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.
RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

Post by RichTO90 » 31 Oct 2013 03:16

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?
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.
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.
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.

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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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. :lol:
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.
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.
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.
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".
I have often wondered why the US Army, with their 12-man squads, didn't organise them with a double set of BAR's.
Maybe because they weren't thinking of it as a "squad LMG"?

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 708
Joined: 20 Jul 2005 17:21
Location: United States

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

Post by EKB » 01 Nov 2013 03:09

fredleander wrote:Are we talking US Army here - or the weapon as such, generally used?.

Whatever you prefer. The US Marines gradually adopted the idea of dividing the infantry squads into fireteams, based on the experience of Carlson's Raider Battalion which had three BARs issued to each squad.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003 18:03

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

Post by RichTO90 » 01 Nov 2013 12:22

EKB wrote:
fredleander wrote:Are we talking US Army here - or the weapon as such, generally used?.

Whatever you prefer. The US Marines gradually adopted the idea of dividing the infantry squads into fireteams, based on the experience of Carlson's Raider Battalion which had three BARs issued to each squad.
Quite. And the U.S. Army on 30 June 1944 officially endorsed the issue of six additional BAR to the Infantry Rifle Company. They were to be used at the company commanders discretion. However, it took some time before the additional weapons could be shipped to theaters and issued.

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 600
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

Post by Don Juan » 13 Jan 2014 19:33

I think this thread should be re-titled "perfectly adequate or even good Allied equipment that I don't like because it doesn't meet some abstract ideal, or I've not read anything detailed about it that has been written in the last 20 years, or was manufactured by a country that I don't like, or I formed an opinion about at an impressionable age and it would damage my fragile sense of self if I had to change it."
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
Graham Clayton
Member
Posts: 485
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 11:29
Location: South Windsor, NSW, Australia

Re: Ineffective & deficent Allied equipment

Post by Graham Clayton » 26 May 2015 12:18

The Curtiss S03C Seamew reconnaissance plane, which was meant to replace the SOC Seagull as the US Navy's standard floatplane scout. The Seamew entered service in 1942, but problems with maintenance and the poor performance of the Ranger air-cooled V-shaped inline engine meant that the type was withdrawn from service in 1944 and replaced by the SOC Seagull, which were hurriedly returned to front-line service from the training units where they had ended up.
"Air superiority is a condition for all operations, at sea, in land, and in the air." - Air Marshal Arthur Tedder.

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