/k/ - Weapons

>>530243

Because it would jam long before emptying a mag.

This thing dates back to a time when generals would give less ammunition to the men so they wouldn't waste it.

At the time of development there wasn't any concept of squad automatic weapon, or even real LMG doctrine. The average rifle held 5 rounds, so 4 times that with several mags would have seemed like a huge difference.

Remember at this time the senior officers were still mostly from a time that what machine guns they had never got fired because the idea of training budgets were simply fantastical.

The thing was already heavy as fuck would you want to carry around three or four fifty to a hundred round magazines of .30-06?

it was designed so you could carry it up to an enemy trench and magdump into it.

>>530243

Because it's not a LMG, nor was it ever intended to be. It's an Automatic Rifle.

Bar is absolute trash, it literally makes no fucking sense how they think a bar could compare to the STG-44 and other german automatic weapon like the MG42

>>530265

the bar was invented in 1918 and the stg44 was invented in 1944.

>>530265

The BAR is a WW1 design, of course it will compare poorly to late WW2 designs. If you're doing a comparison you need to place it against other WW1 designs (Which it handily wins, which sucks because it arrived pretty much too late for combat) or early inter-war designs like the ZB-26 or FM 24/29 (which soundly beat it).

I do think the FN Model D or the Swedish BAR Variant are quite good compared to the US designs and competitive with other interwar LMG's/Automatic Rifles, but by the end of WW2 the concept was obsolete. So of course instead of learning lessons the US and the British kept running BAR's and Brens for decades.

>>530267

>The BAR is a WW1 design, of course it will compare poorly to late WW2 designs.

Even compared to 1920's designs (FM 24/29, ZB vz. 26, DP-27 hell the fucking Mendoza RM2), no need to go light years ahead with designs from the 30's or 40's…

It would have been great for WWI, but by even a few years later there was much better designs, just the upgraded FN model D is clearly way better.

Yet somehow the US army lugged it all the way to Vietnam…

>>530243

The BAR was designed as a sort of early battle rifle, simultaneously filling the roles of a rifle, light machine gun and SMG. The designers immediately ruled out top and side feeding magazines as being too unwieldy, but a bottom-feeding 30-round magazine was found to be both too long to use from a prone position and too heavy to comfortably shoulder for extended periods. It also wasn't expected to be fired on full-auto for long periods like a machine gun (that's what the M1919 was for), so the small magazine and lack of a quick-change barrel weren't considered problems. The US didn't start using it as a light machine gun until 1938, by which point they had neither the time nor the money to order a replacement.

has anyone here who calls the BAR shit actually shot one?

>>530600

They probably have…..on COD

>>530600

How ignorant do you have to be to compare shooting a gun in a range and shooting it in a warzone? In a range, 1. the targets are usually within 100 yards, 2. the targets don't move, 3. you are not moving, and 4. you only have to hit the target once. A soldier would be lucky if at least one of these 4 conditions were met in combat.

>>530795

I forgot.

5. paper targets don't hide behind cover.

6. paper targets are not shooting at you.

>>530600

>>530795

>need to use something in combat to see its bad

That shitcans 100% of the discussions here.

Not 50, not 75, not 90… ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!

>>530600

Probably none. BAR's are alright provided you know how to deal with the retarded gas system on it, i.e clean the fucking thing well at first chance you get.

>>530795

What about the 2gun action matches that Ian and Karl do? Would that be more justifiable proof that the BAR is shitty?

I understand it was good for ww1 standards, however.

>>530795

>>530797

None of which answers the question or particularly matters with this compared to any other weapon. Not only that, but conditions 1, 4, and 5 particularly favor this over others.

Making comparisons, whether from experience or theory or from statistics, is relevant. Making stupid statements like 'omg what about cover!' are irrelevant.

>>530280

All of this. Americans weren't very with firearms design back them, the Tommy is another example of subpar gun for war. Heavy, complex and expensive when compared to all the contemporary counterparts while not being better in terms of practical performance. The Grease gun was better on all regards.

>>530948

i like open magazines in trench conditions because it makes it more of a challenge to kill and therefore more fun to kill

>>530243

Because it was intended as a fast firing rifle, not a machine gun.

>>531078

>gif

Make like a tree and get the fuck out.

>>531081

I know webms are superior, but there is still literally nothing wrong with gifs. Gifs can be fun.

Besides, some of these gifs are very old.

>>531075

nigger-tier opinion. From a logistics viewpoint, cost, maintenance, supply, you are correct. If you're the guy carrying one and aren't stuck in the field in a harsh environment with nothing but a stick and a rock for maintenance, the thompson is absolutely better. The point of a grease gun is that anyone can fabricate them for pennies. They're absolute crap to use and the rate of fire is slightly better than giving your people semi-auto pistols with a buttstock.

>>531082

It's 8mb

>>530600

I shot one. Lots of fun and easy to hit targets from prone but it's cumbersome and doesn't have a high enough practical rate of fire due to small magazines. I think an M1 Garand with a 20 round magazine would have probably been better as an automatic rifle, and for an LMG the MG42 is leaps and bounds ahead. G20 countries still use the MG42.

BAR wasn't the worst machinegun of the war, though.

Captcha: jap nHQ

>>532138

Weird, I have an american flag. Am I free from Trudeau and the immigrant invasion now?

>hurr the BAR was shit

yes that is absolutely why some soldiers wanted THEMSELVES to field one in battle and why it was still appreciated in WW2 and Korea.

what you read on a fucking korean tile printing forum isnt, most of the time, true in any way.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NECROBUMP THIS ISNT LIKE MY FORUMS AT ALL

>>530264

you're retarded.

>>537543

>yes that is absolutely why some soldiers wanted THEMSELVES to field one

If your only alternative is the chauchat, then you'd be happy fielding a sharp stick

>>537602

> deservedly bad reputation

It's just the mags and the bipod that are retarded, the guns in 8mm Lebel works ok. Those re-chambered in 30-06 have tons of problems because .30-06 is much more powerful than 8mm and the heavy long recoil action meant to keep the rate of fire low on an open bolt really doesn't take kindly to any tweak without an extensive redesign of the bolt that was never done.

It baffle me they never tried to fix the mags though (I just read that per regulation nearly all the ammo of a Chauchat section came with mags, so they didn't carry loose rounds and all the mags came in pouches or bags).

Especially since… it's a cut, not doing (or make it much smaller if it's that important) it save manufacturing time!

Also you have to remember this is war time production with most of the steel mills and coal mines near the front (when not already taken) and even the factories were sometime shelled, quality work was never gonna happen.

Despite that 250 000 Chauchat were made and became standard in all formations, (8 per infantry company, 4 per cavalry, 12 per cycling units. Initially they were supposed to be a two man team, but they run out of ammo too fast so by the end of the war a Chauchat team was a SIX men team, a NCO, a gunner, a loader and THREE ammo purveyors) it took serious efforts, manpower and resources to put them out and they were in real demand at the front.

All of which France didn't have extra to spare…

To compare, Germany made not even 130 000 MG 08/15 and their army was much bigger, their factories and supplies were never seriously compromised.

>>537627

frenchie has it right. the chauchats in 30-06 were terrible. the original 8mm chauchat was pretty unremarkable (good or bad) for a ww1 gun.

The largest practical box magazine for 30-06 is only ~30 rounds due to length. The longer the magazine, the harder it is to make it feed reliably and is is already hard enough to make a 20 round magazine reliable with WWI manufacturing technology. The only way to get higher capacity without sacrificing reliability is to use a pan (think DP-28) magazine or you could throw reliability to the wind and just use a drum.

>>530247

Imagine the economic benefits if generals still maintained that policy.

>>537651

>Imagine the economic benefits if generals still maintained that policy.

They'd be offset by the massive increase in training cost now that you can't just let your soldiers use "fire 30'000 rounds at the problem and hope that fixes it" approach any more. You'd probably get more savings out of dropping the use of air-support by modern infantry.