"Basing BARs for WRG 1925-50" Topic

I am just completing my first ever 6mm US WW2 infantry and I was wondering how they were/are typically based for the WRG 1925-50 first edition rules? Were the BAR gunners just considered part of a rifle group or were they based separately as an LMG team?

If I can remember correctly it was integrated into the squad

I think that makes more sense.

The BAR is not a machine gun.

When people say "first edition" of WRG 1925-50, some confusion can arise.

If you mean rules with this cover:
link

A BAR could be fielded as part of a rifle group of 3-6 men OR as an LMG group of 2 or 3 (in both cases the BAR is specifically mentioned).

However, if you mean rules that look like this:
link

Then logically a BAR could only be fielded as a bipod-mounted MG with crew of 2 since an infantry element can only be 4 men on a single base armed with rifles or SMGs.

You have to use WRG 1950-1975.
Because
WWII infantry: 50-2 100-4 250-5 500-6.
Post 1955 infantry: 50-2 100-3 250-4 500-6.
So the post 1955 infantry team is the more likely candidate if a couple of BARs were in a team.

Ww2 us infantry squads had 0 to 2 bars. They were issued 1 but some units liked them and obtained more. Some units didn't like them and prefered smg or rifle.
The majority took the bipod off and it was used as a sort of rifle.

We used to use one chit per squad.
Back in the seventies.

The majority took the bipod off and it was used as a sort of rifle.

I hadn't heard that. You are quite sure about it being "the majority"? For the purposes of my question, that is a key fact.

The BAR is bit big and heavy! It could be used without the bi-pod, but I highly doubt most did… The last thing I read about it said the accuracy without the bi-pod suffered really badly as the recoil was awful.

This aspect of Barker's rules refers primarily to wartime USMC squad organization. The following is excerpted from "Guidebook for Marines" -

"The rifle squad is made up of one sergeant, who is squad leader, and three fire teams of four men each – a total of 13.

The fire teams consist of one corporal who is fire team leader, and three privates or PFC's. One of the privates or PFC's is the automatic rifleman, one the assistant automatic rifleman, and the third is a rifleman."

One can quibble about whether or not the BAR qualified as a LMG or not (I consider more like a precursor to the FG42). But what we are looking at above is a very large, highly mobile unit with three fully automatic magazine-fed weapons firing full-power rifle ammunition. That's a lot of firepower.

FWIW.

B

Marines liked lots of firepower in the jungle/islands, they had far more Thompsons per head than regular infantry units, this also applied to BARs too.

You can't change the barrel on the bar. Units quickly realised they weren't suitable as an lmg.

What the majority did was make the loader into just a rifleman and the gunner operated just as a rifleman. An automatic rifleman.

In this role the bipod makes a lot less sense. It's fairly heavy and towards the far end of the thing. They removed it to reduce the weight and make the weapon that bit handier.

Not everyone did this but the vast majority of squads dispensed with the loader.

You can see a number without bipods in these pictures:

link

The BAR is not a machine gun.

You can't change the barrel on the bar. Units quickly realised they weren't suitable as an lmg.

Many people seem to find it attractive to have one aspect as a litmus test. It simplifies the conversation to a single issue -- you either have this, or you don't.

With the BAR it is usually some form of: "You can't change the barrel in combat, so it isn't a machine gun".

According to that testing mechanism, the M1919 also isn't a machine gun. Neither is the Lewis. The Russian DP and DT don't qualify as machine guns. Nor the French FM29. Nor the Vickers aircraft gun you so often seen festooning those cool SAS jeeps -- or do we extend this particular case and say that no aircraft carried "proper" machine guns?

It is entirely reasonable to say that the BAR could not compete with an MG42 in effective rate of fire for prolonged periods. The evidence is pretty compelling.

But to say if it doesn't have a quick-change barrel it isn't an LMG seems to ignore half the other LMGs that have been taken into service over the decades.

There were several shortcomings of the BAR in any sustained fire role. It lacked a quick-change barrel. It also had a small magazine capacity. The location of the magazine made it difficult to change it quickly in a fire-position. And the weight of pre-loaded magazines made it difficult to carry the amount of ammunition that could be expended in short time when in a sustained fire role. And then there was the bipod (more on that below).

Lots of weaknesses when the tactical situation called for sustained fire, not just one.

On the other hand it was quite robust and reliable, and it was accurate. And it was self-contained to one man, and was handy and quick-into-action when the gunner was maneuvering along with the rest of the fire-team/squad.

In this role the bipod makes a lot less sense. It's fairly heavy and towards the far end of the thing. They removed it to reduce the weight and make the weapon that bit handier.

There was another shortcoming to the bipod on the BAR -- it's location was too far forward. If you put the gun on it's bipod, it becomes very difficult to swivel your point-of-aim side-to-side. It takes a larger movement of the butt of the gun to get a small angular change at the muzzle, when compared to a gun with the bipod closer to the fore-grip.

So you had an extra weight at the front that made the gun hard to aim when you didn't use the bipod, and you had a bipod that didn't allow for quick-and-easy swivels when you did use it. Unless you have just one target you want to pour fire into ("suppress that gun port on the bunker!") it was a obstacle rather than an aid to bringing the fire where you wanted it. Better to take the danged thing off, and rest it on whatever you are taking cover behind when you want to keep it on target for a while.

That said, while I would agree that it was frequently removed, I have never seen any data to support that it was removed in the majority of cases. Any studies? Counts? Unit SOPs?

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

That said, while I would agree that it was frequently removed, I have never seen any data to support that it was removed in the majority of cases. Any studies? Counts? Unit SOPs?

While it's post-WWII, Use of Infantry Weapons and Equipment in Korea by G.N. Donovan, 1952:
PDF link

"22. Most BAR men discarded the bipod." Page 5.

"As reported by 61% of the men, the BAR in their squads was normally operated without the bipod in order to either reduce the weight from 19.4 lb to 17 lb, or because the bipod tangled in brush, particularly in attack." Page 25.

"Use of bipod. Statement: Sixty-five percent of men remove the bipod to reduce weight.
Of 18 officers commenting, 12 disagreed and said either that all bipods were kept on, or that far less than 65% were removed. Of the 6 who agreed with the figures 4 were opposed to the practice, and the remaining 2 who approved wanted the bipod kept available for defense, but many found it awkward in the attack and liable to catch in undergrowth. They felt this was the main reason it was removed, rather than to reduce weight. It was suggested that if there were some easy way of folding the bipod along the barrel in the attack very few men would remove it." Page 81.

Thanks muchly for that link, Steve.

Very interesting.

B

SteveW: Excellent find! Even if not actually a part of WW2 … Korea was for the most part a post script -- fought with the weapons of 1945.

Many thanks for the link.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Overall, many gamers and rules designers seem to have an obsession in fitting automatic support weapons into fixed categories of LMG/MMG/HMG/etc. rather than treating them as a continuum dependent on feed mechanism, cooling mechanism, mount, rate of fire (short term and sustained), calibre, sights, crew allocation etc.

Rules inevitably have to limit the number of categories and then assign various weapons to them with often arbitrary reasons.

I think in WW2 you have Automatic rifles [BAR, FG42, Lahti..], SAWs [Bren, DP28] and LMGs [MG34/32 and M1919A6] and then various tripod mounted sustained fire weapons.

At some point you have to draw the line and exaggerate the differences. You are basically mapping a continuous range of values onto a discrete range of values.

There seems to be 2 schools of thought. Either you emphasise the differences for more 'flavour' or smooth them out because the differences are hard to quantify or inconsistent.

Digressing somewhat from the OP, whatever title we give to a particular weapon is largely irrelevant.

What is relevant if the effectiveness of that weapon in its intended role.

On that basis the BAR was less effective than larger magazine weapons, (Bren, etc.) and far less effective when compared to belt fed weapons, (MG42, etc.).

DB

P.S. And on removing the bipod. Considering how much the bipod weighs in comparison to the entire weapon, I doubt it made any real difference, other than make the gunner feel a bit better.

The bipod would help if firing prone using it, but greatly hinder accuracy and ease of pointing the gun when not in use….all in all probably more trouble than it's worth.

The gunner could often rest the gun on a wall or similar when doing fire and movement. The US also had a fair number of .30 cal M1919A4s around [and many had extras above TOE] so the BAR was not required to work as an MG, but was reportedly very handy to have when advancing.

And on removing the bipod. Considering how much the bipod weighs in comparison to the entire weapon, I doubt it made any real difference, other than make the gunner feel a bit better.

However, considering that the bipod is at the end of the weapon, removing it would affect the location of the centre of mass, which might make the weapon slightly more convenient to carry and handle. That said, I have never handled a BAR so don't have any practical experience – though maybe somebody out here on TMP has?

What is relevant if the effectiveness of that weapon in its intended role.

On that basis the BAR was less effective than larger magazine weapons, (Bren, etc.) and far less effective when compared to belt fed weapons, (MG42, etc.).

Do not quite agree with that sequence of statements.

Te BAR was in fact very effective in its intended role. The MG42 would not have been as effective. But the intended roles, as foreseen by tactical doctrines, were different. It is only a) with hindsight, or b) in trying to simplify for wargaming purposes that we might see them filling the same "intended role".

The BAR was an excellent fit to role foreseen in the US Army tactical doctrine. It was substantially more mobile than an MG42, and far easier for an individual to use while advancing. The MG42 was an excellent fit to the role foreseen in Wehrmacht tactical doctrine. It was the primary weapon of the squad, and could put more rounds downrange faster to provide both killing power and a base of suppressive fire. It was portable enough to move from base location to base location, but the idea that you would pop around a corner with your MG42 and give 'em a quick burst, or pop up from behind a wall to shoot off 4 or 5 rounds of automatic fire before hopping over the wall and sprinting to the side of the house … well maybe not so likely.

The question is less how effective the BAR was in its intended role, and more whether its intended role was well enough conceived, and whether the squad-level tactical doctrine of the German infantry was more effective.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

The BAR was about 5 lbs lighter than either the Bren or the MG42. But everything, at the end of the day, is a trade-off – different horses for different courses.

B

I'd lump the BAR in with the rest of the stand's rifles, maybe give a slight bonus. It's nowhere near an M1919A4 or MG34/42.

Pretty much a slightly better rifle really. Especially when modified to semi auto as quite a few marine weapons were.
( And no I don't have numbers ).

The marines had a number of early mark BARs without flash suppressor or bipod.

I can't work out a way to direct link the image. Scroll down to mud encrusted marine
link

Or… a cleaner marine.

link

My source for the understanding that most bipods were removed is veteran interviews I collated. I then went through a stack of pictures to reality check that. I found more bipods on "fresh" units and pictures taken during training.

But it's mentioned in numerous articles.

John Weeks (Infantry Weapons ).
"The bipod issued with the ww2 models was heavy and clumsy. It was difficult to adjust and most gunners ended up just throwing it away and reverting the weapon as a rifle"

The Big book of gun trivia:
link

"It was common for the 2.5lb (1.13kg) bipod to be removed."

link

" The M1918A2 also mounted its folding bipod (2.38 pounds!) on a special flash hider near the end of the barrel. Since the bipod could easily be detached in this model, it very frequently was!
but not often in defensive positions, where it was very effective. The flash hider, which was the point of attachment for the bipod, was not usually removed. "

I find that last bit a bit unlikely. Once a soldier took the thing off the second time I think it much more likely it's going to get "lost".

These were some of the instructions on the use of the BAR from "The Marine Rifle Squad in combat" published March 1945.

"Employment of Automatic Rifles – in the defense –

2. Automatic riflemen will open fire "single shot" so as not to give their positions away prematurely. As the enemy gets nearer…the automatic rifleman should switch to automatic fire and concentrate his fire on them. Having once fired at the automatic rate, the automatic riflemen should be prepared to shift to their alternate positions at any time.

- in the attack -

1. The fire team leader will point out the fire position and target for the AR. He will designate the rate of fire to be used and initiate the movement of the AR to a new position…Whenever possible, the fire team leader should select positions that will permit the automatic riflemen to deliver enfilade or oblique fire at the target.

2. Situations may arise where the squad leader may detach ARs from the fire teams to carry out special fire missions. This may frequently occur in open terrain where a position is available on which more than one AR can be emplaced to support more effectively, by concentrated fire, the movement of the rest of the squad."

In the document "Weapons (Marine Infantry Battalion)" published March 1943, the absence of single shot is recognised. The above instruction to use "single shot" is in quote marks in the manual, and given the slow rate of fire that could be selected I wonder if it was a reference to a very quick squeeze of the trigger that could, with practice, discharge a single round. The 1943 manual also refers to the M1918A2 as having been adapted "for use as a light machine gun".

link

When the US Army adopted its new Inf Regt T/O in Oct 1940 it had a Rifle Pl of three Rifle and one Auto Rifle Squads. Each Rifle Squad was to be 12 men, each with an M1 rifle, while the AR Squad had 8 men and two BARs.

The Army's FM7-5 of 1940 describes the BAR Squad in the offensive;

"The automatic rifles constitute a reserve of fire in the hands of the rifle platoon leader. They are put into action when conditions develop especially favoring their employment. Difficulties connected with ammunition supply restrict the use of these weapons to situations where their support is vital to the success of the platoon.

Situations especially favoring the use of the automatic rifles are offered where an open flank permits the establishment of a base of fire for the support of the movement of the rifle squads…

The squad is preferably put into action on the flank of a platoon. It intensifies its fires during periods when any part of it or any squad of the platoon …is in movement."

In defensive use;

"The automatic rifles form the principle fire elements of the rifle platoon in the defense. Where an additional automatic rifle is made available, the squad forms three teams. The teams generally occupy separate emplacements so located as to cover the entire sector of fire of the platoon."

By April 1942 the Platoon was reorganised, with the BAR now issued one per Rifle Squad and the AR Squad deleted, and with some revisions (such as BARs and SMGs in a Coy weapons pool), that remained the Pl used through to 1945. I think there's a March 1945 document that expands on the use of the BAR within the Squad but I've not gotten hold of a copy.

Gary

Many thanks for some really interesting points.

Using WRG rules, American rifle squad organizations for wargaming (which is really what you're asking about) for the "first" (1973) and "second" (1975) editions of the rules should not be different from those listed in the "third" (1988) edition (I've played all three editions), so let me give you the short answer.

Note that a group or element consists of several figures fixed to a single base, and where I specify that the BAR is based separately the BAR gunner figure plus one assistant/ammo bearer figure (in some cases, two) are on a single base fighting as a single BAR/LMG alone.

A WW2 U. S. Army "leg" rifle squad should be based as two rifle groups/elements and one BAR (LMG) (only) group/element. Late war (mid-'44+) squads may optionally add a second BAR group/element.

In 1942-43 a WW2 U. S. Marine rifle squad should be based as two or three rifle groups/elements and one BAR (LMG) (only) group/element (the 1941-42 Marine rifle platoon organization was virtually a copy of the October 1940 Army rifle platoon described above). From mid-'43 to mid-'44 a U. S. Marine rifle squad should be based as two rifle groups/elements and two BAR (LMG) (only) groups/elements. From mid-'44 onward a U. S. Marine rifle squad should be based as three groups/elements, each one of the three elements combining several rifles and one BAR together on a single base.

Without going into tedious detail, the differences in basing I describe above reflect the different tactical behaviors of the users, which I assume you wish to reproduce in your wargames.

The above basing schemes will simulate in a WRG wargame the tactics used by each different American squad organization. Using any version of the WRG 1925-1950 rules, late war Marines are the only American infantry which should combine several rifles and a BAR on a single group/element base; all other American infantry should base their BAR's separately (because that was how they fought tactically).

I recommend that you acquire a copy of the 1988 edition of the WRG '25-'50 rules because it actually includes squad, platoon and company organization lists for most period belligerents which would certainly be usable with the 1973/1975 versions (although I consider the 1988 rules a vast improvement over the earlier versions and indeed superior to ANY other rules set for WW2 platoon/company/battalion wargames published before or since).

If you cannot obtain a second-hand copy of the 1988 rules then a re-print of the 1988 edition is available on-line, as a printed book to purchase, as "Wargames Rules for All-arms Land Warfare from Platoon to Batallion [sic] Level 1925-1950 and 1950-2000" (search on-line). It has been paired with the closely-related rules for the period 1950-2000 first published in 1993 so you get two sets of rules bound together in one cover. Unfortunately, an optical character reader scan of the original was apparently used to publish from, for not only were the errors from the original carried over un-corrected but several new ones introduced, which is why I recommend first trying to get a good second-hand copy of an original. However, if you can't obtain a second-hand copy of the original then the re-print will suffice.

IIRC in the Pacific the US Marines in WWII used a firepower control tactic called "Barking BAR's". Two BAR's would take turns firing a short burst to keep a defensive position suppressed so the maneuver unit could assault. This kept the position effectively suppressed without either gun overheating.

The first use of the BAR was in WWI at the Meuse-Argonne Offensive with the US Army 79th Division. That was my Grandfather's unit. My cousin still has his BAR in working condition.

Wolfhag

The BAR was basically a SAW. Though some would say an LMG. Regardless, like the M1 Garand and Carbine did give the US Infantry a nice edge.

It was originally designed for walking fire: link

Any weapon is a set of trade offs and compromise. The BAR gave a squad/fire team more firepower while being able to maneuver. The Marines eventually had one in each 4 man rifle team. That's a fair amount of firepower. I'd have to say it is more of an assault rifle than a LMG.

They had the M1919 on a tripod but it could not follow with the rest of a rifle squad. At night or in static defense they brought up the M1917 water cooled Browning's.

I really don't think the BAR was designed to use as some type of sustained fire gun. For that you need belt fed and change barrel/water cooled. If it was used as part of a fire & maneuver with the correct squad tactics it could be successful in assaults, especially in jungles. There are examples of Marines advancing through heavy jungle with a squad on line firing M1's, BAR's and M1919's from the hip. Yes, single shot was used for a variety of reasons. They would be great for sticking the barrel in a loophole of a bunker and firing off a 20 round mag. The noise alone would probably suppress the occupants.

Wolfhag

Any weapon is a set of trade offs and compromise.

Very true … Of course I never used a BAR. But we initially got issued M14s when I was an ROTC Cadet, '75-'79. Some have said in was similar to a BAR. And there was even a version with a Bipod too.

Was it here of somewhere else? But a BAR gunner was saying that when he first came to the job an experienced BAR gunner told him to ditch the bipod as it shows the enemy that he has a machinegun and they will target him.

I did a quick Google image search for BAR in combat and most of thee images showed the BAR without a bipod. Probably too heavy, gets hung up in jungles and ID's you to the enemy.

I had an M-14 most of the time too. Great rifle but carrying ammo was a bitch. They did have an auto switch but the gun was too light. When you shot it a lot the forestock got so hot I could not put my hand on it.

Wolfhag

I play WRG almost exclusively, (the 1976 reprint of the 1973 rules.)

This is how I do it:

I use three stands because according to the literature of the day, the squad had twelve soldiers organized into three elements pictured from right to left:

Able which was security and consisted of the squad leader and 2 scout riflemen.

Baker which was the base of fire and consisted of the BAR gunner or automatic rifleman, his assistant and an ammo bearer.

And Charlie which was the maneuver element and consisted of the assistant squad leader and 5 riflemen.

My maneuver element is a little light but I wanted to keep it to three elements and didn't want to use different size stands.

deleted

My maneuver element is a little light but I wanted to keep it to three elements and didn't want to use different size stands.

Makes sense and works fine as WRG doesn't care how many men are actually in your SLR groups. Out of interest I went and had a look at the organisation tables in the 1988 edition of WRG 1925-1950. It specifies a WW2 US army rifle platoon section as:
SLR(3), SLR(4-5), LMG(2-3), S(1)

Obvious problem here is that the squad's bolt action rifle is represented as a separate "Sniper" element. Maybe a better representation (same points) would be:
SLR(3), SLR+RGr(4-6), LMG(2-3)

(Note: RGr is Rifle Grenade, +5 pts)

Also if you look in Ian Shaw's WWII Army Organizations and Equipment, which is the companion to the WRG rules, he calls for the US infantry squad to consist of 1 SLR/LMG Grp (ATG) and 2 SLR Grp (ATG).

As we all know Fire & Maneuver requires one element to engage in suppressive fires while another moves from cover to cover. Then the element that was providing suppressive fire now bounds from cover to cover. With supporting/suppressive coming from the other unit that was bounding.

E.g. my Mech Rifle Squads were very well suited for this with their weapons outload.

1st Fire Tm :

1 M60 MG
1 M249 SAW
1 M203 GL
2 M16s

2d Fire Tm :

1 M47 MAW
1 M249 SAW
1 M203 GL
2 M16s

The SL had an M16 and the M113 had an M2 .50 cal.

The modern Squad was very well suited to Fire & Maneuver.
Based on lessons learned in WWII …

Legion,
What? No flamethrowers??????????

Wolfhag

Nah … the closest we had when I went on Active Duty in '79 was the M202 Flash. Only saw it once. But it was phased out not long after that, IIRC.

But we could get issued if need be M72s like grenades. As many as could be carried by the trooper or in the track. Along with Claymores, C4, TNT, etc.

Also if you look in Ian Shaw's WWII Army Organizations and Equipment, which is the companion to the WRG rules, he calls for the US infantry squad to consist of 1 SLR/LMG Grp (ATG) and 2 SLR Grp (ATG).

Shaw's organisations are based on all infantry groups (Rifle, Rifle/SMG, SLR, etc) being 4 man groups, which is more closely aligned with the earliest version of WRG 1925-50 which also uses 4 men. The later version WRG 1925-50 allows 3-6 man groups.

P.S. Not sure about "the companion" – it is an entirely independent publication and contains some trade-offs to suit Combined Arms and Cambrai to Sinai rules, which it is also intended to cover.

Like I said, I play the earlier version of WRG so it works for me.

Companion may not be the right word but it was clearly written to provide the organizational tables that were not present in the previous rule sets.

At the end of the day, the points and fire combat effects are basically the same whether the stand represents 3, 4 or even 6 men, at least in the version we use.

You should have the same number of men in the stand otherwise you invoke the law of large numbers on the side that has the greater number of stands.

At the end of the day, the points and fire combat effects are basically the same whether the stand represents 3, 4 or even 6 men, at least in the version we use.

No argument – that is true for all versions.

…he calls for the US infantry squad to consist of 1 SLR/LMG Grp (ATG) and 2 SLR Grp (ATG).

The only quibble I have with Shaw's organisation is precisely what is represented by all US infantry elements having "(ATG)". According to his introductory notes, "Troops noted as having an issue of anti-tank grenades pay an extra 4pts for Combined Arms, 10pts for Cambrai to Sinai (for 5 grenades)." Again, this reflects the earlier version of WRG since the later version stipulates which elements have ATGr and RGr and adds points accordingly.

Compliments to Hornswoggler for not only mentioning the WRG 1988 edition's suggested U. S. Army WW2 rifle squad organization but also mentioning the representation of the squad's single bolt-action rifle as a sniper element.

It was a widespread misconception in wargaming through the 1980's that the retention of one bolt action M1903 Springfield rifle in a U. S. Army WW2 rifle section was for use by a specialist sniper. This assumption was subsequently found to be mistaken. In actual fact, when the U. S. entered WW2 there was not yet a rifle grenade launcher attachment for the M1 Garand rifle, but there was a rifle grenade launcher attachment for the bolt action M1903, so until a launcher attachment for the M1 rifle appeared in 1943 one soldier (the 'grenadier') in each rifle section was issued a bolt action Springfield rifle, with grenade launcher attachment, instead of an M1 rifle, to fire rifle grenades and not for sniping. Once the launcher attachment for the M1 rifle became available the M1903 was replaced by a standard M1 rifle with launcher attachment.

So Hornswoggler's version of the 1988 edition U. S. Army WW2 rifle section amended to SLR(3), SLR+RGr(4-6), LMG(2-3) is more historically accurate and spot on.

I looked at my 3rd Edition WWII Army Organisation & Equipment by Ian Shaw and there is no mention of BAR's. I suspect they are called LMG's in the army list, in which case there is one section of ALR/LMG.Grp(ATG) in each company. I assume these are BAR's. (1942-1943 org)
Infantry Company:
CHQ 2xSLR.Com.grp(R,ATG),3xBazookas
3xPlatoons PHQ 1xSLR.Com.Grp(ATG)
3xSections 2xSLR.grps(ATG), 1xSLR/LMG.grp(ATG)

There is some info on WRG on the IO:Group for BGMR, but i think its mainly modern army lists.

I assume these are BAR's.

Yes, they are. Shaw is slightly vague on precisely what he categorises as an LMG but by implication (from his definitions of MMG and HMG) it is any bipod-mounted MG, which coincides with 1st ed. WRG 1925-50. In the later edition WRG 1925-50, an LMG is defined as "a bipod-mounted magazine-fed light machine gun, such as the British Bren, U.S. BAR or Soviet DP".

That is what the rules say – the whole debate about the BAR not being an LMG, etc, etc is another matter…

As ‘Lion in the Stars', mentioned… incorporate the BARs in the Rifle Squads.

I also play WRG 1925-50' and use 3x U.S Fire Teams per squad with 1x BAR per squad in 43', 1-2x BARs in 44', 2x BARs in 45'.

Treat the BAR as standard LMG and so you will combine the BAR and Fire Team for total fire power.

Only the MMG & HMGs (with its slightly higher fire power) should have their own stands.

If playing the Germans, then 2x Fire Teams per Squad, with 1 or 2 bipod MG42s (usually 1x if field infantry or 2x if motorized infantry). Now, you can change out one of the MG 42‘s for an MG 34 to give a more realistic variable.

I would also increase the fire power value of the MG42s in WRG by 50% rounded up (as I find them lacking).

Joe

"I would rather have an FG42 than a BAR." Discuss.

FG42 = BAR in terms of functionality.
Select-fire air-cooled automatic rifle;
fed by 20 round box magazine;
fitted w/ bipod.

B