth is round instead of flat, birds chirp, and ice cream tastes good and the BAR was ineffective on full automatic.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 12, 2013 18:49:53 GMT -6
Is that so. For God sake don't tell the Germans or the Japanese that, we had them convinced that the BAR helped win World War II. You might also inform the North Koreans of that same fact. You are an idiot.
When you have carried, fired, and qualified expert on the range with a BAR like I have you have the right to comment. When all you have done is heard a rumor here or a snipit of information there, and you do not have practical hands on knowledge of the weapon all you are doing is talking to hear yourself talk.
If you would be so good as to stand 100 meters down range I would be more than happy to show you just how good, just how effective, and just how accurate it was with or without a bipod, standing or prone. The only problem is you would not be alive to acknowledge that I know what I am talking about and you don't.
Now had you been a decent sort and made these two posts of yours in the form of a question, rather than some form of I know best and the rest of you are a bunch of fakes and clowns. I would have politely answered that if the BAR was on automatic in the prone position and for some reason the gunner had not deployed the bipod, the weapon would have a tendency to rise and the accuracy would be problematic. You don't use the bipod from the standing or assault position. I would have gone on to say that the BAR or any automatic weapon is only as good as the training of the man behind it. No weapons fire themselves. A man must do it and the skill of the man trumps the characteristics of the weapon in that a trained BAR gunner knows how to compensate for any problematic characteristics of the weapon. You of course did not do that. Your ego, or gotcha got in the way, and therefore you were responded to in a manner that is all to frequent. You are an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 13, 2013 1:02:27 GMT -6
Didn’t the U.S. Infantry men ditch the Bi-Pod to make it lighter? My reply to Ian's above was a legit observation.
Literally everything was a pain in the butt to carry, and that included the BAR. Such things as ammo belts were so designed that while in the prone position you had to raise your body to get more ammo after each 8 rounds (with the M-1) or 18 (we never loaded the mag full for the BAR) Raising your body from the prone is the last thing you want to do in a combat situation. This is your appraisal of the weapon and if as Ian suggests the bi-pod was jettisoned your observation that accuracy would be problematic is correct. The BAR used as a close quarter weapon [your 100 metres]weighing in at 20 lbs? with an 8 round mag would be no match for the submachine gun at 7 lbs and 30 round mag. Another consideration would be the power of the BAR round.Totally unsuitable for close quarter combat.And lacking a bipod it's role as an automatic weapon at longer range would be compromised. All legitmate points to make with no intention to suggest of other posters your the rest of you are a bunch of fakes and clowns.Best Wishes
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 13, 2013 2:12:06 GMT -6
Why did you not ask Ian first if he was sure they did. I think in the main and there are exceptions, he is incorrect, did that ever dawn on you before you made your observation.
Ditching the bipod was not done as a general rule, especially in Europe. I have heard of it being done at Guadalcanal, by the Marine Corps to better adapt it to jungle fighting, so the bipod would not get entangled in vegetation as you moved through the jungle. I had six in my platoon. Later as a company commander I had 18 M14E somethings which also had a bipod. I never allowed anyone to remove them. The bipod was much to valuable in a defensive situation to give stability to both of these weapons while in the prone position/
The BAR could be used at close quarters, a lot further in than 100 meters. Its great value was providing interlocking fires across a squad front with a high volume automatic weapon, the same role that the SAW and its follow-on are used for today.
The BAR did weigh 20 lbs with bipod. It was very heavy and tiring to carry. It had a twenty round capacity magazine, but it was inadvisable to load it to full capacity because of the wear on the magazine spring. We normally loaded with 18 rounds. The BAR man normally carried ten magazines of ammunition plus one in the weapon.
Magazine capacity, rate of fire and size of the round matter very little in the close in fight. The contest usually goes to who sees and fires first.
If you think the BAR is totally unstable you are wrong. While moving an over the shoulder sling was used, so for instantaneously providing automating, high rate suppressive fire it was a matter of pointing the body and shooting.
The BAR was quite accurate out to 350-400 meters in either single round or short burst mode.
The submachine gun, all of them carried a pistol bullet, 9mm or 45ACP. The advantage there was in a close quarter fight a weapon like a Sten, a Thompson, or a Grease Gun was easier to maneuver. At 50 meters and under they were very good, Beyond that not so much.
I believe you definition of close quarter battle and mine are different.
The BAR was designed as a squad level automatic weapon. It was not meant to be either a machine gun or a sub machine gun. Those weapons have their roles, The BAR and those weapons that replaced the BAR have their own unique role as well.
As to you last line Richard, it is your attitude. That is why you are so universally loved on this board, right up their with Keogh, Clair, both for different reasons and then there is moronic comment row, JAG, WILD, HEROSREST, STRANGE. You are known as a troublemaker, an instigator, a braggart, and a general all around s**t ass. None of those comments are mine by the way. They are comments made to me about you by members of this board and the other privately. Now you can sulk, have your feelings hurt, be depressed, or whatever you do, or you can pull up your big boy pants and do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 13, 2013 4:56:33 GMT -6
I was surprised to find what Wiki says about the B.A.R., it says ‘’when the U.S. Army started to phase out the B.A.R. at the end of the 1950s, they never really replaced it until the 1980s’’,
So what the M60, was this a Squad weapon;
M60 (7.62x51mm NATO) Weight: 10.5 kg (23.15 lb.) Feed: Belt-fed Rate of Fire: 500-560 rpm
It certainly is light enough (just a couple of pounds heavier than the B.A.R., but having said that I am not the one who is lumping it around the jungle) and is similar to the German MG34 in that it weighs around the same and is belt-fed and could kick out over 500 rpm, I think it could fall into the LMG/Squad weapon category.
So I can imagine a U.S. Infantry Squad making a transition from B.A.R.s & M.1 Rifles to M60s & M.14s. which would give them a lot more firepower.
it’s funny how we have been talking about the B.A.R. and how it was built under licence by the Belgian firm FN, but if we skip forward to the 1980s, the American Army adopted a Belgian weapon built and designed by FN the M249 Light Machine Gun, this started life as the Belgian Minimi which fired a 5.56x45mm but could be chambered to fire a number of different calibres.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Apr 13, 2013 8:45:17 GMT -6
You are known as a troublemaker, an instigator, a braggart, and a general all around s**t ass. None of those comments are mine by the way. They are comments made to me about you by members of this board and the other privately. Now you can sulk, have your feelings hurt, be depressed, or whatever you do, or you can pull up your big boy pants and do something about it. First off let me say that I'm sure you are an all round decent guy and in my replying to the above I wish no offence to be taken. You can debate the issue or you can be personal.You prefare to use personal invective.In this let me put your mind at rest your effort hardly raises an eyebrow never mind a sulk. I'm in fact heartened that" attitude" is perceived to be the problem and not "content". Your invective would carry more weight if you had the courage of your convictions and named the accusers.
Why did you not ask Ian first if he was sure they did. I think in the main and there are exceptions, he is incorrect, did that ever dawn on you before you made your observation Because you Mr expert stated I guess we stripped ourselves of everything we could and still be competent for mission purposes.Ian knows his weapons and with your confirmation my post was legitmate and highlighted the fact that without the bipod the effectiveness of the weapon was compromised. All your other points re the BAR are good open to debate issues but for God's sake if your purpose here is to deliver a kicking at least be honest name names and read the sequence of posts. Best Wishes
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 13, 2013 9:32:21 GMT -6
Ian: In 1957 with the introduction of the Pentomic System and Battle Groups the US Army also decided to streamline its ammunition requirements as well. We in theory got rid of the carbine, BAR, M-1 Rifle, and 1919A6 machine gun, and they were to be replaced with the M14, the M14E, and the M60 machine gun. Also the M79 Grenade Launcher was to come in but was not ready yet. Neither were the E models of the M-14 The M60 was never a squad automatic weapon. There were two in each weapons squad, the fourth squad of the platoon.
In practice all this took a lot of time, and my unit had carbines until 64, BARs until 1967, and M-1s until 1967 or 68. I am not sure when we got rid of the 1919A6, but it was before the M-1. The period of transition was in some ways worse that having the old complete set. Half and half is never any good.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 13, 2013 10:54:50 GMT -6
Ian: In 1957 with the introduction of the Pentomic System and Battle Groups the US Army also decided to streamline its ammunition requirements as well. We in theory got rid of the carbine, BAR, M-1 Rifle and 1919A6 machine gun, and they were to be replaced with the M14, the M14E, and the M60 machine gun. Also the M79 Grenade Launcher was to com in but was not ready yet. Neither were the E models of the M-14 The M60 was never a squad automatic weapon. There were two in each weapons squad, the fourth squad of the platoon. In practice all this took a lot of time, and my unit had carbines until 64, BARs until 1967, and M-1s until 1968 or 68. I am not sure when we got rid of the 1919A6, but it was before the M-1. The period of transition was in some ways worse that having the old complete set. Half and helf is never any good. That sounds about right to me as I recall. Each platoon always had an M60 or two around. The ten man squad had one or two that were authorized to fire their M-16s on automatic and supposed to be limited to about 3 round bursts. I just never could imagine myself as being one of the guys carrying the M-79 grenade launcher and didn't have to do so. They aren't very effective in the jungle and not good for a close range shootout. Some did have the M-16 with the M-203 grenade launcher although they were mixed in. bc
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 13, 2013 11:29:25 GMT -6
Britt: I seem to remember that those two guys, one in each fire team who were supposed to be the automatic weapons men, to fill the auto weapons role with the M-16 had a sort of detachable lightweight bipod for the M-16. Don't remember using it that much and they sort of disappeared.
Biggest drawback with the M-79, I always thought was the other weapon the grenadier carried, a 45 ACP. The M203 launcher solved that problem, thank God.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Apr 13, 2013 13:10:38 GMT -6
Why did you not ask Ian first if he was sure they did. I think in the main and there are exceptions, he is incorrect, did that ever dawn on you before you made your observation. Ditching the bipod was not done as a general rule, especially in Europe. I have heard of it being done at Guadalcanal, by the Marine Corps to better adapt it to jungle fighting, so the bipod would not get entangled in vegetation as you moved through the jungle. I had six in my platoon. Later as a company commander I had 18 M14E somethings which also had a bipod. I never allowed anyone to remove them. The bipod was much to valuable in a defensive situation to give stability to both of these weapons while in the prone position/ The BAR could be used at close quarters, a lot further in than 100 meters. Its great value was providing interlocking fires across a squad front with a high volume automatic weapon, the same role that the SAW and its follow-on are used for today. The BAR did weigh 20 lbs with bipod. It was very heavy and tiring to carry. It had a twenty round capacity magazine, but it was inadvisable to load it to full capacity because of the wear on the magazine spring. We normally loaded with 18 rounds. The BAR man normally carried ten magazines of ammunition plus one in the weapon. Magazine capacity, rate of fire and size of the round matter very little in the close in fight. The contest usually goes to who sees and fires first. If you think the BAR is totally unstable you are wrong. While moving an over the shoulder sling was used, so for instantaneously providing automating, high rate suppressive fire it was a matter of pointing the body and shooting. The BAR was quite accurate out to 350-400 meters in either single round or short burst mode. The submachine gun, all of them carried a pistol bullet, 9mm or 45ACP. The advantage there was in a close quarter fight a weapon like a Sten, a Thompson, or a Grease Gun was easier to maneuver. At 50 meters and under they were very good, Beyond that not so much. I believe you definition of close quarter battle and mine are different. The BAR was designed as a squad level automatic weapon. It was not meant to be either a machine gun or a sub machine gun. Those weapons have their roles, The BAR and those weapons that replaced the BAR have their own unique role as well. As to you last line Richard, it is your attitude. That is why you are so universally loved on this board, right up their with Keogh, Clair, both for different reasons and then there is moronic comment row, JAG, WILD, HEROSREST, STRANGE. You are known as a troublemaker, an instigator, a braggart, and a general all around s**t ass. None of those comments are mine by the way. They are comments made to me about you by members of this board and the other privately. Now you can sulk, have your feelings hurt, be depressed, or whatever you do, or you can pull up your big boy pants and do something about it. In the days of the old west, a fuss wasn't made over this battle. But now the issue of having a difference of opinion is being politicized by what can only be described as a bullying hysterical mob. There is a mind-set here, a number of interconnected beliefs that are the root of the mass hysteria that's been generated over someone being forbidden to express their opinion. The tenets of this mind-set are: There have been and will always be people who have an opinion all their own. If 1 person in a 1000 thinks his opinion is the only right opinion, then trying to subvert that mindset with facts isn't wrong. Look how long it took for people with opinions to learn that the earth wasn't flat. That people with different opinion exists. That such thought processes aren't one in a million, and in particular, that different thought processes isn't something new and scary as QC makes it to be. To say that this normal human thought process can't exist. And that any person with a different opinion is either insane, or more probably, trying to tear down some and only one's social agenda and threaten their own beliefs, they are evil. If they're only unwashed, uninitiated into the cabal of those who think only one opinion matters, they must have been misled by Evil thought processes, and should be removed from forums like this so they can be put back on the straight, narrow and flat conforming world they think it still is. That anyone claiming anything contrary to only one popular man or belief is probably insane. But they might be one of a tiny, tiny handful of people, one in a million or less, who should all probably be the ones who still proudly proclaim that the earth still isn't flat, even from 3411 or any other location those in opposition choose to bey at the moon from. Just look at the subject we're discussing. A person with unusual thought processes that no-one will ever agree with NOT being permitted to be voice their opinion like all the other people here because QC says so. Look at the hysteria that's being generated here. Look at the lack of logic or rationality - he flaunting harassing over words it takes a lab test, or batteries of lab tests, to determine that. Most never know. You could be one of them and not know it. It's much the same in other mammalian species. When you talk about "usual" or "unusual", that's not a problem. "Normal" vs "abnormal" though, that introduces a whole set of other meanings. Abnormal implies wrong, improper, dangerous, to be changed or destroyed, which is exactly what QC's remarks mean, this not unlike The Inquisition. What is normal for any mammalian species is for there to be some variation in the species. In humans, thought process - ergo speech is the most obvious, where there are many variations observed in their opinion.
|
|