Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

[Tim Smith]

Bren has a 30-round mag, BAR has 20-round mag.

BAR has poor controllability at normal full auto rate of fire (muzzle jump), hence has a selectable slower auto fire mode.

Worst of all, BAR does not have a removable, quick-change barrel, so sustained auto fire is not possible due to barrel overheating.

Bren is a true LMG. BAR is a souped-up automatic rifle, like a very big and heavy M-14.

If the BAR had been a bit smaller and 3 kilograms lighter, it would have been the most awesome rifle of WW2, far superior to the Garand! But it was just too big and heavy to be issued as a standard rifle to the US infantryman.

[Delta Tank]

Tim,

Thank-you very much!

Mike

[Aber]

Lightbob,ok, you submit the M1 Garand and the Bar as deficent or inefective,why?, (as a matter of point I don't get into aircraft enough to say one way or another on there shortcomings real or imagined)

.

Having no knowledge on the subject I looked up Wikipedia sources - see below for why the Marines preferred the Springfield:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html

[Delta Tank]

Lightbob,ok, you submit the M1 Garand and the Bar as deficent or inefective,why?, (as a matter of point I don't get into aircraft enough to say one way or another on there shortcomings real or imagined)

.

Having no knowledge on the subject I looked up Wikipedia sources - see below for why the Marines preferred the Springfield:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html

Aber,
Nice article, but the real article is the one where the marines on Guadalcanal stated, "where can we get some of those Garands like those doggies!" or words to that effect. Also notice that the marines did in fact switch to the Garand. Problems with the 03 Springfield and the 03A3 Springfield (yes I own both) are the sights are to fine, not good for combat shooting, great on the rifle range. The British Enfield on the other hand (I own a Mk1 No. 4) has two sights, a combat sight and for precision work a flip up micrometer sight. In my opinion the sights on the Enfield are superior to the 03 and 03A3. The sights on the M-1 are very good, the rear aperture is large, not as large as the combat sight on the Enfield but large enough to be of use in limited visibility conditions. I do not know the technical terms for the sights on the British Enfield, but those who are familiar will understand what I am saying.

I wonder what improvements were made to the M-1 Garand over the war years. I do not have a book on the Garand, but I do have Brophy's book on the Springfield. This is the title: The Springfield 1903 Rifles by William S. Brophy,

Mike

[ChristopherPerrien]

Granted the BAR was not a LMG , but it gave a level of supporting firepower to a "squad" , that was far lighter than tugging around a true LMG, after all it was designed for the failed doctrine of "walking fire". A true LMG pretty much turns an infantry squad into a MG section. Granted the BAR was no Zb26 or an mg 42, as it was not designed for the doctrine that was eventually developed for those weapons.

Far lighter? The Bren is only about 1 kg heavier than the BAR (assuming the BAR has it's bipod attached). In the LMG role, the Bren gives you a lot more capability for that extra kilogram of weight.

As an automatic rifle, the BAR was totally unnecessary since the US had the M1 Garand available. As an LMG, the BAR was outclassed by the Bren and MG34, although I would still take the BAR over the Italian Breda M30 or the Japanese Type 11, which had severe reliability problems.

Please if you talk of the BEST LMG ever made; Do not call it a BREN, because it wasn't . It was the Czech ZB26. Nowadays in its belt fed configiration it is the Belgian FN/Mag.

Love those M240''s
Chris

[Tim Smith]

Please if you talk of the BEST LMG ever made; Do not call it a BREN, because it wasn't . It was the Czech ZB26.
Chris

:roll: ZB vz. 33 to be precise.

And don't be so smug. You Americans copied the Mauser Model 93 bolt action mechanism to make the Springfield '03 rifle, after all.

[Delta Tank]

Please if you talk of the BEST LMG ever made; Do not call it a BREN, because it wasn't . It was the Czech ZB26.
Chris

:roll: ZB vz. 33 to be precise.

And don't be so smug. You Americans copied the Mauser Model 93 bolt action mechanism to make the Springfield '03 rifle, after all.

Tim,
Model 93? or do you mean the Model 98?
You are correct, we did copy it, or at least the judge agreed with Mauser that we had copied enough of it to be a patent infringement. IIRC, they sued us and won in a US court! As my dad would say, "it is hard to beat perfection, and when you see it copy it!" He loved the Springfield, and that is why he had so many of them!

And Garand was a Canadian. And the Lee Enfield? Lee was an American, IIRC. Maxim was an American. That could be a separate thread famous gun designers and their home country. Browning was an American. . .

Mike

[Tim Smith]

Tim,
Model 93? or do you mean the Model 98?

Mike

No, it was the Model 93, I think, it was used by the Spanish in the Spanish-American War. Predecessor of the Model 98.

[LWD]

On the otherhand some added BAR's. Just as the BAR was not an LMG it the Garand was not an automatic rifle.

[Delta Tank]

On the otherhand some added BAR's. Just as the BAR was not an LMG it the Garand was not an automatic rifle.

You are correct, I think the Marine Corps had 3 BARs per squad, one per fire team, and they also had a lot of machine-guns. In fact if I recall correctly a marine rifle battalion in 1944 had more machine-guns than an US Army regiment! It is in "Perspective on Infantry", by John A. English (the first version).

Mike

[phylo_roadking]

In fact if I recall correctly a marine rifle battalion in 1944 had more machine-guns than an US Army regiment! It is in "Perspective on Infantry", by John A. English (the first version).

Yes, I''ve read this in several places; as many .30cals as they could get their hands on were issued for the higher rate of fire and belt-feed as the only thing could hold up against repeated massed Banzai charges...just couldn't hose t'buggers down fast enough otherwise! Especially with a quiet approach to the start line at night, there was just so much time-to-contact the defenders had to put lead into the oncoming ranks. If they couldn't put in enough....!

[Delta Tank]

In fact if I recall correctly a marine rifle battalion in 1944 had more machine-guns than an US Army regiment! It is in "Perspective on Infantry", by John A. English (the first version).

Yes, I''ve read this in several places; as many .30cals as they could get their hands on were issued for the higher rate of fire and belt-feed as the only thing could hold up against repeated massed Banzai charges...just couldn't hose t'buggers down fast enough otherwise! Especially with a quiet approach to the start line at night, there was just so much time-to-contact the defenders had to put lead into the oncoming ranks. If they couldn't put in enough....!

This is all from memory, but on Guadalcanal, the marines took machine-guns from every unit and put them on trucks with ammunition and when a sector was threatened they rushed the machine-guns to that sector. So in effect the machine-guns acted as a reserve!

Mike

[phylo_roadking]

Guadalcanal, that's it! The fighting to hold Henderson Field in particular. Thanks for the memory jog!

[Graham Clayton]

I would like to nominate the US Fairchild AT-21 bombing crew trainer.

As a gunnery trainer and a bombadier trainer the AT-21 proved to be unsuitable for these purposes because of inherent instability caused by the short distance between the rudders and the gull wing. Any slight movement of the rudder resulted in unacceptable yaw. Due to this flaw, the AT-21 was withdrawn from its gunnery training role in 1944, only a year after the plane was introduced into service. The USAF then used modified versions of its bomber fleet for gunnery and bombardier training:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fairchild_AT-21.jpg

[Carl Schwamberger]

On the otherhand some added BAR's. Just as the BAR was not an LMG it the Garand was not an automatic rifle.

You are correct, I think the Marine Corps had 3 BARs per squad, one per fire team, and they also had a lot of machine-guns. In fact if I recall correctly a marine rifle battalion in 1944 had more machine-guns than an US Army regiment! It is in "Perspective on Infantry", by John A. English (the first version).

Mike

USMC BAR/MG allotement

1930s - 1942: Four BAR in four squads eight man squads per company. Nominally one BAR squad per platoon & one with company HQ. The actual distribution was at the company & platoon commanders discretion. All MG were in a battalion MG company

1943: Four MG added to the company with 60mm mortar. Two BAR were added for a total of 18. BAR were allocated two per squad

1944: BAR increased to 27 per company, with three per squad. MG allotment increased to six per company, but the MG of the battalion weapons company were usually redistributed to the rifle companys. Some company commanders had as many as ten MG to use. The large number of automatic weapons were useful for defense, but the more important use was for maximum suppression of enemy defense so the assualt teams could get within grenade range. the Japanese were not exactly shy with their MG & LMG & having weapons for counter fire at hand was essential.