"BAR Teams - Increase in numbers" Topic

I have read that US Infantry Battalions increased their allocation of BARs from one to two per Squad at some point, post Normandy landings.

Was this one of those things that just evolved or was it a top down decision? If so any idea as to when it came into effect?

US infantry companies had a weapons pool to be issued to the discression of the commander, usually scoped rifles. By the end of June 1944 they changed the TOE to add six BAR's and six SMG's to boost the company firepower when needed, especially in light of the heavy close combat in the Normandy hedgerows. They confirmed the permanent upgrade to two BAR's per squad in January 1945.

In practice some units would hold onto the BAR when the gunner was injured or killed since the replacement soldier came with his own BAR so that was one way of getting extra firepower. SMG's and carbines would be acquired from support units like artillery, AA or supply units which means that quite a few cooks and clerks ended up with an M1 rifle rather than a carbine.

They confirmed the permanent upgrade to two BAR's per squad in January 1945.

Do you know why this change didn't survive the war and the US returned to a single BAR per squad straight after?

In theory you had a bar gunner and loader.
In practice almost all squads made the loaderjust a rifleman.
Most bar gunners removed the bipod. Why? Because it's not an lmg. It's a rifle you could shoot bursts with. A heavy rifle.

Not all units liked the bar. You could find zero, one or two in a squad.
So the change to official organisation saying 2 bars per squad did not match real world practice.

The WWII squad was considered too unwieldy after the war, removing the scouts and reducing the squad to nine men with a single three man BAR team (Leader, gunner, assistant)

I understand two factors were at play, they figured that too many automatic weapons would "slow down" a team, resulting in more firefights than advances, while they also tried to anticipate the promise of new weapons such as the M14.

Analysis of German two MG squads found that they were extremely effective in defending, but very poor in the attack/assault phase.

With new weapons, the squad evolved into a two team squad, both with equal fighting ability and getting rid of the inherent weakness of the fire team versus the rifle team.

The equipment in a US squad could vary enormously depending on the circumstances and the ingenuity of the men. I once talked to a veteran and when he mentioned that he had a Thompson SMG, I asked him how he had gotten it. He said that he had stolen it out of a quartermaster truck. :)

The unallocated six BARs and six SMGs per Rifle Company were authorised by an amendment dated 30th June 1944. From all that I've seen there was no further officially sanctioned increase to give each rifle Squad two BARs as standard. A new summary of the Infantry Division (with all its constituent T/Os and amendments) was published in January 1945 and that shows 135 BARs per Regiment arrived at with the amendment.

I'm waiting on what I hope will be the July 1945 Infantry Regiment T/Os (though due to a communication breakdown with the archive I'm not entirely sure that's what I'm going to get). I've seen a related document from July 1945 which gives a lot of detail of the 'new' Regiment, and while it's not to hand I'm pretty sure it still has the same number of BARs as in the January 1945 model (with amendments). The February 1944 T/O I understand remained in force until 1950.

I think I've seen at least one report from a US Infantry division in the PTO (possibly the 81st) that states they were routinely using two BARs per Squad by 1944.

Gary

I once saw a proposed TOE for a US infantry Division made in 1945. It was never adopted, but it had a large increase in the number of automatic weapons, replaced all the bazookas with recoilless rifles, and included an organic battalion of Pershing tanks!

That's the T/O I'm hoping to get the full tables for, but I'm primed to be disappointed.

There's a summary from the Nafziger collection, but it's dated 1 January 1945, which I'm sure is a typo and should be 1 June 1945.

PDF link

The 1 June 1945 Inf Div is covered in the AGF publication 'The Organization of Ground Combat Troops', in the study on 'Reorganizing for Redeployment'. The June or July 1945 Inf Regt T/Os are detailed in a reference data pamphlet. It doesn't give full T/O info but does still show the Battalion with 45 BARs, same as on the amended Feb44 version.

The Antitank Company was to swap to nine tanks with 90-mm gun (M26 as mentioned) and the Cannon Company to nine 105-mm armed M4s. Each Battalion was to have nine 57-mm recoilless rifles and six 75-mm recoilless rifles. Each Rifle Company got three 57-mm RRs in their Weapons Platoon and the Heavy Company six 75-mm RRs in a new Gun Platoon. They hadn't given up on Bazookas, with 32 per Battalion, including six per Rifle Company in a new Assault Section for the Weapons Platoon.

It was a very 'tasty' unit in terms of firepower. The only other changes I can see suggest the two Heavy MG Platoons were to have eight M1919s to replace the eight M1917s if required, similar to the USMC.

Gary

Back to the original topic (thoough the interlude from Gary is most interesting), I find it a bit odd to authorise just enough extra BARs to equip 2 out of 3 squads per platoon with an extra BAR. Why not issue a few more to provide every squad with two BARs?

Or maybe the assumption was that the third squad would end up hauling around the bazooka (when the platoon would deploy with one) and that would make them encumbered enough.

Also, I have been puzzled by the lack of BARs in the US armoured infantry companies. Sure, they had an MG squad in every platoon, but BARs would have provided the rifle squads with a bit of more mobile firepower.

It seems an issue that the Army never really resolved.

The BAR wasn't an LMG in (terms firepower) and the M1919 certainly wasn't one either (in terms of weight) even after the half assed addition of the shoulder stock and bipod.

One thing to consider is the suppressive fire/maneuver tactics that were being used at the squad level. Did all units use the same tactics? Were different tactics employed against different targets? Were squads grouping all of their BAR's in the suppressive fire element? Did the maneuver element fire them from the hip?

The Marines used "Barking BAR's" against Jap emplacements and loopholes. They'd alternate firing short bursts between two BAR's to keep the defenders under constant fire without overheating the guns and a break for loading a new mag.

Wolfhag

Interesting.

Thanks for sharing. I wasn't aware of this.

I have read about the USMC having as many as 3 x BARs in their 12 man squads though, so I suppose this shouldn't really be surprising.

Excellent info on the Thompson SMGs too, which I was also unaware of.

I have read about the USMC having as many as 3 x BARs in their 12 man squads

Actually, the late war USMC squad with 3 BARs was 13 men at full strenght (squad leader plus three fireteams of four men each).

And then back to Gary's interesting TOE:

Each Rifle Company got three 57-mm RRs in their Weapons Platoon … They hadn't given up on Bazookas, with 32 per Battalion, including six per Rifle Company in a new Assault Section for the Weapons Platoon.

Three recoilless rifles and six bazookas is quite an addition to the weapons platoon… to employ them all in action simultaneously would require 20+ men. For effective action every weapon should have a gunner and loader, and then you need a couple of NCOs to direct them in action, and maybe a couple of messengers to run around, plus maybe a couple of ammo carriers if you want to keep them in action for a bit longer.

They key to tactics in WW2 and since is fire and movement. You can't win with either alone.

The BAR was useful, but not so much better than a regular M1 Garand. If you have to move and conduct close assaults a BAR is not the ideal weapon. I read somewhere the US paratroops in Normandy set aside some M1919A4s in order to have more riflemen.

I think the biggest asset in the US Arsenal was the M1. Faced with opposition that for the most part were still using bolt action rifles, "Walking Fire" or any other kind could put a lot more lead in the air than they were able to.

Also it meant that raw recruits learning curve wasn't the same as say, British Infantry, who took time to pick up the knack of making the Lee Enfield bolt throw really hum.

Troops tend to conform to the equipment rather than the equipment conform to tactics.

Give troops lots of firepower and they will try to shoot their way through every problem, and despite having some serious firepower a US squad or a platoon trying to shoot it out with Germans and their MG-42's tends to be attritional, you can end up losing a bunch of guys due to the volume of fire coming your way, but not necessarily force the Germans out or change the situation. Therefore you need to get in close and evict the Germans with grenades and bayonet if needed.

They did understand that when dealing with heavy resistance you may need to deploy extra firepower, be it SMG's for short range combat or BAR's for extra suppressive fire.

In almost every military manual the Fire team provides firepower while the rifle team tries to get in close and finish the job with grenades. Most armies in WWII followed that principle with any degree of variation.

The fact that these extra weapons were not attached is a good indicator of intent. Sometimes a single BAR wouldn't cut it and having more available when needed was very useful.

The BAR was a great WWI era automatic rifle, at the time it was a huge breakthrough, but 20-odd years later it was obsolescent at best. Attempting to use it as a light machinegun was problematic since it lacked the features of such weapons like an easy to reach magazine for quick reloading or a spare barrel for sustained fire etc. The A2 version came equipped with one of the worst bipods ever and being very heavy and cumbersome, it's easy why some squads didn't bother with them.

Using two in tandem, one alternating with the other allowed teams to keep up fire more effectively while having a reserve of combined firepower when needed.

Do you know why this change didn't survive the war and the US returned to a single BAR per squad straight after?

Because facist and nazies are tough SOBs.
But 1 BAR is more than enough to kill commies

Griefbringer;

There's no personnel breakdown in the training pamphlet, just overall figures. For the July 1945 Rifle Company the total all ranks is 242, consisting of -

Three Rifle Platoons (each); 41 men
Weapons Platoon; 77 men
Company HQ; 42 men (extrapolated from available figures)

The Weapons Company was to be 195 all ranks, as -

Two MG Platoons (each); 36 men
81-mm Mortar Platoon; 58 men
75-mm Gun Platoon; 33 men
Company HQ; 32 men (extrapolated)

HQ and HQ Company was 93 all ranks;

Communication Platoon; 27 men
Ammunition & Pioneer Platoon; 27 men
Battalion Staff and Company HQ; 39 men (extrapolated)

Total all ranks, 1014 men

The Weapons Platoon in the Rifle Companies is shown as four Sections, each with a 1/4-ton truck and trailer.

LMG Section – 2x M1919A6
Mortar Section – 3x 60-mm mortars
Assault Section – 6x 2.36-in M18 rocket launchers
Special Weapons Section – 3x 57-mm rifles

There's also a .50-cal for the Assault Section, presumably on the Jeep.

In the Weapons Company the main items are;

Two MG Platoons, each – 4x M1917A1, 4x M1919A6 and 2x 2.36-in launchers, 5x 1/4-ton trucks and 4 trailers

Gun Platoon – 6x 75-mm rifles and 3x 2.36in launchers, 1x 1/4-ton truck and 3x 1.5-ton trucks and 3x 1-ton trailers

81-mm Mortar Platoon – 6x 81-mm mortars and 2x 2.36-in launchers, 7x 1/4-ton trucks and 6 trailers

Fingers crossed when I get what I've ordered I'll be able to fill in the blanks.

Gary

Weapons platoon of 77 men? That is quite a circus, almost twice the size of the earlier one – though apparently nobody felt a need to add an extra gun to the LMG section.

That would be enough men to provide e.g. 4 crew members for each recoilless rifle and 2 for each bazooka, plus 2 section leaders, 2 additional drivers for the jeeps and 4 messengers.

I need to sit down and consider the BAR more objectively at some point. I've come to the conclusion I keep looking at it and where it fitted into the US Squad and Platoon and then asking "but why isn't it a Bren?".

There was another thread a while ago concerning the BAR and I'll copy in my post including the section of the 1940 US Field Manual on the expected use of the BAR by the Rifle Platoon;

TMP 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."

Pre 1942 the emphasis does seem to be on riflemen carrying themselves forward at Squad level largely by weight of fire that the M1 could produce; 12 men all firing would be pretty discouraging to be on the end of I imagine. The BAR as outlined above was intended to support the Platoon as a whole and not Squads in particular. It also outlined the availability of a third BAR that was expected to be issued in defensive situations rather than as standard.

When the BAR Squad was deleted and each Rifle Squad was given a single BAR, there's a parallel with the British Section and its Bren and the German Squad and its MG34, neither of which weapon the BAR compares easily against.

FM7-10 (Rifle Company) of 1942 says of the BAR "The automatic rifle provides the rifle squad leader with an easily controlled and maneuvered weapon capable of a large volume of fire. It is used against ground targets in a manner similar to the light machine gun, and also engages air targets. Its light weight permits the automatic rifleman to maintain the rate of advance of riflemen and to fire from any position".

Overall I'm leaning to the conclusion that the BAR wasn't a Bren or an MG34/42 because that wasn't the role it was being asked to fill. Similarly, the M1 rifle wasn't a No.4 or a G98, even though all three did fill the same role. FM7-10 does specify the Squad was to use fire and movement in a self-supporting advance, with the BAR being used to deliver some supporting fire, but it's not necessarily seen as providing the majority of fire. The US Squad did require the riflemen to furnish a good amount of their own support and in the M1 rifle they were given a capable means of doing so. Whether it was enough to stick with an automatic rifle that was 20+ years old while other armies had adopted more modern light machine guns with quick barrel change and larger ammunition capacity than the BAR is another issue.

On the subject of the extra BARs furnished under the June 1944 changes, there's probably also an assumption that because they were given 6 more they'd always use 6 more. The figure may have been more arbitrary than intended to meet a specific type of allocation. In defensive situations there'd be times when having a BAR at a certain point would be desirable, but not necessarily by taking it from a Rifle Squad.

I don't doubt the US could've met the requirements of an extra 9 per Company to allow for each and every Squad to have two at hand but they seemed content that a Squad with a single BAR was enough for most contingencies, most of the time. And doubling the allocation means a Squad having to haul double the ammunition to make it worth the effort.

Gary

I have occasionally wondered why the U.S. didn't adopt the Bren, adapted for use with the .30-06 cartridge. (IIRC, the Bren was developed from a Czech gun that used cartridges similar to the .30-06 to start with.) We copied the British 6-pdr ATG, why not their LMG?

I don't think the Bren is enough extra firepower to justify the change. 2 BARs probably match a Bren in most circumstances.

The US expected to ATTACK. They had the M1 rifle which was a superb weapon for it's time. If you put a big high rate of fire LMG in the squad, it would take the pressure off the guys with the rifles. The German infantry didn't seem to fire their rifles much [no source but only 60 rounds per man of ammo seems to indicate as much].

Also, the BAR was a US produced weapon already in production. The US didn't want the 17pdr Fireflies or Hobart's funnies [barring the DD tanks] either. Some of it probably comes down to internal politics. They did put Merlin engines in the Mustangs and copy the 6pdr ATG as mentioned already.

The garand was and is an excellent rifle.
Severely limited by it's user in the vast majority of cases.
The carbine or smg were better suited to the battlefield capabilities of most conscripts.

Which is why the soviets and germans found smg companies so effective.

The BAR was integral to military thinking of the era.

When first introduced it was considered a "wonder weapon". They considered various updates, but ultimately they wanted a weapon that remained fully compatible with the original M1918, precluding improvements made by FN and/or Colt in the 1920's.

Conversion to the M1918A2 began in 1938 and there are salient details that reveal what the army may have had in mind when it came to the BAR, it came with target sights, a holdover of the theory that every soldier was a rifleman first and should be able to deliver accurate fire at range even with the BAR.

The main combat element on the battlefield was not the squad or the platoon, but the company where the real firepower of the M1917 and M1919 machineguns was concentrated. The M1 Rifle and the BAR were mainly seen as "mobile firepower" capable of shooting on the move and not really part of the firepower of a company, though in practice the platoon turned out to be far more important in fights than originally projected. The M1 Garand was also considered so superior to existing weapons that the US army kinda ignored the light machinegun other armies were using, preferring to fall back on the BAR for extra firepower, slowly increasing numbers to make up for the German use of a powerful GPMG in every squad.

On the subject of the 17pdr the gun and tank was evaluated, but they found that the US already produced a superior weapon in the form of the 90mm

There is some confusion about the 17pdr gun, rather than being a miracle gun it happened to be the first Allied weapon available to engage the new generation of heavily armoured Panzers, though its performance, especially that of the much vaunted sabot was very poor with low accuracy at range, poor sabot detachment and a severe propensity for the ammo to yaw and fail to penetrate. These poor results and the fact that this would add another logistics trail to the system that depended on foreign production meant that the 17pdr was initially rejected, but during the Battle of the Bulge an emergency program was set up to snap up as many spare Fireflies as possible, but delays and the near end of the war meant it was never implemented, due to the fact that new vehicles mounting the 90mm were available in good numbers.

The big reason the BAR wasn't the equal of the Bren Gun is that the BAR didn't have a changeable barrel. Another downside is trying to reload the BAR while prone.

Overall, though, the BAR isn't a bad weapon. Way too heavy by today's standards, though, since you can get a belt-fed 7.62NATO 'Maximi' for about the same weight.

A compounding issue is the US insistence on the .30-06 cartridge, which is quite frankly more powerful than can be fired controllably from the shoulder.

The Weapons Platoon in the Rifle Companies is shown as four Sections, each with a 1/4-ton truck and trailer.

LMG Section – 2x M1919A6
Mortar Section – 3x 60-mm mortars
Assault Section – 6x 2.36-in M18 rocket launchers
Special Weapons Section – 3x 57-mm rifles

There's also a .50-cal for the Assault Section, presumably on the Jeep.

77 men?

OK, 2x M1919A6s each have a team of 4 men, probably plus a section leader. There's 9.
60mm mortars have a crew of 5, usually, plus a section leader and probably a forward observer team of 2. That's 18.
The Assault section has M18 Bazookas, which are lightweight versions of the M9A1. Those also have a crew of 2. There's 6.
Those are M18 57mm Recoilless Rifles in the Special Weapons Section, I think, which have a crew of 2. Add a section leader and you get 7.

Add 4 drivers for the Jeeps, and that still only gets you to 44… What the heck?!?

77 men?

Weapons Platoon (77)
Plt HQ (9)
Assault Section (22)
- Section HQ (1)
- 3 × Assault Squads (7)
Special Weapons Section (17)
- Section HQ (2)
- 3 × Assault Squads (5)
60mm Mortar Section (17)
- Section HQ (2)
- 3 × 60mm Mortar Squads (5)
LMG Section (12)
- Section HQ (2)
- 2 × LMG Squads (5)

Information from J. J. Hay's United States Army Ground Forces Tables of Organization and Equipment, World War II, The Infantry Division 1940-1945 Volume 1/II, 2007 Revised Edition.

Thanks for the clarification Steve, I've got Jack Hay's books on the Armored and Airborne Division but not the Infantry Division (I already had Yves Bellanger's book on that). I didn't realise he covered the 'R' tables for the June 1945 Infantry Division.

Does he show the same allocation of BARs in 1945 as in 1944, that is one per Rifle Squad and six unallocated per Rifle Company?

Gary

Yes, the same allocation! :)

FM7-10 does specify the Squad was to use fire and movement in a self-supporting advance,

Most of the major combatants had manuals that talk about squad fire and manoeuvre, but in practice with conscript troops it didn't work out. The company ended up being the smallest unit generally considered for an attack, with a platoon for defence.

The M1 Garand was also considered so superior to existing weapons that the US army kinda ignored the light machinegun other armies were using, preferring to fall back on the BAR for extra firepower, slowly increasing numbers to make up for the German use of a powerful GPMG in every squad.

The theoretical advantage of the M1 is not born out by operational research, which concludes that it didn't really matter what rifle you were armed with in firepower terms. The main firepower of the infantry was generated by MG's and mortars. Here the BAR is at a disadvantage compared with the MG34/42, with the Bren somewhere in between. This is presumably why the US increased BAR allocation and flirted with the M1919A6 "light" MG!

"….. during the Battle of the Bulge an emergency program was set up to snap up as many spare Fireflies as possible, but delays and the near end of the war meant it was never implemented, due to the fact that new vehicles mounting the 90mm were available in good numbers."

The Bulge was not the first occasion upon which the US asked the British for 17-lbr Fireflies; the first time was shortly after landing in Normandy(July 1944 IIRC).

With respect to availability of 90mm AFVs, approximately only 235 M36s were present in the ETO in December 1944.

FWIW,

B