The BAR

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

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

Ironically the team who ambushed and killed Bonnie and Clyde also used a BAR. Clyde Barrow stole his from National Guard armouries and cut them down to make them more man portable. If John Browning had done the same we might have had the assault rifle decades before

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

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.

In terms of the Lewis it's astonishing that one man's bias can deprive an entire army of such an important weapon?

[Stoppage Drill]

So who was the "senior officer responsible for establishing US weapons policy "?

Can I change direction again ?

The Pedersen Device was expected to be the great American secret weapon of 1919 which would spray the German trenches with a curtain of lead as the Doughboys advanced, bolstered by BA Riflemen firing semi-automatically, a round on every left foot. It would have been impossible (so the idea was) for any German to raise his head above the parapet until the trench was entered.

Would it (the concept) have worked ? Or would it have been another case of hopes and expectations dashed ?

Got my own ideas - tosh, perhaps - but interested to hear others.

[4thGordons]

The Pedersen Device was expected to be the great American secret weapon of 1919 which would spray the German trenches with a curtain of lead as the Doughboys advanced, bolstered by BA Riflemen firing semi-automatically, a round on every left foot. It would have been impossible (so the idea was) for any German to raise his head above the parapet until the trench was entered.

Would it (the concept) have worked ? Or would it have been another case of hopes and expectations dashed ?

\

Pedersen devices would have done nothing to counter artillery barrages or HMG fire from emplaced MGs (which was the main obstacle) so in that respect it would not have worked -- however I am not entirely sure that was the real concept (although it was part of the propoganda). I think that it was more in very close proximity and in trench clearing that the pederson device was envisaged as being most useful and in that respect, the advent (and contining use today) of sub-machine guns would indicate that the concept of rapid-fire, short-range weapons firing a pistol calibre round suggest that this part of the concept was valid?

The use of the same barrel/receiver for both purposes (as per the Pederson device) might be another matter (fiddly and impractical IMO).... and one much better solved IMHO by [modern] "assault rifles" firing an intermediate cartridge more powerful than a pistol round but less powerful than a traditional rifle round.

There are very few suriving pederson devices -- although ironically the pouches for their magazines are one of the most frequently found great war era (most I have seen are dated 1919) pieces of US equipment (along with the similarly dated grenade vests).

[calibre792x57.y]

I would accept it as such, but the BAR did fill the role of an LMG even if not very well. I am considering the tactical use rather than the names. SW

[TonyE]

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

I agree that it is an odd definition, but it is my understanding that the A4 was considered an LMG when introduced. I have three editions of "Small Arms of the World" ranging from the original W.H.B.Smith to the Ed Ezell edition and all state this. Perhaps one of our American chums can offer an authoritative confirmation or other wise. Certainly the A6 was much more what we would consider to be a "proper" LMG.

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

Thanks Doc. I don't think there is any problem with terminology between the British and Americans. We both recognise the difference we have been discussing.

In modern terms, I suppose the eqivalent to the BAR in terms of function (but not in power) were the British L86 Light Support Weapon and the Russian RPK. Both are heavy and longer barreled versions of the individual weapon fitted with a bipod and larger magazine designed to give fire support at squad level. Interestingly, experience proved that neither fulfilled their role successfully and have been withdrawn and replaced by belt fed LMGs.

Regards

TonyE

[calibre792x57.y]

Tony - I would agree that from their position the M.1919 would have been considered a 'light machine gun' compared with the M.1917, but that does not mean it filled the tactical role, which the BAR did(nearly). The replacement, the M.60 was crap anyway.SW

[Tom W.]

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?

Photo from the U.S. Army Military History Institute that shows the BAR in combat in late 1918.

[4thGordons]

Photo from the U.S. Army Military History Institute that shows the BAR in combat in late 1918.

It looks like the BAR gunner has one of the special "Bar Gunners" belts on -- surpised no one mentioned these yet. They have a metal "cup" on in place of one of the mag pouches...into which the buttstock was rested to facilitate... yup - walking fire!

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

So who was the "senior officer responsible for establishing US weapons policy "?

.

General Charles Crozier

[TonyE]

Tony - I would agree that from their position the M.1919 would have been considered a 'light machine gun' compared with the M.1917, but that does not mean it filled the tactical role, which the BAR did(nearly). The replacement, the M.60 was crap anyway.SW

I totally agree with you. I was simply stating how the Americans defined it, not what I considered it to be. When I said " 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" I was trying to make that point (although perhaps not very well). They called it an LMG but it could not be used tactically like a true LMG because of the tripod.

As for the M60, I think a lot of the bugs were ironed out in the later model (M60E3). I fired the latter in the US in the mid eighties and the users seemed a lot happier with it.

Regards

TonyE

[Tom W.]

My BAR squad in 54mm scale.

[bill24chev]

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

its the old "F---y & suspenders" problem again!

[reese williams]

To stray into some of the changes that evolved in WWII, the Model 1918A2 BAR was capable only of automatic fire, although the selector switch gave two rates of fire 300-450 and 500-650 rpm. I have it from a Marine who carried a BAR all through Korea that with practice you could squeeze off single rounds and use it in a semi-auto role. The earlier M1918 and M1918A1 had semi-auto and automatic modes.

The Johnson LMG was a completely different weapon that the Johnson rifle. The LMG used a side mounted magazine.

The M1919A6 was a M1919A4 fitted with a butt stock and bipod to try to have the mobility of a BAR with the sustained fire of a LMG.

Obviously the ideas were still evolving even through the end of WWII.

My friend who carried the BAR in Korea said everyone in the squad was glad to hump ammo for you because you had the firepower, but nobody wanted to stand close to you because you also drew the fire.

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

I totally agree with you. I was simply stating how the Americans defined it, not what I considered it to be. When I said " 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" I was trying to make that point (although perhaps not very well). They called it an LMG but it could not be used tactically like a true LMG because of the tripod.

As for the M60, I think a lot of the bugs were ironed out in the later model (M60E3). I fired the latter in the US in the mid eighties and the users seemed a lot happier with it.

Regards

TonyE

The M60 gave US force in Vietnam colossal firepower although it did have its' drawbacks, the idea that you'd have to stand up in the middle of a battle and use an asbestos glove to change the barrel takes some beating. Notably the US in the last decade or so finally joined the rest of NATO and adopted the GPMG

[Joe Sweeney]

Use of the Lewis gun by US troops probably exceeded that of the BAR.

Given the 10 Divison scheme of training US troops by the British the following agreement was enacted:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: Lt. Col. George S. Simonds, General Staff 1 March 1918

TO: Chief of Staff, A. E. F.

1. As a result of the preliminary conferences and those, which have been held since my arrival, the following points have been agreed upon with regard to the supply and equipment of the six divisions to be brought to the British front:

(a) American troops will arrive with equipment C except transportation, machine guns, automatic rifles, Stokes mortars, and 37-mm. guns.

( The British will furnish for the duration of the period on this front, transportation both motor and animal, including rolling kitchens and the necessary carts of various types: Vickers and Lewis guns in place of our machine guns and automatic rifles: and 3” Stokes mortars.

© Our Ordnance Department will obtain from the French the 37-mm. guns with the necessary ammunition and appurtenances.

(d) The British C-in-C has approved the proposition of turning over to us permanently all animal transportation and has requested from the British War Office authority to do so, this question remains unsettled until reply is received. Motor transportation cannot be turned over permanently.

(e) The British rifle and ammunition will be used. American rifles and ammunition brought over will be stored at suitable places, presumably in the training areas. They cannot furnish pistols.

(f) Ammunition supply, except pistol and 37-mm.. will be handled by the British as for their own troops.

(g) Bombs, grenades, rockets, and flares: same as (f).

(h) The British will provide all subsistence and replacements of clothing. The rum ration will be omitted.

(i) The British will furnish the necessary mounts and mounted equipment.

(k) It is understood that the artillery, including the ammunition train and trench mortar battery, will be first sent to the American front and for the present no arrangements are being made for them here. With regard to the small arms ammunition supply, which is normally handled by our divisional ammunition train, the British trains will take that over during the stay of our infantry here, or until our artillery is brought to this front.

______________________________________________________

This scheme eventually included the 77^th, 82d, 35^th, 28^th, 4^th, 30th, 27th, 33d, 78^th, and 80^th US Divisions.

The 30th and 27th retained their Lewis's throughout the war since they remained in the British sector. The whole story of the execution of this scheme is very interesting, and caused a minor falling out between US HQ and British HQ.

Joe Sweeney

[Lt Colonel Gerald Smyth]

Use of the Lewis gun by US troops probably exceeded that of the BAR.

Given the 10 Divison scheme of training US troops by the British the following agreement was enacted:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: Lt. Col. George S. Simonds, General Staff 1 March 1918

TO: Chief of Staff, A. E. F.

1. As a result of the preliminary conferences and those, which have been held since my arrival, the following points have been agreed upon with regard to the supply and equipment of the six divisions to be brought to the British front:

(a) American troops will arrive with equipment C except transportation, machine guns, automatic rifles, Stokes mortars, and 37-mm. guns.

( The British will furnish for the duration of the period on this front, transportation both motor and animal, including rolling kitchens and the necessary carts of various types: Vickers and Lewis guns in place of our machine guns and automatic rifles: and 3” Stokes mortars.

© Our Ordnance Department will obtain from the French the 37-mm. guns with the necessary ammunition and appurtenances.

(d) The British C-in-C has approved the proposition of turning over to us permanently all animal transportation and has requested from the British War Office authority to do so, this question remains unsettled until reply is received. Motor transportation cannot be turned over permanently.

(e) The British rifle and ammunition will be used. American rifles and ammunition brought over will be stored at suitable places, presumably in the training areas. They cannot furnish pistols.

(f) Ammunition supply, except pistol and 37-mm.. will be handled by the British as for their own troops.

(g) Bombs, grenades, rockets, and flares: same as (f).

(h) The British will provide all subsistence and replacements of clothing. The rum ration will be omitted.

(i) The British will furnish the necessary mounts and mounted equipment.

(k) It is understood that the artillery, including the ammunition train and trench mortar battery, will be first sent to the American front and for the present no arrangements are being made for them here. With regard to the small arms ammunition supply, which is normally handled by our divisional ammunition train, the British trains will take that over during the stay of our infantry here, or until our artillery is brought to this front.

______________________________________________________

This scheme eventually included the 77^th, 82d, 35^th, 28^th, 4^th, 30th, 27th, 33d, 78^th, and 80^th US Divisions.

The 30th and 27th retained their Lewis's throughout the war since they remained in the British sector. The whole story of the execution of this scheme is very interesting, and caused a minor falling out between US HQ and British HQ.

Joe Sweeney

So at least one American division DID use the Lewis in spite of Crozier? I guess in terms of which was more common depends on what ratio they were issued in, I always took it that the BAR was a section weapon whilst the Lewis was on a platoon scale?