BAR vs Garand

[Thorlifter]

My limited understanding is the BAR was a 30-06 caliber rifle, but so was the Garand. So what is the tactical advantage of the BAR? Same bullet and a much heavier weapon to drag around. 16 lbs vs 9 lbs. I know the BAR had a bigger clip but that sure doesn't seem worth it.

 

[Airframes]

BAR fires full auto, so use as a section fire support weapon ?

 

[Shortround6]

The BAR was rated at about 75 rpm sustained fire. The BAR was almost unique in that the selector lever did NOT give a choice between full auto and semi auto but rather between two different cycle rates of full auto. The slower rate of fire did allow skilled operators to often fire only one shot. Older models did offer single shot or full auto.

 

[The Basket]

Think of the BAR as a ww1 weapon.
Which then hung around for a long time. And kinda makes sense if your in Ww2 and need a light support weapon and the BAR was popular even though it was heavy.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

the BAR was popular even though it was heavy.

Not too heavy for Steve McQueen to hose down a slew of snipers from the roof of a Chinese temple in "The Sand Pebbles"!

 

[Airframes]

Not too heavy at only 16 lb. The Bren (Mk1 and 2) weighed around 25 lb loaded, with the MG 34 around the same, unloaded.

 

[soulezoo]

The two rifles performed two very different roles. There was usually one BAR in a squad and used as a squad automatic weapon. Although quite accurate (actually on par with the Garand), it was used more for suppression fire. The weight was necessary to help handle the substantial recoil and for the barrel to survive sustained automatic fire (See differences in the FN FAL for instance with a heavy barreled version). Troops generally found it quite popular, except for the guy that had to carry it.

Of note, a shortened version of it was the preferred weapon of one Clyde Barrow of Bonnie and Clyde fame. It provided superior firepower and overreach compared to anything else available including the Thompson Submachinegun.

While the Garand was used more as aimed accurate fire, the BAR was more of a support weapon.

 

[Airframes]

Yep, roughly the equivalent to the Bren in the British Army, which was used as a Section fire support weapon, an infantry Section in WW2 normally consisting of 10 men - 8 riflemen and the Gun Group of 2 men.

 

[stona]

Not too heavy for Steve McQueen to hose down a slew of snipers from the roof of a Chinese temple in "The Sand Pebbles"!

Or for Clyde Barrow to seriously out gun the police who were after him.

IIRC the posse that finally killed him (and his floozie) had some BARs of their own, which was just as well as Barrow and Parker had five in the car with them.

Cheers

Steve

 

[The Basket]

The BAR is not a light support weapon. It became one. So it's use was more the fact of availability. Its short capacity and doesn't have a quick change barrel work against it. It offers a true auto fire capabilities with a bigger magazine so better than the Garand but at a disadvantage against other autos.

 

[Shortround6]

Define "light support weapon"?

The BAR was NOT a proper Light Machine Gun. But not all light support weapons are light machine guns. a term that is somewhat flexible itself.
Using modern day terminology sometimes does not help as we are applying modern terms and thinking to an old situation.
The light machine gun was less than 25 years old at the start of WW II and the Automatic machine gun, in comparison to the hand cranked guns carted about on light field carriages, was only about 50 years old. The LMG is now over 100 years old.
Modern perceptions while in some cases helpful, don't tell us what the military leaders were thinking in the 1930s as to what a certain weapons role was.
There are manuals for the BAR on line, including training classes for use and tactics. There are pages devoted to engaging moving vehicles at distances (400-600yrds?) and other tactical problems.

The BAR was also not at such a disadvantage against some other nations "squad" weapons. It was not in the same class as the Bren or MG 34 but it doesn't look that bad against the Breda 30, the French M24/29 (sort of an upside down BAR?) the German MG 13 or some of the early Japanese guns. The Russian M1928 also had a few flaws.

 

[The Basket]

A 3 legged donkey is a better machine gun than a Breda 30.
The BAR is a weapon in service for a long time so maybe it was a rifle in ww1 then automatic fire support in Ww2.
The terms light support or light machine gun are certainly not helpful.
Heavy rifle?

 

[soulezoo]

It was an automatic rifle.
The comparisons being made, in my humble opinion, are not fair comparisons. Like (as appropriate to this forum) looking at a Ju 87 and a B-17, calling them both bombers and asking which was better?

One thing to remember, in being deployed as intended, a MG42 or M1919, required 3 or four men to deploy. (I realize they are not part of the conversation, but listed for context/comparison) a Bren, while carried by one, required 2 men-- again "properly deployed" -- not necessarily as some did as they had to. (someone has to carry those "extra barrels" and extra ammo or that's not an advantage at all, is it?) The BAR was strictly a one man show.

Question, in terms of normal combat load (not what was done in extraordinary circumstances), how many total rounds of ammo did the one man carrying the weapon tote on his person for both the BAR or the Bren?

Of note: I am not advocating one weapon is better than the other. I'm just saying they performed different, even if overlapping, roles.

 

[Shortround6]

The BAR was NOT a one man show, at least not in the late 30s or 1940/1.

It was a three man weapon in prewar doctrine/training.

320 rounds were carried in the squad "on the March". 80 rounds in 20 round magazines by the "automatic rifleman", 120 rounds carried by the "assistant automatic rifleman" and 120 rounds by the "ammunition carrier" all in 20 round magazines. 40 rounds was also carried by each ammunition carrier in either 5 round or 8 round clips depending on the type of rifle the squad was equipped with.

The unit ammunition train held 852 additional rounds were carried by units equipped with M-1s and 860 rounds by units with 1903/1917 rifles. Before combat 468 additional rounds were to be issued from these totals to the squads equipped with M-1s leaving 384 rounds in reserve with a further 576 rounds held on the ammunition train of a higher echelon unit. total ammo in the Battalion was 1720-1748 rounds per BAR in rifle companies.

BARs were also issued to anti-tank companies for local defense and as pintal mounted AA guns on some trucks (this didn't last until combat?) with lower ammo allowances.

Of the 468 rounds issued before combat 100 rounds went to the "automatic rifleman" and 80 to the "assistant automatic rifleman" all in 20 round magazines. The "assistant automatic rifleman also got 96 rounds in 8 round clips in bandoleers, while the ammunition carrier got 192 rounds in 48 round bandoleers (8 round clips).

This is from a listing published in July 1941 so what the actually did in combat may have been totally different, but the battalion was carring over 5 times as much ammo per BAR as they were for an M-1 (328 rounds total per rifle) and over 8 1/2 times as much ammo per BAR as for a 1903/1917 ( 200 rounds total per rifle) the totals include carried by the individual, carried on unit ammunition train and carried on higher echelon ammunition train.

Numbers juggle around a bit for units equipped with 1903/1917 rifles as the bandoleers held 60 rounds instead of 48.

Given the manpower and transport devoted to the BAR It is very hard indeed to see it as an individual weapon or just a substitute M1 that could fire full automatic.

The terms "automatic rifleman" "assistant automatic rifleman" and "ammunition carrier" were used in the original document.

 

[soulezoo]

Actually SR, what you posted is fairly accurate. Although the GI's I have spoken to that used BAR's told me that they largely carried 360 rounds on them and "maybe" they might get a guy to carry another bandoleer but that was iffy-- because the guys didn't want to carry the weight and also they tended to disappear-- with your ammo-- at first contact. Hence, my comment about being a one man show. The last BAR operator I spoke with (actually a Korean War vet, a Marine using a BAR told me this yesterday) told me twelve 20 round magazines in the box pouches that were belt mounted (six individual pouches carrying 2 magazines each) on your waist, six 20 round magazines in a bandoleer across your chest (also told they might carry as many as 3 of those bandoleers if they could stand the weight and knew they were getting into something-- but not normally) and plus the one magazine in the rifle. At the very least if they were not expecting anything, he had to wear the belt of 12 plus one on the rifle... that's 260 rounds minimum. Of .30-06. Damn. Most I carried was 9 mags of 5.56 of 30 rounds each (270 rounds) and that's a whole lot lighter!

 

[The Basket]

A lot of weight. Again semantics and even worse military jargon but the BAR was a team player. Your marine must have been big guy to carry that weight plus his own kit.
Use of the BAR by Korea is an odd one by then but it was seen as reliable and dependable and not as heavy as a proper light machine gun.

 

[Shortround6]

The BAR came in several models and weight changed a bit. The M1918A2 version could hit just about 21lbs without sling.
Make sure the weight is for the right model and that the weight includes bipod (2.38lbs) magazine (.44lbs) and ammo.
Some guns had a carrying handle and some did not. The wooden fore-end varied in size. Some guns had a mono-pod under the butt in addition to the bi-pod, this was soon dropped from production in WW II.
Actual combat use in WW II changed the both scale of issue and the combat tactics/doctrine. This assumes that the troops in field actually followed the manuals/doctrine to begin with. The Marines ended the war with three BARs per 13 man squad. I have no proof but I tend to doubt that they provided quite the number of magazines and spare ammo per gun as the Army was providing for single gun in 1941. See my previous post. in the summer of 1941 the Army was providing a total of 25 magazines per BAR for 500 rounds in magazines. The rest of the ammo was in either 5 round stripper clips or 8 round enbloc M1 clips and had to be stripped out of those clips and loaded into the empty magazines. Not something somebody wants to be doing in a fire fight although doable in lulls.
:When talking with Veterans you are getting how they or their unit did something at a snapshot in time. Not always army doctrine and certainly not army doctrine/training over a 45 or even 10 year period if you include Korea.
Please note that the US Army often had a pair of tripod mounted Browning M1919A4 air cooled machine guns in each infantry company in addition to the water cooled M1917 guns in the Battalion MG company. The US Army also had 60mm mortars at the company level so while squad/platoon fire power might be down a bit company fire power did receive a helpful boost.

 

[The Basket]

To answer original question on further reflection and thinking.
The BAR and Garand are different enough to justify both to exist at same time. The Garand cannot replace the BAR although the M-14 could.
Perhaps

 

[The Basket]

A

 

[Shortround6]

This is what it took for an M-14 to try to replace the BAR.

It didn't work very well.