"Love for the Lowly B.A.R." Topic

One of my regular gaming mates only plays Americans in WW2 settings. That means we've seen a lot of rules systems handling US gear. And a large segment of them treat the B.A.R. as sub-par when compared to contemporary weapons.

A statistical comparison makes that utter rubbish.
Comparing data for the B.A.R. and the Bren Gun, they are pretty much the same weapon. Comparing models that were made in the same time window, the Bren is generally heavier, they have about the same muzzle velocity, the BAR has better maximum RoF across the board, but the Bren has a slightly better effective RoF…

And that's versus the Bren. There were far worse LMGs out there at the same time.

So the two rulesets that we use a lot (both British… Just sayin') we are house ruling what we now call "Your BAR sucks" rules to just make them LMGs like any other. We're changing the points to match similar LMGs and removing the penalties. Should have done this years ago.

You make a good point – after all, both of them have 20 round mags and the ballistics are pretty much the same – at least according to my uncle who was a gunnery instructor during WWII

Better mobility maybe?

Sustained fire/overheating?

Better mobility maybe?

Naw. I have access to both, and they're about the same. The Bren is noticeably heavier and slightly shorter, but otherwise about the same.

Sustained fire/overheating?

Interesting bit we found doing this research… In sustained fire, they both require spare barrels to replace overheated ones.
Considering the magazine size and reload times, that was a bit of a surprise.

The Bren used a 30 round magazine.

The Bren used a 30 round magazine.

Yes it did… And it top-loaded. These are the two things that people like to point at to justify BAR negatives.

Except effective rate of fire wasn't all that different (the Bren _is_ slightly better but not a lot). So magazine size is a data point, but not terribly relevant to comparisons.

Previous discussion:

TMP – Squad LMG Firepower – How important?

Brens are crew-served weapons:
The spotter directs the fire.
The gunner fires one or two shots at a time, at a directed target.
The loader re-loads with 28-round magazines, the loader also swaps out the barrels.

However, in a skirmish wargame – the B.A.R. is handier.

Some rule sets give the standard American rifleman a higher rates of fire. Maybe to average out squad firepower. Not sure if this is justified as the Grand was semi-auto vs. bolt action rifles.

Even though the B.A.R. is a less effective LMG than the Bren (not just my opinion – YouTube link )– I class them the same in effect in my rules!

Brens are crew-served weapons:

Not in any wargame – two crew, same as BAR for some rules we play. In fact BA not requiring a loader for a BAR is why we're playing more of it in 28mm.

I shot a BAR and found it challenging to load while prone, but familiarity would overcome that with practice. I served with a retired SAS Sgt Major in Iraq. When discussing the merits of various assault rifles at the time (in particular my M-4 versus his SIG 556), he told me, "Its the man, not the gun that matters". I suspect that would also be the case for a BAR and a Bren. Having a dedicated two man crew with either would be a big help. I understand that a BAR man often did not gave a dedicated assistant.

Good luck changing the barrel on a BAR in a firefight!

Not even Squad Leader dared classify the BAR as an LMG, but it did give US squads 50% more firepower than anyone else as they were all armed with semi automatic rifles.

It's an interesting but not equal comparison. The BAR was developed during WWI to be used with the "Walking Fire" tactic. When WWII came the US was stuck with it. The Bren gun is Czech WWI design modified in the late 1930's. The only people I know calling a BAR a light machine gun are war gamers. I think what you need to consider is the tactics you'll be using and what weapons will best accomplish those goals.

The WWII US Marine Rifle Platoon is basically light infantry designed to fire, maneuver and assault. That means mostly light portable weapons and the availability of heavier weapons in a separate Weapons Platoon (HMG/LMG, light mortar, etc)and a Combat Engineer unit for demolitions, flame throwers, mine clearing, etc. This allows a lot of tactical flexibility for the Platoon and Squad Leader depending on the mission or objective.

A British Section had 1x Bren Gun and an additional 3 in the "Admin Platoon" (weapons company?). I'm not expert on the Brits so correct me if I'm wrong or if it changed during the war. The Brits can call up a Vickers (and Americans an M1917) but they are not tactically flexible and not good for close range. The M1919 was better in that respect and a better LMG overall than a Bren.

The Bren gun can do everything a BAR can do in addition to a barrel change, tripod fire, and AA fire and probably better for ranges over 300 yards. Its bipod was also better. The downside is that most of your Section firepower is in one weapon and you need an assistant.

The BAR is a little lighter and 2 pounds lighter if you took off the bipod which was common. Both can be fired from the waist while walking. The TOE shows a Bren Gun Assistant, BAR's didn't have an assistant assigned (except pre-war) but it was not unusual for a rifleman to help out. The top-mounted magazine vibrated and moved during fire, making the weapon more visible in combat, and many Bren gunners used paint or improvised canvas covers to disguise the prominent magazine. carrying and firing a Bren Gun could be easily recognized, carrying a BAR without a bipod not so much so.

Sustained Fire: Bren manual say one magazine per minute in bursts of 4-5 rounds. The 3x BAR's can do the same and put out twice as many rounds. By having the BAR's alternate in firing (Barking BAR tactic) has the benefit of keeping the target under fire longer with less time between bursts. This is also twice as much firepower in the first stage of a firefight or an ambush. One can be reloading while other are firing.

Rapid Fire (from the Bren Gun manual): After firing ten magazines at the ‘Rapid Rate' of four magazines per minute, the barrel would start to overheat and need changing. This would normally be done by the No. 2, by disengaging the barrel-nut catch, rotating the barrel nut and pushing forward the carrying handle to remove the barrel. The spare barrel carried by the No. 2 would then be locked into place, and the gun could continue firing while the original barrel was laid aside to cool. If there was a stream or puddle nearby, the hot barrel would be laid in this; even wet grass significantly helped to cool the barrel. The barrel could be changed in 6-8 seconds but that may involve the assistant exposing himself to fire. To put out 120 rounds in one minute 3x BAR's would need to fire 40 rounds or two magazines each.

Immediate Firepower: A Marine Squad could put out about 132 rounds in 15-20 seconds with 60 rounds from 3x BAR's and 72 rounds from 9x M1 Garands (not including the Squad Leader). A British Rifle Section of would fire 8x SMLE for about 40-50 rounds and the Bren 30 rounds for 70-80 rounds not including the SL with a Sten gun. The Marine squad has auto fire from three different locations, the British Section only one. This makes a big difference in winning the initial stage of a firefight and suppressing the enemy. Your morale drops if you perceive the enemy firing more rounds than you.

A Bren team of two men puts out 15 rounds per man for one magazine. A one man BAR puts out 20 rounds for one magazine. That's better use of manpower versus firepower.

BAR problems: After a period of service, ordnance personnel began to receive BARs with inoperable or malfunctioning recoil buffer mechanisms. This was eventually traced to the soldier's common practice of cleaning the BAR in a vertical position with the butt of the weapon on the ground, allowing cleaning fluid and burned powder to collect in the recoil buffer mechanism. Additionally, unlike the M1 rifle, the BAR's gas cylinder was never changed to stainless steel. Consequently, the gas cylinder frequently rusted solid from the use of corrosive-primered M2 service ammunition in a humid environment when not stripped and cleaned on a daily basis. While not without design flaws (a thin-diameter, fixed barrel that quickly overheated, limited magazine capacity, complex field-strip/cleaning procedure, unreliable recoil buffer mechanism, a gas cylinder assembly made of corrosion-prone metals, and many small internal parts), the BAR proved rugged and reliable enough when regularly field-stripped and cleaned.

During World War II, the BAR saw extensive service, both official and unofficial, with many branches of service. One of the BAR's most unusual uses was as a defensive aircraft weapon. In 1944, Captain Wally A. Gayda, of the USAAF Air Transport Command, reportedly used a BAR to return fire against a Japanese Army Nakajima fighter that had attacked his C-46 cargo plane over the Hump in Burma. Gayda shoved the rifle out his forward cabin window, emptying the magazine and apparently killing the Japanese pilot.

I doubt if the Marines would have traded their 3x BAR's for Bren's or the Brits trading their Bren for 3x BAR's. Overall I think a Marine Squad with an M1919 in support is more tactically flexible and puts out more firepower. Both could have a water cooled MG in support too. At night in the defense the M1919 is replaced with the water cooled M1917. This is what stopped the Jap Banzai charges on Guadalcanal as the Marines were using M1903 Springfield rifles and BAR's then.

As a war gamer I like the idea of deploying my BAR's with Fire Teams or use them together to form a single base of suppressive fire. It's a bad idea to get into a prolonged Fire Fight as sooner or later mortars will arrive so long term sustained fire is not a limiting factor for BAR's nor is long range fire which is for HMG/LMG's and mortars.

Wolfhag

25,000 WW1 versions supplied to British Home Guard – no bipod:

Historical Firearms – The Home Guard & The BAR

Staffs Home Guard – B.A.R. Manual

BAR M18A2 – Tripods and Bipods:

Historical Firearms – BAR M18A2

Looks like the skirmish rules must accomodate the earlier version – sans bipod – marching fire and also the later version – with bipod – as LMG.

My cousin has our grandfathers WWI fully functional BAR. He said if you roll slightly to your left side while prone it's fairly easy to reload but it takes practice. You need to push the mag release button with your thumb and use your four fingers to pull it out. It does not fall out by itself..

Wolfhag

I think maybe people are a bit wrapped up in my use of the Bren for comparison. I chose the Bren because they serve a similar purpose, and I have access to both BAR and Bren. Truth is that the Bren was not the worst "LMG" out there, and even versus it a valid argument can be made that the BAR should be rated the same in wargames. The tray loaded ones, or the one that required you fold back the mag, insert the tray, then fold the mag back? These weapons are classed as LMGs while the BAR is not?

I kinda see the BAR as more of an assault rifle than an LMG.

Simon,
The BAR was developed specifically for "Walking Fire" which I guess put it in the automatic assault rifle category since it is a rifle. However, it does not use a less powerful round like the Germans did.

Wolfhag

One man assault with a BAR:
link

Wolfhag

I always thought that the Bren would be more capable in a game than a BAR, mainly because of the quick-change barrel, the magazine, the second crew member, and because of the ammo carried by the squad. Kinda like in the skirmish rules "Nuts", which I use. Of course most rules make the German MGs more capable, and deservedly so.

@Wolfhag's U.S. Marines with 3-BARs-versus-Bren are not the same thing as the OP's 1-BAR-versus-Bren.

WRT the OP's house rule making a BAR essentially equal to a Bren, I would question both the technical basis for this, as well as the necessity. After all, all the other guys in the squad have M1s.

I too have seen several rule sets that set the BAR apart as inferior in firepower from other "proper" LMGs.

The reasons typically given are:
1) Lower firepower due to small capacity box magazine (20 rounds)
2) No quick-change barrel for sustained fire.

So what guns are included in the list of other "proper" LMGs?

- German MG34 and MG42: OK, no argument there. These guns were in a class by themselves in terms of firepower. Belt fed, optional 50 round snail drum magazine. Quick change barrel. But they were heavier, and harder to carry in action.

- British Bren: Box magazine, but nominally 30 rounds so more than a BAR. Quick change barrel.

- French FM24/29: Box magazine, 25 rounds so less than a Bren. No quick change barrel.

- Russian DP27 (often called DP28 in the west): Pan magazine with 47 rounds -- higher capacity, but fewer magazines carried and somewhat more fragile. No quick change barrel.

- Japanese Type 11: 30 round "hopper" mechanism fed by 5-round rifle clips. No quick change barrel. Not the only Japanese LMG of the war, but the primary LMG for the early part of the war.

- Italian M30: 20 round non-detachable hinged magazine fed from 10-round charger strips. Barrel can be changed, but no handles for removing the hot barrel. Also no hand grip for carrying the gun when it has a hot barrel.

- Romanian ZB vz30: Box magazine, 20 rounds -- no more than a BAR. Quick change barrel.

- Finnish Lahti M/26: Box magazine, nominally 20 rounds. No quick change barrel.

By my reading, to suggest these two issues prevents a weapon from being considered a "proper" LMG means that the great majority of armies that fought in WW2 also were equipped with something less than a "proper" LMG. And yet I have never seen a ruleset that considered any of these other guns as distinctly less than an LMG.

I think the whole issue is a result of a British-centric view of wargaming rules, that focus on how/why a British gun was better than an American gun, have somehow been adopted also by Americans. I've seen similar oddities in some UK based rules on other issues (like distinguishing in the rules between the unique characteristics of 14 types of British/Commonwealth Army infantry unit, while all American Army infantry units are simply rated as "green"), but those kinds of things seem to stand out as odd by their very rarity. I have seen no other such blinders as widely and deeply entrenched into wargaming rules that I have seen as this supposition that everyone had a "proper" LMG except the Americans.

Oh, and BTW, a gun that requires a crew is not necessarily superior to a gun that can be served by a crew or can be fired effectively by a lone gunner. And the fact that British doctrine idled rifles to support the Bren may well be more of a reflection on the comparative firepower of the SMLE vs. the Garand than on the firepower of the Bren vs. the BAR.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

@Wolfhag's U.S. Marines with 3-BARs-versus-Bren are not the same thing as the OP's 1-BAR-versus-Bren.

No it isn't but that's how many gamers look at it in 1:1 comparisons and firepower. However, historically that's not how it tactically plays out. A 1-1 comparison gives the two man crewed Bren a definite advantage over a one man BAR. However fair comparison would be the two man Bren against two BAR's. The Bren may have a slight firepower advantage but less tactical flexibility and only one automatic weapon in the entire section.

Mark 1 brings up some good points.

However, the 3x BAR's (three men) gave more flexibility to a Marine Squad and they normally didn't need long range suppression fire during WWII. If they needed the extra firepower they get 1-2 M1919's from the Weapons Platoon which is at least the equivalent of a Bren and can be moved with the rest of the squad. A Vickers cannot. It's difficult to portray these differences when you have game rules that concentrate more on firepower than historical tactics.

So a Marine Squad could have three four man maneuver elements, each with a BAR and an M1919 providing sustained suppression fire. Add 8x M1 Garands and it a formidable amount of firepower. The Squad Leader could also group all of the BAR's together to provide suppressive fire for the Rifleman.

Ideally you don't get into a medium to long range small arms firefight as it normally is a waste of ammo and invites a mortar barrage. Ideally a Marine unit in WWII performs fire & maneuver with a base of suppressive fire of 1-2 M1919's or an M1918 until they get into close assault range, 50m or less depending on the terrain. They may also have 60mm mortar support firing WP or smoke to cover the advance. With one team maneuvering the other two teams lay down suppressive fire with the BAR and 3x Garands.

The Bren gun is an excellent weapon but I doubt if it would have given the Marines the flexibility they needed. A Bren is harder to hide and easier for the enemy to identify too as many BAR's had their bipod taken off because they were not very good to begin with and got in the way. Also, at the start of WWII they had thousands of BAR's and weren't in a position to get a replacement, they had to make do with it.

I'm sure in certain situations a British section would be better than a Marine squad, one size does not fit all.

The fact that the BAR did not change barrels meant that they only needed one man who could be given another BAR. That's the tradeoff. All of the rifleman in the squad were supposed to carry extra BAR magazines too.

Now if you have a game that uses a one figure as one squad you can't really use the tactics the Marines did. That's why I use teams.

I cannot speak in detail on the British section tactics using the Bren. link

As to what is "proper" or not is up to you.

Wolfhag