BAR used in air-to-air role

[BlackSheep]

Does anyone have information regarding BARs being carried as either emergency back-up or supplemental defensive weaponry on twin engine bombers early in the Pacific War. I remember reading about it but cannot locate it in any of my books. If memory serves me, a flight engineer described firing it from side windows as needed. I wonder how common that might have been, especially early in the war, before defensive firepower really came into being.

 

[GrauGeist]

Many transports (both Allied and Axis) had the ability for troops to provide defensive fire, but bomber crews had gun positions with either turrets or flexible-mount Mgs, so a BAR (or other type of weapon) would not have been used.

However, some bomber crews did have weapons for protection/survival in the event they were shot down.

Luftwaffe bomber crews in North Africa had a .410/.22 issued for survival.
Some USAAF bomber crews in the Pacific were issued the M1 .30 carbine for survival.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Have you ever handled a BAR?. It's a long, heavy, unwieldy weapon with a relatively small ammunition capacity for an automatic weapon. I've never fired one, but did manage to inadvertently clip Sgt Garland upside the head with one while trying to turn around in the dark, narrow confines of the ROTC armory at school.
As mentioned above, any serious bomber would likely have defensive armament in place, and a smaller craft pressed into emergency combat service would probably be an awkward fit for a BAR. I have read of Thompsons and M3 "grease guns" in the hands of paratroopers defending C47s in this manner.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Does anyone have information regarding BARs...

Fairey Fulmars sometimes supplemented their armament with Thompson sub-machine guns, and/or 1.5inch signal pistols, and/or rolls of toilet paper secured with elastic bands. The toilet paper would "explode" sort of, or otherwise, give the impression of being a fiendish secret weapon. I am Googling this but I can find no record of Italian or Japanese pilots admitting to being frightened off by the toilet paper.

 

[MikeMeech]

Have you ever handled a BAR?. It's a long, heavy, unwieldy weapon with a relatively small ammunition capacity for an automatic weapon. I've never fired one, but did manage to inadvertently clip Sgt Garland upside the head with one while trying to turn around in the dark, narrow confines of the ROTC armory at school.
As mentioned above, any serious bomber would likely have defensive armament in place, and a smaller craft pressed into emergency combat service would probably be an awkward fit for a BAR. I have read of Thompsons and M3 "grease guns" in the hands of paratroopers defending C47s in this manner.

Hi
Is was not just paratroops who would have to defend aircraft with personal weapons. My father spent six months (1944-1945) of his time in India and Burma flying as an Air Despatcher in C-47s of the 3rd CCG of the USAAF (9th and 12th Squadrons) that supported his division (36th Div.) and other forces on the ground. Here is a paragraph from his memoirs that mentions their defensive position in the aircraft and their 'orders' from the US aircrew:

"Those of us on flying duties made up three-man 'kicking crews', our first job was to pack food into canvas bags that weighed 160lbs when full. These bags had a parachute on top with a line 8 feet long tied to a thin string that would break and release the parachute, the other end of the line would be attached to the aircraft before it was thrown out. Before each mission one man from each 'kicker crew' had to go and get the loading manifest and go to his aircraft to wait for the load to arrive. This manifest would have to be given to the pilot on his arrival. The aircraft would usually take off at first light so the first man would have to leave our camp at about 10 pm, the loading would usually take place between one and three o'clock in the morning, the rest of the crew would arrive later. In the aircraft the food packets would be stacked three high. The three of us that were doing the 'kicking' would position ourselves ready to of load the cargo, I was to the right of the door and would tie the ropes to the cargo, 'Flash' (Albert Fountain) was to the left and Tom was at the rear of the cargo, we all had our favourite positions and tended to stick with them. When the buzzer sounded or the light flashed we would lift the cargo slightly and push and keep doing this until all the cargo was gone. If there was a 'Zero Alert' this was a report that Japanese fighters were about, in fact 'Zero' fighters were not used in our area, we had to take up our positions to defend the aircraft, one on each side of the door and the other would have his rifle poking out of the opposite window and keep a lookout for the fighters, for this purpose we had our rifles and also a bandolier of 50 rounds of ammunition around our necks. The American crews gave us fairly short instructions on what to do to defend the aircraft and that was to "Shoot like hell and pray like hell!" meanwhile the aircraft would head at the highest possible speed at low level to the nearest airstrip, these sort of incidents happened on several occasions."

I hope that is of interest.

Mike

 

[GrauGeist]

Mike, did he ever mention what the rifle was?

The M1 Garand, perhaps?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you're resorting to shoulder-borne arms in a moving aircraft in defense of said aircraft, you're probably screwed.

 

[GrauGeist]

If you're resorting to shoulder-borne arms in a moving aircraft in defense of said aircraft, you're probably screwed.

It at least allowed troops in gliders and transports a fighting chance.

 

[SaparotRob]

If I were stuck in a can being shot at, I'd want to shoot back or at least a chance at that Fokker. That being said, if inside said can, I'm boned.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It at least allowed troops in gliders and transports a fighting chance.

No argument here, and if I found myself in that circumstance I'd hope I did the same (rather than curling into a useless ball of fear) ... understanding that yeah, I'm probably screwed all the same.

 

[msxyz]

If you're resorting to shoulder-borne arms in a moving aircraft in defense of said aircraft, you're probably screwed.

Arisaska rifles (Japanese infatry rifle) sometimes came equipped with a foldable cross rangefinder designed to shoot at aerial targets.

This complicated arrangement was later dropped.

As for the BAR, it was a heavy and outdated WW1 weapon. In time of need, every bullet counts but I agree that it would take a very lucky shot, and cool head, to make it a worthwhile AA weapon. There is a story (legend?) of how an elephant was taken down by a .22 rifle (normally reserved for plinking or small varmint shooting) but even if it killed such a huge beast once, that doesn't automatically make it suitable for heavy game!

 

[GrauGeist]

The BAR was not an outdated weapon by WWII - it was in the league of the StG44 in regards to an "Assault" or "Squad Automatic Rifle".

It is simply an unwieldy weapon to be issued to a transport/bomber aircraft - it (like the StG44) would be better suited for "door to door" urban or trench fighting.

 

[MikeMeech]

Mike, did he ever mention what the rifle was?

The M1 Garand, perhaps?

Hi
As he and the other 'kickers' were British troops they had their bolt action Lee Enfields with them.

Mike

 

[msxyz]

The BAR was not an outdated weapon by WWII - it was in the league of the StG44 in regards to an "Assault" or "Squad Automatic Rifle".

It is simply an unwieldy weapon to be issued to a transport/bomber aircraft - it (like the StG44) would be better suited for "door to door" urban or trench fighting.

I beg to disagree: the StG 44 is more in league with the modern assault rifles that use dedicated, reduced recoil, rounds. The BAR uses 'full power' rifle rounds originally designed for bolt action rifles and it also heavier (between 7 and 11kg depending on version, unloaded) and bigger. The BAR was designed to bridge the gap between infantry rifles and the tripod mounted machine guns.

It was a good design and gave infantrymen unprecedented firepower on medium/long range. However, it's not an assault weapon by modern definition. It's roughly comparable to something like the FG42 or the FN FAL, but both these guns are less cumbersome and handier and thus more useful on a modern battlefield where the front lines move fast and battles rapidly fragment in multiple skirmishes between 'pockets' of soldiers (i.e. urban, or jungle/woodland warfare).

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Hi
As he and the other 'kickers' were British troops they had their bolt action Lee Enfields with them.

Mike

Ayup, screwed! Talk about unwieldy. Unless they were the Mk IV carbine. I never could get accurate rapid? fire out of an SMLE or a Mk IV, just a sore shoulder. Wimp? Guilty as charged.

 

[special ed]

I fired the BAR, M-14, M-60 and one other auto fire (which I have forgotten) at weapons orientation. The BAR was accurate with mild recoil. We were not allowed to fire the M-14 full auto because it wore the barrel. It was very close to the M-1 Garand in handling. The M-60 had more recoil than the BAR and, for me, was more difficult for bullet placement. I fondly remember the BAR today.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The M-60 had more recoil than the BAR

Well it was lighter and had a way faster cyclic rate of fire. The one and only time I fired an M60, it cooked off on me on my third burst. Fortunately the instructor was quick to twist the belt and stomp on top of it to keep the muzzle down. (Firing prone with a bipod) My shoulder was sore for a week.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The BAR was not an outdated weapon by WWII

It was outdated in that it was thrust into a role for which it wasn't designed, nor well suited to in WWII. That role being a light machine gun, where it's contemporaries were the British Bren, Japanese Type 96/99, and Czech Vz.26, all of which were superior LMG's. The Germans more or less skipped the light machine step, and developed the first real GPMG in the Mg 34, which in turn outclassed all the others.
The BAR was designed to be fired from the hip, while advancing across the no-mans-land of WWI, to provide "walking fire", a concept that never really came to fruition. By WWII, the M1918A2 was not a particularly good LMG, as it lacked the sustained firepower of its rivals, and was awkward and unwieldy to use. It certainly wasn't in the same league as the StG 44, as neither were "Squad automatic rifles", with the StG being intended to replace both the sub machine gun Mp 40, and bolt action Kar98K in German units. The closest thing the Germans had to the BAR was probably the FG 42, which was of a different generation, and not really comparable anymore.

 

[J_P_C]

Does anyone have information regarding BARs being carried as either emergency back-up or supplemental defensive weaponry on twin engine bombers early in the Pacific War. I remember reading about it but cannot locate it in any of my books. If memory serves me, a flight engineer described firing it from side windows as needed. I wonder how common that might have been, especially early in the war, before defensive firepower really came into being.

check polish wz.37 machine gun, it was BAR development as a flexible mount aircraft gun

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Arisaska rifles (Japanese infatry rifle) sometimes came equipped with a foldable cross rangefinder designed to shoot at aerial targets.

This complicated arrangement was later dropped.

A 20-round magazine being fired off by a BAR gunner who is unsecured in the fuselage of a plane being piloted by a pilot presumably practicing evasive maneuvers. I don't see the utility of that (or an aerial sight on an Arisaka rifle, for that matter) outside of morale.