"Basing BARs for WRG 1925-50" Topic

From some of the comparison videos I've seen and in shoot-offs the FG42 is better and preferred. The BAR was developed in 1917, the FG42 in late 1944 so it's not exactly a fair comparison. The FG42 had a scope and could fire grenades too but came out too late in the war to do anything effective.

However, it's not just the weapons but the tactics. A US Squad with BAR's and M1 Garands backed up by grenade launchers, WP, and light mortars did a well enough job. If they had a problem just call in a TOT.

Wolfhag

From what I read the FG-42 was criticized for being somewhat fragile and unreliable. At least what I read years ago (admittedly not an active topic of study for me) in the debut use of this weapon it was criticized for several combat stoppages.

This is just about the exact opposite of the BAR's reputation. It was both reliable and robust, enough so that it was considered virtually indestructible.

At least that is the impression I have. Never fired either one, so can't offer more than what I recall reading.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Anyone interested in purchasing an FG42 (semi-auto) should visit this site – link

B

Something which has not been mentioned and I think has some relevance is the BAR is what the US had in 1941 when war was declared. It was an old design [1918!] even then and there were many better weapons in existence.

I guess they looked at the options and went with what they could produce in large numbers. It was useful. When we consider the value of the M1 Garand as a standard rifle the need for a proper MG is less clear cut. Indeed, if one man had been given a Bren gun or a variant of .30cal, the M1919A6 for example, it would probably have detracted from what individual riflemen might contribute with their excellent semi-auto rifles.

Interestingly, US paratroops allocated 1 M1919A4 to each rifle squad and the Armored infantry used M1919A6 in place of BARs.

This seems to indicate the perceived shortcomings of the BAR even during the war.

Anyone interested in purchasing an FG42 (semi-auto) should visit this site

In the Forgotten Weapons clip on the FG 42/II, he mentions that those semi-auto reproductions are less expensive than one original magazine! :)

Shooting the FG42: The Hype is Real
YouTube link

Mark 1,
I don't know of any references for the MG42 malfunctions but it would have to change barrels fairly often which could account for perceived malfunctions. I've fired the M60 which is a copy of the MG34/42 and it was pretty reliable and fairly easy to change barrels but that would not be an expert opinion. I did once have a jam and I could not open the feed cover and it almost got me killed.

Again, it's not about the weapon and firepower the way it is portrayed in games, it's about the combined arms tactics, flexibility, creativity, and leadership.

In WWII the Marines had a 13 man squad with a SL and a grenade launcher, and 3x four-man teams with 3x M1's and 1x BAR. Later in the war, it included a demo man and flamethrower. This gave a lot of tactical flexibility but came with being harder for the SL to control and rely on team initiative. The BAR had the advantage of firing semi-automatic to save ammo and not give away an automatic weapons position. The SL could have two teams lay down suppressive fire and one team maneuver for the assault. The BAR's would perform "Barking BAR" tactic where they took turns shooting to keep the objective under automatic weapons fire at all times. Would that be the equivalent of a single LMG?

In the final assault, the BAR would be very effective especially if he had an assistant helping with the mags and reloading. If you lost one team you still had two elements. You don't rely on one LMG. Could 3x BAR's be as effective as a single LMG? The M1919 used a tripod and could not advance and fire in the attack like a BAR (except for Tony Stein's Stinger).

A Squad FPF with 3x BAR's and 9x M1's puts out a lot of firepower.

link

The German Squad was built around a bipod MG34/42 with a 3 man team and 7 riflemen with one maybe with a scope. The rifleman mainly protected the LMG. If you take out the MG they've lost their effectiveness. The SL mainly used them as a single element of the LMG to lay down suppressive fire and the rifleman to assault.

This is all I could find on the Falschrinjager OOB:
Parachute Platoons

Company Weapons
2 Machinegun Platoons [12 Enlisted each]
2 x 7.92mm MMG MG34/42

Headquarters Section
1 x Pistol
2 x 9mm SMG
1 x FG42 7.92mm LMG
1 x G98 Rifle* (Assistant LMG Gunner)
1 x PSK (Panzerschrek?) (4 PSK rounds)
1 x G98 Rifle* (Assistant PSK Gunner) (4 PSK rounds)
1 x G98 Rifle* and Radio (Forward Observer)
1 x G98 Rifle* (Assistant Forward Observer)

3 Rifle Sections
1 x 9mm SMG – Squad Leader
1 x FG42 7.92mm LMG
1 x G98 Rifle* (Assistant LMG Gunner)
1 x G98 Rifle* and Radio
6 x G98 Rifle*

* – Rifles may be replaced with 9mm SMG and/or MP44 Assault Rifles

Maybe it's just me but it appears the FG42 is being used like a Bren gun and it has a bipod too with an assistant and described as a LMG. Was that the intention or just temporary until everyone could get an FG42? I don't know. I can't find any specific tactics the FG42 used.

It does not appear to have a lot of tactical flexibility in the attack unless they are expecting overwhelming firepower from FG42's and MP44's to do the trick. However, breaking down into two elements that alter fire & maneuver should work pretty well if everyone has an MP44. That's what an assault rifle was for. If you lose the FG42 you lose a lot of your firepower. Losing one of three BAR's is not as significant of a loss.

If the FG42 was so good, and it was, why did everyone go with the MP44 design after the war? Here is what I found:

The Rheinmetall-Borsig design was formally adopted into Luftwaffe service as the "Fallschirmjagergewehr 42", abbreviated as "FG42" and sometimes recognized as "FjG42"). By this time, Germany was at war across multiple fronts and its conventional use of airborne troops had changed considerably since the costly Crete operation. Additionally, production facilities were ultimately under the influence of the German Army and little effort was done to ensure the FG42 was available in proper numbers, let alone fully developed in the field. Add to this the fact that, as was the case with other weapons of select German engineering, the FG42 was a complicated and expensive system (including the scope) to produce in the numbers required – death knells for any weapon during wartime. At 10lbs the barrel was too light for sustained auto fire. Production of the FG42 was undertaken regardless, though ultimate figures proved extremely limited – perhaps as little as 7,000 or as many as 9,000 units were produced before the end of the war in 1945. An interesting feature of the FG42 was that it had a recoil buffer in the rear stock.

It looks like the MP44 using stamped metal parts was easier and less expensive to manufacture. But it may be that the FG42 was not needed if the squad had a belt-fed MG and MP-44's. Also, the parachute requirement was gone too.

The FG42 beats the BAR in a 1:1 shoot-off but look at the squad OOB. The German squad has 1x FG42 and the Marine Squad 3x BAR's. In a sustained firefight the BAR's will remain more effective as the light barrel of the FG42 will heat up and only fire semi-automatic.

In the overall combined arms picture, the Marine Squad can have 60mm mortar support and many times firing with direct LOS making them quick and effective fire support. That's something the Germans lacked with the 82mm mortar as it was not as versatile. Both could have a belt-fed LMG in support.

My cousin still has my grandfather's BAR from WWI and is in great working condition. My mom said he fired off a magazine into the ground in the backyard on July 4th.

Wolfhag

Wiki claims that, while the production numbers of the much improved FG42 Type 2 were small (~2k), the lion's share of them were shipped to German troops in the ETO, with about 500 in the hands of 2nd Fallschirmjaeger by the time of Carentan.

Interesting sidenote – the FG42 weighed about the same as the M1 Garand, a respectable advantage over the BAR.

FWIW.

B

Maybe the FG42 and StG44 spawned 2 postwar families of weapon.

The StG44 clearly led to the AK47 family and the assault rifle concept.

Meanwhile, the FG42 led to the FAL – which was supposed to be full auto capable but mostly was not. Maybe not copying their ideas but the same concept of a full rifle calibre weapon that could do both roles of SAW and rifle.

The M14 follows similar thinking in a way, but I know the US wanted to blend the M1 and BAR into a single weapon.

The USMC 3 fire team squad was a step forward that relied very much on the BAR to be effective.

My understanding is that many German Gruppen carried 2 MG42/34. PzGr and FJ had this as the TOE and I think it was not just on paper.

The challenge for me when designing games is to bring out the subtle differences while giving each weapon its due.

Blutarski,
Yes, the light weight is a real advantage. The inline stock with the barrel and stock recoil buffer appears to give good control in automatic fire despite the light weight.

The barrel appears to be lighter than the BAR so probably less capable of sustained automatic fire. The ammo loadout was supposed to be 8x 20 round magazines the TO&E shows but an assistant who probably carries more ammo.

In the comparison videos they are doing a shootoff using it like a rifle, not a sustined fire LMG or auto-rifle. That's the comparison I'd like to see.

The gun has a lot of cool features but if it has limited sustained automatic fire capability as a LMG The only thing it offers over the MP44 is the full size rifle cartridge and a scope. This may be why the design died after 1945. But again, I don't know how the FG units were ging to employ them when they got enough to go around. Was everyone going to be issued one?

Again, what tactics were the Germans going to use? If they felt that overwhelming firepower against mostly bolt action armed enemy would be enough to get them to fall back and retreat the TO&E they have seems fine. However, the Marines were up against fortifications and bunkers that did not retreat so they needed suppressive (not overwhelming) fire and maneuver. The M1919 was used on a tripod so could not advance and fire but the BAR could.

The Strum Zug was designed to do the fire and maneuver and was armed with assault rifles.

I sent you a copy of the German FG42 manual, hopefully you can do some translation. Maybe it has some info on tactics.

A squad with 2x MG34/42's sounds great but keeping them supplied with ammo could be a problem.

The challenge for me when designing games is to bring out the subtle differences while giving each weapon its due.

I think that goes for all of us. For me it's an attempt to reflect the weapons weak and strong point and limitations. Firepoer is the easiest and it depends on the scale.

Example: An M1 is great but in a sustained fire mode it's going to have the same rate of fire as a Bolt Action rifle. So I give them a Sustained Fire and Rapid Fire (3x sustained) value. Rapid Fire is only used in the initiail stage of a firefight, ambush or if a juciy target appears that is not in cover and has a limited range. I'm using 10 second turns to determine the results of a volume of fire for a team/section.

Wolfhag

I read in the Nugget an article about suppressive fire. Well sourced and argued. John D Salt I think was the author.

According to this, there is a volume of fire needed to suppress a target and a much smaller volume of fire needed to keep heads down. So having fire discipline and options to economise on ammunition and conduct fire and movement is key.

So an M1 rifle could fire more rapidly for a clip or two then slow down to a rate no faster than an MLE, much as the MLE users would fire 'rapid' fire and then slow down.

2 x MG42/34 would really put a burden on ammo supply. Would you want the bother? If backed up by a halftrack full of ammo or firmly on the defence then I'd say probably. If you have to move and not just shoot it's less obvious. US paratroops had M1919A4s in Normandy in each squad – on paper at least. But I read some units at least ditched them in favour of having more riflemen in the hedgerow fighting.

Skarper,
My opinion (based on research some training and experience)is that the opening stage of a firefight is what is most important and is the volume of fire and noise that counts, especially at close ranges. In a jungle or hedgerow you don't really know how many enemy you are up against. The initial exchange at close range may have a result of one side immediately withdrawing because the volume makes them think they are outgunned even if they have a personnel advantage. Infantry units don't normally get into a prolonged firefight at ranges under 50m but it can happen.

At close range, that means sustained fire weapons are not really needed and a BAR is better than a belt fed LMG that needs to be deployed and set up first. However, you could deploy a LMG in an overwatch position as the squad advances in open terrain and give immediate sustaied automatic suppressive fire that a BAR can't. Different situations call for different tactics and weapons.

So an M1 rifle could fire more rapidly for a clip or two then slow down to a rate no faster than an MLE, much as the MLE users would fire 'rapid' fire and then slow down.

Yes, that's my understanding as sustained rifle fire was no more the 10 rounds per minute. According to a British War Office Report a section firefight with both sides in good cover is going to generate about 1% per minute causalities but it will be dangerous to leave cover so they are essentially pinned down. A round passing within 3 feet will suppress for 1-10 seconds is what some "experts" claim but there are many experts and opinions.

The suppression paper stated that once you gained firepower superiority and suppressed the enemy only 1/3 of the original firepower was needed to keep their heads down. So basically a 3-1 firepower superiority is needed.

A definition of suppression I like goes like this: small arms fire always suppresses but rarely kills. When enemy fire interrupts, stops or delays your mission your ability to move, communicate, shoot and observe is degraded to a greater or lesser extent and much it it can be psychological.

An interesting side note is the greater a unit is suppressed the fewer causalities they will take because they are spending more time hiding the exposed and firing. That's counter-intuitive to most games. This would explain the reason why small arms firefights were rarely conclusive unless one side maneuverd to flank or assault.

In the US Para Squad OOB the M1919 required a 3 man team, gunner, asst gunner and ammo bearer. Maybe 3x M1's or BAR's were better in the initial stage of a close range firefight in a hedgerow than a LMG that cannot take part in the opening salovs. The M1919A4 was more portable not needing a tripod but the barrel still took a couple of minutes to change.

The M1919A4 is more portable the the M1919A1 but it still would be difficult to use in the opening stage of a firefight but a BAR would not.

Another advantage of a BAR/automatic rifle has over a belt fed LMG is in a jungle or close terrain where visibility is less than 50m. Your squad will need to move in a column with a point man. If you have 2x BAR's backing up your point man you can deliver an immediate high volume of fire when he runs into trouble and the fight will probably be short so sustained fire is not an issue. At Guadalcanal this was even more important as the Marines had 03 Springfield rifles, not M1's.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the BAR can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on many variables and tactics which can be hard to simulate in a war game. Comparing it against another weapon 1 on 1 is interesting is not going to cover all tactical situations.

I think the Germans could fire the MG34 without a bipdod/tripod with the 50 or 70 round drum loaded so it could function somewhat like a BAR but would weigh a little more. Could it be fired from the hip?
YouTube link
YouTube link

Wolfhag

The idea with the MG42/34 on the advance when encountering resistance was to fire the whole 50 round belt from the hip while the rest of the squad took cover. Being able to do this was a big help in gaining fire superiority. That was the theory – practice doubtless being more variable.

I think you need 3 BARs to match a single MG34 and 4 BARs to equal the output of an MG42. Assuming the users are going to fire.

People don't always fire when they are supposed to. [I know SLA Marshall made up his research but the results resonated with many having had combat experience.]

If you have one super high rate of fire weapon you are placing a lot of faith in the man carrying it to fire when needed. If you spread the same firepower across 3-4 men then you have a different dynamic. With 2 MG34/42s in the squad then the chances of someone firing when needed are greater. But then there is the question of diffusion of responsibility. It's complicated!

In my rules – which are complex – the MG34/42 is heavier than the BAR and SAWs like the Bren. This slows down movement and makes it harder to fire after having moved. They also need ammo counters that will run out over a long engagement.

BARs and SAWs do not run out of ammo and can be moved without penalty.

However, a single BAR seldom helps with firepower. 2+ can more often make a difference. US infantry tried to provide each squad with 2 BARs as the war wore on. And the USMC ultimately had 3 per squad as standard.

What strikes me is that post 1960, the US and UK went for the GPMG in each squad. The US even did this in Vietnam when ranges were often very short and terrain dense.

Later, we see SAWs [M249 and UKs LSW] being put forward to replace the GMPGs, with mixed results.

One thing I like about my rules is it takes forever to kill a suppressed target. So you have to do the FFFF routine.

Skarper,
Well I'm impressed because it is the same approach I've used.

For infantry targets I use an Immediate Reaction Drill rule for the defender that for when they first come under fire. A targeted unit can attempt to move under fire (assault the ambush), fall back, hit the deck in an Improved Position and return fire, or Hunker Down and not return fire but be safe from direct small arms fire.

I got tired of playing games where my opponent shot first and my guys just stood there and got mowed down. A squad in a skirmish line with good spacing would likely take one maybe two causalities at most from an MG42 initial burst beacuse in a split second they be hitting the deck and any bursts over 3 rounds are going to be inaccurate. That's my understanding of it.

I "borrowed" a rule from GI Commander for Aggressiveness which determines if a unit can move under fire. If you fail an Aggressiveness Check you can't advance so I don't need Pinned Down rules. Personally, I don't like the Pinned Down rules because in desperate situations you may advance/assault and a Fall Back order is normally obeyed. For more detail, failing an Aggressiveness ?Check lowers your Aggrressiveness Rating but can be overcome by good leadership.

This helps keep medium and long range small arms fire from unrealistically killing off everyone. I have a "Hunker Down" rule which, depending on the terrain, the target can be completely safe from direct small arms fire (like hiding in a trench or shell hole, no LOS).

Troops Rally when enemy fire is lifted or they Fall Back out of enemy LOS.

Figuring out the firepower for the BAR as compared to other weapons I found difficult. So I'm using the US Army Umpire Manual as a guide:
link

FYI, the MG34 and BAR could fire single shots, the MG42 could not. In a low level tactical game that should not be ignored. Units firing automatic should be a causality priority.

I think one of the reason the Marines still use the three team squad is that it has proven to work best for Fire & Maneuver and if you lose 1/3 of your sqaud you can still have a suppressive fire element of BAR's and rifleman as the maneuver element. That's another reason not to have all of your firepower tied up in one weapon as you stated.

It's too bad the US did nothing to improve the BAR after WWI. Browning allowed some countries in Europe to produce it in Europe with several improvements like a changebarrel, carrying handle and pistol grip.
link

Colt made a similar model called the Monitor. The US Army started phasing it out in the 1950's and it was used in VN too. Didn't the Italians manufacture a version into the 1970's? No one picked up the FG42. Why, it appears to be a better weapins.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

I'm not really happy with how my rules handle the BAR. I have a firepower factor and add them up then roll on a table with DRM. A single BAR seldom makes any difference and I actually think it should. The ability to dump a 20 round burst on the target would be much more suppressive than semi auto fire.

It looks like we are basing our rules on similar data and research. I don't have any experience or training though.

The FG42 became a dead end due to 2 reasons [as far as I can make out]. First, the US wanted to follow up on the M1 + BAR solution. Hence the M14 was developed.

Secondly, the Soviets developed the assault rifle family. The FG42 fell between 2 stools and remains a tantalising what if. I'm guessing it would have been expensive to build and being lightweight may have been perceived as insufficiently 'soldier proof'.

Full rifle calibre and full auto fire needs a heavier platform. A highly skilled shooter could perhaps cope, but armies need something easier to use.