I humbly bow to y’all’s superior minutia recall. 
The following discussion is based on U.S. Marines and the Pacific theatre of war. Iwo Jima is my model.
First of all, as far as I’m aware the Browning Automatic Rifle was generally known as the B.A.R. (initials only) in WWII — not Bar (Like in candy). NOTE: “as far as I’m aware” !!!
As for firing the B.A.R. from the hip:
Pin-down (or pin-up) fire teams (Including B.A.R. guys) aimed their weapons. Their job was to keep up a steady, directed, and concentrated fire to cover the advance of the assult teams. They aimed at the embrasures in enemy pillboxes to keep the enemy from returning fire, or aimed to keep heads down in a machine gun emplacement – or aimed at cave openings to keep the enemy occupied and under cover while the assult fire teams moved in on the flanks. Pin-down guys directed their fire in a concentrated middle-of-the-road pattern so as not to harm the assult people as they moved in.
The assult teams were on the move! Things were happening — fast! As they closed on a pillbox (for instance) there was little time to aim. When the pin-down teams ceased fire on signal, or on order, the B.A.R. guys would keep up a concentrated fire on the embrasure – from the hip, or any other comfortable position, while moving in. They could usually direct their fire by watching where their rounds were hitting. After awhile – with some on-the-job training – they got real good at that. Riflemen or demolition guys then could toss a “cooking” grenade in through the embrasure or drop a granade or satchel charge down through a vent above the pillbox. Or a flamethrower guy could simply direct his fire into either of the above openings. Very efficient!!! They were always very comforting guys to have around – and on your side!
The above tactical situation is, of course, the ideal situation. Sometimes it wasn’t that easy. If, for instance, a flanking movement(s) came under enemy covering fire from another pillbox or pillboxes, from other fortifications, or cave openings, or even from spider holes, it could get sticky. Sometimes a straight up the alley approach was the only alternative.
Again, I remind you that there was a lot of tactical ad-libbing going on during battle that wouldn’t fit the above model. You did what you had to do. Everything was subject to momentary change. vcs
vcs-ww2 That’s pretty similar to what my friend’s Dad, a BAR man in the Pacific, told us but when I talked about some of things he described they made fun of me. If you exchange M-60 for BAR in your diescription it’s quite a lot what we encountered in Vietnam. As you can see if you read all this topic I never said anyone was trained to do certain things that once in-country personnel they evolved into.
Ad-libbing is exactly the best phrase for developing tactics immediatly during the situation that were never taught in basic.
PS after island hopping throught the Pacific my friend’s Dad got his Purple Heart at Iwo and went home.
And as has been said before, we never said it has never been done, Twitch. Shouldn’t you be talking drivel on the flying wing thread?
vcs, when you say about getting close to the pill box, what range are we talking? Did the gunner ever move and shoot at long range fireing from the hip, or was this move mainly used in close quarter battle (CQB)?
vcs, when you say about getting close to the pill box, what range are we talking? Did the gunner ever move and shoot at long range fireing from the hip, or was this move mainly used in close quarter battle (CQB)?
1000ydstare: The assult team(s) were busy moving in on the target, plus they were off to the side. They also wanted to keep maximum ammo available and ready for the close-in work. The pin-down teams would keep a steady fire on the target – additional fire from the assult guys wasn’t usually necessary.
When you ask about closeness to the pillbox I assume you mean the B.A.R. guy(s). They would right there with the guy shoving the grenade through the slot !!!
That’s pretty much a text book manouvre from todays battlefield aswell.
But what I mean is at what ranges would the BAR gunner fire from the hip rather than aimed shots? 100yds? 200yds?
Also the moving and fireing question.
How close or deparate would the fighting be for any one to be moving and fireing at the same time. As opposed to snap shooting from static positions?
I believe the BAR was also designed, and intended, to be issued to every US infantry soldier as sort of a full-caliber “assault rifle;” but it’s prohibitive recoil, cost, weight, and ammunition usage concerned the post-WWI US military far too-much for this to happen.
And BARS were heavy, I heard somewhere that mostly infantry with bars , if they have the bar with a bipod, which usally weighs two pounds, they most of the time discard them so the bar will be lighter.
Little BAR trivia, BARs were favored by some American gangsters, or actually highway robbers like Bonnie and Clyde. Bonnie wielded a “cut down” BAR, or “scattergun” “like a Marine” according to a historian. Those committing crimes using cars preferred the BAR over the Thompson submachine gun because it could penetrate an engine block.
More info: http://texashideout.tripod.com/guns.html
I believe the BAR was also designed, and intended, to be issued to every US infantry soldier as sort of a full-caliber “assault rifle;” but it’s prohibitive recoil, cost, weight, and ammunition usage concerned the post-WWI US military far too-much for this to happen.[/quote]
Never heard that one before Nick, any sources for this info ?
Welcome to the site by the way.
I believe the BAR was also designed, and intended, to be issued to every US infantry soldier as sort of a full-caliber “assault rifle;” but it’s prohibitive recoil, cost, weight, and ammunition usage concerned the post-WWI US military far too-much for this to happen.[/quote]
Never heard that one before Nick, any sources for this info ?
Welcome to the site by the way.[/quote]
Thanks for the welcome.
I thought I heard that comment on a History Channel program on US small arms of WWII, I’m fairly certain that they may have thought about it, but of course realized the impracticality. I may be wrong on that one though…So could the History Channel, one of their programs also stated that the BAR was “unreliable,” which is completely wrong from everything I’ve ever heard, when comparing it as the closet thing the US had to a Sturm Gewhr 44…
Hatcher doesn’t mention it, so it’s probably balls.
Beware of television programmes – some of them are appalling. See here for instance:http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=940&highlight=smle
Nickdfresh- welcome to the party pal! Don’t be surprised that no one believes you when you state something contrary to what the undercurrent is alleged to be. I mentioned about my friend’s Dad constantly moving and firing his BAR in the Pacific and was taken to task. But it looks like vcs-ww2 bears that out with his statement. I talked directly to the man that did it but still wasn’t believed. OK when we got onto the subject about moving and firing I mentioned how we did it in Nam often enough so the big question was changed to say how no one is trained in basic to do it. You learn a lot of stuff from the experienbced guys in-country that they don’t teach back home.
So dude don’t bother to read this whole freakin thread unless you want to get bored, real bored.
Always jumping to conclusions if they back up your statement I see Twitch.
Anyway, most of the point was that it was never taught in training and even if carried out in combat is an unsound tactic. I think you will find I have never said anything other than that.
I think you will find that the thrust of the posts so far is merely that the History channel is not always as accurate and encylopedic as is believed by many. If you follow MoS’s link you will see why. I also have picked up mistakes by the History channel in things that I have knowledge and/or experience of.
All that is ever asked of posters on this site is that they back up their posts with credible, and referenced, information. How a bloke in the pub told you how he invented the Enigma or fought off a regiment of HJ doesn’t count.
For my 20ps worth. It is likely that gangsters got their hands on BARs, let’s face it gun control is not that strong in the USofA now, or then. And it is highly likely that they would prefer a weapon that could destroy an engine block rather than just pepper the shell.
Likewise nickdfresh also sees how this info could be wrong.
note…
I thought I heard that comment on a History Channel program on US small arms of WWII, I’m fairly certain that they may have thought about it, but of course realized the impracticality. I may be wrong on that one though…So could the History Channel, one of their programs also stated that the BAR was “unreliable,” which is completely wrong from everything I’ve ever heard, when comparing it as the closet thing the US had to a Sturm Gewhr 44…
So you are stirring up sh1t why?
Well, perhaps not every soldier, but I believe that a large number operating in tight unison were called for, of course not enough could be produced anyways…
The Browning Automatic Rifle was designed and built during World War I in response to a need by U.S. forces for a light “machine rifle” for offensive work. In fact, it was hoped the BAR might help break the stalemate that existed when Pershing’s troops arrived in France. The theory was for large numbers of doughboys armed with BARs to employ “walking fire” against the Hnu trenches. This consisted of soldiers advancing toward the enemy, firing with each step of the right foot, producing a torrent of bullets, which would, theoretically, drastically intimidate German return fire.
http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/articles/06.htm
I’ve heard this from more than one source, in fact I believe the gun was nicknamed the “trench broom.” (Or was that the Thompson?) 
It was the Tommy gun.
from a dubious source - a gaming site.
http://www.planethalflife.com/dod/guide/weapons.shtm
Thompson Submachine Gun
Operation: Automatic
Caliber: .45 ACP
Capacity: 30 round box magazine
Weight: 11 lbs
Damage: Moderate
Accuracy: Medium
Recoil: ModerateAh, yes. My baby. The “Trench Broom” (as it was originally designed in WWI so that America’s Doughboys would have an easy time clearing out the enemy trench when they crossed it) is my weapon of choice when playing on the Allied Forces. A combination of the generous 30-round clip, low recoil, and high RoF equates to mucho pain inflicted on the poor sap you’re sighting.
When aiming with this gun at mid-range, generally, he should be in the middle of your middle crosshair line, or a little lower than that. So, if you want to hit the guy in the head, aim for his chest. The kick on this gun will ensure he won’t have either by the third or fourth round that leaves the barrel. Advancing with this gun is a dream – I have often charged an enemy line with a Thompson in my hands and come out the victor, with two or three bodies to my name.
One thing you – and oftentimes, I – do have to remember though is SHOOT 'TILL HE’S DEAD. Often, I’ll squeeze off six or seven rounds into a guy, and think, “well, this offs most guys I come across,” only to see him level his gun and almost mockingly look at me and say, “Well, it didn’t off me!”
If you’re looking to pop someone at distance, what I do is crouch down, aim a little low, and empty my clip. The bullets spread very little – once you know how to control its recoil – so that it generally takes care of the target.
CQB is what this gun was designed for, though. Three words: Spray and Pray.
Game Tips: The Tommygun can be devestating at short range – aim low and fire in long bursts – the recoil will drag your fire upwards across your target.
Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)
Operation: Automatic
Caliber: .30-06 Rifle
Capacity: 20 round box magazine
Weight: 18.5 lbs
Damage: Heavy
Accuracy: Good
Recoil: Heavy
Picture a Garand on steroids, and you have the BAR. A bigger, 20 round clip, accurate at a distance, and a kick that’s controllable makes this a formidable weapon. Even its sound strikes fear in the hearts of men… at least, I think it does…Fighting with the BAR is similar to the Garand. Again, shooting while standing is difficult, but not impossible to master. If you can compensate for it, your shots will land very close to where you want them to. Again, a kill is best achieved by aiming low. Shooting and advancing can be done, but you gotta be skilled at controlling recoil, or your shots will go wide, while your crouched, a properly-aimed target won’t.
The BAR is a decent CQB weapon, but you should aim your shots more than you would a Thompson or Grease Gun; You have ten less shots, and those ten can mean the difference between a dead Kraut and a dead GI.
Game Tips: The BAR’s heavy recoil and low magazine capacity will make long range automatic fire useless. Fire in 2-3 shot bursts for the best effectiveness.
Also more info on http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/web/history.htm
Ironically, the first shipment of prototype guns destined for Europe arrived at the docks in New York city on November 11, 1918, the day the War ended. Thompson now faced a huge problem. What do you do with a trench broom, now that the trenches no longer need to be sweeped?
my first post here…
well…quite a topic…and on my favorite weapon too…lol…
at the beginning of the war the typical US Army platoon was devided into three rifle squads and an automatic rifle squad.the heavier weapons,i.e. M1917A1/M1919A4 MG’s,60mm mortars,etc. were in the weapons platoon(4th) at the company level.the idea was that the BAR squads would be used to lay a base of fire on an enemy position,then the 1st and/or second squads would move in to assault the position,with the third as reserve.around '42 the BAR was moved to the squad level with one being used per squad.USMC units in the pacific usually picked up more BAR spots because they developed the idea cycling fire between two BAR gunners.One would shoot while the other was reloading.this way a continuous stream of fire could be directed at a position even though the BAR mag only held 20 rounds.firing on the move was NOT taught as a normal technique.was it used as a method of hopefully keeping the enemies head down while you ran across a street or clearing?probably.both that and the idea of firing your weapon in the general area of the enemy(very prevalent in actual combat in WW2) are addressed quite strongly in several of the late war US Army “Lessons Learned” pamphlets.evidently the rear echelon was quite concerned about this “wasting of ammunition”…lol…REMFs…
Savoy6 yeah the old farts with the WW I mentality were quite concerned about ammo wasting. They still envisioned trench warfare with carefully aimed pot shots s you held your breath.LOL Hell everybody first trained on '03 Springfields which were just that, 1903 era weapons! Can you say Spanish American War?!
When my friends Dad got to his first island, Guadalcanal, the veterans there showed him how to effectively provide heavy fire for the squad in the real world. The other BAR guy showed him how to adjust the sling on the weapon so it kinda hung like a guitar for easy sweeping motion as they moved up providing supression.
Twitch wrote:
yeah the old farts with the WW I mentality were quite concerned about ammo wasting.
Keep saying it, it WILL come true if you say it enough times!!!
I can say American Spanish War…
I can also say that it was between April 25 – August 12, 1898. Five years before 1903? 
So it’s relevance to the Springfield and this thread is… what? A very loose connection that the Springfiled was developed to replace the Krag-Jorgensen used in the Spanish-American war?
Still using cast iron references I see
When my friends Dad
IRONMAN used to reference himself you know, when questioned to the validity of the source he used he would actually use a post that he himself had written as further proof!!! You should try it sometime.
They still envisioned trench warfare with carefully aimed pot shots s you held your breath.
Ha ha. yip yip!!
Maybe the yanks don’t get taught this today (although I know they do) but this out of date WW1 shooting method is still taught by many armies today. This is because it is highly relevant and highly useful in combat to be able to put rounds where you want them.
It is obvious you subscribe to the “hit everything on the battlefield but the one thing you wanted to hit” school of shooting. But I suppose it wouldn’t matter as the guy next to you would hit your target, and you would hit his in this particular shooting theory.
I like this bit myself…
from
Springfield '03 Rifle
This rifle was the standard issue to all Marines from the early days of the 20th century into the first year of World War II. As a result of intensive marksmanship training, an inseparable bond formed between the individual Marine and this rifle which paid dividends on the target range and, later, in combat…
The accuracy of the '03 Springfield was without peer, and the Marine Corps based its developing marksmanship program on this rifle. The Marine Corps designed an improved set of front and rear sights and soon led the other services in prowess with the rifle. Indeed, by the outbreak of World War II, the Marine Corps had formed a cult around the rifle.
My bold, doesn’t say anything about leading the place up to hit the target does it?
Even in “Full Metal Jacket” the instructor is seen explaining the benefits of individual accurate shots - I believe he points out that the alledged assasin of JFK, Oswald, was an ex-marine with marine marksmanship.
Although later in the film you do see the platoon completely lose it and start blatting away at a building with one sniper in it (complete with 66 shot!!!) when the Plt IC loses control of the plt.
You forgot Charles “Texas Tower” Whiteman…
There has always been a struggle to reconcile the notion of marksmanship and individual accuracy that is summed up in the US Army slogan “one-shot, one-kill,” which I was indeed taught in BRM with the use of small unit infantry tactics which necessitate close range firepower…