BAR

>>1667794
>>>/k/

>>1667794
It's greatest strengths were that it was cheap to make, and the biggest selling point, it was very light. Meaning squads didn't have to haul a machine gun that dedicates a member of the squad to just carrying it around.

having that much firepower in a gun that's only 15 pounds, where your standard machine gun can clock in at 35-50 pounds was a huge selling point for infantry mobility.

It's not as good as a light machine gun, but as a highly mobile squad support weapon, it did its job.

>>1667794
1) The USA operated on the belief that "soldiers will waste ammo if you give them a lot of bullets." So better what essentially is a 20 round rifle than Automatics for errybody,
2) Only Germany had an LMG. Shit like the Bren Gun could also be considered a fucking Automatic Rifle for all the ammo those things carried.

>>1667822
>So better what essentially is a 20 round rifle than a machine gun for a squad level unit.*
sorry.

>>1667794
Small unit infantry tactics wasn't as big a part of US doctrine as it was for Germany or more logistics conscious military's.

The BAR was an effective support weapon. Better to put the money into Artillery and Armor that actually did the bulk of the killing. Ultimately the M1 Garand was a better use of that money than dishing out more 30. cals on to infantry squads.

They did ofcourse have 30.cals in infantry formations. Certainly any by the book engagements depended on this machine gun support but in a more old school way then the more modern German doctrine.

Heavy machineguns cover the advance with indirect fire until the infantry as at the optimum engagement range. Light machine guns cover their infantry as they close with the enemy.

Sure enough this doctrine is classically WW1 and the BAR was the product of that time but it and the Bren were perfectly serviceable for it's role right up to the end of the war.

>>1667794
>literally worst weapon in all possible ways?
it looked cool, so it's still better than a Chauchat

>>1667822
>1) The USA operated on the belief that "soldiers will waste ammo if you give them a lot of bullets."

You're thinking of the UK the US is the example of More the Merrier ammo doctrine.

If US infantry tactics were to be surmised to their simplest possible form it would be something like 'when in doubt empty into the general area'. With their endless logistical dominance it was and still is very effective.

>>1667840
Really? Wasnt paranoia about ammo wastage a norm among Western militaries of the 1910's-1930s?

>>1667855
It's often quoted as the reason weapons like the BAR but usually the Bren and it's later counterparts were kept in service right up until Iraq and Afghan. I'm talking here about the L86 LSW series and also why nations other than the US were slow to swap out their bolt actions for semi auto's. Really certainly by 1944 the US had no such concerns and with the Thompson, Grease Gun and a while unit with Garands US units could easily overwhelm and suppress their opponents with ridiculous levels of firepower.


It's not that they weren't concerned with ammo wastage. It's just they had different ideas as to what constituted ammo wastage than the comparatively starved European nations.

>>1667822
The bren was much more useful in a sustained fire role than the bar however. True it was not a proper gpmg (or a precursor anyway) but it would be wrong to lump it together with the bar.

>>1667794
Although you phrase your question in a very bait-y way, here's an answer anyway - they thought the volume of fire provided by semiautomatic weapons (and an automatic rifle) would be enough.

But they soon realized more guns = more funs. That's why you have two bars per squad being issued later, or even three like with the marines (or later in korea, iirc). That's why you get a solid degree of proliferation of submachineguns.

And why already around the end of ww2 you got Top Men thinking how to improve squad firepower with a dedicated machine gun - this would directly lead to the M60 whose development goes back into the 40s.

So why didn't they issue a machine gun at the squad level? They thought they wouldn't need to. Then they augmented firepower with existing means (more smgs but more importantly, more BARs - incidentally this tied well into the fireteam doctrine at the squad level of the US forces). And then they did.

>>1667794
>Infantry tactics
>Mattering at all in the grand scheme of things
l e l

>>1667822
Wouldnt the soviet Diggy-tarev (however you spell it) count as an LMG?

The one with a pizza-magazine or some shit.

>>1667909
degtaryov
yes it was a light machine gun
yes the bren was a light machine gun as well
heck even the bren gets called a light machine gun
it's just a very broad label for a manportable mg

>>1667794
>why didn't yuro armies use semi-autos like the war winner did?

>>1667908
I wonder when was a time when infantry tactics at the lowest/most granular level truly mattered in the grand scheme of things.

Maybe Aus-Prus but that's not just tactics but the new rifles (that allowed for the tactics).

Going back pre-gunpowder is hard because of how scarce the sources are and it's difficult to pin a particular doctrine as an established "thing".

>>1667921
Cool thanks.

It as total failure.

The Wehrmacht and the Red Army were already basing their infantry squads around the machine gun.

The riflemen, SMGs and other squad members were support for the LMG.

The US Army was late to the party.

After getting BTFO repeatedly by German infantry squads with MG42s they smartened the fuck up.

>As originally conceived, U.S. Army tactical doctrine called for one M1918A2 per squad, using either one or two men to support and carry ammunition for the gun.[37] Fire and movement tactics centered on the M1 riflemen in the squad, while the BAR man was detailed to support the riflemen in the attack and provide mobility to the riflemen with a base of fire.[37] This doctrine received a setback early in the war after U.S. ground forces encountered German troops well-armed with automatic weapons, including fast-firing, portable machine guns.[39] In some cases, particularly in the attack, every fourth German infantryman was equipped with an automatic weapon, either a submachine gun or a full-power machine gun.[39]

>This doctrine received a setback early in the war after U.S. ground forces encountered German troops well-armed with automatic weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle#World_War_II

>Then U.S. Army Major, E. Paul Melody in his excellent 1990 School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) paper explains why U.S. infantry in WW2 that had 20-round magazine-fed, fixed barrel, often bipod-less, Browning Automatic Rifles (BARs) which while shooting the powerful 7.62x82mm (30.06) cartridge was not as good as German infantry which had the belt-fed, large caliber 7.92mm MG42 light machine guns (LMGs) with pistol grips--whose barrels could be changed for sustained fires to keep their opponents pinned down. Thousands of our men died or were maimed because of this.

>combatreform.org/squadsizeisnottheonlyproblem.pdf

http://www.combatreform.org/lightmachineguns.htm

>>1667944
>U.S. infantry in WW2 that had 20-round magazine-fed, fixed barrel, often bipod-less, Browning Automatic Rifles (BARs) which while shooting the powerful 7.62x82mm (30.06) cartridge was not as good as German infantry which had the belt-fed, large caliber 7.92mm MG42 light machine guns (LMGs)

>NOT AS GOOD

>>1667944
>Major E. Paul
more like Major Hindsight

>>1667931
Pre Iron age would be the obvious answer but it's an issue of wording to wonder when 'Infantry' begins.

The BAR wasn't bad in the least anyway. Pretty sure it's influence mechanically was felt right up to modern assaults rifles. Wasn't it the AK that ended up having a very similar mechanical action?

My gun history is rusty but I'm pretty sure the AK has more in common with the BAR than the STG44 in operation.

>>1667971
Wasn't it the Garand rather than the BAR? An inspiration for the AK I mean.

>>1667977
May well be that. The Garands action seems totally different to me offhand tho. I'm half remembering a Forgotten Weapons video no doubt.

I just wanted to post because the BAR gets an unfairly hard time because of the last years of its service life. As an old /k/ommando the idea any work of John Moses mufucking Browning is a piece of shit is heretical to the max.

>>1668044

2/10

File: ak47-disassembly-3771.jpg (46KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x375px

>>1667971
>>1667977
>>1668009
The AK indeed took a lot of influence from the Garand, such as the bolt design and operation, as well as some minor influences from numerous other Russian designs at the time, but not much from the STG-44. People who say it was a ripoff of the STG are noguns plebs and should kill themselves.
t. /k/

>>1667944
>combatreform.org

Why does that sound so familiar?

>light tracked, mechanized M113 Gavin and other type tanks
>M113 Gavin
>Gavin
>Gavin
>AGAGAGAGAA

... oh, right. Why do insane obsessed people always have such cluttered and archaic websites?

>>1668057
You like guns because you have a small penis. Just reminding you

>>1668044
>people believe this

>>1668098
I like guns because they are A E S T H E T I C

>>1668057
Oh how contrarian

>>1668098
Is that your opinion or are you easily swayed by Propaganda from your childhood?

>>1667829
the exposed magazine was pretty neat-looking, but it was a fucking disaster otherwise, along with the rest of the gun

>>1667794

The US army's approach to small arms in WW2 was kind of a mixed bag in terms of quality.

>Thompson: A bit heavy and too expensive to produce. Cumbersome stock that couldn't be folded. Inferior to MP40.

>M3 Grease Gun: Very good all-around. Easy to control on full-auto and cheap for mass production. Wire stock could be extended or retracted. Equal or better to the MP40.

>BAR: Stupidly heavy and only held 20 rounds. Good in WW1 but completely obsolete by WW2. Inferior to every other light machine gun in the war.

>M1911 pistol: heavy recoil makes it impractical for most purposes but still works well at close range. Superior to Nambu pistol.

>M1 Garand: Best service rifle of the world, hands down, no question. Superior to every other .30 caliber rifle in the war.

>M1 Carbine: Very good overall, but slightly underpowered. Best carbine of the war.

>M1919 machine gun: Bad. Inferior to german MG42. Overheats constantly and doesn't have a good system for swapping out a melted barrel.

>Model 1897: Only shotgun to receive widespread use, so nothing to compare it to, but generally respected.

>>1669634
>Inferior to every other light machine gun in the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_30

not quite, there were some awful LMGs out there

File: 1472697543265.png (1MB, 1440x1787px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x1787px

>>1670897

>Sustained rate of fire was slower than the M1 Garand

So this is where the meme about Italians being shit at war comes from.

Why didn't USA give all its soldiers drum fed tommy guns and fedoras?
Why waste the time with rifles when fully automatic SMGs were widely available? They could have dumped rifle duty on specialist units.
I mean, it's pretty much what everyone does today, average soldier gets a full auto assault rifle and if precision is needed you can take always fire single shots.

>>1667840
The US switched to "the more the merrier" during Vietnam. Before the adoption of the M16, they were one of the strongest proponents of precision fire and ammo conservation, as can be seen by their stubborn refusal to adopt an intermediate cartridge prior to Vietnam.

>>1667931
It mattered well into the early modern era. Carolean infantry tactics allowed them to smash far, far larger armies and do so in a way that overcame swedens tiny manpower pool.

>>1667944
Literally nothing off of that website is valid, anon. Sparky is fucking insane.

>>1671223
Because longer barrels and heavier calibers matter.

>>1671223
Nogunz

>>1667822
>Only Germany had an LMG
Kill yourself.

Germany had GPMG's. British, Americans, Soviets and everybody else basically were in HMG/MMG/LMG world.

With the example of LMG's being - Bren, BAR, DP, MMG's - SG-43, Vickers, M1919 and HMG's - M2, DShK or 15mm variant of Besa.

Germany opted for GPGM's(MG-34 and MG-42) for land units and I believe they've had HMG's on some airplanes.

>>1671194
>Although considerably flawed when compared to its contemporaries, the Breda 30 was still considered the deadliest weapon of the standard Italian infantryman's arsenal,

>>1667944
>combatreform
The site is made by autistic furry "I was junior officer for real guise" guy who makes thousands of garbage presentations with garbage.

>>1669634
Fun fact about Thompson vs. M3. In 1950's, surplus Thompson SMG's costed $200-250.

M3's were sold at $18.

Then you've had to pay the cuck tax of $500 to register them(they were full auto after all) but it still kinda shows you how cheap M3 was(it was good, just very cheap and redundancy-free design). I saw a figure of $3 being its 1943 production cost.

>>1671223
Drum fed is no-no. Drum mags are fine if you want to look scary but they jam a lot.

>>1671652
Eh, it's kind of wonky assumption because you don't know if it's opinion of actual soldiers, analytics or just urban legend.

Take Carcano for instance. The street cred it has is that you can't hit shit with it. Now the problem is that it uses progressive barrel rifling, so it's "denser" at the end of the barrel. It increases longevity of the part which is pretty good for military use. However when Bubba and Cletus bought one, they've took a saw and shortened it because it was too long. The "sparse" rifling of the shortened barrel didn't gave the bullet proper spin so you really couldn't hit shit with it. And hence the "you can't shit with Carcano" myth started.

Similarly to Chauchat for example - the street cred is "it jammed whole the time and couldn't cycle whole magazine". It comes from American test versions which were ordinary chauchats with 3 modifications - different barrel(7,62/.30 instead of 8mm) lengthened chamber(so it could feed 2,5mm longer bullet) and different magazine. The problem is that original Chauchat used rimmed 8x50,5R Lebel cardridge that was quite old at the time, especially when compared to motherfucking .30-06 - which was rimless on top of it. The conversion was shoddily made and didn't take into account anything but the size of the new bullet and hence it didn't work at all.

Don't take such "considerations" too seriously.

>>1671691
>The street cred it has is that you can't hit shit with it.
Kennedy was shit, and it hit him.

>>1671715
Yes and I've read "opinions" of various "experts" that he couldn't be hit by Oswald because Carcano can't hit shit. Memes live forever as you see.

>>1671223
Because reach and stopping power matter when you talk about fighting at the ranges that soldiers in that era fought at. This was before mechanized combat allowed assault troops to get up close and personal with automatics.

And even then, when you look at the casualties faced by western soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan they were almost always caused by someone with a battle rifle from a great distance, as the larger caliber bullet stands a much better chance of penetrating body armor.

>>1671268
Yeah I meant "the last time" as in most recently. Perhaps it is widespread guns that are the great equalizer in this?

>>1667822
>1) The USA operated on the belief that "soldiers will waste ammo if you give them a lot of bullets."

This is how everybody in Europe reacted to breech-loading rifles of Prussia prior to Austro-Prussian war.

>>1667820
>cheap to make
It was more expensive than the MG42 and Bren, which are both arguably better.

>it was very light
It was light for a machine gun of the First World War, but it wasn't a machine gun. And the later A2 version was heavier than other machine guns, yet it still wasn't a machine gun.

It started life as an automatic rifle for a tactic (walking fire) that was quickly abandoned (though the BAR was better than anything else around in the trenches), and was then forced into the role of support weapon, to which it wasn't well suited.

>>1671691
No. The carcano gets a a bad reputation because one of the two manufacturers we're getting ammo for it from makes the fucking bullet too small. It may as well be a smoothbore musket as a result of this.

>>1667822
>The USA operated on the belief that "soldiers will waste ammo if you give them a lot of bullets." So better what essentially is a 20 round rifle than Automatics for errybody,
Which must be why the USA issued more SMGs and semiautos than Germany, right?
Fucking morons, why can't you shitpost on /b/ or /pol/?