They didn’t do so well in the attack later in the war because the troops by that point were not well-trained. A better comparison is attacks earlier in the war. in any case either of the German GP MGs provides a better base of fire for an assault than A BAR and a handful of rifles.
" my m1 does my talking " it is painted to many propanda pictures to show how the power of it and other good points of hte gun . and i think that they didnt made no mistakes because it was really good weapon
:o ?
Any MG is essential in a section assault if the unit is to win the firefight, succeed in the attack & keep cas low. In larger attacks they’re indispensable.
In a section attack it is possible to use the LMG (eg L4) if there’s a well trained gun group, but link works so much better.
Not if the machinegunners were caught in the open without any real cover, in which case they were maggot feed since they drew fire from pretty much everybody…
And the Germans weren’t winning many firefights by mid-1944 or so, and when they did, I doubt it had much to do with actual superior firepower and more to do with adeptly using defensive cover, their knowledge of the terrain, and mastering ambush tactics…
Perhaps, or they no longer bothered giving many classes in offense to the trainees.
A better comparison is attacks earlier in the war. in any case either of the German GP MGs provides a better base of fire for an assault than A BAR and a handful of rifles.
Yes. But the BAR was never meant to match the MG34/42. The Browning .30 cal. was. In which case, it was unsatisfactory to an extent, though that may have had more to do with the gun being a solely tripod mount in most configurations which obviously inhibited quick displacement and tactical movement…
This has little to do with the BAR being a “bad” weapon when compared to, say, the Bren Gun. In any case, the Commonwealth troops who carried the Bren may have had a dedicated LMG. But they also had bolt action rifles and WWI era Vickers guns to compensate. In any case, I’m not sure the Bren would have had any significant advantages over the BAR which would have tilted the battle either way…
Nick, if you tried to use the BAR in the same manner that the Bren was used, i.e. with the same sort of rates of fire as a solid base of fire,2 things happened:
- the forend caught fire
- the barrel wore out extremely rapidly
It really is not capable of providing a solid base of fire, it really is just a heavy, fully automatic rifle firing from an open bolt.
Nick, no one is saying the BAR is a bad weapon, just that it has no use. It’s a classic example of a weapon that tries to do too much and thus ends up not being very good at anything.
There are better rifles, and there are better LMG’s, the BAR is just sub-par at both roles, end of story.
As for superior firepower, do you really have so little understanding of what you are talking about? The Americans had overwhelming superority of firepower, its the only way they could beat the Germans. It’s just that this firepower was not present in the infantry squad instead it was present in the air superority and artillery support. Coupled with superior logistics and communications, far more important factors to the outcome of a battle than what bloody rifle the infantry carry.
Besides the bulk of the German army was committed on the Russian front, had that not been the case the Allies would have been wiped off the beaches in Normandy… As it happend it was a close enough call for the American landing.
I doubt that Marines who clawed their way through the Pacific without artillery and air support in many instances, with squad tactics based on several BARs, would agree.
Perhaps we need to separate Marine and Army tactics, and Pacific and European theatres.
I realise this a European thread, but it doesn’t justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of whatever problems might have existed in Europe when the BAR worked very well in the Pacific.
On the European front, there wasn’t much scope for air and artillery, nor armour which often kept back, nor often much communication, in the close fighting in the bocage. How did BAR’s do there, against prepared German positions, along with other American infantry weapons which won the fight?
If you’re saying the BAR “ends up not being very good at anything,” then you’re pretty much saying it’s a “bad weapon,” putting you squarely against a large body of both anecdotal and historical evidence…
There are better rifles, and there are better LMG’s, the BAR is just sub-par at both roles, end of story.
There are better LMGs, but that role was somewhat filled with the Browning .30, which was more ergonomic than say the Vickers or any other Allied “medium” machine gun due to the fact it was air cooled and lighter. Furthermore, the Browning was specifically adapted to US tactics, ones used to this day (or at least when I was in) of “fire-and-maneuver” in which extended fire support was deemed less important than a quick overwhelming of the enemy by the assault element. You cannot simply judge weapons by their classes, which was the fundamental mistake made repeatedly by the Allies in WWII, or rigidly dividing weapons into classes and thereby reflecting an inherent tactical inflexibility and dogma. Just because the BAR did not fit a narrow paradigm doesn’t mean it was not an effective weapon in the hands of an experienced unit of infantry.
The BAR was a beloved weapon for a reason. And its users found ways to compensate for it’s drawbacks while maximizing its firepower…
And feel free to offer a “better” example of an automatic rifle designed prior to the advent of WWII, then fielded to any extent during the war…
As for superior firepower, do you really have so little understanding of what you are talking about?
I don’t follow. Seriously, you need to quote me as I think you may be having reading “difficulties” when making such general statements…
The Americans had overwhelming superority of firepower, its the only way they could beat the Germans.
This is a thread about infantry weapons and I think you’re going off track a bit here. And how else does one defeat an enemy? Inferior firepower? The US also fielded lessor tanks and had some poor tactical doctrines due to inexperience and unrealistic concepts, and were fighting on the exposed offensive, for the majority of the war, against an experienced foe. Of course they were going to use the advantage in airpower and artillery. Did the Russians or British, or Germans for that matter, ever decline to do so when they had the ability?
It’s just that this firepower was not present in the infantry squad
I don’t think I’ve said the American squad had “superior” firepower. In fact, if you go through my posts either in this thread or any other, I’ve stated the German concept built around the machinegun and not the rifleman was superior. Although individually, American soldiers more often than not did. The Germans certainly had the advantage in machineguns, but more telling was their advantage of being continually on the defensive in Europe which made this advantage more telling, possibly even exaggerated. The flip side of that is when the MG42 is wiped out, they were pretty much f****d, weren’t they? Especially when conducting assaults and attempting fire and maneuver with the GPMG, which has also proved somewhat unsatisfactory as most contemporary armies have introduced a lighter SAW type weapon to augment the GPMG…
This was especially apparent towards the end of the War at the Battle of the Bulge, where despite being issued shitty BARs, American infantry reported wiping out thousands of Wehrmacht and SS infantry attempting assaults over open fields - often without the aid of artillery and with virtually no air support at all. In which case, the MG42s weren’t very effective for obvious reasons…
instead it was present in the air superority and artillery support. Coupled with superior logistics and communications, far more important factors to the outcome of a battle than what bloody rifle the infantry carry.
Agreed. However, there are also subtle differences in the use of weapons tactically which put a different emphasis on different weapons. Comparing the BAR directly to the Bren without consideration of tactics and the use of other weapons, such as the anachronistic Vickers, then uniformly dismissing the weapon as vastly inferior is also a bit silly. And the German “advantage in firepower” had as much to do with employing mostly defensive tactics as it did with the weapons. Otherwise, it was hardly noticed…
Besides the bulk of the German army was committed on the Russian front, had that not been the case the Allies would have been wiped off the beaches in Normandy… As it happend it was a close enough call for the American landing.
What does this have to do with anything smallarms?
In any case, the Soviets could not have counterattacked without the mobility provided to them by the Dodge trucks of American War production. And Americans were far from the only nationality that had difficulty with amphibious operations I recall. Are we going to get into some nationalistic pissing contest now?
But they didn’t use it in the same manner as the Bren…
And when BARs used in conjunction with each other (which was a typical tactic improvised in the field that I stated earlier in this thread), or with a .30 Browning, they seemed to do just fine…
On a side note, I’d be interested to find the ratio of BARs issued to troops as opposed to other weapons…
Why not? 
How much water did the BAR require to be carried by its user compared with, say, a Vickers crew?
Which WWII MG got pissed on the most to cool it in action?
Which scientific testing shows that pissing on any barrel cools it enough to resume continuous, or even sustained fire?
Which weapon could fire without carrying a few gallons of water? Vickers? BAR?
If the Vickers was so great, how come the UK used the Bren?
How about, shock of shocks, we just accept that different weapons in different hands at different times could have different results.
As has often been said, it’s not the size of the dog in the fight that counts, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.
The last sentence is the “Truthiest” of all. 
Of course, although the MG42 had a magnificent 1100 round per minute rate of fire (give or take) which so intimidated its foes, they needed to produce training films to help their troops overcome the psyche-out (the US did, I’ve viewed it!). This also caused a nasty overheating problem. Yes, Fritz could change the barrel, but, that also provided a nice grenade range window…
I think this is where you’ll find a big difference in doctrine and tactics in the European and Pacific theatres, and between the Army and Marines.
In the Pacific, no disrepect to the men who fought, the Army were usually conservative in every respect and rarely as effective as the Marines who, as Gomer Pyle would say, Surprise! Surprise!, were based on 3 BARs per squad with related fire and movement.
It’s no accident that the USMC usually penetrated Japanese defences far more effectively than the US Army, although that’s by no means just a consequence of having BAR’s.
However, Marine aggression and skill in using BARs is one of the factors that made the USMC a more potent force than the Army in the Pacific.
Oh I agree. The Marines overall embodied a different, more practical approach to infantry warfare than did the US Army of the period (with the exception of the airborne formations and a few select divisions). Part of the problem with the US Army was the very often unrealistic training that was outdated, and incorporated many of the wrong lessons (although, I’ve heard that many a drill instructor that were veterans of North Africa and Italy threw out the training manuals towards the end of the conflict, and trained the recruits/draftees more realistically)…
I think one recurring theme I’ve seen in interviews with US Army veterans is that they had to “unlearn” new replacements of some of their training, such as the whole “one shot, one kill” ideal, which was wholly unrealistic yet persisted in the basic training of US troops. Fire discipline was one thing, but new replacements needed to be taught volume of fire principles and the object of the War was not to conserve ammunition for the next one. I believe towards the end of the War in the ETO, the individual soldiers had also adopted ad hoc tactics of using multiple BARs in conjunction with one another during assaults…
Indeed, I’ve heard that entire understrength Marine squads were armed with BARs…
Not if the machinegunners were caught in the open without any real cover, in which case they were maggot feed since they drew fire from pretty much everybody…[/quote]
Which is why tacdoc insists on ‘one foot on the ground’ at all times. Anybody moving without cover, concealment or covering fire is making a target of themselves. But that’s beside the point, the mg was and is the firebase for attacks, the assault is carried out by rfn supported by the gun.
“Winning the firefight” is one of the stages in a section attack, and conversely for defence too.
heres a question i’ve had for a while, the picture at the top left corner of the page, the soldier doesn’t appear to be American but has an m-1???
It’s an American wearing the pre-war/very early War M1917 helmet. The M-1 was adopted in 1937, not 1942, and many soldiers wore the M1917 well into 1942…
M-1 Garand of course!!
Hi Guy’s
You can’t compair a M1 with K98k The M1 has my vote.I have a K98k.
I collect Canadian British and US mil Firearms.The one I like is the M1928A1 Thompson Submachine Gun.
I picked the M1
Both the M1 Garand and the K98k were rugged, accurate, and very reliable. The only difference was that the M1 held more rounds and was semi-auto which was a very big plus in battle while the K98k was a bolt action rifle and held only 5 rounds. In battle I would lean towards the M1.