Nichdfresh- Oh, I never did say that marksmanship was not appropriate under certain circumstances. It’s just that by WW 2 and since quick moving units with substantial mobile firepower were what was happening. It was the additional factor that didn’t exist during WW I is all. 
ok…i really don’t know or care who iron man was…
it has no relevance to the topic…
the officers and non-coms that were responsible for training the army during WW2 were pre-war regular army or national guard.they had come into the military in the '30s at a time when the military was at the bottom of the budget process.pre-war vets i’ve talked with remeber only getting around 50-100 rounds a year to use on the range and for qualification.some national guard units didn’t even get that much.you seem to have forgotten about all those shots of the louisiana manuvers that had troops with broomsticks for MGs,pipes for mortars and trucks with “TANK” written on the side as armored vehicles.when talking to veterans from both the PTO and the ETO they have been unanimous in relating that they were constantly told during training to “not waste ammo” and “make each shot count”.they are also fairly consistent in stating that their stateside training did not prepare them in any meaningful way for actual combat.once in combat the old training gave way to what was usefull,like ditching gear that you couldn’t use as well as things like directing a volume of fire at an enemy position rather than waiting to get a clear shot at a target.you cannot compare training that is given now to the training from WW2.they are like night and day.but then again a good number of the folks on this topic spent half of it aguing a given such as "is a BAR called a B.A.R. or a bar?"or arguing if someone might have shot a BAR from the hip at some point or if you could do it while running sideways across a street???
Stephen Ambrose goes into length about this in “Citizen Soldiers”; how new replacements had to be routinely retrained in the use of their weapons. Soldiers had learned through experience that they needed area suppressive fire rather than pin-point accuracy. Of course soldiers still took carefully aimed shots, but it was also important to lay down a steady stream of suppressive fire once the enemy was located.
Yeah, it probably did get a bit out of hand. But oh, well some good stuff has come out of it.
Edited by Dani for removing an unpleasant comment.
Well I think its one thing to say that a BAR was occasionaly used when the firer was moving and another to say that the BAR was routinely used whilst running at the enemy firing from the Hip john Wayne style.
I wonder what other armies rules were on this? Where is the discipline if a whole platoon is moving and firing at the same time? A lot of guys here liked Band of Brothers, how many times did you see guys running and firing in that? That would be interesting to know.
And before certain members here go off the rails, this is an observation and NOT a criticism. I am genuinely interested.
Savoy6 & Nickdfresh- how right you are! 8)
I believe I understand what you’re saying, but in most armies including the US, suppressive fire is actually aimed.
Suppressive fire is used to kill or prevent en pers from effectively employing his wpns or observing the proceedings.
fire can be laid by individual riflemen/gunners or crew served wpns.
To use unaimed fire in the general direction of the enemy will not produce effective fire except by luck, and if it’s not effective it won’t be suppressive.
The USMC and the US Army employ these methods as do the majority of professional ‘western’ armed forces.
For direct fire, which is what we’re talking about, there are two ways in which to engage a tgt.
a) Area fire is fire that covers an area laterally and in depth. - eg a woodline.
b) Point fire is fire directed at one point - eg a pillbox/bunker or embrasures.
I have just tediously re-read this entire bloody Topic and I think that there is agreement on the following at least:
-
No one was taught to fire the BAR on the run in training, everyone agrees with this point.
-
In certain circumstances the BAR was fired on the move, although at what ranges is not clear to me.
-
The BAR was used for fire suppression.
Please everyone take the time to read what you and others have written in the last several pages, meanwhile here are some selected quotes;
Is it possible to agree with the above and move the debate on a bit? Its all becoming very circular.
The BAR in various versions was also used by the pre WW2 Belgian (made by FN, where Browning worked as well) and the Polish armies. AFAIK, a few other European armies used it as well prior to 1939.
Jan
BAR+lots of ammo+trained soldier=good gun in the hands of a good soldier who knows how to use a BAR.
- no I have forgotten
2)A movie
3)No it came in a medium sized package for $9.99
4)It’s watched through the eye in a TV
5)I learned a lot from it. - I was just reading over these pages and decided to answer this even though it was a long time ago.
Yes, you are right.
In my opinion - supported by the historic photographs - nothing changed in WWII when it comes to BAR role at the first line of combat. Look gents please how much dynamically this weapon was used and the pics show it. Have you ever seen the BAR with bipod? Almost never. Such pics are ultra rare. BAR gunner has always run shoulder to shoulder together with the other troops in assault. During both world wars to some extent of course the BAR has alwyas been used as a far progenitor of AR-15.
Best regards
Greg
Umm, I have a question about the good Ol’ BAR’s, did the Canadians get any of these badboys, or was the US Army the only one whom had these?
The Canadians (except for the force which was involved in the raid on Attu and Kiska and members of the mixed Canadian-American First Service Special Force, which was deployed in Italy) were equipped in accordance with British lines. This means for an infantry section Lee Enfield rifles (SMLE or No4) for the riflemen, Sten guns or Thompson 1928 and A1 for section and platoon leaders as well as radio operators and 2" mortar men and as section automatic the Bren LMG.
The units involved in the Aleuts against the Japanese were using a mix of American and Canadian equipment and the FSSF were using the Johnson LMG.
Jan
Acc. to the Infantry Training Pamphlet Part III “Fieldcraft, Battle drill, Section and Platoon tactics” from 1944, in the British army the normal use of the section automatic, the Bren LMG was used stationary to provide supporting fire while the rifle group moved up to a flanking position. Then the rifle group (6 riflemen plus the section leader) took over and provided fire support while the Bren group (section second in command, Bren gunner, assistant Bren gunner) moved to a new position. Then they would take over suppresive fire while the rifle group moved in on the objective. When the rifle group was close enough for the final assault, the Bren group would switch targets, e.g. to cover a neighbouring enemy position to protect the rifle group’s flank or to cut off the resteat of the original enemy. (correct so, Man of Stoat and 100Yards Stare? ).
The Bren gun was designed to be used from the prone position or from a support, e.g. a wall and to be carried using the carrying handle, though inofficial methods, like carrying it over the shoulder or both Bren gunner and No. 2 carrying it together, e.g. while crossing an obstacle, were also used.
In close combat situations, e.g. clearing a forest or house clearing, it could be carried with the strap slung over the right shoulder and fired shot gun style from the hip, but in this case the enemy was usually not more distant than a few yards. This was e.g. done during the Borneo campaign in the 1960s, when it was discovered that the beltfed GMPG was not really suited to jungle fighting, due to the fact that it was heavier and needed a prone position, which was apparently hard to find in a swampy jungle (reference Dugelby “The Bren Gun Saga”), so the at this time already considered obsolete Bren guns were dug out of the unit stores and used like a big SMG. The GPMG was relegated to more static uses, e.g. in defense of observation posts or villages, or mounted on boats on river patrol.
According to the pamphlet, in urban operations, the Bren was to be used to provide supporting fire and to isolate a building by creating killing zones in adjacent streets.
BTW, the British had two bad experiences with indisciminate fire, which had huge political implications. The first was the massacre of Amritsar in India, where Ghurkas commanded by, as was later discovered, mentally unstable British officer opened fire on an unarmed crowd of civilians in a walled in square without escape in 1919. This event had a huge impact in India and caused a lot of support for the Indian independence movement. It also teaches what can happen when soldiers will thoughtlessly obey illegal orders.
The other event was the Bloody Sunday in Derry (Londonderry) in 1972, when 1st Para opened fire during a riot by Irish nationalists. What exactly happened was never really cleared up, but according to official sources the Paras were fired upon by an IRA sniper, anyway, out of some reason fire was opened on the crowd, leaving several civilians dead. This, of course, was fuel on the propaganda mills of the IRA and caused severe political repercussions.
Since then the British have been very strict with their rules of engagement, with a strict “open fire only if the enemy is clearly identified” policy.
(correct, Man of Stoat, PDF27, 1000Yards Stare?)
Jan
Hello Everyone:
I have read this post with some interest. If anybody wants to know about the B.A.R., which is what it was called by my father, a USMC B.A.R. man, I get you the answers.
My father, as stated before, was a a B.A.R. man in the USMC. He fought in the 2nd Division on Tarawa, and in the 4th Division on Roi, Namur, Tinian , Saipan, and Iwo Jima. He has 5 Purple Hearts, 3 Bronze Stars, and a Silver Star.
I will answer some of the question that I have seen on this forum,
- It was called the B.A.R., not BAR as in a candy bar,
- the B.A.R. did not have bad recoil,
- the largest man was not always given the B.A.R., it was based on the strength of the individual, my father was 5’11’’ and 190 pounds in the USMC
- the B.A.R. can be fired from any position with NO CHANGE in its accuracy,
- the B.A.R. was used in the assault and supressing fire roll.
- B.A.R. men would advance with riflemen, preferably in a line fanned out facing the advancing area,
- there were 3 B.A.R. men in a USMC squad,
- you did not train with the B.A.R. in ‘Boot Camp’, when you went to the “Fleet Marine Force” you were picked and then trained with the B.A.R.,
- and there was no such thing as a “One shot, One Kill” mentality back on the islands in WW2, also there is no such thing as a waste of ammo. My father would carry 6 x 20 round clips, along with 3 bandeleers of .30 cal and grenades. The USMC mentality was, “the more fire you put out the less will come back”, especially during Banzai charges when you “sprayed” at the oncomig rush. Also, riflemen would file down the “sear” on the M1 which would turn the M1 into a semi-automic. There was always enough ammo!
I told my father about some of the things that I have read on this “Topic” and he laughed at what some were saying. So if you want the truth on this subject I can get it for you.
Oh, by the way… this is a GREAT website adn this is my FIRST POST!
nanuuq
Welcome aboard!
Im pretty new myself…I kinda just sit back and learn, throw my 2 cents in now and then.