Why did the BAR fail?

>>31494032
WW1 ended

>>31494032
>excellent on paper for squad-based suppression fire tactics
>20 round mag
>suppressing fire
>lmg
>20 round mag

>>31494032

trash bipod

20 round mag was ill suited to sustained fire

actually pretty heavy

not especially accurate

>>31494032
It was pretty acceptable when it was designed but by world war 2 the performance to weight ratio wasn't there. Why deal with 20 round box mags when you could give the autorifleman a .30 cal browning and it would only be a little heavier.

>>31494032
>no changeable barrel
>20 round magazine which could not be easily changed by an assistant gunner for sustained fire

Basically, it couldn't sustain fire

File: 1419490736726.gif (999KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x251px

>>31494057
This. I never saw how the fuck this was supposed to be an effective LMG. Same goes for the Bren and Type 99/97. I don't get it.

>>31494032
"excellent on paper for squad-based suppression fire tactics"

Not during and after WWII when the move towards SMGs and salt riffles happened.

>Lower magazine capacity than a 7.62x25mm SMG which would be much better for supressing in close range
>Lower capacity than a beltfed
>Long ass action for a cartridge that was replaced by a shorter, ballistic near equal when comparing GI loads
>20 rounds
>Enemy riflemen now have 30 rounds per mag for their rifles in North Kora
>Recoil
>20 rounds

Did I forget to mention the 20 round part?

>>31494032
its was built around the tactic of walking fire, kind of a stupid tactic. So with the tactic the gun faded out of popularity.

>>31494044
More of less this. It was simply just meant for ww1, not ww2.

>>31494101
With the Bren and 99, you could have the assistant gunner load from the top to sustain the rate of fire. It's no belt fed, but it's better than the BAR

>>31494133
For the early parts of WWI, at that

>Why did this shit-tier WW1-era weapon fail in modern combined arms operations

Hmm really makes one ponder

It's not like the allies cared for their soldiers anyway, the wrong side lost ww2

>>31494101
It wasn't, it was an automatic rifle meant for walking fire in WW1, but the Jews at Aberdeen were all about recycling stuff into roles they suck in because making new stuff costs more than the relatively small amount of lives lost.

>>31494032
>lightweight
>19lbs
For a value of "lightweight". Might have been understandable if it had capabilities matching other squad MGs in service across WW2, but a 20-round mag, low RoF, and a useless bipod kinda put an end to that

>>31494156
I wonder what board this poster visits in addition to /k/

>>31494032
It did not "fail", it was misapplied.
Akin to using a pair of pliers as a wrench.

>>31494237
What niche would it have succeeded in?

>>31494310
WW1 trench clearing

>>31494310
see
>>31494044

>>31494310
As was intended, , a "machine rifle", somethiung predating the "assault rifle" and "submachine gun".

>>31494032
It was never meant to be an LMG. Browning designed it as an infantryman rifle with the early M1918 being select fire. At 15lbs, it was still damned heavy for an infantry rifle. In the M1918A1, weight increased to 19 lbs and the select fire mode was deleted.

The BAR's problem was that it was designed for a specific problem, trench warfare, and was one of the first designs of it's type, so it ended up being neither fish nor fowl. It was too heavy to be a good infantry rifle, and it's fixed barrel and 20 round magazine made it a less than stellar LMG.

Attempts were made to fix it. The M1922 saw a heavier barrel and action to deal with overheating, but also increased weight to 22 lbs.

The reason the BAR remained in service and continued in production in WWII when better alternatives were available is because there were a ton already in the inventory, tooling existed to make more and the U.S. military needed weapons NOW.

Acknowledged shortcomings in the BAR were overridden by a need to field a weapon that could fill the LMG role, even if it wasn't ideal. Keeping it in service and even making more, kept the already complicated logistical supply train from getting more complicated. Troops knew the BAR, they knew its strengths and shortcomings and were trained with it. The simplified supply chain meant.parts and ammo would be compatible throughout multiple theatres with minimal confusion about what went where.

>>31494032
It followed the walking fire idea in a trench too much. It was good for what it was, but the capacity of the weapon limited it greatly in the combat of WWII that it was forced into.

>>31494032

>Why did the BAR fail?

It didn't. Even as a flawed weapon, the BAR was very successful in giving American infantry a decisive advantage over Axis infantry. An American WW2 squad would have 1 or 2 BAR's per squad. A German platoon would be lucky to have a single machine gun. Combine this with the semi-automatic M1 Garand, and it is easy to see why American infantry had the deck stacked in their favor when going up against Germans or Japanese armed only with bolt-action rifles.

I wish they would have taken the BAR, replaced the bipod, slapped on a heavier barrel and a scope, and designated it a DMR of sorts.

My uncle proposed this idea to me, after talking about his experience at Monte Cassino. He was a 1919 gunner and he said that he might as well have just had a sign on his helmet saying "drop mortar rounds here".

He ended up taking shrapnel to his chest after him and a few other .30 cal gunners held off the Germans long enough for them to take the wounded down the mountain on mules. According to him, only a handful of MG crews survived the German onslaught that day, most were lost to mortar fire. He also said he would have gladly carried the BAR around Italy instead of lugging around the m1919.

>>31494690

>I wish they would have taken the BAR, replaced the bipod, slapped on a heavier barrel and a scope, and designated it a DMR of sorts.

>Make the ultra-heavy gun even heavier

>Heavy as fuck
>20 round mags
>Asstarded bipod added

It was fantastic compared to what came before it, but it was basically obsolete by the time WWI ended. There's a reason they didn't just make a lighter version of it and call it the new battle rifle or a belt fed version of it and declare it the new machine gun that was over 9000.

>>31494203
Not like he is wrong you know...

>LMG
>can't swap barrels
really makes u think

>>31494032

Why didn't they just use the M16? It's not like the M16 used any advanced technology they didn't have at that point.

>>31494714
As a defensive weapon, I think that anons idea would work.

>>31494714
As I stated. My uncle fought at Monte Cassino. They didn't move around too much as it was, let alone the fact he was already dragging an m1919 around, which as he stated "didn't do shit for stopping the Germans held up in the rocks and cliffs, you just ended up dumping your ammo into rocks until mortars or snipers forced you to displace". I remember he told me that had they been issued something with a scope they would have fared a little better.

>>31495096

why didn't they just use m249s

>>31494203
i know which board you visit. >>>/lgbt/

>>31495050
>le the bad guys won WW2 meme
No, he's pretty wrong.

>>31494203
>everyone I disagree with is /pol/, a children's guide to weapons discussion

>>31495200
Ay my grandfather fought at Monte Cassino. Hell of a fucking fight.

File: BAR - FBI Colt Monitor M80.jpg (2MB, 2100x1659px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1659px

>>31494032

It was designed for WWI and fielded virtually unchanged in WWII.

The barrel length and size were all designed with the intent of it being a stationary machine gun with a bi pod that would be accurate at long range (which it was, when stationary); but which you could also pick up and clear out a trench with in a pinch. It was also designed with the flawed WWI concept of marching suppressive fire where you'd hip fire the thing as you walked towards the enemy to keep them in cover.

By WWII trench warfare was uncommon and you had vastly superior man portable stationary machine guns like the MG-42 being fielded for which the BAR was a poor substitute. So it found use as a squad automatic weapon, which wasn't what it was designed for and in that role it was very heavy and still only gave you a 20 round magazine.

If they'd redesigned it for WWII, made it more portable and lighter as with the Colt Monitor designed for the FBI (pic related) and given it a larger magazine it would have been a better squad automatic weapon.

Of course by the same token they should have just let John Garand design the M1 with detachable 20 round magazines as he'd intended.

I always saw the bar as a really shitty battle rifle. A predecessor to the Fal, G3 and company. 20 round magazines, full power round, and select fire. Trying to press it into the lmg role was silly, but I always wondered how effective it would have been if they has just gone with the colt monitors and issued half the riflemen monitors instead of garands

when are the y gonna make a mini in .308?

>>31494032
Twenty round magazines.

That's why.

However a belt feed modification and a simplification of the reciever could probably put it back in the running for modern LMG usage.

>>31495810
Also converting it to something modern.

Maybe making one in 5.56 or 7.62 NATO?

Come on anons, this is a great idea, right?

Is it true that manlets sometimes end up being given bigger rifles to try and toughen or bulk them up?

Sweeds did the BAR right, 30 round mag, barrel with cooling fins and a better bipod.

>>31496454
Shit, they even made one with swap-able barrels.

File: bcg.jpg (699KB, 1224x1632px) Image search: [Google]

699KB, 1224x1632px

>>31496370
The military, especially peacetime military, tends to have a lot of people making very juvenile decisions. The idea of "hurr durr durr it' will be funny to give the tiny guy a big gun" is one of those things that just kinds of ends up happening, yes.

In more professionally minded units, the machineguns go to more experienced troops. This especially applies to the MMG/GPMGs, since those guns are the base of fire for any platoon and are the most important singular weapons carried in a platoon.

>>31495241
Why didn't they use a Westinghouse Plasma Rifle in the forty watt range?

>>31494032
>lightweight
You carry one for three years then tell my grandpa it wasn't heavy.

>>31494156
Stop making spot the wheraboo so fucking easy.

>>31496370
This never happened, this was an after-the-fact embellishment. Toughening is in basic. By the time you get a machine gun, you are assumed to be toughened.
You give the machine gun to the short guy because it is more valuable and he presents less shootable surface.
And everybody was short because of the Depression.

>>31494032
designed for a walking war

ready in time for a running war

wasn't lightened, the magazine not expanded, cartridge too powerful for the role it wound up filling

despite the shortcomings I'd argue the BAR wasn't a failure so much as it was unlucky, regardless it wound up serving in 4 major wars in it's creators hands and dozens if not hundreds of smaller or large non US conflicts.

I'd say the BAR did pretty damn good for being a failure.

>>31496370
It's because you don't want the squad to outrun their base of fire.

>>31494165
>meant for walking fire
pls kill this fucking meme

>>31494494

In reality the average German inf squad had significantly more firepower than its US counterpart. Every German squad was equipped with at least 1 MG 34 or MG 42, sometimes more towards the end of the war. German doctrine had the LMG as the core of the infantry squad's firepower not the rifles, hence why they didn't bother putting much effort into a replacement for the k98 until quite late in the day. The advantage conferred to US infantry by their semi auto M1s more more than compensated for by these excellent LMGs; it was this firepower disadvantage that forced US inf to rely more heavily on support from other arms such as arm air or the excellent US artillery arm to give them the firepower to overcome German infantry units.

File: tmp_10430-hqdefault(3)1584393746.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x360px

>>31494032
Because you touch yourself at night.

Or the fact it was good at robbing Depression Era banks and giving a reason for nfa to pass, and nothing else. That and being too fucking heavy for such limited firepower.

"By the afternoon of 17 December, the 395th Regiment realized that the day's action was part of a much larger offensive. At one point in the middle of the next night, a German company commander marched his company of about 200 men up to a house that he thought was unoccupied, and next to a ditch in which an infantryman with a BAR was dug in"

“Once the German officer got there, he called for a meeting of his noncoms—at a spot right in front of this BAR man's foxhole. That was a long night. The BAR man stood it just as long as he could and then he cut loose. The Germans pulled back to organize, and he pulled back to another foxhole. They attacked and he cut them down again. Then he moved back to his original foxhole and the Germans attacked where he’d been. He cut them down again. Then the rest of the men in the eight-man squad got into the act. Come daylight, there was one lieutenant and about eight Germans left."

It kicks like a mule and is heavy as fuck to boot. Otherwise okay, but not something that would be great all the time.

File: 1385310678743.jpg (47KB, 291x347px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 291x347px

>>31494145
Alright that makes much sense.

Still a little puzzled as to why they preferred mags to belts. I can see belts doing much better in terms of logistics and RoF, and mags being a little more dirt-resistant?
According to E.B. Sledge the .30 cans were great for carrying whereas the magazine crates for the M1 were overfilled (=too heavy) and had only a slit for the tips of ones fingers as a handle.

>>31494165
>meant for walking fire
>The "I played Verdun" starter pack

>>31494119
>>Enemy riflemen now have 30 rounds per mag for their rifles in North Kora
The koreans had mosins. No SVT-40 or SKS have more then 10 rounds in their magazine because you cant fill it anymore then that.

>>31495810
>However a belt feed modification and a simplification of the reciever could probably put it back in the running for modern LMG usage.

Look at the FN MAG

>>31498086
Probably either because they couldn't make a reliable belt-feeding action that was light enough with the technology available. Either that or good old-fashioned military stubbornness.

>>31495336
No it's more of because he's a nazi.

idk man but in my opinion and having fired both i like the bren more.

that being said LMGs changed rapidly at the end of WW1

Brens are more like a mixture of rifle and LMG anyway.

File: image.jpg (71KB, 522x583px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 522x583px

>>31494156
>the wrong side won WW2

>>31496997
>came with a fucking cup that went on your belt to facilitate hip firing
>not meant for walking fire
Just because the doctrine was stupid doesn't mean it didn't exist.

>>31494032
It tried to auto a .308 and assumed every soldier could handle such a mankiller. Literally half the reason we use intermediate calibers.

File: bar-in-walking-fire-belt-cup.jpg (99KB, 602x708px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 602x708px

>>31496997
>>31499316

>>31494032
>lightweight, even for the light machine gun class weapons
What have you been smoking?

>>31494189
The original is 16 lbs. A bunch of weight was added with the bipod and new buffer system of the A1.

>>31494743
>belt fed version of it and declare it the new machine gun that was over 9000

Isn't that basically what FN did with the MAG?

>>31495290
Not the same guy, but we should have let the Soviets and Germans slaughter each other without lend leasing the Reds crap. Would have made securing Europe and passing Operation Unthinkable much easier without giving the Reds Eastern Europe while saving the Caucuses from their grasp.

>>31494428
So it was oudated. Its niche was the past.

What they should have done was adopted the Belgian Model D with the detachable barrel, when it came out in 1932. Then they could have refitted the older versions as they came back in for repair, like the Swedes did with the Kg m/21-37.

You would still have been tied to the dumb 20-round magazine, but you would have gotten a better bipod and the ability to function as something approaching an actual LMG in use.

>>31494032
Basically, it's not light and it's barely a machine gun

>>31499316
Say it again, SAY IT AGAIN SO I SPOON FEED YOU BITCH

Seriously though, walking fire was one of many, MANY tactics. The manual of the day mentions it once in specific circumstances, and everything else is very much conventional automatic fire, even stating the REAL best position for it is in flanking, especially down the length of a trench.

It was not DESIGNED for walking fire, the cup doesn't mean it was only used in that purpose any more than a stock on a pistol means the pistol was designed only for shouldered shooting.

Really tho, pls don't make me find the manual again, I will, but I didnt bookmark it. Just google it, pls.

File: The_Bullet_Farmer.jpg (29KB, 1024x426px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1024x426px

>20 rounds

For a suppressing fire weapon?!

>>31494119
>Enemy riflemen now have 30 rounds per mag for their rifles in North Kora
No. None of the combatants in the Korean War had any AK's. The Norks and Chinks had mainly bolt-action rifles with a smattering of SKS' and LMG's.

>>31499598
Find it faggot.

>>31494494
>A German platoon would be lucky to have a single machine gun.

German infantry doctrine was based around the machine gun. Every German squad has a MG.

>>31498086
>>31494101

Less time between reloading a belt and a magazine.

A bad loader and gunner could change mags and gets guns up in at least 4 seconds.

Going back to "that spandau argument that rustles everyone jimmies".e

The bren was used to lay down fire until a vickers team could be bought up (if still required).

The whole issue with the mg34/42 vs the bren was the fact that the mg34/42 was belt fed. If the germans were stupid enough to only have 1 gun on target at the time (which they often did) the bren team would wait for the Mg to change belts put the bren onto target whilst they had their heads down, and once they bring them back up blast them and kill them. the bren could do this because it was relatively accurate.

In reality the MG34/42 is a meme gun with its reputation outweighing reality, just like most things german like the tiger , panther, U boats...

>>31499157
Even as a 13 year old cadet a L4 bren was still easily fireable from the shoulder

>>31499598
>things can only be designed with a single narrow use in mind and then can never be repurposed
>admits marching fire was an intended use
Get fucked.

>>31499741
Yeah unluckily once the gun crew was killed the rest of the squad would either proceed to take over the MG and get killed off in turn

Or run.

>>31494044
>>31494133
this and it was too heavy

>>31499772
yeah thats how war works.
no different than the bars.

if you just replaced the BAR with more m1 the american squad wouldnt loose much firepower

File: FN-D_5629.jpg (226KB, 1800x695px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1800x695px

>>31494032
>why did it fail
Because it wasn't an FN-D

File: British_L7A2_Machine_Gun.jpg (2MB, 2810x1880px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2810x1880px

>>31495810
What is the FN MAG

>>31499749
>he bren team would wait for the Mg to change belts put the bren onto target whilst they had their heads down, and once they bring them back up blast them and kill them

this is the same shit as the PING meme
you change position when reloading/changin barrels. unless you are on the defence with a lafette, in that case you would have 10 squadmates lying hundreds of meters in front protecting the gun

>>31494032
It servers in 3wars, I'd hardly say that is failing

>>31494032

>lightweight, even for the light machine gun class weapons

wat

>>31499334
>.308
Stopped reading right there

File: partyinthehaiti.jpg (125KB, 900x850px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 900x850px

>>31499759
>an intended use
>same as the reason it was designed
Get fucked. Nice try though!

>>31499695
Aight so, here's a little snippet out of wikipeds first

>In addition to shoulder-fired operation, BAR gunners were issued a belt with magazine pouches for the BAR and sidearm along with a "cup" to support the stock of the rifle when held at the hip. In theory, this allowed the soldier to lay suppressive fire while walking forward, keeping the enemy's head down, a practice known as "marching fire". The idea would resurface in the submachine gun and ultimately the assault rifle. It is not known if any of the belt-cup devices actually saw combat use.
>It is not known if any of the belt-cup devices actually saw combat use.

Now on to the manuals, now they are JUST after the war, so points to you, I don't have a manual specifically for its design.

But first, let's go as far back as we can go.

>https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/8/25/john-browning-s-automatic-rifle/
>An Early Assessment From The Trenches
A recently uncovered U.S. Army document, dated Sept. 17, 1918, and originating from the “Automatic Arms Section” of the AEF’s Engineering Division, sheds some light on how the Browning Machine Rifle was viewed at the time of the great Allied offensive that would bring the Great War to an end. —James L. Ballou

>The gun will be used for the most part as a rapid firing single shot weapon. It can be fired from the shoulder, kneeling or prone, the greatest accuracy, of course, being obtained in the latter position with the front of the forearm resting on some rigid body. In cases of emergency where the ammunition can be supplied, and where a large volume of fire is necessary, this gun will be fired automatically.


1/3

File: nomarchingfirehere.jpg (95KB, 891x510px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 891x510px

>>31500073
>General Description
The Browning Machine Rifle, Model of 1918, represents the latest development in automatic rifles for front line work. It is gas operated and air cooled. It may be set to fire single shots or automatically and may be fired conveniently from the shoulder or hip.

>The gun is carried by means of a sling similar to that of the service rifle. The gunner carries the gun, spare parts kit and six magazines. A wide belt is provided for the carrying of the kit and magazines, to which is also attached a metal boot into which the stock of the gun fits and facilitates firing from the hip in marching fire. An assistant carries 20 magazines in a belt provided for that purpose and a second assistant carries 18 magazines.

>In addition to the use of this gun as an infantry weapon, a number of requests have been received for its issue as an auxiliary anti-aircraft weapon. It is believed that when the supply of these weapons will permit, a large number will be employed for this purpose.

Now on to the manuals
>https://books.google.com/books?id=holCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA154#v=onepage&q&f=false
>ROTC Manual, 1921

Very key to pay attention to the fine details here!

>If the terrain does NOT permit of rapid movement, or if the assault MUST be launched from a position 100 to 200 yards distant from the enemy, it may be necessary to conduct it in a more deliberate manner, using marching fire of ALL weapons to cover the movement.

>Page 227
>He places the automatic rifleman of the 2nd and 3rd squads on the outer flanks of these squads and at a corner of a fire-bay, where they can fire well to the rear if necessary and readily switch their fire from one direction to another

No sign marching fire is the only tactic here!


2/3

Let's try the Military Engineer, Volumes 12-13, Jan 1920

>Page 535
>It is especially valuable for delivering flanking fire and whenever a force is sent on a flanking movement, it should be accompanied by a full quota of automatic riflemen
>The automatic rifle is particularly valuable where a large volume of fire is necessary and there is not room to deploy a sufficient number of rifles, for example, when fighting in narrow streets, etc.
>It is a valuable weapon for delivering marching fire, this class of fire is extremely desirable in combat IN THE WOODS, or to keep down the fire of the enemy while our line is advancing
>It is valuable in advance and rear guard, and of great value with patrols. Every combat patrol of four men or over should have an automatic rifleman as one of their number.
>It is valuable in covering the return of patrols
>It is valuable in an outpost line which is thinly held
>It is easily pushed forward to a flank, under cover, so as to deliver flanking fire when necessary, and is particularly effective when so used, as its cover of fire is long and narrow

And it goes on and on and on. One mention of marching fire, ten billion mentions of all the other tactics, and suddenly it's a gun made only for marching fire.

I hate to break it to you, but your senpai Ian, was wrong.


3/3

>>31500089
Protip: a tool designed for one use can still have other applications

>>31500132
Well, I gave you all I got, your turn, show me where it was specifically designed for marching fire.

Protip: Forgotten Weapons is not a source.

>>31499878
He's correct,Germans rarely changed position due to the weight and unwieldiness of the weapon

Also i doubt the "ping" is a meme.

When you're running high on adrenaline your senses go into overdrive, you hear, see and smell things that you normally wouldn't be able to, thats why PTSD happens.

I the ping sound doesn't sound to dissimilar in terms of sound or sound levels from the ding of a shell casing.

I can tell you i heard every ding sound of a casing hitting sand in a desert whilst a full blown battle is going on, with jets, helis, arty barrage, heavy weapons, radio blaring and fucks knows how many guys small arms.

The worst thing is i got tinitus from that too.

>>31494032
>Why did the BAR fail?
it didn't. maybe go and visit the graves of all the krauts, jap's & chinese who met their demise in front of this fine weapon.

>>31494203
>>31496610
>>31499173
gb2 reddit

File: 1467982894112.png (78KB, 4999x2570px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 4999x2570px

>>31500169
That was a quality, well-sourced reking. Bravo!

File: Picture3.png (2MB, 1250x1101px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1250x1101px

>20 rounds

File: Picture4.jpg (64KB, 433x1769px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 433x1769px

>>31501402

>>31494032
I've never really thought of it as a failure. All the WWII vets I've ever talked to loved the damn things, it was an extremely popular item for the Vietcong to steal from armories in South Vietnam, and a bunch of foreign nations adopted them in their particular calibers and flavor during the 30s. The reason it got replaced was because of 20 round mags, but even in Vietnam there were American soldiers who effectively fielded them and hated that they were replaced by the M60.

I'd be interested in seeing who these "weapons experts" are that say the BAR was such a failure.

BREN gunner = 180 rds - 6-30 rd mags
BAR gunner = 240 rds - 12-20 rd mags

BREN weight = 21-25 lbs
BAR weight = 19 lbs

File: 1474560390879.jpg (90KB, 617x627px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 617x627px

>>31501625
>Opinions of actual vets matter more

That's where you goofed

>>31494032

It didn't fail. By all accounts other solders would often carry extra ammo for their BAR gunners because it was so revered at the time.

>>31501766
Bren was split between two people though, and both carried 6mags in addition to whatever other weapons they had Sten/ enfield

Not to mention they used to take turns in using the bren so they don't wear out.

The bren would only be used by a single person under the aamour of a universal carrier

>>31499126
Yeah bro it was totally cool to give Stalin half of Europe. At least those evil nazis didn't have it and those good solviets got it instead.

>>31501833
This. Idiot vets still cling to the M14 is better than M16 meme.

>>31502018
...And without 80% of the german casualties happening on the eastern front, what the Christ do you think would have happened?

>>31502005
>>31501766

Also adding in that every web set carried 2 bren mags.

So even more ammo!

>>31502038
M14 wasn't even as good as FAL/SLR
M60 was hilariously crap compared with MAG

>>31502062
The MG3 and FN MAG competed against the M60 and did horribly.

>>31494690
> I wish my MG was shitier so I wouldn't be considered a real thread and would be ignored

Gramps is a dummy.

>>31502062
As an American if I could I would take a L1A1 over a M16 or M14. The M14 was shit but the M16's faults played a lot on ammo production problems.

>>31500089
No shit very early on they realized marching fire was a crap tactic. What are you trying to say here?

>>31502094
tell me why as the US moved over to '240? Why is the '60 only used on helis?

Everyone knew it was crap. people couldn't admit that the birts had a superior cartridge, Uk & belgium had a superior rifle, and belgium made a superior MG

>>31502149
m16s problem was primarily the people. Soldiers were told it was self cleaning, just like the L85a1.

But the ammo played a part in it, the bongs Radway green 5.56 ammo is extremely clean and efficient in comparison with american crap that carbon craps after a few mags.

Soldiers were coming over from weapon systems that had massive springs that didn't need forward assist and required little cleaning to something that requires forward taps and cleaning.n

>>31502204
I'm trying to say the gun wasn't designed for marching fire. It was designed to be an automatic rifle.

Ever since Ian came out and said it was intended originally for walking fire and designed around the concept, suddenly everyone thinks the rifle was designed for a shit tactic.

I dispute his claim, I have been unable to find any information to support the idea the weapon was designed specifically for this purpose, and I've found a LOT of information to the counter.

>>31501391
<3

I figure it BETTER be well sourced if it's disputing gun jesus, man with no faults, Ian

>>31502149
Sorry I meant to write the MAG and MG3 were superior as the M60 encountered lower MRBF and breakage. I wrote backwards. The M60 has a ton of problems like the gas collar and no barrel change handle.

>>31494101
Well, Bren obviously worked because Bongs used it pretty much until a while ago and I think Indians still use them

>>31500169
Yeah, it was just a complete coincidence that America happened to design a spectacularly shit LMG that just happened to have characteristics suited for walking fire.

>>31500169
Can you prove it wasn't? It's not like as if anybody knows what the army trails in its selection actually involved, if it involved anything other than
>Does it work?
>Is it American?

Meanwhile, https://archive.org/details/technicaltrainin00infarich makes clear marching fire was taken completely seriously, even though by 1918 they should had known better. It's utterly bizarre how a tactic that nobody in their right mind would ever use just happens to have equipment and training for it's use. The demands of marching fire and an LMG are so different, there's no way the BAR would had been designed the way it was without being designed specifically for walking fire.

>>31499598
Strawman much? When did anybody say it was ONLY designed for walking fire? It's clear enough that the specification for walking fire massively compromised the design.

>>31503539
>LMG
They didn't design an LMG at all, perhaps you're confused?

>>31503713
>Can you prove it wasn't?
I literally just did though. Did you not read all the other posts? Thanks for the link to this manual though, it's what I really wanted to get my hands on, and yet, nowhere does it say the gun was designed around the concept of marching fire.

It simply wasn't, it was an automatic rifle, marching fire was done not just with the BAR but with every rifle, does that mean the 1903 was designed for walking fire?

>>31503845
It's not a strawman really, just me using the wrong word, what I'm getting at is it wasn't DESIGNED for walking fire, nowhere can I find that the BAR was designed or even primarily fielded for the purpose of walking fire.

>It's clear enough that the specification for walking fire massively compromised the design.
Do you mean comprised or am I misunderstanding something? If you DO mean comprised, show. me. a. source.

The cup, which never really saw any form of use mind you, tells me walking fire was a tactic, but I don't need a cup to tell me it was a tactic, it was one of many many MANY tactics.

>>31502130
>MG
>anon said reclassify it as a DMR

Reading comprehension anon, you should try it.

>>31504097
>I literally just did though
No you didn't. Your whole argument is basically
>Hurr a hammer has a million various other uses so that proves it wasn't designed to hit nails into material

>>31504301
And your argument is
>This thing has a million uses including one that im biased towards
>Guess the whole thing was designed around this one use
Cite me where, again, cite where it says it was designed primarily for walking for.

You can't, argument over, you have no sources, you're exhibiting extreme confirmation bias, and I have no idea why. Did you design the rifle? Did you purchase one because you wanted to partake in walking fire? Have you based your entire thought process on the weapon around Ians one video where he shows 0 sources? What is the reason that you hold onto one shred of evidence, which, may I remind you doesn't exist, you have no source, in the face of the overwhelming counter.

Why are people so fucking dumb?

>>31494032
>Why did the BAR fail?
>Used from 1918 until the early 1960s

>>31504097
Since apparently walking fire wasn't a requirement despite numerous proof tell us what it was meant to do, because any other use would had been better with an LMG or a rifle half its weight.

You seem to have decided that yelling AUTOMATIC RIFLE is a solution. It isn't because it can mean anything from battle rifle to LMG.

>>31504395
>Dat obsession with some youtube personality being the source
How old are you son?

>>Guess the whole thing was designed around this one use
Dat strawman again. Is English your second language or something?

>>31504449
I never disputed walking fire existed or was a tactic the BAR was meant to be used in, I disputed the BAR was designed around walking fire.

>>31504469
>How old are you son?
25, regardless it's ad hominem and disregarded

>Dat strawman again. Is English your second language or something?
Ad homenim again, ez, disregarded

It's not a strawman its being hyperbolic, I already stated I'm not saying you're saying that was the only tactic, and again it's not what I'm disputing.

Now, stop dodging my request on your evidence, provide it now, or fuck off lol.

>>31504481
LOL, how about you provide evidence beyond some irrelevant manual and a super dodgy website source, and explain away why it was so poor at every possible conceivable role.

>>31504505
>beyond some irrelevant manual
>the manual of that time that describes the rifles uses and tactics is irrelevant
>super dodgy website which is one of MANY that cites the 1918 notes
>ignores the manual posted by someone disputing me that I agreed was a good source of information
Okay let me just shitpost with you now, I've come to grips with the fact you possess an average Russian's intelligence. LOL FURFAG XD

>>31504481
Since apparently walking fire wasn't a requirement despite numerous proof tell us what it was meant to do, because any other use would had been better with an LMG or a rifle half its weight.

I'm going to sound like a fucking retard for this, but it's true. Playing WWII video games is what made me realize the BAR was obsolete.

>>31504559
I'm the one who posted that link to the manual. Meanwhile I've yet to see your unnamed super vague document and until then it's a claim as unsourced as any other, apart from all the many monographs on machine guns and the BAR which all repeat the claim that the BAR was designed for walking fire. I'll even post one, no sources, and yet it'll be more real than your "source".

>>31504559
>1921
>It's real relevant guise, no for cereal.

>>31504568
Let's open up them eyes and read matey!

No where have I said walking fire was not a tactic used when fielding the BAR.

>despite numerous proof tell us what it was meant to do
Got sum links?

>>31504636
>which all repeat the claim that the BAR was designed for walking fire.
Please do post the source.

>>31494032
How did it fail?

>Not replaced until the late 50s
If it was a failure they would have replaced it a lot earlier.

>>31504595
Playing WWII video games also made me realize Thompsons and MP-40s can one-shot targets 1000+ yards away.

File: The Machine Gun by George M. Chinn p175.jpg (253KB, 590x789px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 590x789px

>>31504636
Let's see that unnamed document with a description that makes no sense. I mean “Automatic Arms Section” of the AEF’s Engineering Division, WTF is that even supposed to mean? Even if it was real, how can you prove it wasn't being selectively quoted?

>>31504663
>Got sum links?
I challenge you to find any book that mentions the BAR that does not claim walking fire was part of its design. Then again, considering you think Ian is the source of this meme this is hardly fair eh?

There's literally nothing wrong with walking fire.

>>31504715
>I challenge you to find any book that mentions the BAR that does not claim walking fire was part of its design
>I take it you posted the Chinn? The one with no source that contradicts the manuals of the day? Wat?

>>31500073
>The gun will be used for the most part as a rapid firing single shot weapon. etc.etc.
You do realize rapid firing single shot does not preclude walking fire, right? It's how they were trained to do it, one shot on every left step.

>>31504738
No nigger, what the fuck, I said a billion fucking times walking fire existed and, all rifles, including the bar, were used in it.

That does not mean the BAR was designed around walking fire.

Holy fucko lol, you guys are brain damaged.

>>31504726
What do you want? Some obscure books that Wikipedia pulled out of its ass? At least those exist, and frankly since you think Forgotten Weapons spawned the idea instead of it being around since the dawn of the BAR you clearly have no clue about it all.

>>31504757
Yeah man, it just happened to be the only rifle given a super long strap and a bracing cup. Also explain what it did that a LMG or a much much lighter rifle couldn't do.

>>31504673
I mean, in vidya, the BAR is pretty much just a Garand with more ammo per magazine. That made me realize this thing couldn't possibly be used effectively for supressing fire.

I wonder if they should have worked on a scaled down M2.

>>31504400
M2s have been around a lot longer and yet, here we are.

Lol, every documentary or TV show that has ever covered the BAR has talked about walking fire. Look up Tales of the Gun and Mail Call from back in the day and you will see it on there at least touched a little bit.

>>31504595
wut. The BAR is OP in half the games it's in.

>>31504759
FW didn't spawn the idea, they just perpetuated the meme.

>>31504779
Did you even read the manuals? Any of em, any of the sources, anything? It was to increase the volume of fire of the squad, for all tactics, flanking, patrols, walking fire, it's a fucking automatic rifle, it doesn't care about the tactic, for the day it was a rifle that had a much higher fire rate and double the ammunition standard of other rifles.

As for what an LMG couldn't do, I dunno, I don't even know of any LMGs that existed in that time.

>>31504663
>Please do post the source.
What do you want? Every book on the BAR? Go fuck yourself. You think Youtube invented this meme? Go double fuck yourself. How about actually answering people's questions instead of focusing on one errant sentence?

>>31500648
>He's correct,Germans rarely changed position due to the weight and unwieldiness of the weapon
people have been using that weapon since the war, I've used it myself in the 308 version. its not any more unweildy than a BREN

>>31504821
Actually try to read the thread before posting lol.

What was your question first off? Second off, you said you had a fuckin source lol. Which I'm assuming you posted in regards to the Chinnshit, which is chinnshit with no sources cited in the book.

>>31504791
I know, I'm just saying that because if the gun was a failure then it wouldn't have been in service for that long.

>>31504819
>I don't even know of any LMGs that existed in that time.
The Chauchat, Lewis, Hotchkiss? So now either you think John Moses Browning somehow decided to invent one of the shittiest LMGs ever or one of the shittiest battle rifles ever. Which is it?

>>31504895
Not sure you know what LMG means in modern terms, but granted, yes, Lewis gun was called an LMG in the day.

Chauchat was an automatic rifle.

>>31494032
It wasn't as accurate or light as a rifle

It wasn't as good at suppressing fire as a an LMG or SMG

File: Akari jap eyes.png (339KB, 823x720px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 823x720px

>>31505279
>It wasn't as good at suppressing fire as a an LMG or SMG
>SMG