If it was "organized along the same lines" how did it have fewer riflemen? Because yes indeed, the discussion is about the U.S. Army, not the Norwegian Army.fredleander wrote: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?
Yes, your notion, which was incorrect. The Garand ammunition was issued as 8-rounds en bloc, the BAR in 5-round stripper clips. Of course the individual round was interchangeable with the other, but that doesn't mean the riflemen all carried rounds for the BAR anymore than because German riflemen carried ammunition for their KAR98k meant that it was also for the squad MG-34 or MG-42. Nor did the average GI care to haul extra BAR ammunition around in addition to his load and it was also found that carrying more wasn't really that great an idea, which is why the reduction in the carriage of BAR ammunition belts within the BAR team.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.
And also yes, it was an integrated part of the squad, intended to support the movement of the rifle team. However, just because it was a team-operated weapon didn't make it a light machine gun under U.S. Army doctrine.
I "draw the difference" as to what is correct according to the usage by the forces in question - the U.S. Army in World War II. By that criteria it was an "automatic rifle", operated by a single man, in a three-man team, acting as a squad support weapon, facilitating the maneuver of the squad rifle team.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 ?
That might be the case if the U.S. Army had designated it as a light machine gun, and designated the team as the squad LMG team, and based squad maneuver on it...and, yet again - and I know you have trouble focusing on some things, but just what your Norwegian Army did with the shiny new MG3 and whether or not it was done in the same manner as they treated their BAR is rather irrelevant to what the U.S. Army did with their BAR in World War II.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.
Sigh...exactly? The BAR was not designed or intended to be a sustained fire automatic weapon - a machine gun - it was an automatic rifle. Which is why the M1919A2 was the platoon sustained fire LMG, used in pairs [edit: by the company commander] to support [platoon] maneuver, which is something the Germans did - when they did - with the MG-42 of their heavy company.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.
Um, yes, but the M1919 could not be maneuvered and operated by one man - unless you are Burt Lancaster. The MG-34 and MG-42 could in theory, but given their rate of fire the practical weight of ammunition carried by the single gunner in maneuver is negligible. The Bren maybe a little more so. Which again is irrelevent, since it wasn't just "part of the name", it was integral to the doctrinal thought with regards to squad maneuver in the U.S. Army - it was a "single man weapon".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.
Maybe because they weren't thinking of it as a "squad LMG"?I have often wondered why the US Army, with their 12-man squads, didn't organise them with a double set of BAR's.