The BAR

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

I'd always associated this weapon with WW2 and Korea (and to judge by Vietnam Lost Films it even made it to that war in the hands of the ARVN). But I recently watched a documentary that stated it saw action in the Great War too. Can anyone confirm that?

[RobL]

Yes, briefly. From the (actually rather good) Wikipedia article;

"By July 1918, the BAR began to arrive in France and the first unit to receive them was the U.S. Army's 79th Infantry Division, which took them into action for the first time on 13 September 1918.^[7] The weapon was personally demonstrated against the enemy by 2nd Lieutenant Val Allen Browning, the inventor's son.^[7] Despite being introduced very late in the war, the BAR made an impact disproportionate to its numbers; it was used extensively during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive and made a significant impression on the Allies (France alone requested 15,000 automatic rifles to replace their notoriously unreliable Chauchat machine rifle).^[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle

[centurion]

A number of respected sources have alleged that it's introduction was delayed because of fears of it falling into German hands and being copied before US production was in full force.

As an aside - between the wars it was the favourite weapon of such upstanding US citizens as Clyde Barrow and John Herbert Dillinger

[Stoppage Drill]

According to Julian Hatcher, John Browning submitted a gun to the US Army Machine Gun Board in May 1917. Hatcher was present at the trials.

It was immediately adopted, and 85,277 were manufactured by wars end as "Model of 1918". There is a famous photo of Val Browning, in uniform wearing a tent cap, firing it from the shoulder, standing. I've got copies of it somewhere . . . . but where . . . . ?

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

Huh, I knew the Yanks were never happy with the French LMG they had but I always thought they used the Lewis (it's even referred to in The Great Gatsby). The BAR must have given them an immense advantage, you wonder why Browning never made a lightweight version or one with an interchangeable barrel

[centurion]

Huh, I knew the Yanks were never happy with the French LMG they had but I always thought they used the Lewis (it's even referred to in The Great Gatsby). The BAR must have given them an immense advantage, you wonder why Browning never made a lightweight version or one with an interchangeable barrel

By French LMG I assume you mean the Chauchat which was in fact an automatic rifle. The Lewis was not used much by the Americans in WW1 - indeed the Marines Corps who had standardised on it had theirs taken off them on arrival in France and replaced with the Chauchat (it seems that the senior officer responsible for establishing US weapons policy had a deep personal dislike for Col Lewis and turned down everything he produced). The Browning is an automatic rifle and not an LMG, it gave the Americans little or no advantage as it arrived at the front so late (end of September 1918) that there was no time to develop suitable tactics for its use.The original intention had been to use it on the walk as a suppressant weapon to get troops across no mans land but this proved unsuccessful, partly because of its weight and problems with the design of the carrying sling and it was too light if used as a conventional LMG so there was too much barrel movement for accuracy and the magazine capacity was too small for this role. It was still regarded as an immense improvement over the Chauchat.

[Story]

I'd always associated this weapon with WW2 and Korea (and to judge by Vietnam Lost Films it even made it to that war in the hands of the ARVN). But I recently watched a documentary that stated it saw action in the Great War too. Can anyone confirm that?

LTC William E. Persons' addresses alot of the tactical pros- and cons- of Marching Fire on Chapter XVIII, page 279 of his 1921 book "Military science and tactics, Vol II"

http://books.google.com/books?id=0E9IAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=Browning+Automatic+Rifle+1918+tactics&source=bl&ots=lspORT23YC&sig=DU5Lj7uqnWGkdr7nOpJ5xCTVKXk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YYPoT9XMLqjl0gH12ZTNCQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Doc2]

Huh, I knew the Yanks were never happy with the French LMG they had but I always thought they used the Lewis (it's even referred to in The Great Gatsby). The BAR must have given them an immense advantage, you wonder why Browning never made a lightweight version or one with an interchangeable barrel

The FN Model D version BAR of the early 1930s was both lighter and had a removable barrel. It was quite successful, but by that time the concept of an "Automatic Rifle" was pretty much past. Doc

[centurion]

The FN Model D version BAR of the early 1930s was both lighter and had a removable barrel. It was quite successful, but by that time the concept of an "Automatic Rifle" was pretty much past. Doc

Someone should have told Comrade Kalashnikov

[Stoppage Drill]

Well, the concept of "automatic rifle" firing a full power cartridge with a capability out to 2000 meters (the 7.62 x 63 or .30-06 if you like) is not the same as an "assault rifle" firing an intermediate cartridge (7.62 x 39) intended for combat ranges of less than 500. The assault rifle principle would have been separately introduced by the Americans using the Pedersen Device if the War had lasted into 1919.

[centurion]

A man with two BARS (doesn't look much like Warren Beaty though)

[Stoppage Drill]

NOBODY looks like Warren Beatty ! Just ask him - he'll tell you.

[centurion]

Well, the concept of "automatic rifle" firing a full power cartridge with a capability out to 2000 meters (the 7.62 x 63 or .30-06 if you like) is not the same as an "assault rifle" firing an intermediate cartridge (7.62 x 39) intended for combat ranges of less than 500. The assault rifle principle would have been separately introduced by the Americans using the Pedersen Device if the War had lasted into 1919.

Concept tosh - the official designation is Avtomat Kalashnikova - 47, Kalashnikov automatic rifle, model of 1947. The BAR was originally intended to be used in an assault role.

[TonyE]

I don't think it is "concept tosh" at all. To say that someone should have "told Comrade Kalashnikov" vis a vis the demise of the sort of "automatic rifle" that is represented by the BAR is missing the whole point about the modern assault rifle. There is a world of difference between the BAR, weighing between 16 and 20 lbs (depending on the model) firing a full power cartridge like the .30-06 from a 24 inch barrel and the AK weighing under 9lbs firing an intermediate round from a 16 inch barrel. Try firing both, preferably from the hip, and see the difference!

What you might have said was that Mister (later Comrade) Federov had a much better idea!

The BAR is beautifully (and over) engineered and I believe was well liked by its users, but I do not see any great advantage to it. Yes, it is lighter than a Lewis but it only had a twenty round magazine and I would rather have a Lewis with the weight disadvantage and the firepower of a 47 round pan.

I have fired the BAR, albeit only on the range, and found it nothing exceptional.

REgards

TonyE

[Radlad]

I have fired the BAR, albeit only on the range, and found it nothing exceptional.

REgards

TonyE

I have had the same experience Tony, possibly a better comparison than the AK series would be the FN FAL. I've also fired one of those ( Rhodesian issue in 7.92) and that hurt compared to the BAR

[Khaki]

The worst feature of the BAR, from memory was the box magazine, because it mounted from under the receiver it limited it's capacity when firing in the prone position unlike the lewis and the later BREN. Otherwise it was an excellent squad weapon that saw long service.

khaki

[centurion]

I don't think it is "concept tosh" at all. To say that someone should have "told Comrade Kalashnikov" vis a vis the demise of the sort of "automatic rifle" that is represented by the BAR is missing the whole point about the modern assault rifle. There is a world of difference between the BAR, weighing between 16 and 20 lbs (depending on the model) firing a full power cartridge like the .30-06 from a 24 inch barrel and the AK weighing under 9lbs firing an intermediate round from a 16 inch barrel. Try firing both, preferably from the hip, and see the difference!

What you might have said was that Mister (later Comrade) Federov had a much better idea!

The BAR is beautifully (and over) engineered and I believe was well liked by its users, but I do not see any great advantage to it. Yes, it is lighter than a Lewis but it only had a twenty round magazine and I would rather have a Lewis with the weight disadvantage and the firepower of a 47 round pan.

I have fired the BAR, albeit only on the range, and found it nothing exceptional.

REgards

TonyE

You are defining automatic rifle by the BAR. The definition of an Automatic Rifle in WW2 was 'Weight under 20lb, little or no cooling apparatus, capable of automatic but not sustained fire.' This covers a very wide range of weapons including but not exclusive to the BAR.

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

I think the BAR's problem was that it always fell between 2 worlds, it was too big and heavy to use as a standard infantry rifle and had too small a magazine capacity and no quick change barrel to use as a true machine gun. I remember watching R Lee Emery try it against the Bren and even someone as bombastically pro-US as him agreed he liked the Bren better. In WW2 the regular army stuck with the Bren and palmed US supplied lease lend BARs off on the Home Guard who used it in the anti-aircraft role (although I did spot one in the archive footage of the Argylls in Malaya) Arguably though with it's semi/full automatic fire ability and 20 round mag it might be considered the best small arm of WW1?

[centurion]

I don't think it is "concept tosh" at all. To say that someone should have "told Comrade Kalashnikov" vis a vis the demise of the sort of "automatic rifle" that is represented by the BAR

The post I was answering originally said that the "concept of the automatic rifle was pretty much past". I tend to read English as meaning what it says and it didn't say " the sort of "automatic rifle" that is represented by the BAR" . Are you seriously contending that the AK47 is not a rifle and it isn't automatic?. It may be a different sort of automatic rifle but it's still an automatic rifle.

[Khaki]

I tend to break the auto's down into three groups, semi auto, fully automatic, and select fire. Might not help you much but provides a little perspective for rifles as opposed to smg's, machine guns and assault rifles. I think of assault rifle's as purely ww2 and later and limited to intermediate rounds. Other rifles with increased(auto) firepower were used in the Great War in the assault capacity but it does not make them an assault rifle (a relatively modern designation). It would probably less frustrating and more harmonius if we stick to the language of the day.

khaki

[MikB]

A man with two BARS (doesn't look much like Warren Beaty though)

He does look like ol' blueeyes, though!

Regards,

MikB

[TonyE]

I know I will not change your position Centurion, but let me try to explain the point I was making.

You said in Post #6 that the Chauchat was not an LMG but an automatic rifle, The BAR fulfills a similar role and so is an automitic rifle also. The point that Stoppage Drill and then I made in reply to your post about telling Comrade Kalashnikov was that these were a completely different animal to the AK. Yes, the AK is a rifle (albeit with a 16 inch barrel) and yes it is automatic, but you are still comparing apples and pears.

Your WW2 definition of an automatic rifle is interesting. Where does it come from? I don't think it is from a British source. To me it sounds American, specifically designed to fit the BAR. After all, what other weapon in WW2 was similar (other than the Johnson M1941 which was considered an LMG)? All other major combatants had moved to true LMGs by WW2, Bren, Chatelleraut, MG34, DPM etc. The US did not fully embrace the LMG until they fielded the M1919A4 later in the war and even that was a bit of a handful being tripod mounted. All other WW2 self loading rifles (M1, Tokarev, K43 etc) were individual infantry weapons weighing around the 10lb mark.

We are wandering off topic but I will continue. The genesis of the assault rifle can be argued to be the 1916 Federov Avtomat firing the 6.5x50SR Arisaka cartridge. Certainly by the time the Russians developed the 7.62x41mm intermediate cartridge in 1943 they were fully aware of German work on short and intermediate cartridges in the pre war period by engineers like Vollmer and companies like Gustav Genschow, not least because they had a female agent at G.Genschow who gave the Russians copies of the drawings. The true assault rifle commenced with the German MP42/43/St,G44 of course and examples had been captured by the Russians. By the time that Simonov developed the SKS in 1945 the Russian round had been shortened to the 7.62x39mm we know and love today. These rifles are different in every way to the BAR or Chauchat. They are shorter, lighter, fire an intermediate round, are used as individual weapons, and are used in a tactically different way.

THAT was why I said "the sort of automatic rifle that is represented by the BAR".

Regards

TonyE

[Ogilwy]

Having fired the BAR and afterwards cleaning it discovered the massive over engineering that Tony mentioned, I would wonder how effective it would be in the trenches and all the mud.

The other thing is the weight of the BAR requires the strength of Hercules if it is to be fired from the standing position to any effect. Having also tried this with the Bren (and L4) it is very similar and all require a rest of some sort. The Bren however when slung and fired from the hip is remarkably good providing you do not exceed about 100m and I would imagine the BAR the same.

Rod

[calibre792x57.y]

Tony, Surely the US Army did not consider the Browning M.1919A4 as an LMG. It was a company level Support Weapon and the gap between it and the M.1 Rifle was filled by the BAR which by then had been fitted with a bipod (although the users sometimes removed them) so it acted as the LMG. True, later we had the M1919A6 which was an attempt to produce a proper LMG being fitted with a bipod and carrying handle, but this was no more than the Germans did when they produced the MG08/15, and about as successfull? SW

[Doc2]

Someone should have told Comrade Kalashnikov

We may be in a language conflict rather than a technology conflict here. In the US military, the concepts of an "automatic Rifle" and an "assault rifle" are very different. TonyE has discussed this well, and I am in concurrence with his position. I recognize that Brit terminology may differ. Doc