I am not disputing the fact that it was a poor light machine gun , it is just I don't know enough about small arms to distinguish between a good and bad one. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the 1918 BAR?
Why is the 1918 .30 BAR considered a poor rifle?
- Thread starter Johnrankins
- Start date
It also required complicated, and thus expensive, machining.
It is too heavy as a rifle, and too light for a machine gun, in addition, the "standard" BARs did not have a detachable barrel, and so tended to overheat badly if used in full auto mode.
So
Strengths :
- "light" (in WW1)
- accurate
- reliable (ish)
Weaknesses :
- expensive (at least for what it could do)
- rate of fire too high for a light machine gun
- not really usable as a machine gun (not detachable, light barrel => overheating)
Newer models developped in the 30' corrected most of the problems, but were not adopted by the US Army, the version the US used in WW2 was a slightly modified 1918 model, instead of the vastly superior models like the Colt Monitor or the FN model D (Detachable barrel) of 1932 used by the Belgian and Swedish armies.
It is too heavy as a rifle, and too light for a machine gun, in addition, the "standard" BARs did not have a detachable barrel, and so tended to overheat badly if used in full auto mode.
So
Strengths :
- "light" (in WW1)
- accurate
- reliable (ish)
Weaknesses :
- expensive (at least for what it could do)
- rate of fire too high for a light machine gun
- not really usable as a machine gun (not detachable, light barrel => overheating)
Newer models developped in the 30' corrected most of the problems, but were not adopted by the US Army, the version the US used in WW2 was a slightly modified 1918 model, instead of the vastly superior models like the Colt Monitor or the FN model D (Detachable barrel) of 1932 used by the Belgian and Swedish armies.
Cuirassier
Banned
In 1918 the BAR was the best man portable LMG fielded by the belligerents.
By 1941 the BAR was competing with interwar designs that were obviously better than it.
The version used by the US in WW2 was too heavy and unwieldy to be used as an automatic rifle.
Deleted member 1487
It wasn't a rifle, it was an automatic rifle, which is a different category. People make the mistake of comparing it to the light machine guns of the era, which is was not. In many ways it was basically a .30-06 AK-47. In 1918, as has been said here already, it was the best automatic weapon in it's category in the world, but by the 1930s it was outdated, too complex, too heavy and should have been replaced with something lighter and more modern like the Johnson LMG. Since it was competing in it's role at that point with the Bren, Type 96, and MG34, all true MGs, it was punching well under it's weight. Now, if it had been as light and handy as the modernized HCAR it would have been a fine weapon, but it was not. Had something like the HCAR been designed by the US that would been able to replace the Garand and BAR with one weapon and dramatically increase a squad's firepower even with the overly powerful .30-06 cartridge.
As to the pros and cons others here have tackled that well already.
As to the pros and cons others here have tackled that well already.
The BAR can best be understood by its intended use in a WWII-era US Rifle Squad. In the squad, the men carrying the M1 Garands were considered to be the main firepower of the squad. The BAR was intended to be supplemental firepower which could be brought to bear at the critical point. Compare this with a German squad. The MG-34/MG-42 was considered to be the primary weapon of the squad. The men with rifles were there mostly to protect the MG and make sure it stayed in action.
The big question is what the role is.
Is it a light machine gun or an automatic rifle.
It falls between both categories in my opinion.
It has too small a magazine capacity to be useful in a light machine gun (20 round maximum magazine, 40 round for anti aircraft but that role was abandoned in the 20s) and too heavy to be a good automatic rifle which is the role that the Americans tried to use it in.
It's also important to note that it's too complex. To change barrels you need to go to the armourer. Comparable weapons had quick change capability which could be changed by the soldier.
Is it a light machine gun or an automatic rifle.
It falls between both categories in my opinion.
It has too small a magazine capacity to be useful in a light machine gun (20 round maximum magazine, 40 round for anti aircraft but that role was abandoned in the 20s) and too heavy to be a good automatic rifle which is the role that the Americans tried to use it in.
It's also important to note that it's too complex. To change barrels you need to go to the armourer. Comparable weapons had quick change capability which could be changed by the soldier.
What realistic changes could be made to it to make it a more useful gun for the US Army in the late 1930's-1942 if the US Army thought of it?
Deleted member 1487
The FN-D was a light machine gun, which would require a crew to serve it and change US squad doctrine quite a bit.
In 1938 there was a design study to get a new version of the weapon. In 1939 the US Army came out with the decision that any new version (a2) had to be fully interchangeable with the old version of the weapon. Old weapons would have to be able to be converted into the new weapon. This meant that they were limited and couldn't improve what they wanted to.
They couldn't add a rate suppressor or a new pistol grip or modify the magazine capacity.
This meant the benefits of the new version was limited.
Last edited:
Assume the US Army scraps that requirement, I am interested in what could be done with it if the US Army decides that the old version is obsolete and needs complete replacement.
Cuirassier
Banned
The receiver and action are at the heart of the gun, so as long as you keep them the same a lot could be changed.
Post war the FN MAG was created with the same action, but with belt feed.
You could take the BAR and make improvements like a quick-change barrel, weight cuts etc. I doubt the feed would be changed from box to belt though.
Invert the action and feed it like a Bren. Give it a bigger box magazine.
You end up with US version of the Bren.
Last edited:
The USA was Isolationist in the 30s and while it spent a very long time replacing the M1903 with the M1 Garand (and about 30 seconds to supplement it with the M1 Carbine) it did virtually nothing to adopt an LMG which all of the other major powers did (MG34, BREN, FN 24/29 and Type 96)
So it was left to 'muddle through' with the BAR as well as the M1917 and M1919 MMGs with no true LMG at Squad level.
Luckily the BAR is not a bad automatic weapon - reliable and well made - but it suffered from a 20 round magazine and lack of sustained fire due to lack of Quick Detachable barrel (that being said the FN 24/29 was also limited in this respect)
IBM and other companies would during the war modernise certain parts of weapon and bring the design kicking and screaming into the 1940s to allow for simplified and increased production from 1943 which is just as well as it was being relied on very heavily - particularly by the USMC which would by 1945 use 4 of them in a 13 man squad and base its tactics and firepower around the weapon.
I can only imagine how a proper modern LMG would have served them better though.
Even a better BAR
So it was left to 'muddle through' with the BAR as well as the M1917 and M1919 MMGs with no true LMG at Squad level.
Luckily the BAR is not a bad automatic weapon - reliable and well made - but it suffered from a 20 round magazine and lack of sustained fire due to lack of Quick Detachable barrel (that being said the FN 24/29 was also limited in this respect)
IBM and other companies would during the war modernise certain parts of weapon and bring the design kicking and screaming into the 1940s to allow for simplified and increased production from 1943 which is just as well as it was being relied on very heavily - particularly by the USMC which would by 1945 use 4 of them in a 13 man squad and base its tactics and firepower around the weapon.
I can only imagine how a proper modern LMG would have served them better though.
Even a better BAR
Deleted member 1487
At that point you might as well take it down in weight and make something like the WAR and issue 3-4 per squad:
The British Home Guard initially only allowed automatic fire in emergencies. By 1943 they had banned it's use in automatic fire at all. Only semi automatic. They had the 1918 model. Used in Platoons and Companies that were US 0,300" ammunition based, alongside the Enfield Pattern 1917 bolt action rifle. They judged that the semi automatic fire would bring more rounds onto a specific target and use the ammunition more efficiently. Also it improved the reliability and avoided overheating. They would have dearly liked to use it as a light machine gun but it was not suited to that role.
Then you probably go for something completely different. The only reason they went for an updated version of the existing weapon was because there was thousands of them in storage.