BAR Gunner Role

[Siberian Rifleman]

Hello guys I'm wondering, are the BAR Gunners only responsible for surpressing fire during combat, or do they also assault ?

[Hosenfield]

i don't really know for sure, but the BAR is famous for having bad recoil. It is more useful stationary with the bipod.

[Man of Stoat]

Hello guys I'm wondering, are the BAR Gunners only responsible for surpressing fire during combat, or do they also assault ?

It's used for suppressing fire in both attack and defence - it's the squad's mobile firepower.

However, it's a heavy rifle rather than a serious light machine gun, and (particularly for the versions without bipods) is difficult to maintain concentrated, sustained fire.

[IronFist]

The BAR is a squads/sections machinegun. Every section has one or two. In todays military in a section (8-10guys) theres 2 LMG'S if they are a NATO country and it would fire 556 rounds. Back in WWII for the americans the BAR was the secitons firepower and went with the section everywhere it went in an attack/defense role. Usually a 2 man team one man has the gun and the other carrys the rounds. The BAR is known for having heavy rounds.

[Twitch1]

We had use of the Stoner 63 weapons system in Vietnam. It was superior to the M-60 in many respects but the M-60 dominated. Our LMG guys preferred the M-60 in most instances but liked the quick change-ablity of the 63 configurations. But often this was not a big advantage. We all liked the idea of a heavier round of the M-60. I think that's what GIs also liked in the BAR.

[Gutkowski]

My other Grandfather was with the Marines 4th div in WWII he was a BAR Gunner , He was a gunner on a Halftrack troop transport and provided coverfire for the men entering and exiting off the halftrack .When he was not doing that he was at the 30 cal gun on the halftrack providing fire for it
My Grandfather was 6-3" 240lbs ,the US always took the largest man and put them on the BAR for obvious reasons .

[Cuts]

The BAR was originally intended for 'walking fire,' a weird idea from the Great War.
The wpn was held at the hip and rds discharged 'every time the left foot hits the ground.' The idea being to keep rds on the Hun's parapet until the lads could leap into the trench and sort them out with the bayonet.

So it was theoretically used in the assault, although the concept of an assult has thankfully changed since then.



Just had a worrying thought - Browning Automatic Rifle - "used in the assault"...

(Let's hope Tinwalt doesn't read this with his usual perspicacity, then add two and two to make three hundred and eighty-eleven thousand, gurgle hundred and schplurkity-whizz.)

[chase]

BAR's not used much in Europe , right?

I mean it was used more often in the Pacific, where blowing the s*** out of vegitation was a reasonable option.

[Cuts]

BAR's not used much in Europe , right?

I mean it was used more often in the Pacific, where blowing the s*** out of vegitation was a reasonable option.

Nope, wrong.

Did you think they only issued politically correct weapons in Europe ?

:lol:

[IronFist]

The BAR was heavily used where ever you could find the American Military.

[HG]

The BAr was mostly hused as a surpressing the enemy. When the US ARMY iseud the BAR to the soldiers they only isseud a few but after they realised that it was very sucsesfull in killing attacking Japenese, because the Japenese tryed to get the BAR to fire so that they can kill the soldier fireing the BAr but the Army realised that and thus let the rifles fire first in the first wafe and they then fired at the second attack. The BAR was fired from the hip because of the recoil if you fired it from the shoulder. They normally sprayed the area to kill Japenese who were hiding in the forest.

The BAR was actualy a old gun comeing from the Great War as a trench machine-gun.

Henk

[Man of Stoat]

The BAr was mostly hused as a surpressing the enemy. When the US ARMY iseud the BAR to the soldiers they only isseud a few but after they realised that it was very sucsesfull in killing attacking Japenese, because the Japenese tryed to get the BAR to fire so that they can kill the soldier fireing the BAr but the Army realised that and thus let the rifles fire first in the first wafe and they then fired at the second attack. The BAR was fired from the hip because of the recoil if you fired it from the shoulder. They normally sprayed the area to kill Japenese who were hiding in select the forest.

The BAR was actualy a old gun comeing from the Great War as a trench machine-gun.

Henk

Right, where do we start?

The BAR was a standard issue weapon in the army from the end of the First World War, they didn't just issue "a few". It was the squad automatic weapon of the day, and each army squad had one. Marine squads had more, however.

You will, of course, be able to supply a reputable source for the "tactics" you described above? It doesn't exactly seem sensible to limit your available firepower in defence.

As for "firing from the hip because of the recoil", you might wish to know that the recoil of the BAR is less than the recoil of the M1903 Springfield and the Garand, due to its larger weight. This is simple physics, and to suggest that it was only ever fired from the hip is total nonsense. At the end of the First World War, "marching fire" was in vogue, and this required firing from the hip every time the left foot hit the ground, whilst advancing over open ground. This type of fire is reportedly ineffective and totally useless, and had been dropped by the Second World War. It was, however, for this (French) doctrine that the BAR was initially developed.

[HG]

Right, when the US whent to fight in the east they only issued a few in each sqaud but after they realised it was a very great weapon against the Japenese in the jungles they issued more to have more fire power in each squad. To fire a Bar from the shoulder in auto fire mode was not something a good idea and becaus the soldiers moved it was better to fire it from the hip.

The US Army used the tactic I told you of earlyer in the jungles because the Japs always wanted to get the machine-gun possition so that they can break through the defending US troops, but the Japs did not know that the BAR soldiers were mobile and not stationd like normally.

Springfield was also a great rifle and sniper rifle. What do you think?

Henk

[Man of Stoat]

As I said before, please provide some evidence of this "tactic".

They never issued more than "a few" in each squad.

Have you ever fired from the hip? It is not terribly accurate. And by that, I mean that it is not accurate at all.

http://www.ww2gyrene.org/assets/BAR_nomenclature.jpg

Note the soldier in the centre of this photo:
http://www.skylighters.org/potd/images/11182003lg.jpg

Hatcher's notebook, page 109:

It was the first weapon light enough to be fired from the shoulder and at the same time sufficiently heavy and ragged to permit a fairly long bursts of automatic fire... It was well adapted for the marching fire in vogue during the trench warfare of those days, as well as for full automatic fire from the prone position, using any rest that might be available for the muzzle of the gun... This gun can be fired full automatic from the shoulder, but it requires practice to do this without losing control of the gun. When this is attempted by someone who does not know the trick, the rapid succession of recoils, coming at the rate of 450 a minute, will quickly throw the firer off balance, and he will usually allow the muzzle to swing around to the right, or up into the air, or both... it is really the surprise effect more than anything else that is responsible, for if the firer will just lean heavily into the rifle as he starts firing, this motion can be controlled.

The only time when it is appropriate to fire such a weapon from the hip, is during the last phase of the assault. This is due to the weight of the weapon, and not to do with its recoil. In all other situations, aimed fire from the shoulder will always be more effective than wasting ammunition by spraying from the hip.

Now, the Springfield -- that has a really nasty recoil. Am I supposed to fire that from the hip too?

[Cuts]

Right, when the US whent to fight in the east they only issued a few in each sqaud but after they realised it was a very great weapon against the Japenese in the jungles they issued more to have more fire power in each squad. To fire a Bar from the shoulder in auto fire mode was not something a good idea and becaus the soldiers moved it was better to fire it from the hip.

The US Army used the tactic I told you of earlyer in the jungles because the Japs always wanted to get the machine-gun possition so that they can break through the defending US troops, but the Japs did not know that the BAR soldiers were mobile and not stationd like normally.

Springfield was also a great rifle and sniper rifle. What do you think?

Henk

Henk where have you found this information ?
Please post a link or the ISBN of your source so that I may expand my knowledge.

As soon as I have this gen I shall with full confidence be able to decry the proven facts described by many authorities in volumes presently assumed to be definitive works, and disregard the experience gained by myself and many other sldrs far better than I.



Here we see Henk's Ultimate Infantry Tactics - Positions Of Elementary Shooting, being put into use by some elite Special Forces troops.

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9125/properwaytofireasupportweaponu.jpg

[HG]

NO not like those wannabees. I got this info when I saw a documentary on History channel about the BAR where a vetaren talked about the tactics they used about how they dealt with the Japenese in the jungles. I have his name somewhere and will get it for you and where he fought.

No the Springfield were not fired from the hip and di dnot have the rate of fire of the BAR.

Henk

[Cuts]

NO not like those wannabees. I got this info when I saw a documentary on History channel about the BAR where a vetaren talked about the tactics they used about how they dealt with the Japenese in the jungles. I have his name somewhere and will get it for you and where he fought.

No the Springfield were not fired from the hip and di dnot have the rate of fire of the BAR.

Henk

So, you have a popular television programme giving some anecdotal evidence fifty or sixty years after the event from one man who may or may not be a veteran. (We only have the say so of a media company who wants people to buy their product.)

Is this the sum total of what you have based your posts on ?
Have you not done any other research prior to stating the 'information' as gospel ?
If so you have a bright future ahead of you for any one of the tabloid newspapers.

Basing your information purely what is distributed by a single commercial sourse is asking for trouble.
You could gain some insight into the use, handling and tactics of military wpns by joining the SANDF.

[cpl condor]

In the army, tell me the BAR was a group supression fire, but it was a
to handle at that moment.

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

In order to fire the BAR without losing control of it u need special training to fire the gun properly.

[Cuts]

In order to fire the BAR without losing control of it u need special training to fire the gun properly.

You mean just like with any other wpn ?

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

sort of but u need "specialized training" to use, the speical training is to control the BAR with out it shooting all over the place and killing allied troops.

[Cuts]

sort of but u need "specialized training" to use, the speical training is to control the BAR with out it shooting all over the place and killing allied troops.

Where did that gem come from ?

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

wat gem.

[Cuts]

wat gem.

Your previous post.
On what experience or research do you base it on ?

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

books and stuff

[Cuts]

books and stuff

1) Do you know what the ISBNs and titles of these books were ?
2) What is the 'stuff' ?
3) Does it come in small packages ?
4) Is it taken nasally or just smoked ?

[SS Tiger]

From my limited knowledge the BAR was not normally used in offensive situations. If it was the Bi-pod was normally removed to save weight (2.38lbs). It did have a buffer spring in the butt which greatly reduced recoil. Also firing the weapon in a semi-automatic mode reduced the recoil and increased the accuracy.

[Cuts]

From my limited knowledge the BAR was not normally used in offensive situations. If it was the Bi-pod was normally removed to save weight (2.38lbs). It did have a buffer spring in the butt which greatly reduced recoil. Also firing the weapon in a semi-automatic mode reduced the recoil and increased the accuracy.

You're right, it is limited knowledge.

[SS Tiger]

From my limited knowledge the BAR was not normally used in offensive situations. If it was the Bi-pod was normally removed to save weight (2.38lbs). It did have a buffer spring in the butt which greatly reduced recoil. Also firing the weapon in a semi-automatic mode reduced the recoil and increased the accuracy.

You're right, it is limited knowledge.

I can't say the BAR is of much intrest too me, I much rather German armour! But I thought I'd give my two cents (or pennies).

[cpl condor]

I don't know how much of us was used this weapon, but I think than
we have to go to the sources, ask to who used it and how it feel it.
in my opinion, of cuorse.

[cpl condor]

In order to fire the BAR without losing control of it u need special training to fire the gun properly.

You mean just like with any other wpn ?
for the caracteristics, it look like a argentine FAP, and this weapon its
almost impossible to fire in auto with a cleared aim.

[Man of Stoat]

Don't any of you read, or do you enjoy spouting nonsense?

Hatcher's notebook, page 109:

It was the first weapon light enough to be fired from the shoulder and at the same time sufficiently heavy and ragged to permit a fairly long bursts of automatic fire... It was well adapted for the marching fire in vogue during the trench warfare of those days, as well as for full automatic fire from the prone position, using any rest that might be available for the muzzle of the gun... This gun can be fired full automatic from the shoulder, but it requires practice to do this without losing control of the gun. When this is attempted by someone who does not know the trick, the rapid succession of recoils, coming at the rate of 450 a minute, will quickly throw the firer off balance, and he will usually allow the muzzle to swing around to the right, or up into the air, or both... it is really the surprise effect more than anything else that is responsible, for if the firer will just lean heavily into the rifle as he starts firing, this motion can be controlled.


Not normally used in offensive situations? Yes, let's leave our mobile firepower behind while we go into this attack, that would be really sensible. Let's really limit our ability to suppress the enemy. Where on earth do you get this crap from?

Some versions of the BAR did not have the bipod, some did -- but you can't go randomly attaching and detaching the bipod as the mood suits. What are you going to do with it?

[Cuts]

In order to fire the BAR without losing control of it u need special training to fire the gun properly.

You mean just like with any other wpn ?
for the caracteristics, it look like a argentine FAP, and this weapon its
almost impossible to fire in auto with a cleared aim.

Hi Cpl Condor, and welcome to the site.

Your FAP, (Argentine version of the FN FALO,) weighs in at about six kilogrammes dry, the BAR was nearly half as much again ! (Approx nine kg.) The BAR's weight is a tremendous aid.

I don't own a BAR, (yet,) but have fired various models on a number of occasions without having any problems grouping with them. I find it to be a fine rifle for range work but wouldn't want to carry it in the fd or rely on it as a Sp wpn.




To the planks - you know who you are - please look to Hatcher's work, quoted above by MoS.
Hatcher's Notebook should be required reading for those on these boards.

[Dani]

Hatcher's Notebook should be required reading for those on these boards.

Nice pointing!

Here it is: http://www.booktrail.com/Guns_General/Hatcher's%20Notebook.asp

Edit: ISBN: 0811707954

[Cuts]

Hatcher's Notebook should be required reading for those on these boards.

Nice pointing!

Here it is: http://www.booktrail.com/Guns_General/Hatcher's%20Notebook.asp

It'll be a problem for many though Dani.

It's not a colouring book.


:lol:

[Man of Stoat]

In case anyone doubts Hatcher's credentials, as a certain moron once did, here they are:

Major-General Julian S. Hatcher

Technical editor, the American Rifleman, member, the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice. Member, the United States Olympic Games committee. Director, the National Rifle Association of America, 1922 to 1946.

"Distinguished pistol shot" US Army. Winner, Webley and Scott pistol Trophy, Bisley, England, 1931. US international rifle team, Switzerland, 1925; Rome, 1927; Antwerp, 1930. Captain, US international rifle team, Bisley, England, 1931.

Editor, "The Dope Bag," pistol section, Arms and the man and the American riflemen, 1922 to 1933. Life member, United States revolver Association.

Officer in charge, experimental Department, Springfield Armoury, 1917. Chief, machine-gun and small arms section, engineering division, Ordnance, Washington, 1918. Works manager, Springfield armoury, 1919-1921. Officer in charge of small arms ammunition manufacture, Frankford Arsenal, 1923-1928. Chief of small arms division, technical staff, ordnance Department, Washington, 1929. Chief of small arms division, manufacturing service, ordnance Department, Washington, 1929-1933. Assistant Commandant, the ordnance school, 1937-1940. Commanding general, the ordnance training Centre, 1941-1942. Chief of ordnance training service, 1942-1943. Chief Field service, 1943-1945.

Distinguished service medal, Legion of Merit.

[Firefly]

I have to say that when I came to these boards my small arms knowledge was pretty basic.

I have been enlightened no end of times about the various weapons and their effectiveness. If I got nothing else from this site, this would be enough for me.

However, like many here they dont turn me on enough to go and buy Hatchers book, I think it would just put me to sleep. Thats not saying its no good by the way, its just not in my interest in depth field. I'm more of an armour and aircraft man when it comes to ww2, or maybe German politics 1919-1945 (which would bore the pants off most).

What I will say though is, if you genuinely dont know something, please make it clear that you dont. If you have a genuine question, please ask it and it will be answered by guys who have access to these types books.

Its fine to say, I prefer an MP-40 because it looks cool and I like the styling in a thread that asks what is your favourite ww2 small arm.

Its not fine to say the same if the poster asks for a bit more information, thats just dumb.

[pdf27]

Some versions of the BAR did not have the bipod, some did -- but you can't go randomly attaching and detaching the bipod as the mood suits. What are you going to do with it?
That's easy - put it on the same lorry that Frionscam insisted contained five different types of rifles for every soldier to allow them to select the most suitable weapon for the type of combat they were engaging in :twisted:

[cpl condor]

Hatcher's Notebook should be required reading for those on these boards.

Nice pointing!

Here it is: http://www.booktrail.com/Guns_General/Hatcher's%20Notebook.asp

It'll be a problem for many though Dani.

It's not a colouring book.


:lol:
thanks for the tip. 8)

[Twitch1]

My best friend's father was a BAR man in the Pacific and we used to relentlessly question him on combat. Let me say that BAR men used the weapon in every scenario mentioned above- prone with the bi-pods, hip shots and shouldered while standing to do things like take snap shots at tree snipers.

When I got out of the USMC I worked for my father who was sheriff of Sebastian County Arkansas. I had the pleasure to fire the weapons in their arsenal which included a Thompson and a BAR. I am here to tell you as one with hands-on experience that the BAR does not have in any way imaginable an out of control recoil. It is a bit less harsh than the M-14 due to its heavy weight. The bi-pod folds alongside the barrel when not in use just like our M-14's. It's not a scary monster weapon it simply needs attention as do all weapons if you are going to point them downrange or at the enemy.

[HG]

So, you have a popular television programme giving some anecdotal evidence fifty or sixty years after the event from one man who may or may not be a veteran. (We only have the say so of a media company who wants people to buy their product.)

Is this the sum total of what you have based your posts on ?
Have you not done any other research prior to stating the 'information' as gospel ?
If so you have a bright future ahead of you for any one of the tabloid newspapers.

Basing your information purely what is distributed by a single commercial sourse is asking for trouble.
You could gain some insight into the use, handling and tactics of military wpns by joining the SANDF.


No that is just to show you that I am not lying. The BAR was used in every wich fitted the men who used them and I mentioned one and did not say that yours are wrong.

Henk

[cpl condor]

My best friend's father was a BAR man in the Pacific and we used to relentlessly question him on combat. Let me say that BAR men used the weapon in every scenario mentioned above- prone with the bi-pods, hip shots and shouldered while standing to do things like take snap shots at tree snipers.

When I got out of the USMC I worked for my father who was sheriff of Sebastian County Arkansas. I had the pleasure to fire the weapons in their arsenal which included a Thompson and a BAR. I am here to tell you as one with hands-on experience that the BAR does not have in any way imaginable an out of control recoil. It is a bit less harsh than the M-14 due to its heavy weight. The bi-pod folds alongside the barrel when not in use just like our M-14's. It's not a scary monster weapon it simply needs attention as do all weapons if you are going to point them downrange or at the enemy.
Do you use it with and without bipod? too in auto or single shot?
Sorry, but I want to know... 8)

[Twitch1]

Condor I did not fool with the bipod much, maybe 1 clip. It makes for a tight feeling position prone though and I felt like I could have hit good at medium distances as well as my old M-14 could have had I shot more. While it is heavy it is not difficult to fire from the shoulder on auot or semi auto. Like every long arm you need to get a snug hold on it. If you aren't tightened up at the shoulder and 1/8" slack remains it will bruise you and give you a headache.

Single shots are pretty much just like a Garrand only less recoil. The BAR really had moderate recoil in my opinion in all situations.

Remember, one of the wizards of the century's gun designers, John Browning, developed the BAR and he wasn't down with "good enough" weapons or would have built anything that was a wildass gun.

[Hiddenrug]

the BAR Rifle has been mispronouced a fair bit. For those who don't know it is pronounced B...A.....R not "bar" ( as in metal bar but each letter is individually said)

[HG]

Proove it ! ! !

[SS Tiger]

the BAR Rifle has been mispronouced a fair bit. For those who don't know it is pronounced B...A.....R not "bar" ( as in metal bar but each letter is individually said)

Whilst B.A.R. is the official abbreviation I bet the troops called it BAR as in "Chocolate bar".

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

the soldiers call it a BAR because it's initials are Browning Automatic Rifle, it's nickname is BAR which is faster to say than Browning Automatic Rifle. :D

[Hiddenrug]

You can ask any American soldier and they will say B.A.R and not bar

[1000ydstare]

Just a quick point to add. If the BAR had an out of control recoil, the weapon would be useless and therefore not used.

As it is a section assest it would be used by the section for many purposes. It could be used to support the attack and as the key point of defence. The gunner would use the best position possible to achieve his shot, so with if they had the time they would adopt the prone position for the most stable position for shots, at closer ranges perhaps only kneeling or standing.

Shooting from the hips would only be used when neccesary such as in CQB environments, Urban, forest or jungle. This is maybe where the confusion comes from on this matter. In the Pacific most fighting would be CQB so it would be fired from the hip more.

PLT.SGT.BAKER all weapons require training before a soldier can use them, I am wondering what training would be speciallised for the BAR. It could be extra training in that they would have to be trained to fire at faster rates and longer distances but that is all, but nothing actually specialliesd.

[HG]

Well the US WW2 veterans who fought against the Japenese who fired a BAR will tell you it is a said like bar and not B.A.R because they called it BAR because it was short and easy to say and remember. I do not know if they troops today call it B.A.R because it is not on the topic of WW2. I know it should actualy be B.A.R or Browning Automatic Rifle but like PLT.SGT.BAKER said it was a nickname used by the US troops fighting mostly against the Japenese.

Henk

[2nd of foot]

Shooting from the hips would only be used when neccesary such as in CQB environments, Urban, forest or jungle. This is maybe where the confusion comes from on this matter. In the Pacific most fighting would be CQB so it would be fired from the hip more.

I think this comes from when it was first introduced in WW1. One of the tactics used was for the soldiers to advance at the walk firing to give covering fire in the advance across no-mans-land. Short burst to keep heads down.

[Jon725]

Well the US WW2 veterans who fought against the Japenese who fired a BAR will tell you it is a said like bar and not B.A.R because they called it BAR because it was short and easy to say and remember.
Henk


i have to disagree. do you have any proof that infantry called it bar instead of B.A.R? all wwii vets i have heard and wwii historians call it B.A.R, and not bar as in chocolate bar. the only people ive heard call it bar are people who dont know the real name and well... are wwii history noobs (not anyone here of course, people i work with)

[Hiddenrug]

see at least someone can back me up. and 1000ydstare shooting from the hip was only really used when running side ways across a street and the recoil.....they just bloody got used to it didn't they :!:

[1000ydstare]

Hiddenrug, if the recoil of a weapon is going to affect the aiming of the shot you don't "just get used to it". It would infact never have entered service in the first place. In any army a weapon is first tested, I think the BAR would have been tested at Springfield Armoury in America, for handling and accuracy.

As for running across streets sideways blazing from the hip, are you bonkers? That is the daftest idea I have ever read. Many rounds would be wasted if that sort of tactic was introduced on a mass scale and the enemy would soon learn that there was more chance of being hit by lightning than by a round fired in that way. It would be more likely to hit your own men, if they were closer to the enemy than you were.

Soldiers know that you have to carry ammo, so you don't waste shots by blazing away from the hip as you run. That is what your mucker is for, covering fire. He covers you whilst you move, you cover him whilst he moves with accurate, effective fire, from a stable fire position.

Please put down you playstation, or mortal combat or what ever film you are watching and wake up to the real world.

I am aware that some "soldiers" do this sort of thing, but they are normally 3rd world "soldiers" with no training other than what they have learnt the hard way.

[1000ydstare]

Having read some of your other posts and your profile I see you are a cadet and that you wish to join your countries fine army, hiddenrug.

Do yourself a favour, tell your cadet sergeant (i.e. one who has actually been in the Army, Infantry would be prefered) about your opinions about fireing from the hip. If he doesn't slap you around the head, hard, with your weapon or anything else he can lay his hands on, you will know that you are correct.

Also read up on some tactics from your army, you may be able to buy some books on the matter from book stores. Usually i would say that the writers and readers of such books are slightly waltish, however in your case you desparatly need a crash course.

When do you join the diggers? I wish you good luck and I am sure there is a Section Screw just waiting to put you on the right path.

1000ydstare

[HG]

Well lets not get nasty with each other. I must agree with Hiddenburg that they did fire the BAR from the hip but not all the time. Why would you say B.A.R when you can just say BAR. Like we said before. It was a slang for Browning Automatic Rifle and not it's real name. Many stuff in WW2 had slang words for it and that did not matter because if someone sead the lslang word everyone knew what they talked about. The word BAR was the slang for the Browning Automatic Rifle LMG model M1918A1. Even in all my History books on WW2 they call it the BAR because it is how everyone knew it and the specific model of Browning.

And it does not mean that if you have a degree in History that you know everything. You still learn new stuff every day.

Henk

[Man of Stoat]

To fire a Bar from the shoulder in auto fire mode was not something a good idea and becaus the soldiers moved it was better to fire it from the hip.

I must agree with Hiddenburg that they did fire the BAR from the hip but not all the time.

It does get confusing in here, doesn't it?

[HG]

I do not know what you mean by sayin that it is confusing? Like I said before they did fire it from the shoulder but the part of the great recoil I take back but the soldiers did fire it from the hip. The BAR was fired from both possitions.

What do you think MoS, did they call it BAR or B.A.R?

Henk

[cpl condor]

better, B.A.R. for Browning automatic rifle. :arrow:

[HG]

Witch one did the soldiers use?

Henk

[Man of Stoat]

As far as I'm aware, the correct parlance was "Bee Eh Ar"

[cpl condor]

yes, that's correct. :arrow:

[Jon725]

whats confusing about B.A.R?

in books they refer to B.A.R not BAR, what books do you have that call it bar?

man all over the history channels that document wwii, its always B.A.R by historians and wwii vets they interview and in all the books ive read. the only explanation that i can think of that leads to it being called bar is by people that dont know what the hell it is (maybe peopel from other countrys). but other than this, infantry know their weapons.

[1000ydstare]

At a guess i would guess that soldiers the world over will use the smallest word possible for a piece of equipment. Thus BAR rather than B.A.R. is a perfectly acceptable phrase, even if not documented.

[HG]

Well I have firstly, THE MILITARY HISTORY OF WORLD WAR 2 1995 edition, WORLD WAR 2 2004 edition, THE WORLD AT ARMS: THE READER'S DIGEST ILLUSTRATED HISTROTY OF WORLD WAR 2 1989 edition and other WW2 books but they do not talk about the Browning Automatic Rifle or BAR.

In other books I have read they will sat Browning Automatic Rifle AKA BAR.

I will quote out of THE MILITARY HISTORY OF WORLD WAR 2. "The last production variant of the Brownin Automatic Rifle (usually know by its intials as the BAR)........." So do not think I did not read up about it. I do not know the ins and outs of the gun but I kew what they also called it. I never said they did not call it B.A.R but they also calle dit the BAR.

Where do you get your information Jon725.

Henk

[mike M.]

Here is a list of the BAR's manufacturer's:

M1918: Winchester, Colt, marlin-Rockwell

M1918A2 (WWII): IBM, New England Small Arms

M1918A2: (Korean War Mfg.): Royal McBee

[Hiddenrug]

Hiddenrug, if the recoil of a weapon is going to affect the aiming of the shot you don't "just get used to it". It would infact never have entered service in the first place. In any army a weapon is first tested, I think the BAR would have been tested at Springfield Armoury in America, for handling and accuracy.

As for running across streets sideways blazing from the hip, are you bonkers? That is the daftest idea I have ever read. Many rounds would be wasted if that sort of tactic was introduced on a mass scale and the enemy would soon learn that there was more chance of being hit by lightning than by a round fired in that way. It would be more likely to hit your own men, if they were closer to the enemy than you were.

Soldiers know that you have to carry ammo, so you don't waste shots by blazing away from the hip as you run. That is what your mucker is for, covering fire. He covers you whilst you move, you cover him whilst he moves with accurate, effective fire, from a stable fire position.

Please put down you playstation, or mortal combat or what ever film you are watching and wake up to the real world.

I am aware that some "soldiers" do this sort of thing, but they are normally 3rd world "soldiers" with no training other than what they have learnt the hard way.

Now you listen here mate. How is running sideways daft huh you tell me that. I even bet you ran sideways once or even backwards :wink: :wink:
And why would this have anything to do with playstations. MAYBE YOU SHOULD BACK YOURSELF UP AND STOP THINKING ABOUT YOURSEKF AND HAVE SOME BLLODY CONSIDERATION FOR OTHERS I"M VERY SURE OTHERS WILL AGREE WITH ME!

[Sturmtruppen]

I agree with hiddenrug

[1000ydstare]

Never thought you wouldn't Erwin. You used to be a soldier Erwin, were you ever taught to fire on the move?

Hiddenrug get a grip of yourself. I have run sideways and backwards, mainly in PT, but never fireing from the hip!!!! Moving and shooting has never been used as a tactic, there maybe instances of it happening but it has never been put to paper. You move OR you shoot.

Even if you watch the film HEAT you will see that the 3 men in the fire fight will stop to fire rounds even if running, this allows accurate fire, which is impossible to achieve whilst moving. This scene was alledegedly advised by Andy McNab.

I would suggest you re-read your original post and the way you flipantly add in a comment towards me about the use of fireing from the hip. THis part for example...and 1000ydstare shooting from the hip was only really used when running side ways across a street and the recoil

Have you asked your cadet instructor about fireing from the hip? What did he say?

I am actually thinking of you rather than myself, turn up for training with these sort of ideas and your Section Screw will just love you. As I am sure anyone on this site with military experience will agree.

[Sturmtruppen]

Never thought you wouldn't Erwin. You used to be a soldier Erwin, were you ever taught to fire on the move?

I like him,and i hate you,isn't that enough reason???!?!?!?! :twisted:

[Cuts]

Never thought you wouldn't Erwin. You used to be a soldier Erwin, were you ever taught to fire on the move?

I like him,and i hate you,isn't that enough reason???!?!?!?! :twisted:

Well not really, no.

1000' has posted sensible replies in what should be an adult discussion.
To comment in such reasoned debates merely because of one's antipathy or affection for a particular participant would be less than mature or indeed rational.
I'm sure, given the facts above, that you would agree that it would be vernal to pursue any reasonable argument in this manner.

Oh...
Please do not feel constrained to reply to this, I've just realised why you posted in the fashion to which we have become accustomed.

[Hiddenrug]

BUT If you have to know. A considerable amount of soldier were repeat were inexperienced and shot from the hip and im sure that movie HEAT would have sopme fairly un accurate things in it.

ALSOCan you imediatly cease to bring up the cadet factor with it as it has nothing to do with the cadets you are thinking of as you are not repeat NOT AUSTRALIAN Im very sure Australian cadets differs from British cadets!

[1000ydstare]

I get your point about the soldiers in World War 2 being inexperienced and thus may shoot from the hip. My arguement to this would be that the soldiers would have passed through a training regime of some sort where this sort of thing would have been taught to them.

This arguement however is nothing to do with what started it. You claimed that soldiers would have fired from the hip running sideways across streets, and that this in some way countered my ideas of why fireing from the hip is used. Your idea is tactically unsound and would not have been in widespread use, and definitely not taught. Mine is based on what was actually taught at the time, I have a my grandads training manual from 1938 and from 1942, and my own experience and training in modern methods.

As for HEAT, the firefight scene was choreographed by one Andy McNab, of B20 (feel free to google) fame who is ex 22 SAS. It is widely believed to be one of the best screen firefights on film. It even includes a mag change, believe it or not,a nd from my experience I believe it to be a very accurate showing of how you should move in a firefight especially val kilmer and robert denero covering each other as they move and change mags.

I will cease to bring up the cadet factor when you stop talking like a kid.

It appears I know alot more about your country than you do about mine, but then I have been on Exercise Long Look, I doubt that you have done anything similar.

However instead of saying you are very sure Australian cadets differ from British ones, why not do some research, please read the following...

From your side of the world on www.cadetnet.gov.au

Who we are

The Australian Defence Force Cadets (ADFC) is a community-based organisation of 25,000 Cadets and 2,500 Cadet Staff in 500 Units throughout Australia.


The ADFC aspires to be Australia’s leading youth development organisation, recognised by the community for developing young people with:

a sense of purpose;
responsibility;
respect for self and others;
leadership ability; and
a commitment to voluntary service.
As a Cadet, young Australians are able to take part in adventurous, fulfilling and educational activities in a military setting.

Now from my side of the pond from www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0072.html

THE ROLE OF THE ACF

The role of the Army Cadet Force (ACF) is to inspire young people to achieve success with a spirit of service to the Queen, country and their local community, and to develop the qualities of good citizenship, responsibility and leadership.

Army cadets are said to make up between 25% - 30% of regular army recruits. There are about 1,674 ACF detachments based in communities around the UK with a strength of around 44,000 cadets. The ACF is run by over 8,000 adults drawn from the local community who manage a broad programme of military and adventurous training activities designed to develop character and leadership.

Basicaly as an ex-cadet myself, whilst I was down there I visited some of your cadets on camp, as I have visited the canadian ones when I was over there. And guess what, they are the same, as is the New Zealanders. So do some research next time so you don't look quite so stupid, especially putting it in bold like that, that just adds insult to injury!!!

You are in a youth organisation that uses a quasi-military regime to function (I have instructed on some of the cadet camps also, so I am very familier with cadets) not in some all encompassing Special Forces unit. I am also aware of your history and the British cadets history, which is also broadly similar.

You appear to have a very blinkered view of the world hiddenrug.

I look forward to your next post with anticipation.[/quote]

[Twitch1]

:shock: It's a bit amazing that people are still pondering what the BAR was like to fire after I related my personal experiences. I simply don't get it. As mentioned, my best friend's Dad was a BAR man in the Pacific and I mentioned his descriptions of using every firing position imaginable and yet folks are still talking about if it's possible to shoot while running around.

Combat is a fluid thing and consistantly being hampered by a one style of weapon handling is unheard of. If BAR guys weren't taught hip sweep firing they certainly learned it from veterans when they arrived at the front.

Part of the strangeness on these forums are that people push opinions instead of established facts and continue to argue any subject with prejudice instead of clinical data to support their points of view. Topics are never left alone and become thrashed for the sake of arguement only. This is the very distastefull juvenille attitude that unfortunately is the norm here. Let's fight with someone on the internet! Weee!

Bee-Aay-Arr

[1000ydstare]

Well, I guess it was too much to expect the Americans to exercise a bit of fire discipline!!! Did you run sideways across roads in Vietnam firing your M60 from the hip?

With the exception of FISH (Fighting In Someone's House) and other extremely CQB situations, unaimed fire is wasted fire.

Again in a film, specificly Saving Private Ryan, the sgt clearly states that two men is a target one man is a waste of ammo, soldiers don't waste ammo. Ammo has to be carried, it can't be wasted. Even tanks, right up to the modern day, have to stop in order to fire.

The type of fire that you describe is nicknamed "spray and pray" for good reason. It has no useful place on the battlefield.

Combat is a fluid thing and consistantly being hampered by a one style of weapon handling is unheard of. If BAR guys weren't taught hip sweep firing they certainly learned it from veterans when they arrived at the front.

There is only one style of weapon handling used in combat. Aimed shots. Vetrans would not teach recruits the "hip sweep fireing technique", because it has no useful function in battle other than to turn rounds in to brass.

When fireing an automatic weapon I think you will find that where the bullets land is called the "beaten zone", basically a circlur area where the rounds land, there is no requirement to sweep the weapon whilst fireing, you shoot a couple of bursts of 2 -3 rounds each, change direction, start again. simple.

Even if fireing from the hip in CQB, the firer would be stationary and aiming using the "shot gun" style (as it is known now where he looks down the barrel to ensure the burst is going in the right direction) in bursts of 2 - 3 rounds.

The only hip sweeping fire action I have seen is on film, when the firer is getting shot to buggery and instinctivly squeezes the trigger.

Also this sort of firing negates the whole point of the BAR, that is to provide accurate fire of sufficient weight to make enemy think twice at longer ranges than with a rifle. In this way the rest of the section can move whilst the BAR gunner covers them. When they are in place they fire as a group to allow the BAR gunner and mate to catch up.

In defence the gunner, fireing bursts, could deliver effective fire at what 500-600 meters on his own. A rifle would only be effective, individually, to about 200 meters, maybe 300 if the firer was good.

A 9 man section of infantry with one BAR, assuming the gunners mate was acting as link man, would mean there was 7 rifles to the fore. They would fire maybe 30 rounds a minute including aiming at peak rate. So if all rifles were fireing they would only be half the rate of the BAR.

Please note I am not argueing for arguements sake, I actually do know about this sort of stuff. I haven't entered the B.A.R./Bar debate other than to state that soldiers the world over shorten things to the lowest denomination.

[Hiddenrug]

Which cadet unit did you visit and when?

[cpl condor]

Hiddenrug, if the recoil of a weapon is going to affect the aiming of the shot you don't "just get used to it". It would infact never have entered service in the first place. In any army a weapon is first tested, I think the BAR would have been tested at Springfield Armoury in America, for handling and accuracy.

As for running across streets sideways blazing from the hip, are you bonkers? That is the daftest idea I have ever read. Many rounds would be wasted if that sort of tactic was introduced on a mass scale and the enemy would soon learn that there was more chance of being hit by lightning than by a round fired in that way. It would be more likely to hit your own men, if they were closer to the enemy than you were.

Soldiers know that you have to carry ammo, so you don't waste shots by blazing away from the hip as you run. That is what your mucker is for, covering fire. He covers you whilst you move, you cover him whilst he moves with accurate, effective fire, from a stable fire position.

Please put down you playstation, or mortal combat or what ever film you are watching and wake up to the real world.

I am aware that some "soldiers" do this sort of thing, but they are normally 3rd world "soldiers" with no training other than what they have learnt the hard way.

Now you listen here mate. How is running sideways daft huh you tell me that. I even bet you ran sideways once or even backwards :wink: :wink:
And why would this have anything to do with playstations. MAYBE YOU SHOULD BACK YOURSELF UP AND STOP THINKING ABOUT YOURSEKF AND HAVE SOME BLLODY CONSIDERATION FOR OTHERS I"M VERY SURE OTHERS WILL AGREE WITH ME!
Hey, just say "grow up" in other words, don't drive you crazy about it.
It began with a simple question and look where it comes. :arrow:

[cpl condor]

Never thought you wouldn't Erwin. You used to be a soldier Erwin, were you ever taught to fire on the move?

I like him,and i hate you,isn't that enough reason???!?!?!?! :twisted:
sorry for the non spanish spkesman.
Dejate de joder, eso es una boludez!!! :arrow:

[Hiddenrug]

i beleive it has been sorted out now. :?

[1000ydstare]

Ah, the dance begins....

Sorry, Hiddenrug, but I am going to stamp on your toes rather than dance to your tune.

You have asked me how running around, sideways or otherwise, while shooting from the hip is daft and I have answered you, using my knowledge and experience.

Why don't you tell me how doing such a thing isn't daft? What merits does it have?

You have stated that you thought that Australian Cadets were very different to British Cadets, I have shown you that they are, in fact, very similar. Yet all you can do is ask what unit it was that I met (although if you read what I posted you will see I didn't meet a particular unit. I came across a joint camp of several units that happened to be taking place on the base that I was sent to on Exercise Long Look and had a mooch).

I know what you are doing, you will continue to ask questions of me until I can't answer them anymore and then claim that I have never met an Australian Cadet or that I am making this all up. That is childish.

When you have acknoledged the points above, i.e. the merits of fireing from the hip on the move and the differences between our two countries' Cadet Forces, I may answer your questions.

Now off you pop.

[Firefly]

Hiddenrug I belive that you have been given a lot of information by various guys that have served in various militaries. I know of no instance, either from experience or of reading about it, where professional soldiers are ever taught to fire on the move.

If you still believe that this happens then please provide some evidence of it. Thanks....

[Twitch1]

Now, once again that we've heard all the fantasy text book and video game "facts," I defy anyone to categorically state that no one in any circumstance ever fired their weapon while in an other that stationary mode. Listen to that. That means that no one in the history of warfare ever walked or ran as they squirted defensive fire. These are the kind of straw-man points that people defend. It's just funny.

I can tell all of you that when Charlie has ambushed your squad on a road you are going to spray and pray. That sill bullcarap from WW1 about saving 10 cents worth of ammo flies right out the window when your and your pals' lives are on the line. Yes, your M-60 guy WILL side step off a trail while firing to defend the squads' movements to cover positions. Our guy, The Viking, would walk forward sweeping with the buzz saw on a regular basis. Nothing magical about it.

Tell the guys lying in the red surf colored from their pals' blood at Tarawa that they couldn't get up and fire as they ran to another position. If anyone spends a few hundred hours viewing WW 2-era film you'll see GIs firing while on the move.

I keep hearing these scenarios that only conform to some bygone armchair general's concept of combat or fictional movies. Does anyone actually believe a BAR man NEVER swept a tree line as he ran forward or laterally to a better position? Wake up!

Vietnam was a guerilla situation much of the time and sillyness such as fire only when you see 2 guys would have gotten you fragged. Much of the time ambushing enemy personnel were not even seen when a fire fight began. I'm astounded to know that we did it all wrong when we swept a hooch or a ditch with half a mag. We had a grip that was not a "hip shot" stance. It was more of a "rib shot" position. Holding the rifle butt close to the side well above the hip but not in a semi-shoulder aimed position was the accepted universal search and destroy stance in which we moved through the scenery.

We were taught an advanced but long known point shooting, snap shooting technique that is difficult and lengthy to describe but works extremely well. When you quickly shoulder your weapon the hand guard hand and arm move to a place that elevates the weapon to a position where slow sighted shots are dispensed with and the firing picture along with the master eye rely on instinct and hand-eye coordination. With practice this becomes 2nd nature. Believe me in an surprised scenario no one, no one, is shouldering a weapon and squinting throught both iron sights!!! If they did they'd be dead.

Firing on the run is not a course at your basic camp. It is learned through necessity in combat. By the same token it is not done in every scenario either. Most of the guys in WW2 that arrived on the islands fresh from the States were taken aside and quickly UN-learned the stuff that would have gotten them killed in combat by the veterans.

My friend's Dad described defensive AND offensive fire technique on the move as he advanced with his BAR that they never taught in the camps in the States. He advanced firing upward at tree snipers while moving. He squatted and fired with bent knees moving forward sweeping a crest of coral outcrop that concealed an MG. He lunged left or right diving for cover as he snapped out .30-06 rounds from his weapon when fired upon.

S/SGT. Elvin Callahan- Purple Heart, Silver Star is laughing his ass off in Valhalla as he reads this thread since he did it all wrong. :D

[mike M.]

I agree with you 100% twitch, never say never in combat. Go watch a bunch of guys play paintball and see how many you see firing on the run, I know its not anywhere near combat but its a game where guys are firing on each other and the tactic's are close.

[Twitch1]

Yeah, plus MBTs and other armor have been firing on the move for a long time too thanks to computers.

[1000ydstare]

Twitch the idea of saving 10 cents of rounds IS absurd, however, the idea of saving a few rounds for later is sound. A soldier carries his rounds, and can not always expect a resup. No one here is saying it has never happened, just that it is an un-sound tactic.

If this guy was shooting at tree snipers whilst moving he is a braver man than I. But was he constantly moving or snap shooting from a standing position as he moved? How many did he hit? How many of his men were injured or killed by these snipers? Who would have been very small targets, well concealed and fireing slow, well aimed shots.

Maybe this was tactically essential at the immediate time, i.e. they had to get off a beach, or similar bare expanse, and into cover. But I still feel that getting down in to a solid fireing position and firing a quick 5 round burst into the cover would have completed the task admirably.

The two person target thing, was taken from a film to describe the conservation of ammo by a machine gunner, in such a target rich environment. Not for use in all scenarios.

I think you will find that the position you describe as the "rib shot" is the same(ish) as the "shot gun" style that I described and is a often used positon in the opening shots of a fire-fight or in CQB, such as room clearence, for the same reasons you describe.

If you are having to un-learn what you have been taught in training and learning new skills on the battlefield, then something needs to be changed at your training school.

I haven't seen that many un-realistic scenarios in this thread and I know many on this site are not armchair generals.

Sorry Mike, I am not picking on you (honest) paint ball is nothing like combat. You can fire as many balls as you wish, after all you can resup for a small quantity of cash at the rest area about 20 - 30 minutes after the first shot is fired.

[1000ydstare]

Twitch1 wrote

Yeah, plus MBTs and other armor have been firing on the move for a long time too thanks to computers.

True Twitch, your Abrams, the Brit Chally 2, the German Leopard are all capable of fireing on the move thanks to computers. Some can even engage a moving target on the move!!!

But many still have to stop, relying on the speed of their gunners to get a bead on the target quicker than they can on him.

[Firefly]

Twich, no one is saying that its never been done. No professional soldier is taught to do it though.

[HG]

It is true that some tanks do stop to fire. By doing that the gunner can get a better fix on the enemy wile the enemy tank is till moving.

Henk

[1000ydstare]

Hiddenrug,

Could you post your replys to my above post.

Specificly the advantages or merits of fireing from the hip on the move and the differences between British and Australian Cadets.

Otherwise you may look a bit childish. Sort of a "I'm taking my ball and going home" mentality.

Anyway anything you have to say on the matter will be read and appreciated.

Cheers 1000ydstare.

[Twitch1]

At the commencement of WW2 the old farts that ran the military establishments were preaching WW 1 doctrine- tactics and maneuvers. They were still convinced that bolt action riflemen were going to stare one another down in static positions popping off well-aimed rounds in avid efforts to conserve ammo. Bullshit! Luckily semi-auto and full auto weapons got into the GI's hands pushed through by a few dedicated key persons.

The old farts also believed that battle wagons were going to face each other down also ala WW 1 in big showdowns. No one recalled Billy Mitchell proving how truly vulnerable they were to aircraft bombs. Again there was enough modern thinking to prevail and aircraft carriers were given funding.

And as far as air warfare goes just about every old fart was locked in 1920s with some fantasy vision of what they THOUGHT air war would be in the next war.

In every instance the old way was proved wrong. The war quickly evolved into something completely alien to the old thinkers' visions. The establishment has always trained for the last war and once in combat much training had to be forgotten and new just evolved tactics improvised to cope with the current combat situations.

On Wake and Guadalcanal it was nothing like the Marines were trained for back in the States. Obviously the alternate sceanrios continued throughout the Pacific war and there never, ever was combat like was taught at basic camps.

Soon the island assaults were the road to Tokyo. Very rarely did Marines ever lack ammo with whole ships full of it off shore to resupply them after landing!

This obsession for the theory of saving ammo is just wrong. No one, no one is going to consciously think about ammo when their tit is in the wringer, no one. My outfit was far more remote in its ability to make contact with friendlies and while we took care to not squander ammo, no one did NOT fire a whole mag if needed at the direction of incoming from an ambush so other could make for cover. What the hell kind of mate would we have been if we tried to be ammo misers but let out buds get lit up?

Since much of our ops required very extended periods without contact it was not unheard of for guys to actually run out of ammo and use enemy arms. So? There was plenty of AK ammo floating around.

But this was rarely the case in island fighting in WW 2. There were very few "lost patrols" cut off from supply. S/Sgt. Callahan mentioned he was always just a few minutes ahead of ammo. Most of the time he had more ammo than he could carry when boxes were brought up. On Iwo he spent a few nights semi detached from the rest of the units force but was never fretting.

Callahan's duels with tree and other types of snipers with the BAR gives the nod to firepower. While moving forward incoming single rounds were noted but no one at first could tell the source. Callahan saw the palm frond move from the muzzle blast and increased speed at an oblique angle off and away from the squad towards a shell crater for cover for himself so he could cover his pals. Unfortunately he was firing his weapon all the while contrary to the old fart dictum of WW1. Scratch one Nippon sniper.

Each island presented different challenges. Some were so tight defensively that they couldn't see the exact point of origin of fire while only 10 feet away! There were times when they didn't have the luxury to lay in the surf line in an attempt to train well-aimed fire at an unseen enemy due to the fact that his MG was chewing up his prone mates who were desperately trying to get a visual on where the fire was coming from. In cases such as this it is literlly move or die. And if you choose to move and live you're probably going to spit out some defensive fire even if it is inaccurate. It's human nature.

The need to move and fire is paramount if you are fired upon in a open position. If you'd stop to shoulder and aim you'd be dead! I can't make it any clearer than that. You move towards cover instinctively, yes, firing as you go sometimes. It is not a standard tactic to fire on the move but is certainly is no rarity either. It is done in dire circumstances when you're either going to die or move.

To be traversing terrain and be ambushed for one to stop and aim fire in the direction of incoming one would have to be an idiot or have big brass balls Texas size.

It's discouraging that those uninitiated to fire still believe stuff they read in a book or saw in a movie which hark back to the backward thinking of WW1 tactics and maneuvers.

Today's and tomorrows armor engagements WILL go to the vehicles that have modern abilities to fire on the move. Any vehicles that can't will be called on thing- targets. If any old time tankers still believe in decrepit panzer tactics they are in for a rude awakening. This technological ability is like the change over from prop to jets- no comparison.

I'm just stunned that anyone buys into this WW1 mindset. Well I guess I can if you've never actually been in combat or never talked to vets from previous wars. Have fun with the delusions. :D

[1000ydstare]

Twitch1 wrote
I'm just stunned that anyone buys into this WW1 mindset. Well I guess I can if you've never actually been in combat or never talked to vets from previous wars. Have fun with the delusions.

And who might these people be, Twitch?

[pdf27]

No one recalled Billy Mitchell proving how truly vulnerable they were to aircraft bombs.
Problem is, Billy Mitchell was a con-artist and he got found out. All he demonstrated was that an aircraft could lift a sufficiently large bomb that when dropped on an obselete battleship which had no defences, no damage control and probably wasn't even closed up the ship would sink. At the same time as claiming he had demonstrated that the aircraft was a practical weapon against surface shipping and should be used as such - even to the extent of replacing surface shipping. Remember for the first two years of the war the Germans totally failed to sink moving armoured ships from the air, and it took the Japanese sinking of PoW and Repulse to prove it was possible. That's why it was such a shock to the RN and other navies.

Again there was enough modern thinking to prevail and aircraft carriers were given funding.
Aircraft carriers predated Mitchell, and were of course a WW1 idea. You know, the war whose doctrine was completely obselete?

It's discouraging that those uninitiated to fire still believe stuff they read in a book or saw in a movie which hark back to the backward thinking of WW1 tactics and maneuvers.
<snip>
I'm just stunned that anyone buys into this WW1 mindset. Well I guess I can if you've never actually been in combat or never talked to vets from previous wars. Have fun with the delusions. :D
You do realise that several of those you are arguing with are serving British soldiers who have served in Iraq recently, don't you?

[Firefly]

I have searched through several US modern documents and have yet to find a reference to fire when moving. I conclude therefore that firing when running (without stopping) is not taught in the modern US military.

I understand that in certain situations, scared or undertrained soldiers may do so, but in all seriousness it can only be more hazardous to those around you than the enemy. Even a lowly Crab can see the possibilities of a man behind me firing on the run, who is closer, me or the enemy?

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

It can also be dangerous, if your're in a platoon and a scared or undertrained soldier is behind you,everyone's ordered to move and theres enemy firing at the whole platoon,the soldier fires while moving possibly injuring a soldier, or even killing one allied soldier!

[Twitch1]

Like I said, have fun with the delusions boys! :D

[1000ydstare]

Like I said, who are the arm chair generals with no experience of combat twitch?!! :D

What is YOUR experience by the way?

Also is there any real difference from my "shotgun" style and your "rib style" please see below

I wrote
Even if fireing from the hip in CQB, the firer would be stationary and aiming using the "shot gun" style (as it is known now where he looks down the barrel to ensure the burst is going in the right direction) in bursts of 2 - 3 rounds.

To elaborate we hold our weapon roughly between shoulder and ribs, and shoot over the top. Especially usefull as our sights are optical and for snap shots it takes time for eyes to focus through them.

Twitch1 wrote
We had a grip that was not a "hip shot" stance. It was more of a "rib shot" position. Holding the rifle butt close to the side well above the hip but not in a semi-shoulder aimed position was the accepted universal search and destroy stance in which we moved through the scenery.

This, by the way, is dubious bordering on absurd.
He squatted and fired with bent knees moving forward sweeping a crest of coral outcrop that concealed an MG. He lunged left or right diving for cover as he snapped out .30-06 rounds from his weapon when fired upon.

He could only have fired in this way when static, maybe between foot moves. If you actually squat and try this manouvre with a weapon (I got bored today so tried with a LSW and a GPMG) you will find the following...

1. That the barrel swings through 90 degrees plus, as you move forward, unless you were on point you would kill people on your own side.

2. Aiming is practically impossible, accurate aiming IS totally impossible.

3. You can only move slowly, perhaps useful if below a crest or wall, but for anything else pointless, you would be an easy target. If you are firing, then by definition the space in front of you is open. You're a sitting duck.

4. You are actually very unstable when moving, especially with a heavier weapon, and could easily fall over and end up like a beached whale, or worse rip in to your own men.

5. Point 4 was discovered whilst not fireing, I can only assume it would be worse if fireing.

6. It would be very hard, due to your body position, to get mags or belts out of the mag pouches. Also if using belt it would have to be very short meaning frequent reloading, rendering a belt fed weapons main asset redundant.

Twitch if you can counter any of those points please do.

[Twitch1]

Look, I'm telling everyone for the last time that I and members of my squad on various occassions during ambush by Charlie moved and snapped off some fire in the direction of the perceived enemy. This goes for our M-60 handler too. Just because no one has read about it or heard about it outside of actual combat does not mean it is not an accurate portrayal of events. I really no longer care if armchair experts or peacetime soldier boys whov're never been shot at believe anything.

[1000ydstare]

Twitch wrote
Just because no one has read about it or heard about it outside of actual combat does not mean it is not an accurate portrayal of events. I really no longer care if armchair experts or peacetime soldier boys whov're never been shot at believe anything.

We have never said it was never done, just that it was never taught and was actually tactically unsound, as you couldn't aim properly and follow the shot through properly. You have actually been told that by a few people on this site.

As for your "peacetime soldier boy" remark. I some how seem to remember getting in to contacts in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Macedonia and Sierra Leone, Telic 3 and not to mention Telic which definitily comes in to the "shot at" category being an actual war. This came from all sources mortars, artillery, small arms and machine guns and of course IEDs and improv mortars. I also spent time at Camp Dogwood and Baghdad, in the American sector, in Iraq where we were exposed to all manner of fire.

I would have respect for any soldier who was in a peace enforcement operation because we are the ones who have to fight a war with our hands tied behind our back. Where every move is scrutenised by lawyers if you make a mistake. Perhaps this is why we always use aimed shots.

There are many other members of this site who have been on ops, regardless of what you think of them, and been fired upon. I would wager that they have all responded in a profesional, calm and aimed manner. Rather than leading the place up.

[Cuts]

Look, I'm telling everyone for the last time that I and members of my squad on various occassions during ambush by Charlie moved and snapped off some fire in the direction of the perceived enemy. This goes for our M-60 handler too. Just because no one has read about it or heard about it outside of actual combat does not mean it is not an accurate portrayal of events. I really no longer care if armchair experts or peacetime soldier boys whov're never been shot at believe anything.

I think you may be aiming your comments at the wrong tgts here Twitch.
In recent years there have been a number of places where the British Army have been shot at and had to return fire.
Falklands, Bos, Gulf 91, Macedonia, Kos, Sierra Leone, Gulf (03 until present date) and the Emerald Toilet. These are only some of the ones covered by the major international press.
There are other forum members that have served in various theatres around the globe, so while I have the greatest respect for you having done your duty in SE Asia please remember that in conflicts before or since yours, soldiers didn't have an easier time, nor did they get any less dead when shot.

[BDL]

nor did they get any less dead when shot.

Or any less scared when they were being shot at...

[1000ydstare]

Cuts wrote:
nor did they get any less dead when shot.

BDL wrote:
Or any less scared when they were being shot at...

But they would get banged up for murder or manslaughter, if they killed innocent people or were proven to have not followed the rules of engagement.

[cpl condor]

Mistakes happens every day... :arrow:

[Cuts]

Mistakes happens every day... :arrow:

Mistakes do happen every day, but most of these mistakes don't leave widows and orphans.

'Mistakes' where someone dies are a lot easier to see on a BOI than out on the streets when rounds are cracking and brickwork is crumbling near you.

ROE are there to ensure the safety of bystanders and that sldrs do not get prosecuted.
Unfortunately in many theatres where assistance to the police is the major mission, this means that the sldrs must take incoming before they may use their own weapons or they will face prison.

There are many prosecutions, even where the troops have acted within the ROE, due in no small part to the slime that masquerade as gentlemen and call themselves lawyers !
They'll tell people that they can get a bakkieload of money on a no win, no fee basis.
Whether they win the case or not is immaterial to these bottom-feeders, because they themselves will get publicity.
The more famous, (or in my eyes infamous) they become, the more likely they'll have other high profile and possibly high paying cases.
These scum win regardless of the outcome of the case and they don't care of the pain and anguish they cause to those involved.


The direct result of these constant prosecutions does make some sldrs hesitate before opening fire, so we're left wth the quandry of whose life is worth more in the eyes of the law - the civvies', the slrds' ... or the terrorists' ?

[cpl condor]

There's no standard in the war. There's no mercy too.
Every force in the world have its dark side.
"Mistakes" are a benevolent way to say all of that.
:arrow:

[1000ydstare]

Condor mate, you are way wrong mate.

There are standards to be followed, these are referred to as Law of Armed Conflict and/or Rules of Engagement.

These prevent unneccesary suffering to those not involved in the actual fighting.

Anyway this is off topic. Back to moving whilst shooting. It is totally crazy.

[cpl condor]

No, I don't say that, everybody with some formation in the
military, knows that.
My refer was: the treats for a more "human" war with innecesary
victims.
Just remember Kosovo, Nam, or other atrocities like Auschwitz, or
Birkenau.
We are civilized, but in this places....... :arrow:

[vcs-ww2]

In the very first post on this very long BAR gunner thread the writer wondered if BAR gunners were only responsible for surpressing fire during combat -- or do they also assult.

I'm just new to this particular forum, but awhile back I posted a part of the following answer on another forum and thought this might be an appropriate spot to expand on that post in answer to the writer's query. I hope my memory is sharp enough to give you something close to the real "skivvie" on the subject. If I screw up just let me know.

A Marine platoon make-up went something like this. (Remember that in actual combat there was a lot of tactical ad-libbing going on which could be counter to all or some of the following):

Each platoon had three squads.

Each squad had three fire teams.

Each fire team had four men: (1) A team leader with a rifle, (2) A BAR man, (3) An assistant to the BAR man who carried extra ammo and a rifle, (4) A rifleman.

Teams #1 and #2 were called pin down (or pin-up) teams. They pinned the enemy down as the assult teams moved in on the target.

Team #3 was an assult team that moved in on the target by themselves or with a bazooka team, and/or a flamethrower team and/or a demolitions team.

Each platoon also had (A) a bazooka team comprised of a leader, a bazooka man, assistant to the bazooka man (Ammo & rifle), and a rifleman.

(B) A flamethrower team -- leader, flamethrower man, assistant to flamethrower man (fuel & rifle), a BAR man.

(C) A demolitions team -- Leader and three men with demolition charges(all with rifles)

I think each platoon also had 2 light machine gun teams. Don't know how many men but I'm sure each carried a rifle.

SO --- After all that it comes down to the fact that some BAR men handled surpressing fire and some BAR men were assult men.

Sorry if all this was confusing. I know it confuses the hell out of me. I hope I got it right!!!!!!!! vcs

[cpl condor]

No, man, you're very educational. thanks

[vcs-ww2]

It happens every time!!! Some new "know-it-all"guy comes on board and immediatley starts handing out bogus information!

I'ld like to feel exonerated by saying it was a typo -- or it was a senior moment -- or it was an alzheimer precursor --- but the fact is I screwed up !!!!!!!

In my last post I wrote: "Each PLATOON also had a bazooka, flamethrower and demolitions team.

This should have read: Each SQUAD also had a bazooka, flamethrower and demolitions team".

I'm doing 35 pushups as you read this. vcs

[Cuts]

It happens every time!!! Some new "know-it-all"guy comes on board and immediatley starts handing out bogus information!

I'ld like to feel exonerated by saying it was a typo -- or it was a senior moment -- or it was an alzheimer precursor --- but the fact is I screwed up !!!!!!!

In my last post I wrote: "Each PLATOON also had a bazooka, flamethrower and demolitions team.

This should have read: Each SQUAD also had a bazooka, flamethrower and demolitions team".

I'm doing 35 pushups as you read this. vcs

Hi VCS and a belated welcome to the site, I'm sure your contributions will all be very valuable here.

That said, your post above has just confused me ! :D


You said that the platoon had three squads each of twelve men (plus comd elm of course.)
In the first post you mentioned the platoon also having a bazooka team, a flamethrower team and a dems team, each with a four man strength.
This would give a platoon strength of just over fifty men assuming a comd structure of a Lt, Plt Sgt and a rdo opr.

In your latest post this was corrected to each squad having one each of all these teams, ie twenty-four Marines per squad (with specialist teams,) making a plt total of seventy-five men.

I know that in VN (1968) a Marine rifle coy could have anywhere between 60 to 130 men, (including Sp plt, with mortars, 57 mils and SF guns,) and that individual coys may have augmentees for specific ops, but was there an 'average' size of USMC coys in the Pacific theatre or did they vary as much as in the VN example ?

Please don't think I'm being picky, but I'm trying to get an idea of the actual, as opposed to paper, strengths of the USMC plts and coys in WWII.
I really hope I'm not coming across as a doubting Thomas, if so then I apologise in advance, it's definitely not my intention to do so.



Keep knocking out those pushups - you know they're good for you !

I would like to add that vcs-ww2 is our new WWII vet. Treat him well:) VCS, if you don't mind, open another thread in this forum and tell us some of your experiences. Thanks.

[HG]

Welcome vcs-ww2 to WW2incolor and I hope you will enjoy it.

Henk

[Dani]

VCS, if you don't mind, open another thread in this forum and tell us some of your experiences. Thanks.

Welcome VCS!
I seconded ww2admin!

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

Yes welcome to the site. :D

[Twitch1]

Well vcs-ww2 since you read most of this convoluted post, did you ever fire your weapon whilst moving as we did in Vietnam? Even though we did it then sometimes I'm told by folks here that it never happened! :D

[cpl condor]

In the very first post on this very long BAR gunner thread the writer wondered if BAR gunners were only responsible for surpressing fire during combat -- or do they also assult.

I'm just new to this particular forum, but awhile back I posted a part of the following answer on another forum and thought this might be an appropriate spot to expand on that post in answer to the writer's query. I hope my memory is sharp enough to give you something close to the real "skivvie" on the subject. If I screw up just let me know.

A Marine platoon make-up went something like this. (Remember that in actual combat there was a lot of tactical ad-libbing going on which could be counter to all or some of the following):

Each platoon had three squads.

Each squad had three fire teams.

Each fire team had four men: (1) A team leader with a rifle, (2) A BAR man, (3) An assistant to the BAR man who carried extra ammo and a rifle, (4) A rifleman.

Teams #1 and #2 were called pin down (or pin-up) teams. They pinned the enemy down as the assult teams moved in on the target.

Team #3 was an assult team that moved in on the target by themselves or with a bazooka team, and/or a flamethrower team and/or a demolitions team.

Each platoon also had (A) a bazooka team comprised of a leader, a bazooka man, assistant to the bazooka man (Ammo & rifle), and a rifleman.

(B) A flamethrower team -- leader, flamethrower man, assistant to flamethrower man (fuel & rifle), a BAR man.

(C) A demolitions team -- Leader and three men with demolition charges(all with rifles)

I think each platoon also had 2 light machine gun teams. Don't know how many men but I'm sure each carried a rifle.

SO --- After all that it comes down to the fact that some BAR men handled surpressing fire and some BAR men were assult men.

Sorry if all this was confusing. I know it confuses the hell out of me. I hope I got it right!!!!!!!! vcs
Welcome, vet, is great to have aboard!!!!!

[1000ydstare]

Twitch wrote:
Well vcs-ww2 since you read most of this convoluted post, did you ever fire your weapon whilst moving as we did in Vietnam? Even though we did it then sometimes I'm told by folks here that it never happened!

Er, no, Twitch you haven't been. You have been told that it is a unsound tactic, likely to endanger life on your own side. You have not been told that it has never happened.

Although, YOU have decided that a war in which this tactic was used renders all modern soldiers as peace time soldier boys or what ever it was you called us.

[Firefly]

Well vcs-ww2 since you read most of this convoluted post, did you ever fire your weapon whilst moving as we did in Vietnam? Even though we did it then sometimes I'm told by folks here that it never happened! :D

No, you are told by folks here it is not taught in any training! There is a difference. Your statement is wrong.

[1000ydstare]

As most of his posts are...

wrong or complete drivel.

[1000ydstare]

Or some sort of whining "don't tell me I am wrong when I am happy with my thoughts" post.

Because your thoughts, opionions and observations are obviously correct regardless.

[Twitch1]

I humbly bow to y'all's superior minutia recall. :D

[vcs-ww2]

The following discussion is based on U.S. Marines and the Pacific theatre of war. Iwo Jima is my model.

First of all, as far as I'm aware the Browning Automatic Rifle was generally known as the B.A.R. (initials only) in WWII --- not Bar (Like in candy). NOTE: "as far as I'm aware" !!!!!

As for firing the B.A.R. from the hip:
Pin-down (or pin-up) fire teams (Including B.A.R. guys) aimed their weapons. Their job was to keep up a steady, directed, and concentrated fire to cover the advance of the assult teams. They aimed at the embrasures in enemy pillboxes to keep the enemy from returning fire, or aimed to keep heads down in a machine gun emplacement -- or aimed at cave openings to keep the enemy occupied and under cover while the assult fire teams moved in on the flanks. Pin-down guys directed their fire in a concentrated middle-of-the-road pattern so as not to harm the assult people as they moved in.

The assult teams were on the move! Things were happening --- fast! As they closed on a pillbox (for instance) there was little time to aim. When the pin-down teams ceased fire on signal, or on order, the B.A.R. guys would keep up a concentrated fire on the embrasure -- from the hip, or any other comfortable position, while moving in. They could usually direct their fire by watching where their rounds were hitting. After awhile -- with some on-the-job training -- they got real good at that. Riflemen or demolition guys then could toss a "cooking" grenade in through the embrasure or drop a granade or satchel charge down through a vent above the pillbox. Or a flamethrower guy could simply direct his fire into either of the above openings. Very efficient!!! They were always very comforting guys to have around -- and on your side!

The above tactical situation is, of course, the ideal situation. Sometimes it wasn't that easy. If, for instance, a flanking movement(s) came under enemy covering fire from another pillbox or pillboxes, from other fortifications, or cave openings, or even from spider holes, it could get sticky. Sometimes a straight up the alley approach was the only alternative.

Again, I remind you that there was a lot of tactical ad-libbing going on during battle that wouldn't fit the above model. You did what you had to do. Everything was subject to momentary change. vcs

[Twitch1]

vcs-ww2 That's pretty similar to what my friend's Dad, a BAR man in the Pacific, told us but when I talked about some of things he described they made fun of me. If you exchange M-60 for BAR in your diescription it's quite a lot what we encountered in Vietnam. As you can see if you read all this topic I never said anyone was trained to do certain things that once in-country personnel they evolved into.

Ad-libbing is exactly the best phrase for developing tactics immediatly during the situation that were never taught in basic.

PS after island hopping throught the Pacific my friend's Dad got his Purple Heart at Iwo and went home.

[1000ydstare]

And as has been said before, we never said it has never been done, Twitch. Shouldn't you be talking drivel on the flying wing thread?

vcs, when you say about getting close to the pill box, what range are we talking? Did the gunner ever move and shoot at long range fireing from the hip, or was this move mainly used in close quarter battle (CQB)?

[vcs-ww2]

vcs, when you say about getting close to the pill box, what range are we talking? Did the gunner ever move and shoot at long range fireing from the hip, or was this move mainly used in close quarter battle (CQB)?

1000ydstare: The assult team(s) were busy moving in on the target, plus they were off to the side. They also wanted to keep maximum ammo available and ready for the close-in work. The pin-down teams would keep a steady fire on the target -- additional fire from the assult guys wasn't usually necessary.

When you ask about closeness to the pillbox I assume you mean the B.A.R. guy(s). They would right there with the guy shoving the grenade through the slot !!!!!!

[1000ydstare]

That's pretty much a text book manouvre from todays battlefield aswell.

But what I mean is at what ranges would the BAR gunner fire from the hip rather than aimed shots? 100yds? 200yds?

Also the moving and fireing question.

How close or deparate would the fighting be for any one to be moving and fireing at the same time. As opposed to snap shooting from static positions?

[Nickdfresh]

The BAR was originally intended for 'walking fire,' a weird idea from the Great War.
The wpn was held at the hip and rds discharged 'every time the left foot hits the ground.' The idea being to keep rds on the Hun's parapet until the lads could leap into the trench and sort them out with the bayonet.

So it was theoretically used in the assault, although the concept of an assult has thankfully changed since then.



Just had a worrying thought - Browning Automatic Rifle - "used in the assault"...

(Let's hope Tinwalt doesn't read this with his usual perspicacity, then add two and two to make three hundred and eighty-eleven thousand, gurgle hundred and schplurkity-whizz.)

I believe the BAR was also designed, and intended, to be issued to every US infantry soldier as sort of a full-caliber "assault rifle;" but it's prohibitive recoil, cost, weight, and ammunition usage concerned the post-WWI US military far too-much for this to happen.

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

And BARS were heavy, I heard somewhere that mostly infantry with bars , if they have the bar with a bipod, which usally weighs two pounds, they most of the time discard them so the bar will be lighter.

[Nickdfresh]

And BARS were heavy, I heard somewhere that mostly infantry with bars , if they have the bar with a bipod, which usally weighs two pounds, they most of the time discard them so the bar will be lighter.

Little BAR trivia, BARs were favored by some American gangsters, or actually highway robbers like Bonnie and Clyde. Bonnie wielded a "cut down" BAR, or "scattergun" "like a Marine" according to a historian. Those committing crimes using cars preferred the BAR over the Thompson submachine gun because it could penetrate an engine block.

http://texashideout.tripod.com/clydenbar.jpg

More info: http://texashideout.tripod.com/guns.html

[Cuts]

The BAR was originally intended for 'walking fire,' a weird idea from the Great War.
The wpn was held at the hip and rds discharged 'every time the left foot hits the ground.' The idea being to keep rds on the Hun's parapet until the lads could leap into the trench and sort them out with the bayonet.

So it was theoretically used in the assault, although the concept of an assult has thankfully changed since then.



Just had a worrying thought - Browning Automatic Rifle - "used in the assault"...

(Let's hope Tinwalt doesn't read this with his usual perspicacity, then add two and two to make three hundred and eighty-eleven thousand, gurgle hundred and schplurkity-whizz.)

I believe the BAR was also designed, and intended, to be issued to every US infantry soldier as sort of a full-caliber "assault rifle;" but it's prohibitive recoil, cost, weight, and ammunition usage concerned the post-WWI US military far too-much for this to happen.

Never heard that one before Nick, any sources for this info ?

Welcome to the site by the way.

[Nickdfresh]

The BAR was originally intended for 'walking fire,' a weird idea from the Great War.
The wpn was held at the hip and rds discharged 'every time the left foot hits the ground.' The idea being to keep rds on the Hun's parapet until the lads could leap into the trench and sort them out with the bayonet.

So it was theoretically used in the assault, although the concept of an assult has thankfully changed since then.



Just had a worrying thought - Browning Automatic Rifle - "used in the assault"...

(Let's hope Tinwalt doesn't read this with his usual perspicacity, then add two and two to make three hundred and eighty-eleven thousand, gurgle hundred and schplurkity-whizz.)

I believe the BAR was also designed, and intended, to be issued to every US infantry soldier as sort of a full-caliber "assault rifle;" but it's prohibitive recoil, cost, weight, and ammunition usage concerned the post-WWI US military far too-much for this to happen.

Never heard that one before Nick, any sources for this info ?

Welcome to the site by the way.

Thanks for the welcome.

I thought I heard that comment on a History Channel program on US small arms of WWII, I'm fairly certain that they may have thought about it, but of course realized the impracticality. I may be wrong on that one though...So could the History Channel, one of their programs also stated that the BAR was "unreliable," which is completely wrong from everything I've ever heard, when comparing it as the closet thing the US had to a Sturm Gewhr 44...

[Man of Stoat]

Hatcher doesn't mention it, so it's probably balls.

Beware of television programmes -- some of them are appalling. See here for instance:http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=940&highlight=smle

[Twitch1]

Nickdfresh- welcome to the party pal! Don't be surprised that no one believes you when you state something contrary to what the undercurrent is alleged to be. I mentioned about my friend's Dad constantly moving and firing his BAR in the Pacific and was taken to task. But it looks like vcs-ww2 bears that out with his statement. I talked directly to the man that did it but still wasn't believed. OK when we got onto the subject about moving and firing I mentioned how we did it in Nam often enough so the big question was changed to say how no one is trained in basic to do it. You learn a lot of stuff from the experienbced guys in-country that they don't teach back home.

So dude don't bother to read this whole freakin thread unless you want to get bored, real bored. :D

[1000ydstare]

Always jumping to conclusions if they back up your statement I see Twitch.

Anyway, most of the point was that it was never taught in training and even if carried out in combat is an unsound tactic. I think you will find I have never said anything other than that.

I think you will find that the thrust of the posts so far is merely that the History channel is not always as accurate and encylopedic as is believed by many. If you follow MoS's link you will see why. I also have picked up mistakes by the History channel in things that I have knowledge and/or experience of.

All that is ever asked of posters on this site is that they back up their posts with credible, and referenced, information. How a bloke in the pub told you how he invented the Enigma or fought off a regiment of HJ doesn't count.

For my 20ps worth. It is likely that gangsters got their hands on BARs, let's face it gun control is not that strong in the USofA now, or then. And it is highly likely that they would prefer a weapon that could destroy an engine block rather than just pepper the shell.

Likewise nickdfresh also sees how this info could be wrong.

note...
I thought I heard that comment on a History Channel program on US small arms of WWII, I'm fairly certain that they may have thought about it, but of course realized the impracticality. I may be wrong on that one though...So could the History Channel, one of their programs also stated that the BAR was "unreliable," which is completely wrong from everything I've ever heard, when comparing it as the closet thing the US had to a Sturm Gewhr 44...

So you are stirring up sh1t why?

[Nickdfresh]

Hatcher doesn't mention it, so it's probably balls.

Beware of television programmes -- some of them are appalling. See here for instance:http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=940&highlight=smle

Well, perhaps not every soldier, but I believe that a large number operating in tight unison were called for, of course not enough could be produced anyways...

The Browning Automatic Rifle was designed and built during World War I in response to a need by U.S. forces for a light "machine rifle" for offensive work. In fact, it was hoped the BAR might help break the stalemate that existed when Pershing's troops arrived in France. The theory was for large numbers of doughboys armed with BARs to employ "walking fire" against the Hnu trenches. This consisted of soldiers advancing toward the enemy, firing with each step of the right foot, producing a torrent of bullets, which would, theoretically, drastically intimidate German return fire.

http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/articles/06.htm

I've heard this from more than one source, in fact I believe the gun was nicknamed the "trench broom." (Or was that the Thompson?) :wink:

[1000ydstare]

It was the Tommy gun.

from a dubious source - a gaming site.

http://www.planethalflife.com/dod/guide/weapons.shtm

Thompson Submachine Gun


Operation: Automatic
Caliber: .45 ACP
Capacity: 30 round box magazine
Weight: 11 lbs
Damage: Moderate
Accuracy: Medium
Recoil: Moderate


Ah, yes. My baby. The "Trench Broom" (as it was originally designed in WWI so that America's Doughboys would have an easy time clearing out the enemy trench when they crossed it) is my weapon of choice when playing on the Allied Forces. A combination of the generous 30-round clip, low recoil, and high RoF equates to mucho pain inflicted on the poor sap you're sighting.

When aiming with this gun at mid-range, generally, he should be in the middle of your middle crosshair line, or a little lower than that. So, if you want to hit the guy in the head, aim for his chest. The kick on this gun will ensure he won't have either by the third or fourth round that leaves the barrel. Advancing with this gun is a dream -- I have often charged an enemy line with a Thompson in my hands and come out the victor, with two or three bodies to my name.

One thing you -- and oftentimes, I -- do have to remember though is SHOOT 'TILL HE'S DEAD. Often, I'll squeeze off six or seven rounds into a guy, and think, "well, this offs most guys I come across," only to see him level his gun and almost mockingly look at me and say, "Well, it didn't off me!"

If you're looking to pop someone at distance, what I do is crouch down, aim a little low, and empty my clip. The bullets spread very little -- once you know how to control its recoil -- so that it generally takes care of the target.

CQB is what this gun was designed for, though. Three words: Spray and Pray.

Game Tips: The Tommygun can be devestating at short range – aim low and fire in long bursts – the recoil will drag your fire upwards across your target.

Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)


Operation: Automatic
Caliber: .30-06 Rifle
Capacity: 20 round box magazine
Weight: 18.5 lbs
Damage: Heavy
Accuracy: Good
Recoil: Heavy
Picture a Garand on steroids, and you have the BAR. A bigger, 20 round clip, accurate at a distance, and a kick that's controllable makes this a formidable weapon. Even its sound strikes fear in the hearts of men... at least, I think it does....

Fighting with the BAR is similar to the Garand. Again, shooting while standing is difficult, but not impossible to master. If you can compensate for it, your shots will land very close to where you want them to. Again, a kill is best achieved by aiming low. Shooting and advancing can be done, but you gotta be skilled at controlling recoil, or your shots will go wide, while your crouched, a properly-aimed target won't.

The BAR is a decent CQB weapon, but you should aim your shots more than you would a Thompson or Grease Gun; You have ten less shots, and those ten can mean the difference between a dead Kraut and a dead GI.

Game Tips: The BAR’s heavy recoil and low magazine capacity will make long range automatic fire useless. Fire in 2-3 shot bursts for the best effectiveness.

Also more info on http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/web/history.htm

Ironically, the first shipment of prototype guns destined for Europe arrived at the docks in New York city on November 11, 1918, the day the War ended. Thompson now faced a huge problem. What do you do with a trench broom, now that the trenches no longer need to be sweeped?

[savoy6]

my first post here...

well...quite a topic...and on my favorite weapon too...lol...

at the beginning of the war the typical US Army platoon was devided into three rifle squads and an automatic rifle squad.the heavier weapons,i.e. M1917A1/M1919A4 MG's,60mm mortars,etc. were in the weapons platoon(4th) at the company level.the idea was that the BAR squads would be used to lay a base of fire on an enemy position,then the 1st and/or second squads would move in to assault the position,with the third as reserve.around '42 the BAR was moved to the squad level with one being used per squad.USMC units in the pacific usually picked up more BAR spots because they developed the idea cycling fire between two BAR gunners.One would shoot while the other was reloading.this way a continuous stream of fire could be directed at a position even though the BAR mag only held 20 rounds.firing on the move was NOT taught as a normal technique.was it used as a method of hopefully keeping the enemies head down while you ran across a street or clearing?probably.both that and the idea of firing your weapon in the general area of the enemy(very prevalent in actual combat in WW2) are addressed quite strongly in several of the late war US Army "Lessons Learned" pamphlets.evidently the rear echelon was quite concerned about this "wasting of ammunition"...lol...REMFs...

[Twitch1]

Savoy6 yeah the old farts with the WW I mentality were quite concerned about ammo wasting. They still envisioned trench warfare with carefully aimed pot shots s you held your breath.LOL Hell everybody first trained on '03 Springfields which were just that, 1903 era weapons! Can you say Spanish American War?!

When my friends Dad got to his first island, Guadalcanal, the veterans there showed him how to effectively provide heavy fire for the squad in the real world. The other BAR guy showed him how to adjust the sling on the weapon so it kinda hung like a guitar for easy sweeping motion as they moved up providing supression.

[1000ydstare]

Twitch wrote:
yeah the old farts with the WW I mentality were quite concerned about ammo wasting.
Keep saying it, it WILL come true if you say it enough times!!!

I can say American Spanish War...

I can also say that it was between April 25 – August 12, 1898. Five years before 1903? :( So it's relevance to the Springfield and this thread is... what? A very loose connection that the Springfiled was developed to replace the Krag-Jorgensen used in the Spanish-American war?

Still using cast iron references I see
When my friends Dad

IRONMAN used to reference himself you know, when questioned to the validity of the source he used he would actually use a post that he himself had written as further proof!!! You should try it sometime.

They still envisioned trench warfare with carefully aimed pot shots s you held your breath.

Ha ha. yip yip!!

Maybe the yanks don't get taught this today (although I know they do) but this out of date WW1 shooting method is still taught by many armies today. This is because it is highly relevant and highly useful in combat to be able to put rounds where you want them.

It is obvious you subscribe to the "hit everything on the battlefield but the one thing you wanted to hit" school of shooting. But I suppose it wouldn't matter as the guy next to you would hit your target, and you would hit his in this particular shooting theory.

I like this bit myself...

from

Springfield '03 Rifle

This rifle was the standard issue to all Marines from the early days of the 20th century into the first year of World War II. As a result of intensive marksmanship training, an inseparable bond formed between the individual Marine and this rifle which paid dividends on the target range and, later, in combat....

The accuracy of the '03 Springfield was without peer, and the Marine Corps based its developing marksmanship program on this rifle. The Marine Corps designed an improved set of front and rear sights and soon led the other services in prowess with the rifle. Indeed, by the outbreak of World War II, the Marine Corps had formed a cult around the rifle.

My bold, doesn't say anything about leading the place up to hit the target does it?

Even in "Full Metal Jacket" the instructor is seen explaining the benefits of individual accurate shots - I believe he points out that the alledged assasin of JFK, Oswald, was an ex-marine with marine marksmanship.

Although later in the film you do see the platoon completely lose it and start blatting away at a building with one sniper in it (complete with 66 shot!!!) when the Plt IC loses control of the plt.

[Nickdfresh]

Even in "Full Metal Jacket" the instructor is seen explaining the benefits of individual accurate shots - I believe he points out that the alledged assasin of JFK, Oswald, was an ex-marine with marine marksmanship.

Although later in the film you do see the platoon completely lose it and start blatting away at a building with one sniper in it (complete with 66 shot!!!) when the Plt IC loses control of the plt.

You forgot Charles "Texas Tower" Whiteman...


There has always been a struggle to reconcile the notion of marksmanship and individual accuracy that is summed up in the US Army slogan "one-shot, one-kill," which I was indeed taught in BRM with the use of small unit infantry tactics which necessitate close range firepower...

[Twitch1]

Nichdfresh- Oh, I never did say that marksmanship was not appropriate under certain circumstances. It's just that by WW 2 and since quick moving units with substantial mobile firepower were what was happening. It was the additional factor that didn't exist during WW I is all. :)

[savoy6]

ok..i really don't know or care who iron man was.....
it has no relevance to the topic..

the officers and non-coms that were responsible for training the army during WW2 were pre-war regular army or national guard.they had come into the military in the '30s at a time when the military was at the bottom of the budget process.pre-war vets i've talked with remeber only getting around 50-100 rounds a year to use on the range and for qualification.some national guard units didn't even get that much.you seem to have forgotten about all those shots of the louisiana manuvers that had troops with broomsticks for MGs,pipes for mortars and trucks with "TANK" written on the side as armored vehicles.when talking to veterans from both the PTO and the ETO they have been unanimous in relating that they were constantly told during training to "not waste ammo" and "make each shot count".they are also fairly consistent in stating that their stateside training did not prepare them in any meaningful way for actual combat.once in combat the old training gave way to what was usefull,like ditching gear that you couldn't use as well as things like directing a volume of fire at an enemy position rather than waiting to get a clear shot at a target.you cannot compare training that is given now to the training from WW2.they are like night and day.but then again a good number of the folks on this topic spent half of it aguing a given such as "is a BAR called a B.A.R. or a bar?"or arguing if someone might have shot a BAR from the hip at some point or if you could do it while running sideways across a street????

[Nickdfresh]

Stephen Ambrose goes into length about this in "Citizen Soldiers"; how new replacements had to be routinely retrained in the use of their weapons. Soldiers had learned through experience that they needed area suppressive fire rather than pin-point accuracy. Of course soldiers still took carefully aimed shots, but it was also important to lay down a steady stream of suppressive fire once the enemy was located.

[1000ydstare]

Yeah, it probably did get a bit out of hand. But oh, well some good stuff has come out of it.

Edited by Dani for removing an unpleasant comment.

[Firefly]

Well I think its one thing to say that a BAR was occasionaly used when the firer was moving and another to say that the BAR was routinely used whilst running at the enemy firing from the Hip john Wayne style.

I wonder what other armies rules were on this? Where is the discipline if a whole platoon is moving and firing at the same time? A lot of guys here liked Band of Brothers, how many times did you see guys running and firing in that? That would be interesting to know.

And before certain members here go off the rails, this is an observation and NOT a criticism. I am genuinely interested.

[Twitch1]

Savoy6 & Nickdfresh- how right you are! 8)

[Cuts]

Stephen Ambrose goes into length about this in "Citizen Soldiers"; how new replacements had to be routinely retrained in the use of their weapons. Soldiers had learned through experience that they needed area suppressive fire rather than pin-point accuracy. Of course soldiers still took carefully aimed shots, but it was also important to lay down a steady stream of suppressive fire once the enemy was located.

I believe I understand what you're saying, but in most armies including the US, suppressive fire is actually aimed.

Suppressive fire is used to kill or prevent en pers from effectively employing his wpns or observing the proceedings.
fire can be laid by individual riflemen/gunners or crew served wpns.
To use unaimed fire in the general direction of the enemy will not produce effective fire except by luck, and if it's not effective it won't be suppressive.

The USMC and the US Army employ these methods as do the majority of professional 'western' armed forces.


For direct fire, which is what we're talking about, there are two ways in which to engage a tgt.

a) Area fire is fire that covers an area laterally and in depth. - eg a woodline.

b) Point fire is fire directed at one point - eg a pillbox/bunker or embrasures.

[Firefly]

I have just tediously re-read this entire bloody Topic and I think that there is agreement on the following at least:

1. No one was taught to fire the BAR on the run in training, everyone agrees with this point.

2. In certain circumstances the BAR was fired on the move, although at what ranges is not clear to me.

3. The BAR was used for fire suppression.

Please everyone take the time to read what you and others have written in the last several pages, meanwhile here are some selected quotes;


It is not a standard tactic to fire on the move but is certainly is no rarity either. It is done in dire circumstances when you're either going to die or move.



We have never said it was never done, just that it was never taught and was actually tactically unsound, as you couldn't aim properly and follow the shot through properly.


Pin-down (or pin-up) fire teams (Including B.A.R. guys) aimed their weapons.


the B.A.R. guys would keep up a concentrated fire on the embrasure -- from the hip, or any other comfortable position, while moving in.


I never said anyone was trained to do certain things that once in-country personnel they evolved into.



When you ask about closeness to the pillbox I assume you mean the B.A.R. guy(s). They would right there with the guy shoving the grenade through the slot !!!!!!



firing on the move was NOT taught as a normal technique.


Soldiers had learned through experience that they needed area suppressive fire rather than pin-point accuracy. Of course soldiers still took carefully aimed shots, but it was also important to lay down a steady stream of suppressive fire once the enemy was located.


Is it possible to agree with the above and move the debate on a bit? Its all becoming very circular.

[Walther]

The BAR was heavily used where ever you could find the American Military.

The BAR in various versions was also used by the pre WW2 Belgian (made by FN, where Browning worked as well) and the Polish armies. AFAIK, a few other European armies used it as well prior to 1939.

Jan

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

BAR+lots of ammo+trained soldier=good gun in the hands of a good soldier who knows how to use a BAR.

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

1) Do you know what the ISBNs and titles of these books were ?
2) What is the 'stuff' ?
3) Does it come in small packages ?
4) Is it taken nasally or just smoked ?

1) no I have forgotten
2)A movie
3)No it came in a medium sized package for $9.99
4)It's watched through the eye in a TV
5)I learned a lot from it.
6) I was just reading over these pages and decided to answer this even though it was a long time ago. :wink:

[Gregory]

The BAR was originally intended for 'walking fire,' a weird idea from the Great War.
Yes, you are right.

In my opinion - supported by the historic photographs - nothing changed in WWII when it comes to BAR role at the first line of combat. Look gents please how much dynamically this weapon was used and the pics show it. Have you ever seen the BAR with bipod? Almost never. Such pics are ultra rare. BAR gunner has always run shoulder to shoulder together with the other troops in assault. During both world wars to some extent of course the BAR has alwyas been used as a far progenitor of AR-15.

Best regards

Greg

[Rocketeer]

Umm, I have a question about the good Ol' BAR's, did the Canadians get any of these badboys, or was the US Army the only one whom had these?

[Walther]

Umm, I have a question about the good Ol' BAR's, did the Canadians get any of these badboys, or was the US Army the only one whom had these?

The Canadians (except for the force which was involved in the raid on Attu and Kiska and members of the mixed Canadian-American First Service Special Force, which was deployed in Italy) were equipped in accordance with British lines. This means for an infantry section Lee Enfield rifles (SMLE or No4) for the riflemen, Sten guns or Thompson 1928 and A1 for section and platoon leaders as well as radio operators and 2" mortar men and as section automatic the Bren LMG.

The units involved in the Aleuts against the Japanese were using a mix of American and Canadian equipment and the FSSF were using the Johnson LMG.

Jan

[Walther]

Well I think its one thing to say that a BAR was occasionaly used when the firer was moving and another to say that the BAR was routinely used whilst running at the enemy firing from the Hip john Wayne style.

I wonder what other armies rules were on this? Where is the discipline if a whole platoon is moving and firing at the same time? A lot of guys here liked Band of Brothers, how many times did you see guys running and firing in that? That would be interesting to know.

And before certain members here go off the rails, this is an observation and NOT a criticism. I am genuinely interested.

Acc. to the Infantry Training Pamphlet Part III "Fieldcraft, Battle drill, Section and Platoon tactics" from 1944, in the British army the normal use of the section automatic, the Bren LMG was used stationary to provide supporting fire while the rifle group moved up to a flanking position. Then the rifle group (6 riflemen plus the section leader) took over and provided fire support while the Bren group (section second in command, Bren gunner, assistant Bren gunner) moved to a new position. Then they would take over suppresive fire while the rifle group moved in on the objective. When the rifle group was close enough for the final assault, the Bren group would switch targets, e.g. to cover a neighbouring enemy position to protect the rifle group's flank or to cut off the resteat of the original enemy. (correct so, Man of Stoat and 100Yards Stare? ;-) ).
The Bren gun was designed to be used from the prone position or from a support, e.g. a wall and to be carried using the carrying handle, though inofficial methods, like carrying it over the shoulder or both Bren gunner and No. 2 carrying it together, e.g. while crossing an obstacle, were also used.

In close combat situations, e.g. clearing a forest or house clearing, it could be carried with the strap slung over the right shoulder and fired shot gun style from the hip, but in this case the enemy was usually not more distant than a few yards. This was e.g. done during the Borneo campaign in the 1960s, when it was discovered that the beltfed GMPG was not really suited to jungle fighting, due to the fact that it was heavier and needed a prone position, which was apparently hard to find in a swampy jungle (reference Dugelby "The Bren Gun Saga"), so the at this time already considered obsolete Bren guns were dug out of the unit stores and used like a big SMG. The GPMG was relegated to more static uses, e.g. in defense of observation posts or villages, or mounted on boats on river patrol.
According to the pamphlet, in urban operations, the Bren was to be used to provide supporting fire and to isolate a building by creating killing zones in adjacent streets.

BTW, the British had two bad experiences with indisciminate fire, which had huge political implications. The first was the massacre of Amritsar in India, where Ghurkas commanded by, as was later discovered, mentally unstable British officer opened fire on an unarmed crowd of civilians in a walled in square without escape in 1919. This event had a huge impact in India and caused a lot of support for the Indian independence movement. It also teaches what can happen when soldiers will thoughtlessly obey illegal orders.

The other event was the Bloody Sunday in Derry (Londonderry) in 1972, when 1st Para opened fire during a riot by Irish nationalists. What exactly happened was never really cleared up, but according to official sources the Paras were fired upon by an IRA sniper, anyway, out of some reason fire was opened on the crowd, leaving several civilians dead. This, of course, was fuel on the propaganda mills of the IRA and caused severe political repercussions.

Since then the British have been very strict with their rules of engagement, with a strict "open fire only if the enemy is clearly identified" policy.

(correct, Man of Stoat, PDF27, 1000Yards Stare?)

Jan

[nanuuq]

Hello Everyone:

I have read this post with some interest. If anybody wants to know about the B.A.R., which is what it was called by my father, a USMC B.A.R. man, I get you the answers.

My father, as stated before, was a a B.A.R. man in the USMC. He fought in the 2nd Division on Tarawa, and in the 4th Division on Roi, Namur, Tinian , Saipan, and Iwo Jima. He has 5 Purple Hearts, 3 Bronze Stars, and a Silver Star.

I will answer some of the question that I have seen on this forum,

1. It was called the B.A.R., not BAR as in a candy bar,
2. the B.A.R. did not have bad recoil,
3. the largest man was not always given the B.A.R., it was based on the strength of the individual, my father was 5'11'' and 190 pounds in the USMC
4. the B.A.R. can be fired from any position with NO CHANGE in its accuracy,
5. the B.A.R. was used in the assault and supressing fire roll.
6. B.A.R. men would advance with riflemen, preferably in a line fanned out facing the advancing area,
7. there were 3 B.A.R. men in a USMC squad,
8. you did not train with the B.A.R. in 'Boot Camp', when you went to the "Fleet Marine Force" you were picked and then trained with the B.A.R.,
9. and there was no such thing as a "One shot, One Kill" mentality back on the islands in WW2, also there is no such thing as a waste of ammo. My father would carry 6 x 20 round clips, along with 3 bandeleers of .30 cal and grenades. The USMC mentality was, "the more fire you put out the less will come back", especially during Banzai charges when you "sprayed" at the oncomig rush. Also, riflemen would file down the "sear" on the M1 which would turn the M1 into a semi-automic. There was always enough ammo!

I told my father about some of the things that I have read on this "Topic" and he laughed at what some were saying. So if you want the truth on this subject I can get it for you.:D

Oh, by the way........ this is a GREAT website adn this is my FIRST POST!

nanuuq

[AllHailCesar]

Welcome aboard!
Im pretty new myself....I kinda just sit back and learn, throw my 2 cents in now and then.