Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

Discussions on the Allies and the Neutral States in general and the countries that does not have sections of their own.
Post Reply
User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#376

Post by fredleander » 15 Oct 2013, 23:39

LWD wrote:NO. That's wiki's definition of what constitutes an LMG. The US Army and USMC considered them automatic rifels not LMGs and I'll go by their defintions just like I go with the German defintions of the twins as battleships rather than battle cruisers or the Alaskas as large cruisers. The M-14 had a bipod too I believe and it wasn't considered an LMG.
The expression LMG wasn't invented during WW2. It was MG, MMG or HMG. SAW's and LSW's are also LMG's. If the M14 with a bipod was served by one man it was a sniper. If its function was to serve the squad, with the extra paraphernalias, it was an LMG (MG).
That wasn't the way the Marines operated from what I've read. Note in the following referency there is an "automatic rifleman" and an "assistant" but no section leader.
Forget about that. However the squad is organised in connection with the MG, if it is supposed to be served by a team - 2, 3 or 4 men - whatever - it is not per definition "an automatic rifle" - that is a personal weapon. The BAR is a squad weapon - an LMG. The expression "LMG" is really a definition of the weapon's role. MG, MMG, and HMG are along the same lines but specific American terms. MG = BAR or Browning 1919 with bipod, MMG = Browning 1919 (or 1918) on tripod, HMG = .50 Browning. The Germans called them MG - Maschinengewehr and SMG - Schweres (heavy) Maschinengewehr. The difference was bipod or tripod. After your definition the Bren gun could also be termed an automatic rifle but it goes a step further as it has an interchangeable barrel. Apart from that the British do not use that expression but rather automatic carbine. That is maybe a better definition of the M16, too.
LWD wrote:From what I've read the main duty of the assistant was to carry more ammo with a secondary task of taking over the BAR if the BAR gunner was incapacitated. I think the army set up was similar.
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showt ... n-fireteam.
There you are. That's in practice how I described it. While the M14, H&K G3, FN FAL or M16 are automatic rifles they are not LMG's, SAW's or LSW's. They are personal weapons. The BAR was originally meant to be a personal weapon but was found unpractical in that role and therefore adapted as an LMG and a team to serve it.

As for ammunition-carrying for the automatic weapons that is a job for the whole squad, not only the MG team (section). That is the same in all armies. If you had served you would have known that. As for carrying the ammunition of the dedicated support squad weapons that is usually the responsibility of the whole platoon. Also that the other members of the team (section) takes over the MG if the operator is incapacitated for some reason. For that matter, all squad infantry training includes the use of the support weapon (MG) for all members of the squad.

You shouldn't be fooled by the fact that I use Wikipedia as a definition source - apart from the fact that they are correct. I have many years experience as an infantry platoon commander at a time when the Norwegian army was organised after the US Army pattern. There may be differences in details but the principles are as I describe them.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book about Operation Sealion:
https://www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - an eight-book series on the Pacific War:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#377

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 Oct 2013, 00:58

it is not per definition "an automatic rifle" - that is a personal weapon.
To be perfectly fair, that's a questionable definition; after all, we'd hardly call a 16" naval rifle a personal weapon...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...


User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#378

Post by LWD » 16 Oct 2013, 15:29

fredleander wrote: ... Forget about that. However the squad is organised in connection with the MG, if it is supposed to be served by a team - 2, 3 or 4 men - whatever - it is not per definition "an automatic rifle" - that is a personal weapon.
The BAR was a personal weapon. Helpers were added to carry additoinal magazines but they weren't required to use or service the weapon.
The BAR is a squad weapon - an LMG.
No more so than a Thompson or a Garand.
There you are. That's in practice how I described it. While the M14, H&K G3, FN FAL or M16 are automatic rifles they are not LMG's, SAW's or LSW's. They are personal weapons. The BAR was originally meant to be a personal weapon but was found unpractical in that role and therefore adapted as an LMG and a team to serve it.
No it wasn't found impracticle in the role of a personal weapon it was just found that having additional ammo available made it more effective. The fact that one man operated the weapon and not a team clearlly makes it a personal weapon.

It does come down to a matter of semantics. As I said before the US military seems to have considered it an automatic rifle and not a maching gun so I'll go with their defintion. You may go with Wiki if you choose.

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#379

Post by fredleander » 16 Oct 2013, 18:10

phylo_roadking wrote:To be perfectly fair, that's a questionable definition; after all, we'd hardly call a 16" naval rifle a personal weapon...
:) ...no comments. I could say it speaks for itself but that would be a comment.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book about Operation Sealion:
https://www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - an eight-book series on the Pacific War:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#380

Post by fredleander » 29 Oct 2013, 18:39

The BAR was a personal weapon. Helpers were added to carry additoinal magazines but they weren't required to use or service the weapon.
The BAR is/was a squad weapon - a LMG - usually with an assistant operator. The assistant squad leader (if there was one) would normally be shackled up with the MG team - the BAR operator and his assistant. This would be the squad support team. In a fire and movement scenario the rifle team and support team would move alternately. In a static position the MG team would flank fire the squad's front. During a field march the MG team would be positioned in the rear. Moving on line the MG team would be positioned on either side of the rifle team.
No more so than a Thompson or a Garand.
Yes, much more so...the Thompson was usually issued to squad leaders, the Garand to riflemen.

Wikipedia - which tells the actual story:

"Although the weapon did see some action in World War I, the BAR did not become standard issue in the U.S. Army until 1938 when it was issued to squads as a portable light machine gun. The BAR saw extensive service in both World War II and the Korean War and saw some service early in the Vietnam War. The U.S. Army began phasing out the BAR in the late 1950s and was without a portable light machine gun until the introduction of the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in the mid-1980s."

This can hardly be called a personal weapon other than in the sense that the operator didn't have another. That said, he might even have a 1911 handgun for backup.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book about Operation Sealion:
https://www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - an eight-book series on the Pacific War:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#381

Post by LWD » 29 Oct 2013, 19:39

fredleander wrote:
The BAR was a personal weapon. Helpers were added to carry additoinal magazines but they weren't required to use or service the weapon.
The BAR is/was a squad weapon - a LMG - usually with an assistant operator.
NO. The "assistant" was not an assistant operator he was an ammo hauler.
No more so than a Thompson or a Garand.
Yes, much more so...the Thompson was usually issued to squad leaders, the Garand to riflemen.
Wikipedia - which tells the actual story:
Ah yes appeal to wiki.
[qutoe]This can hardly be called a personal weapon other than in the sense that the operator didn't have another. That said, he might even have a 1911 handgun for backup.
[/quote]
I've seen nothing to indicate that BAR men were issued hand guns. Note that wiki says of the Thompson:
In the European theater, the gun was widely utilized in British and Canadian Commando units, as well as in the U.S. Army paratrooper and Ranger battalions,
So it was issued to "battalions" and the BAR twas only issued to "squads". It may have been the closest thing to an LMG in an US squad but that doesn't mean it was an LMG.

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#382

Post by fredleander » 29 Oct 2013, 20:01

LWD wrote:NO. The "assistant" was not an assistant operator he was an ammo hauler.
The whole squad hauled ammo for the MG. As did the platoon for the MMG squad. If you had ever served in an infantry platoon you would have known... :oops: ....

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book about Operation Sealion:
https://www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - an eight-book series on the Pacific War:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#383

Post by LWD » 29 Oct 2013, 20:40

fredleander wrote:
LWD wrote:NO. The "assistant" was not an assistant operator he was an ammo hauler.
The whole squad hauled ammo for the MG. As did the platoon for the MMG squad. If you had ever served in an infantry platoon you would have known... :oops: ....

Fred
Irrelevant.
In any case the sources linked have mentioned that while initially the "assistant" was the designated additinal ammo hauler over time everyone in the squad did particularly when the squads moved to 2 or more BARs. That doesn't change it from and Automatic Rifle to an LMG though. The US Army and USMC didn't call them mgs but Automatic Rifles and I'll stick with that designation just like I consider the twins to be battleships as that's what the Germans called them in spite of the fact that many call them battlecruisers. I simply don't see any reason that your defintion is supperior to that of the users.

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#384

Post by fredleander » 29 Oct 2013, 20:41

LWD wrote:
fredleander wrote:
LWD wrote:NO. The "assistant" was not an assistant operator he was an ammo hauler.
The whole squad hauled ammo for the MG. As did the platoon for the MMG squad. If you had ever served in an infantry platoon you would have known... :oops: ....

Fred
Irrelevant.
If you say so.... :wink: ....

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book about Operation Sealion:
https://www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - an eight-book series on the Pacific War:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#385

Post by RichTO90 » 30 Oct 2013, 03:31

LWD wrote:The BAR was a personal weapon. Helpers were added to carry additoinal magazines but they weren't required to use or service the weapon.
Not exactly. According to FM 7-10 and FM 7-20 and the relevant TO&E the Rifle Squad was organized as:

1 Sgt. Squad Leader with Rifle (S.Sgt. as of 26 February 1944)
1 Cpl. Squad Leader Assistant with Rifle and Grenade Launcher
1 Pvt. Automatic Rifleman with BAR
1 Pvt. Automatic Rifleman Assistant with Rifle
1 Pvt. Automatic Rifle Ammunition Bearer with Rifle
7 Pvts. Riflemen with Rifle (two had Grenade Launchers)

The squad consisted of the three-man BAR Team, a two-Rifleman Scout Team, and a five-Rifleman Maneuver Team (although it was not referred to as such). The Squad Leader and Assistant Squad Leader had no fixed position, although the Squad Leader was responsible for finding a position where he could best control his squad and observe their fire effects, and for finding fields of fire and directing the fire of the squad, especially of the BAR, so was usually found with the BAR Team. The position of his Assistant was also not fixed and his responsibility was simply to assist the Squad Leader, and, specifically, be prepared to protect the Squad against tank attack (originally with his Grenade Launcher, but later with a Bazooka - if available - which then required a detailed Pvt. Rifleman to carry ammunition and act as loader).

The BAR team acted together to keep the BAR ready for action, but the Assistant and Ammunition Bearer's main task was primarily to protect the BAR man against enemy threats - to keep him from being distracted while he did his main job of providing automatic firepower for the Squad. Otherwise, they carried extra ammunition, each had a BAR Magazine Belt until 30 June 1944, when it was reduced to one belt for the three men (carried by the Ammunition Bearer).

Under doctrine, so long as there were at least three men remaining in the squad - one to lead, one to man the BAR, and one to be a Grenadier - the Squad was still consider "effective" at least marginally. If only one or two men were left they would be folded into another Squad.

User avatar
sunbury2
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 09:35

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#386

Post by sunbury2 » 30 Oct 2013, 07:41

The semantics about what a BAR was used for is getting bogged down. It was an automatic rifle from WW1 and was adequate but if the US Army had invested in a real LMG, it would have been forgotten.

What about the Browning 30cal Machine Gun as a flawed weapon? As I understand it when the weapon ceased firing, a live round was placed in the chamber and the breech block was cocked at the rear of the weapon. This could lead to "cook offs" and the weapon begin firing by itself again. That must have been a worrying design flaw for the troops in the field.

(One VERY big rider here, is that information correct? I got it from a older family member who claimed he had his pack shot off because of a Browning cooking off).

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#387

Post by fredleander » 30 Oct 2013, 09:37

RichTO90 wrote:
LWD wrote:The BAR was a personal weapon. Helpers were added to carry additoinal magazines but they weren't required to use or service the weapon.
Not exactly. According to FM 7-10 and FM 7-20 and the relevant TO&E the Rifle Squad was organized as:

1 Sgt. Squad Leader with Rifle (S.Sgt. as of 26 February 1944)
1 Cpl. Squad Leader Assistant with Rifle and Grenade Launcher
1 Pvt. Automatic Rifleman with BAR
1 Pvt. Automatic Rifleman Assistant with Rifle
1 Pvt. Automatic Rifle Ammunition Bearer with Rifle
7 Pvts. Riflemen with Rifle (two had Grenade Launchers)

The squad consisted of the three-man BAR Team, a two-Rifleman Scout Team, and a five-Rifleman Maneuver Team (although it was not referred to as such). The Squad Leader and Assistant Squad Leader had no fixed position, although the Squad Leader was responsible for finding a position where he could best control his squad and observe their fire effects, and for finding fields of fire and directing the fire of the squad, especially of the BAR, so was usually found with the BAR Team. The position of his Assistant was also not fixed and his responsibility was simply to assist the Squad Leader, and, specifically, be prepared to protect the Squad against tank attack (originally with his Grenade Launcher, but later with a Bazooka - if available - which then required a detailed Pvt. Rifleman to carry ammunition and act as loader).

The BAR team acted together to keep the BAR ready for action, but the Assistant and Ammunition Bearer's main task was primarily to protect the BAR man against enemy threats - to keep him from being distracted while he did his main job of providing automatic firepower for the Squad. Otherwise, they carried extra ammunition, each had a BAR Magazine Belt until 30 June 1944, when it was reduced to one belt for the three men (carried by the Ammunition Bearer).

Under doctrine, so long as there were at least three men remaining in the squad - one to lead, one to man the BAR, and one to be a Grenadier - the Squad was still consider "effective" at least marginally. If only one or two men were left they would be folded into another Squad.
Well, thank you for that one - I gave up. After all I have only served as a squad leader in a unit with BARs. When I "moved up" it had been changed to MG3's. As a curiosity on LMG/MG's I can tell you about when the Norwegian Army took up the Madsen LMG in its inventory - model 1914. Four Madsens were served by four seven-man teams - a machine gun platoon. The platoon even had its own horse-drawn carriage with field kitchen and cook. Quite a difference from the post-war organisation where 2 x Browning 1919's with tripods were served by 8 men.

That said, I wouldn't call the BAR neither deficient nor ineffective. Somewhat restricted maybe, with its low magazine capacity and non-interchangeable barrel. But, very reliable.

Fred
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book about Operation Sealion:
https://www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - an eight-book series on the Pacific War:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#388

Post by fredleander » 30 Oct 2013, 10:44

sunbury2 wrote:What about the Browning 30cal Machine Gun as a flawed weapon? As I understand it when the weapon ceased firing, a live round was placed in the chamber and the breech block was cocked at the rear of the weapon. This could lead to "cook offs" and the weapon begin firing by itself again. That must have been a worrying design flaw for the troops in the field.
I would like to reply to this. The breech block was not cocked "at the rear of the weapon" - the breech block was cocked "closed" - in the forward position. Which could give the result as described by you. This was further complicated by the fact that barrel change was a complicated, and relatively time-consuming, operation. It had to be screwed out of the case (the recoiling block inside the case, actually) from the front and when a new one was installed it had to be re-spaced with a special cartridge adapter - a blank. With some experience it could be done without the adapter. Two turns of the screw threads should be shown in front of the case. Another trick was to use the back of the bayonet as a spacer. As can be understood this was not a procedure to be executed with the weapon in position. The originating problem was the heated barrel cocking off the round.

Apart from that the tripod's sight adjustment device, a separate unit, had quite a lot of slack.

The cook-off problem was taken care of during training. The solution was to leave the breech block open during longer fire interruptions, not only to avoid cock-offs but also to have air ventilating/cooling the barrel. This was done with two special procedures. It would, in the worst case, take a couple of minutes before an accidental cock-off. It was not as if the cartridge itself blew up in the chamber, it was the powder that was set off, firing the cartridge, it did not "start firing", it was just the chambered round that was fired provided the trigger was not pulled. The situation was more dangerous if the breach was opened with a cartridge stuck in the chamber of a hot barrel. In such a case splinters would move rearwards with possible damage to the operator. This applies to all automatic weapons of similar construction. An important point in the emptying process was to hold the left hand under the extractor opening to ensure that the chambered cartridge actually came out.

The 1919 was supposed to be operated by paired teams.

The slack of the sighting adjustment mechanism was also taken care of by a special sighting technique.

The Browning 1919 operators loved it. I loved it, too.... :D ..Ineffective or inefficient....judge for yourself - if you have ever used it.... :roll: ...

A favourite movie scene of mine is Burt Lancaster in "From Here To Eternity", standing on the barracks roof firing the 1919 from the hip. Everybody in the know would recognize the oval blank firing adapter that was squirting flames. Must have created quite a roar of laughs in many post-war US cinemas.... :thumbsup: ....

Fred

PS.: Did the Aussies use the Browning?
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book about Operation Sealion:
https://www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - an eight-book series on the Pacific War:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#389

Post by RichTO90 » 30 Oct 2013, 13:30

fredleander wrote:Well, thank you for that one - I gave up. After all I have only served as a squad leader in a unit with BARs.
Um, you may have served in a squad that utilized the BAR, but was that a squad in a U.S. Army Infantry Rifle Company of World War II? 8O :P :lol:

You see, you "gave up" because you refused to be corrected in your notion that "everyone in the squad carried ammunition for the BAR", which incorrect assumption in your mind somehow allowed you to decide that the BAR was a squad light machine gun when it wasn't; it was the squad automatic rifle. :D
(snip interesting but irrelevant details)

That said, I wouldn't call the BAR neither deficient nor ineffective. Somewhat restricted maybe, with its low magazine capacity and non-interchangeable barrel. But, very reliable.
Exactly, which is what made it different - slightly I agree - from being a squad LMG like the DP, MG-42, or the Bren. For sustained automatic fire the American infantry was forced to rely on the Medium Machine Gun, the Browning M1917A1 at the company-level and the Browning M1919A4 at the platoon-level; not a very ideal solution. The chief advantage the Army saw in this disadvantageous situation was that the BAR "team" could be sustained with a single man, whereas the available LMG would require two. :cry: Mobility and sustainability were the priorities in the BAR design; not sustained fire capability - after all, it was designed as a machine gun killer and not a machine gun. :)

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

#390

Post by fredleander » 30 Oct 2013, 15:49

RichTO90 wrote:Um, you may have served in a squad that utilized the BAR, but was that a squad in a U.S. Army Infantry Rifle Company of World War II? 8O :P :lol:

No, but it was organized along the same lines - even if with fewer riflemen. Are we talking US Army here - or the weapon as such, generally used?
RichTO90 wrote:....You see, you "gave up" because you refused to be corrected in your notion that "everyone in the squad carried ammunition for the BAR",
Hardly a notion, and not very relevant to the real issue, more like the difference between regulations and real life. Ammunition isn't necessarily loaded magazines. You have yourself described the relevant issue, that it was a team-operated weapons system, to use a popular phrase. An integrated part of the squad.
RichTO90 wrote:...which incorrect assumption in your mind somehow allowed you to decide that the BAR was a squad light machine gun when it wasn't; it was the squad automatic rifle. :D
So, exactly where do you draw the difference then, what is correct. Was it a personal single-operated automatic rifle in which role it was never used or the role it was adapted to, a squad support weapon, SAW, LSW, LMG, whatever, but never a a personal automatic rifle ?
RichTO90 wrote:Exactly, which is what made it different - slightly I agree - from being a squad LMG like the DP, MG-42, or the Bren.
The purpose, as it turned out, was exactly the same as those you describe, if the capability less. That does not make it an automatic rifle. It is still the squad support weapon, a light machine gun. As an example, the Norwegian army organised the new MG3 in the same manner as the BAR.
RichTO90 wrote:For sustained automatic fire the American infantry was forced to rely on the Medium Machine Gun, the Browning M1917A1 at the company-level and the Browning M1919A4 at the platoon-level; not a very ideal solution.
The squad support weapon, or LMG, is not meant to give sustained automatic fire. That is why the 1919's were organised to operate in pairs. That achieved a degree of sustained fire on platoon level. Admittedly, less so than the German MG's with their quick-change barrels.
RichTO90 wrote:ForThe chief advantage the Army saw in this disadvantageous situation was that the BAR "team" could be sustained with a single man, whereas the available LMG would require two. :cry: Mobility and sustainability were the priorities in the BAR design; not sustained fire capability - after all, it was designed as a machine gun killer and not a machine gun. :)
Could be, but wasn't. The 1919, MG34, 42, Brens can also be operated by one man. Again, you are mixing up the original objective of the design with what it turned into. Which should reflect on its designation. Automatic Rifle is a part of its name, not what it was. Or, rather, what it became.

I have often wondered why the US Army, with their 12-man squads, didn't organise them with a double set of BAR's.

Fred

P.S.: Sure you are not mixing up the machine gun with this one? It's name is Browning Automatic Rifle....
Attachments
browning_BAR.jpg
browning_BAR.jpg (8.11 KiB) Viewed 883 times
River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book about Operation Sealion:
https://www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - an eight-book series on the Pacific War:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3 ... rw_dp_labf

Post Reply

Return to “The Allies and the Neutral States in general”