Thompson and B.A.R

I have studyed these guns for a while and i cant see why the B.A.R was even used...For 1 the thompson shot faster and killed faster.the B.A.r shoots lots slower.
the Thompson is a little heavier but more realiable.What made the B.A.R a weapon even to be used?

 

The BAr was a squad rifle, used basically for additional firepower. The thompson was a personal weapon.

:ph34r: :ph34r:

 

Since the BAR is older (WW1) could the reason be that is was simply there already?

Regards,

Marco

 

I still think that it is down to that they were designed for two different roles. Given the weight of the BAR, then i do not see it being issued as a personal weapon.

:ph34r: :ph34r:

 

the difference in the US army was in the main the same as the difference of use in the Uk forces of the Sten SMG and the Bren LMG. One was for close up work one for 'long' distance work, though i will admit the BAR did not have the mag capacity nor the rate of fire to do this latter job well!

arm

 

Originally posted by Paratrooper@Jul 15 2004, 07:39 PM

the Thompson is a little heavier but more realiable.
No it isn't, the BAR is heavier!

LMG vs SMG. They're two totally different weapons ,so cannot really be compared.

B.

 

When the BAR was designed, the idea was to issue it as a standard infantry weapon to replace ordinary rifles, but of course it was too bulky and heavy for that role. So it was adopted as a squad automatic weapon to increase firepower.

Both the Thompson and the BAR were old designs by WWII. In US service, the Thompson was gradually replaced by the Grease Gun (M45 from memory, but don't quote me on this). I am surprised that the US did not introduce a squad level LMG to replace the BAR.

The BAR fired a .30-06 rifle cartridge and the Thompson fired a .45ACP pistol cartridge, which are in no sense comparable.

 

Both the Thompson and the BAR were old designs by WWII. In US service, the Thompson was gradually replaced by the Grease Gun (M45 from memory, but don't quote me on this). I am surprised that the US did not introduce a squad level LMG to replace the BAR."

Both the Thompson and the BAR was used on both sides in both Korea and Vietnam!.

The grease gun was the M3.

With the advent of the m16 the US army considered that there would be no need for a squad weapon. However, the m60 was often used at squad level.

:ph34r:
:ph34r:

 

I have recently been reading the Patton Papers, 1885-1940 (available in paperback). Although not an infantryman, an article he wrote shortly after WWI deals with fire and movement as a basic tactical method.

As he points out, covering fire by a fraction of the riflemen provides insufficient weight to keep the opposition down (this at a time when the US army had the M1903 Springfield). But the use of automatic rifles increases firepower to cover the movement of the ordinary riflemen, who can then use their superior numbers to cover the advance of the automatic rifle teams.

And for the record, reading this book made me realise one bit of trivia: GSP Jr couldn't spell to save his life!

This is a good Thompson link:

http://www.auto-ordnance.com/ao_ao.html

 

Originally posted by morse1001@Jul 17 2004, 04:51 PM
Both the Thompson and the BAR were old designs by WWII. In US service, the Thompson was gradually replaced by the Grease Gun (M45 from memory, but don't quote me on this). I am surprised that the US did not introduce a squad level LMG to replace the BAR."

Both the Thompson and the BAR was used on both sides in both Korea and Vietnam!.

The grease gun was the M3.

With the advent of the m16 the US army considered that there would be no need for a squad weapon. However, the m60 was often used at squad level.

:ph34r:
:ph34r:
[post=26926]Quoted post[/post]

The BAR was on multiple occasions replaced as a squad weapon by one or another of the various Browning 1919 versions (you can argue all day about whether this really was a squad automatic weapon due to weight and mount, but it was often used as such). The next US attempt at a real Squad Automatic Weapon was the E2 version of the M-14, which was intended to be issued at one per squad, but eventually was found impossible to control in full auto fire and made no longer standard. The M-16 did not really serve well as a squad automatic weapon, nor did the M-60 (as mentioned above), so the US Army developed the so-called SAW, I think based on the FN MiniMi in caliber 5.56 mm.

One point not made in this thread previously is that the BAR was one of the most inherently accurate weapons in the US inventory. Many marksmen loved them, except for their weight. Doc

 

Apples and monkeys.

The Thompson is an up close and personal weapon where as the B.A.R is a reach out and touch someone weapon. Given the 8 round capacity of the garand and the short effective range of the Thompson, the B.A.R. proved to be a middle of the road weapon.

I would carry a B.A.R. today as opposed to aM-16-a2, lot more punch. 5.56 doesn't go through mud hut walls all that great.

 

BAR vs. Thompson-is really Submachine gun vs. Automatic rifle.

My Dad Carried a BAR over the Owen Stanley Mountains in 1942 at Buna, the Weapon was 19 lbs plus ammo, it could cut the top from coconut plams and drop snipers from their positions, in the jungle any weapon is a personal weapon, range was not much of an issue at Buna. Jungle fighting can take place at an arms length, the Thompson was designed for close range fighting.

The Thompson was prefered over the Carbine, the M3 came much later in the
Pacific, years later I carried an M3 in the service, and it was a poor replacement for the Thompson.

Cheers
Bob

 

I believe with few exceptions the BAR was used only by Rangers. I also think its main purpose was penetration of light defenses and light armor (sort of like shooting through an engine block). My understanding of it was that it was very hard hitting gun and had the psychological effect on the enemy similar to the MG-42. I have heard stories told that the sound of it would sometimes cause the Germans to call in an artillery strike.

Anyone else heard these stories?



(angie999 @ Jul 17 2004, 08:47 AM) [post=26918]I am surprised that the US did not introduce a squad level LMG to replace the BAR.
[/b]
I think they did. Wasn't it called the 30 Cal?

 

Hmmmm...perhaps the Pacific War was quite different, some platoons carried three to four BARs depending on the situation and the number of men available for patrol. The bipod was removed in many cases.

 

Thanks for that Spidge!!!

Both the Bren and BAR were mainstays in PNG.


Cheers Mate
Rev Bob

 

(spidge @ Oct 18 2005, 05:09 AM) [post=40164]
View attachment 1143

Here you can see the top of the tree and the Jap sniper and his broken rifle.
[/b]
Where did that picture come from Geoff?

 

(jimbotosome @ Oct 19 2005, 09:58 AM) [post=40199](spidge @ Oct 18 2005, 05:09 AM) [post=40164]
View attachment 1143

Here you can see the top of the tree and the Jap sniper and his broken rifle.
[/b]
Where did that picture come from Geoff?
[/b]
On an aussie site and the photo was from New Guinea.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/allied_ww2.htm

 

Every Picture tells a story, Don't it?


Chapter One: The proper use of gravity in combat!!


Cheers
Bob

 

(jimbotosome @ Oct 17 2005, 08:26 PM) [post=40156]I believe with few exceptions the BAR was used only by Rangers. [/b]

The standard equipment of a US rifle squad in 44-5 was as follows,
1 x BAR
10 x M1
1 x 1903 Springfield rifle, or an extra M1

For a rifle squad of a US Paratrooper Company it was as follows,
1 x BAR
9 x M1
2 X .30 Carbine, or .45 SMG

There were minor variations, but all contained at least 1 BAR per squad

</div><div class='quotemain'>
I also think its main purpose was penetration of light defenses and light armor (sort of like shooting through an engine block). [/b]
While it was a powerful round, the armour protection on even light WW2 AFV's was too thick for it too penetrate.

</div><div class='quotemain'> My understanding of it was that it was very hard hitting gun and had the psychological effect on the enemy similar to the MG-42. I have heard stories told that the sound of it would sometimes cause the Germans to call in an artillery strike.

Anyone else heard these stories? [/b]
No.
While the BAR was an effective and highly reliable weapon, there is no evidence it was especially feared by the Axis forces