Late 1944 US Cavalry Brigade TO&E (LARGE)

[Pat Holscher]

This sounds like they are talking about two different weapons, the Browning machine rifle and the Browning automatic rifle. Can anyone clarify this?

The journal outlined how the machine-rifle out-performed the BAR in part because it had a heavier barrel, and was capable of select-fire. It said something about the desirability of having 20-round rifles that could fire semi-auto.

Evidently the BAR originally had select-fire capability but early on (I think) they were converted to full-auto only. So I'm guessing the M1922 could fire semi-auto.

It's interesting that the cavalry was apparently making inroads in this area.

The BAR was indeed designed to be selective fire, which fit with its original conception as an automatic rifle. The selective fire option was removed with the Army determined post war to place it in the light machinegun role, for which it had not been designed.

The M1922 apparently retained that feature of the original design.

[Pat Holscher]

The Cavalry Journal, January 1921, Volume XXX, No. 122, 1921, The United States Cavalry Association, Judd & Detweiler, Inc., Washington, pp. 47-50.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA53&i ... &q&f=false

The Browning Machine Rifle
Lieutenant-Colonel Albert E. Phillips, Cavalry

Page 47: “(a) The development of a self-loading rifle for each soldier armed with a rifle. The mechanism of this rifle must be simple and positive. It should be clip-fed, thus eliminating magazines. It should be capable of being fired either as a single-shot rifle or semi-automatically; and should there be any interruption in the semi-automatic mechanism, the rifle should be capable of being operated as a single-shot, bolt-action rifle. The weight should not be appreciably greater than the weight of the present service rifle.

Several rifles of the above-described type are being developed and at least two of them give promise of a satisfactory solution.”

Sounds like he is recommending the development of the M1/M14 Rifle.

“The Browning machine rifle is superior in every respect to either the Benet-Mercie or the Lewis; it fills a distinct need in the armament of our Army—a need that is not filled by the Browning automatic rifle.”

This sounds like they are talking about two different weapons, the Browning machine rifle and the Browning automatic rifle. Can anyone clarify this?

I think the difference is conceptual.

The BAR was originally designed as an automatic rifle, in the merky dawn of that concept. It wasn't alone in that as there were others, including the Chauchat, which were designed to fill that role, although the role was not well defined. In Browning's mind, entire small units would have been armed with selective fire BARs which would have used them as rifles in some roles, but used them with sweeping automatic fire in trench advances.

Post war, after the the Army had experience with light machineguns, the BAR was simply adapted to that role, having been made automatic only, and having been fitted with a flash hinder and bipod. The cavalry was apparently looking for an automatic weapon that was more in tune with the original concept, and therefore their Machine Rifle variant retained some of the original features, all of which foreshadowed the heavy use of automatic weapons by German cavalry during World War Two (and which recalled the very effective use of light automatic weapons by British cavalry, although that seems to be a largely ignored and forgotten aspect of the story of the British cavalry).

To complete the BAR story, the BAR in truth really wasn't a very good light machinegun, and BAR men very often stripped it of its bipod and flash hinder and used it as an automatic rifle. During World War Two the Marines acknowledged that and began to issue them two per squad and, if I recall correctly, contemplated issuing them in greater numbers than that.

[Pat Holscher]

This M1922 BAR Stuff is pretty interesting. I may separate it out into a separate thread. Just thought I'd note that here in case people later find it suddenly moved.

[Couvi]

The Cavalry Journal, January 1921, Volume XXX, No. 122, 1921, The United States Cavalry Association, Judd & Detweiler, Inc., Washington, pp. 47-50.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA53&i ... &q&f=false

The Browning Machine Rifle
Lieutenant-Colonel Albert E. Phillips, Cavalry

Page 47: “(a) The development of a self-loading rifle for each soldier armed with a rifle. The mechanism of this rifle must be simple and positive. It should be clip-fed, thus eliminating magazines. It should be capable of being fired either as a single-shot rifle or semi-automatically; and should there be any interruption in the semi-automatic mechanism, the rifle should be capable of being operated as a single-shot, bolt-action rifle. The weight should not be appreciably greater than the weight of the present service rifle.

Several rifles of the above-described type are being developed and at least two of them give promise of a satisfactory solution.”

Sounds like he is recommending the development of the M1/M14 Rifle.

“The Browning machine rifle is superior in every respect to either the Benet-Mercie or the Lewis; it fills a distinct need in the armament of our Army—a need that is not filled by the Browning automatic rifle.”

This sounds like they are talking about two different weapons, the Browning machine rifle and the Browning automatic rifle. Can anyone clarify this?

I think the difference is conceptual.

The BAR was originally designed as an automatic rifle, in the merky dawn of that concept. It wasn't alone in that as there were others, including the Chauchat, which were designed to fill that role, although the role was not well defined. In Browning's mind, entire small units would have been armed with selective fire BARs which would have used them as rifles in some roles, but used them with sweeping automatic fire in trench advances.

Post war, after the the Army had experience with light machineguns, the BAR was simply adapted to that role, having been made automatic only, and having been fitted with a flash hinder and bipod. The cavalry was apparently looking for an automatic weapon that was more in tune with the original concept, and therefore their Machine Rifle variant retained some of the original features, all of which foreshadowed the heavy use of automatic weapons by German cavalry during World War Two (and which recalled the very effective use of light automatic weapons by British cavalry, although that seems to be a largely ignored and forgotten aspect of the story of the British cavalry).

To complete the BAR story, the BAR in truth really wasn't a very good light machinegun, and BAR men very often stripped it of its bipod and flash hinder and used it as an automatic rifle. During World War Two the Marines acknowledged that and began to issue them two per squad and, if I recall correctly, contemplated issuing them in greater numbers than that.

The BAR was invented as an automatic rifle to maintain a high volume of fire in a WWI-type frontal assault scenario. Out of that scenario it starts to fail quickly.

I have seen it written that the Brits and the Germans said that Americans thought of the BAR as a great light machine gun because they had never seen a great light machine gun. Good light machine guns, like the Brno, Bren, Châtellerault , were top-loaded, allowing the assistant gunner to change the magazine while the gunner maintained his sight picture, which in combat changes rapidly and continually. As soon as a fresh round is charged from the new magazine, the gunner can resume fire on the target he has been tracking. The BAR required the weapon to be turned nearly 90 degrees to change the magazine, then returned to firing position, regain a sight picture on the target and commence firing. That slows everything down.

The French took the BAR mechanism, turned it upside-down as the Châtellerault . It served for a very long time. Most light machine guns use a 30-round magazine, as opposed to the 20-round BAR magazine. My own bête-noir with the BAR is that tiny cocking handle that is difficult to operate even in non-combat situations.

[Pat Holscher]

On BAR defects, note also that the common versions of the BAR didn't have a quick change barrel, which by the 1930s was common with true light machineguns. A quick change barrel version of the BAR was developed, but I don't think it saw any use anywhere until after World War Two. FN made that variant, and it wasn't a very common weapon. Having said that, the BAR itself saw slightly wider use than generally imagined, as at least a few other armies other than the U.S. Army used it.

On the development of the BAR, there was a lot of experimentation with the automatic rifle concept in that period, basically wrapping up during World War One.

In that period, there were quite a few weapons designed to fill that role, but arguably the BAR was the best of them. It just wasn't a light machinegun. While it would be on the wild hypothetical end, had the Army adopted a true light mg in the 1930s, but retained at least one or two BARs in the rifle squad, the firepower of the squad would have been immeasurably enhanced.