The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[AlexTX ret]

That's a statement that is questionable. The BAR did what it was supposed to and did it well. There were better weapons available-- the Johnson for one example; the Bren and Type 99 for a couple of more -- but the BAR , like the M4 tank or the M16 series was adequate. It was light, it was not fragile.

The issue raised is whether the US / British squad was not as effective as the German squad due to weapons selection -- or training level.Not against a well trained enemy they won't...The 'need' for automatic fire is vastly overstated and is a compensation for marginal training.

The BAR was an old concept and an old weapon by the time I was ready to play with it. I lugged it for a while. There were problems with it that couldn't be fixed. It would over heat easily esp. in extended fire fights. Its rate of fire was to0 slow for my tastes. Finally the mags had a distinct problem of the mouth of the magazine deforming. I trained the troops I was with to fight a M60. All teams finally did the same at one point or another. Yes, Ken, ammunition was a bitch but it was worth the hassle. Then, suprisingly, all problems were magically whisked away.

Wilf, maybe it took one man to fight it but it took the whole squad to support it. For one thing, it took everyone in the unit to carry a mag or two for the gunner (me) couldn't carry all the ammo that we would need for a mission.

Problem with adquate is that it is almost a mathematical proposition. The Panther or Tiger tank could be overcome by 5:1 or 10:1 ratio of Shermans to either German tank. But we would comeout victorious in the end. Yeah! But what happen to those other 4 or more American tanks that were lost trying to stop the German tank.? At 5 men per Tank, how many casualties were there? I see a problem there.

The American Rifleman with his M1 rifle and sufficent ammunition was the best equipped on the field. His moral had a tendency to break but then squads/platoons would quickly reform (with or without the leader being present) and go back into fight. I think the Japanese reliance on "fighting spirit" was over rated but in anycase, it was the American soldier that showed who had fighting spirit. That overcame the need for auto fire.

However, I'm torn. If your training is excellent and your group has Espirt de Corps, no, auto fire can be more trouble that its worth. But today's operational policies being what they are. I don't have that faith. A barely adquate weapon with quick and dirty training bring what to the small unit. Ken, as you said before armies seem to reduce training costs but are willing to spend so much more in action cost in material if not casualties.

Not sure of your point here. Yes, some weapons are disproportionately effective in breaking the enemies will. Obviously how you sustain, manoeuvre and apply those weapons within your tactical doctrine, is extremely important.
The German Squad of 1940 was 13 men, not 10. Treat with extreme caution what folks say about German infantry organisation. By mid 1944 almost all German infantry units task organised and threw the TOE in the bin.

First of all, yes, the original German squad was 13 men and a M34 LMG. I learned to look at it as a 10 man team and one LMG section. However, losses reduced it to a 10 men total, of which 2 would fight the M34/M42.

Yes, your tactical doctrine is formost in its importance. However, The Germans refused to add new technology or change its Small Unit Tactics until casualties force them to change their policies. That's your task orientated units. They didn't have the manpower to keep creating "old" squad TO&Es. The was the driving force behind the Sturmgewehr 44. SMGs were too short ranged to be affective and the full power round took too much training to be put to best use. So they relooked at their tactics and decided the STG 44 was the perfect compromise.

[Ken White]

The BAR ... problems with it that couldn't be fixed. It would over heat easily esp. in extended fire fights. Its rate of fire was to0 slow for my tastes. Finally the mags had a distinct problem of the mouth of the magazine deforming.

I saw with the BAR. First thing one should do is dump that clunky bipod and useless carrying handle, then take out and discard the actuator, actuator spring, sear release and buffer key -- that cuts the weight down to about 17 plus pounds and converts your officially dual auto fire weapon to an illegal (regulation-wise) but practical one that fires semi-auto and full auto at about 600rpm cyclic, 200rpm effective -- slightly faster than an M-60 but not quite as fast as an M-240. Got in a fight or two here and there, never had an overheat problem if the weapon was used as it should have been. Anyone who tried to use it as a LMG probably would have problems.

Magazine lips were easily disturbed, no question. Simple solution was operator training which was effective. Not a difficult fix. Though one did have to occasionally throw a steel helmet at a Troop to insure he paid attention and didn't just drop or fling his BAR Belt...

The key a fire fight is accurate suppressive fire, not volume of fire -- the BAR, Bren and Type 99 (arguably one of the best LMG/AR designs ever) are about 3x as accurate as any MG that was available before the M-60 / MAG 58 / M-240 / PKM / SS-77 and the BAR is twice as accurate as those. It was adequate for the task at the time.

[AlexTX ret]

I saw with the BAR. First thing one should do is dump that clunky bipod and useless carrying handle, then take out and discard the actuator, actuator spring, sear release and buffer key -- that cuts the weight down to about 17 plus pounds and converts your officially dual auto fire weapon to an illegal (regulation-wise) but practical one that fires semi-auto and full auto at about 600rpm cyclic, 200rpm effective -- slightly faster than an M-60 but not quite as fast as an M-240. Got in a fight or two here and there, never had an overheat problem if the weapon was used as it should have been. Anyone who tried to use it as a LMG probably would have problems.

Problem was that there just wasn't enough fire power in the mix of troops with me. Also training wasn't as good as it could of been. But I've made my comments obout ARVN policies and how we reacted to them.

Wish I had thought about that before I went in the bush. It would of solved a lot of my problems though when we got the pig a lot of my problems dried up. And when I got through training the troops with me, even more problems solved themselves.

Magazine lips were easily disturbed, no question. Simple solution was operator training which was effective. Not a difficult fix. Though one did have to occasionally throw a steel helmet at a Troop to insure he paid attention and didn't just drop or fling his BAR Belt...

You had a busy helmet...

The problem was that I had to distibute my extra magazines among the troops and how they were taken care of was out of my hands, though not out of my thoughts.

The key a fire fight is accurate suppressive fire, not volume of fire -- the BAR, Bren and Type 99 (arguably one of the best LMG/AR designs ever) are about 3x as accurate as any MG that was available before the M-60 / MAG 58 / M-240 / PKM / SS-77 and the BAR is twice as accurate as those. It was adequate for the task at the time.

Yep, right up untill you found youself in a place that Charlie really didn't want you there. Then it was like trying to mother a group of brownies. Just keeping them from running like scared rabbits at first was my job one. They got much better as time got on but then in the genius of the Army, they were all taken away.

I thiink there is a definate place for a IAR. It has advantages across the board. After the SAW, things can't get much worse.

[Ken White]

My good fortune perhaps was that my combat BAR experience was in the Marines and having three of the monsters with 13 (or more often, 10 ) men made a difference -- particularly when all the others knew to pick up the BAR and belt (carefully) if necessary and keep moving.

Yes, Helmet was busy, would've used a 2x4 but there were never any around; Helmet worked fine. My fearless leaders, Marine and Army, could never figure out why my hats always had so many dents...

Learned the trick from an old Gunnery Sergeant who'd been a Corporal in Nicaragua. He also taught me that I could see at night -- and told me not to write stuff down because if I lost the paper I wouldn't know what I was s'posed to do. That last was really beneficial -- I cheerfully drove a number of meeting holders nuts for over 40 years by not taking notes.

[Rifleman]

.....my combat BAR experience was in the Marines and having three of the monsters with 13 (or more often, 10 ) men made a difference.....

This seems important to me. My understanding is that the traditional 13-man USMC rifle squad (and the fire team concept as we know it) was built in 1944 to maximize the BAR's strengths. The BAR is what the USMC had to work with and they made the most of it by having three BARs per squad and three Garand riflemen manuvering around and supporting each BAR. I think the USMC squad had one (or two?) more BARs than Army squads of the same era did.

But could it not be said that the smaller German squad during the same era made best use of what they had to work with: the MG42? My understanding is that the German SOP was to get the gun into action; the Mauser riflemen screened and packed ammo to the gun.

So might not the AR v. LMG argument hedge on squad size and organization? It just seems to me that larger TOE squads can make best use of the AR and fire teams, but that smaller TOE (plus often being understrength) squads built around an LMG, a grenadier, and a handful of riflemen (and too small for internal fire teams) have been just as successful. Of course that type of squad requires fire and manuever to begin at platoon and not squad level. A smaller squad can usually fire or manuever but usually not both without being reinforced.

I know I've stated this idea before but it seems worth repeating - especially considering the recent posts. But my experience is peacetime light infantry, not combat, so someone tell me if their combat experience says that I'm way off base here.

[Ken White]

having run the gamut from 13 man to 11 man to 9 man rifle squads plus playing around here and there with six man scout squads I don't really think it makes much difference. IMO, the quality of the troops is the biggest determinant of success or failure. You take what you have and use it to the best of your -- their -- ability. This was before the days of easy Chaptering people out so you had to work a bit.

The three fire teams and 13 men of the Marine squad give you a lot of flexibility so that's the easiest to use but all of them work. I've gone out with none, one, two and three automatic weapons; three is better (not for the added 'firepower' but for redundancy and flexibility), two will work fine, one is okay and none, job dependent, can range from okay to not so okay...

If the element is well trained, they all work.