Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A while back, I asked this question in the firearms thread, with a focus on comparing the BAR and M1 rifle to other nations' weapons and tactics in WW2.

Some other members questioned if that was the correct thread for such a discussion, and on reflection, they were right.

Although this is focused on two miniature games, this topic also includes weapon comparisons, small unit tactics, and military doctrines of each nation, so I believe the OT forum is the correct place for this.

Of course the Mods can move this elsewhere if they feel it's appropriate to do so.

Anyway, In Bolt Action, the US get a fire and manoeuvre rule as the rulebook notes that American units were equipped with BARs and automatic rifles.

In FOW, they get something similar for having units equipped with BARs and automatic rifles.

IMO, there are two main issues here:

1) Fire and manoeuvre

2) The effectiveness of the BAR compared to weapons of other nations.

I totally get the automatic rifle thing. The US army was unique in this, and other nations caught up, but you could argue that well trained infantry firing SMLEs could also crank out a similar amount of rifle fire. And of course, later on in the war, the Soviets and the German army both had either automatic rifles and in Germany's case, troops armed with assault rifles. The Battle of the Bulge being a famous example.


Next, we have to compare the effectiveness of the BAR. I've never handled a BAR in my life, so feedback from American dakka members is appreciated, but having watched numerous YouTube videos where they are used (forgotten weapons, inrange etc) they don't seem to get a good reputation compared to the Bren Gun, the MG34, or the equivalent Red Army light machine gun.

A common argument is that the US army never bothered to upgrade or adapt the BAR during the wars.

Then we move on to fire and manoeuvre.

I'm no expert on WW2 small unit tactics, but surely every army would practice this approach when attacking an enemy?

When looking at army organisation, all armies would have this set up would they not with regards to squads/sections?

10-12 men led by a corporal or sergeant, most men armed with rifles, 1-2 sub machine guns, and 1 light machine gun like the BAR, Bren, or MG34.

Experienced soldiers may well have included more sub machine guns. But to me, it looks like no real difference between each nation.

By all accounts, the US Army was aggressive in attack, but so were other armies, especially the Germans when they counter-attacked.

So, the question is: is this special rule justified, especially when you compare the BAR to other weapons, and more so when you compare US small unit tactics to other nations' small unit tactics.

*other US rules where they get bonuses for having more radios, or fearsome artillery barrages, are justified in my book, but I'm not happy with this rule.

The US Army should get bonuses to everything at all times. Even in times where people (wrongly) believe there is no US Army.

The American Army's fire power exhibited at the Battle of Agincourt should never be forgotten.

 kronk wrote:
The American Army's fire power exhibited at the Battle of Agincourt should never be forgotten.

Truly a staggering and important lesson was shared that day.

I would suspect the rule is a more general acknowledgement of how much more bullets a US infantry unit could put down range than its opponents.

The BAR was one of the first squad support weapons to see wide deployment in any military force. While the Germans, Italians, and Japanese had their own designs they either never saw wide distribution or only came out late in the war. The BAR had a lot more mobility than a other similar designs. It was lighter and could be manned by a single soldier. The MG34 was probably a better weapon but I'd suspect the rule is an acknowledgement of a more general factor in the US Army at the time, namely the ability to pour out more bullets than comparably sized opposing forces between BARs and M1s.

As to the fire and and maneuver I suspect they're referencing the emergence in the Army of Fireteams during WWII. The initial concept was pioneered by the Germans and the British in WWI, but by the time we get to WWII they're still largely using the basic infantry tactics to develop in the later stages of the First World War. The US Army advanced this concept in the Interwar years through the use of shotguns, the Thompson, and the BAR with the goal to pack as much fire power as they could into as small a unit as they could. For this reason US Army squads in WWII were generally much more heavily armed than those of Germany, Britain, or the USSR. The Army went on to incorporate this concept into platoon composition with each platoon consisting of designated fireteams and each squad member in those fireteams having a role in maneuver warfare, which the other armed forces of the time hadn't quite gotten around to yet.

In terms of Doctrine I'd say the rule is justified. The US Army in WWII focused heavily on what Rommel would call "the winner is the guy who shoots first and shoots hardest." Especially since Germany, Italy, and Japan generally were on the defensive these three enemies developed sophisticated fortification, overwatch, and suppression abilities. The US army in turn ended up developing and using a much more methodical combat scheme if only by the nature of being the aggressor force more often than not (and the Army got really good at it).

Well except for the Communist Chinese who kind of had their own thing going on at the time.

 LordofHats wrote:
I would suspect the rule is a more general acknowledgement of how much more bullets a US infantry unit could put down range than its opponents.

The BAR was one of the first squad support weapons to see wide deployment in any military force. While the Germans, Italians, and Japanese had their own designs they either never saw wide distribution or only came out late in the war. The BAR had a lot more mobility than a other similar designs. It was lighter and could be manned by a single soldier. The MG34 was probably a better weapon but I'd suspect the rule is an acknowledgement of a more general factor in the US Army at the time, namely the ability to pour out more bullets than comparably sized opposing forces between BARs and M1s.

As to the fire and and maneuver I suspect they're referencing the emergence in the Army of Fireteams during WWII. The initial concept was pioneered by the Germans and the British in WWI, but by the time we get to WWII they're still largely using the basic infantry tactics to develop in the later stages of the First World War. The US Army advanced this concept in the Interwar years through the use of shotguns, the Thompson, and the BAR with the goal to pack as much fire power as they could into as small a unit as they could. For this reason US Army squads in WWII were generally much more heavily armed than those of Germany, Britain, or the USSR. The Army went on to incorporate this concept into platoon composition with each platoon consisting of designated fireteams and each squad member in those fireteams having a role in maneuver warfare, which the other armed forces of the time hadn't quite gotten around to yet.

In terms of Doctrine I'd say the rule is justified. The US Army in WWII focused heavily on what Rommel would call "the winner is the guy who shoots first and shoots hardest." Especially since Germany, Italy, and Japan generally were on the defensive these three enemies developed sophisticated fortification, overwatch, and suppression abilities. The US army in turn ended up developing and using a much more methodical combat scheme if only by the nature of being the aggressor force more often than not.

Well except for the Communist Chinese who kind of had their own thing going on at the time.

At last, a well written post.

But I'll have to disagree with you

For sure, the US produced thousand of BARs compared to Axis weapons production, but the British also produced a similar amount of Bren Guns. I have stats and figures if you want them

I would argue that the Bren is a better weapon than the BAR, and is also portable enough for one man to fire.

Secondly, German units would supplement their firepower with extra MG34s and captured Soviet sub-machine guns, so I would argue that the Germans could krank out a similar level of firepower.

And of course, if you're familiar with the battle of France in 1940, German aggression and small unit tactics were quite impressive.

I take nothing away from the US army. Having recently read a book about the Battle of the bulge, their artillery was something to behold. They amount of shells they fired at the Germans was awesome

But on an infantry Vs. infantry basis, I think there is parity between the nations.

The BAR is an awful fire and maneuver weapon, it is ~20+ pounds, handles like a drunk elephant, has an infuriating often pointless bipod, and a tiny magazine. Other armies could fire and maneuver with far greater effectiveness with other weapons on the LMG department. In terms of role and function it was the American Chauchat, a role which was basically obsolete by the end of WW1, one or two good Garand riflemen could match what a BAR was putting out with some fire discipline.

The Garand was definitely a big improvement over bolt action rifles so there is some truth to it there when looking at just riflemen, but only if looking at riflemen, if looking at whole units like platoons or companies, relative to say, a German unit (if equipped as they should be on paper), the larger number of light belt fed LMG's and submachineguns vastly outweighs the value of the Garand over bolt action rifles on a unit level.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The BAR is an awful fire and maneuver weapon, it is ~20+ pounds, handles like a drunk elephant, has an infuriating often pointless bipod, and a tiny magazine. Other armies could fire and maneuver with far greater effectiveness with other weapons on the LMG department. In terms of role and function it was the American Chauchat, a role which was basically obsolete by the end of WW1, one or two good Garand riflemen could match what a BAR was putting out with some fire discipline.

The Garand was definitely a big improvement over bolt action rifles so there is some truth to it there when looking at just riflemen, but only if looking at riflemen, if looking at whole units like platoons or companies, relative to say, a German unit (if equipped as they should be on paper), the larger number of light belt fed LMG's and submachineguns vastly outweighs the value of the Garand over bolt action rifles on a unit level.

Yeah, like I said, a bonus for Garands is fine in my book, but the BAR?

You'll probably know better than me, but despite its weight, the Thompson measures up very well as a sub-machine, but every platoon of any army would have a Thompson equivalent. So again, it looks like parity between the nations.

US Marines in the Pacific were 50/50 about the BAR from the books I've read, and the Marines were quite a forward looking group, so their opinion carries extra weight in my book.

Arthur Alphin does a good video on this.

I still have no idea who this guy is, but it's a very informative.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At last, a well written post.

You know when you say things like that I die a little inside, unlike when the American Army joined the Jin Dynasty to bring about the fall of Wu and end an era of conflict and turmoil.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For sure, the US produced thousand of BARs compared to Axis weapons production, but the British also produced a similar amount of Bren Guns. I have stats and figures if you want them

I'll take your word for it XD

Secondly, German units would supplement their firepower with extra MG34s and captured Soviet sub-machine guns, so I would argue that the Germans could krank out a similar level of firepower.

You're unlikely to find many captured Soviet weapons on the Western Front, and generally the Germans never had as many machine guns or submachine guns as the US Army was packing. As Vaktathi points out, on paper the Germans had comparable or even better firepower but that's the issue. On paper. Germany had exceptionally few units supplied in reality as they were meant to be on paper, especially as the war went on. The M1 in particular is a lot more significant when you consider the roles of defender vs attacker. An entrenched machine gun is deadly, but M1s and Thompsons are better at helping you get around it and finish it than the comparable Kar 98, and that the Germans fell behind the United States and the USSR in issuing entire teams with submachine guns. Warfare isn't just about having a nice gun but getting it to the target, and I'd argue the US Army was much better at applying firepower than its opponents in this time (and having a lot more guns than your opponent never really hurts).

And of course, if you're familiar with the battle of France in 1940, German aggression and small unit tactics were quite impressive.

I'm not really debating who had a better small unit tactics scheme so much as pointing out the US was building its entire scheme on fireteam tactics, which the other armed forces weren't doing to the same degree. France had this weird buddy system thing going on, and the Germans and the British were organizing themselves more like the Imperial Guard with infantry sections armed with rifles and MP40s and heavier weapons dolled out at the company level. The US Army on the other hand was basically operating like Tactical Marine squads with all the trimmings, and generally brought its own heavy weapon companies to supplement those squads with even more firepower and the US Army had a lot more of them than the Germans by the time we get to the late war (44-45). The only other group that I think had developed as sophisticated a dynamic were Communist Chinese who had this sort of 3 man cell thing going for them which was great for guerilla warfare and insurgent tactics (and would eventually be used against the US by the Vietcong to great effect).

But on an infantry Vs. infantry basis, I think there is parity between the nations.

I honestly think the biggest granter of parody was less about weapons and more about experience. The Germans early in the war had a lot more than the US, and the advantage of being able to build entrenched positions and sit in them. Throw in being really good at setting up killzones, and the Army basically had to learn to fire and maneuver like champs because brute forcing it was just going to get them killed.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At last, a well written post.

You know when you say things like that I die a little inside, unlike when the American Army joined the Jin Dynasty to bring about the fall of Wu and end an era of conflict and turmoil.

This is directed at Kronk as well, but America claiming credit for U-571 and the enigma machine is one thing, but Agincourt, one of England's greatest victories?

A line has to be drawn somewhere

The big issue with the Mg34 or 42 vs the BAR is that the 34 is lighter with a higher RoF and 5-10x the ammo capacity with a chanagble barrel, allowing for a much greater weight of fire on a unit basis, particularly as the MG's were the primary weapon of german squads while US units were built around riflemen. In a purely small scale tactical engagement, the German unit should have the upper hand in terms of firepower and maneuver ability, but issues of supply, mechanization, artillery, etc is where the US was able to bring crushing weight to bear in ways that a German unit could not match, and either would dramatically outshoot most UK, Japanese, or Italian units. Soviet units equipped entirely with SMG's sportinf 70 round drum mags were another issue however, as were thr few late war german units equipped entirely with STG's.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For sure, the US produced thousand of BARs compared to Axis weapons production, but the British also produced a similar amount of Bren Guns. I have stats and figures if you want them

I'll take your word for it XD

Secondly, German units would supplement their firepower with extra MG34s and captured Soviet sub-machine guns, so I would argue that the Germans could krank out a similar level of firepower.

You're unlikely to find many captured Soviet weapons on the Western Front, and generally the Germans never had as many machine guns or submachine guns as the US Army was packing. As Vaktathi points out, on paper the Germans had comparable or even better firepower but that's the issue. On paper. Germany had exceptionally few units supplied in reality as they were meant to be on paper, especially as the war went on. The M1 in particular is a lot more significant when you consider the roles of defender vs attacker. An entrenched machine gun is deadly, but M1s and Thompsons are better at helping you get around it and finish it than the comparable Kar 98, and that the Germans fell behind the United States and the USSR in issuing entire teams with submachine guns. Warfare isn't just about having a nice gun but getting it to the target, and I'd argue the US Army was much better at applying firepower than its opponents in this time (and having a lot more guns than your opponent never really hurts).

And of course, if you're familiar with the battle of France in 1940, German aggression and small unit tactics were quite impressive.

I'm not really debating who had a better small unit tactics scheme so much as pointing out the US was building its entire scheme on fireteam tactics, which the other armed forces weren't doing to the same degree. France had this weird buddy system thing going on, and the Germans and the British were organizing themselves more like the Imperial Guard with infantry sections armed with rifles and MP40s and heavier weapons dolled out at the company level. The US Army on the other hand was basically operating like Tactical Marine squads with all the trimmings, and generally brought its own heavy weapon companies to supplement those squads with even more firepower and the US Army had a lot more of them than the Germans by the time we get to the late war (44-45). The only other group that I think had developed as sophisticated a dynamic were Communist Chinese who had this sort of 3 man cell thing going for them which was great for guerilla warfare and insurgent tactics (and would eventually be used against the US by the Vietcong to great effect).

But on an infantry Vs. infantry basis, I think there is parity between the nations.

I honestly think the biggest granter of parody was less about weapons and more about experience. The Germans early in the war had a lot more than the US, and the advantage of being able to build entrenched positions and sit in them. Throw in being really good at setting up killzones, and the Army basically had to learn to fire and maneuver like champs because brute forcing it was just going to get them killed.

No question whatsoever, that by 1944, US Veterans were more than a match for anything the Germans could throw at them, but the trick is of course making them veterans.

The US Army obviously had setbacks at Kasserine Pass and had to learn the hard way, but also, the quality of replacement for the US Army after Normandy seemed to be lacking IMO.

Green troops had a very short life expectancy, lessons learnt weren't filtering back to basic training in America, and sadly, these raw recruits suffered.

In that respect, I don't think firepower counts for much if you don't have the skills to use it, the 101st and 82nd being notable exceptions as Crack units, elite even.

 LordofHats wrote:
I would suspect the rule is a more general acknowledgement of how much more bullets a US infantry unit could put down range than its opponents.

The BAR was one of the first squad support weapons to see wide deployment in any military force. While the Germans, Italians, and Japanese had their own designs they either never saw wide distribution or only came out late in the war. The BAR had a lot more mobility than a other similar designs. It was lighter and could be manned by a single soldier. The MG34 was probably a better weapon but I'd suspect the rule is an acknowledgement of a more general factor in the US Army at the time, namely the ability to pour out more bullets than comparably sized opposing forces between BARs and M1s.

As to the fire and and maneuver I suspect they're referencing the emergence in the Army of Fireteams during WWII. The initial concept was pioneered by the Germans and the British in WWI, but by the time we get to WWII they're still largely using the basic infantry tactics to develop in the later stages of the First World War. The US Army advanced this concept in the Interwar years through the use of shotguns, the Thompson, and the BAR with the goal to pack as much fire power as they could into as small a unit as they could. For this reason US Army squads in WWII were generally much more heavily armed than those of Germany, Britain, or the USSR. The Army went on to incorporate this concept into platoon composition with each platoon consisting of designated fireteams and each squad member in those fireteams having a role in maneuver warfare, which the other armed forces of the time hadn't quite gotten around to yet.

In terms of Doctrine I'd say the rule is justified. The US Army in WWII focused heavily on what Rommel would call "the winner is the guy who shoots first and shoots hardest." Especially since Germany, Italy, and Japan generally were on the defensive these three enemies developed sophisticated fortification, overwatch, and suppression abilities. The US army in turn ended up developing and using a much more methodical combat scheme if only by the nature of being the aggressor force more often than not (and the Army got really good at it).

Well except for the Communist Chinese who kind of had their own thing going on at the time.

Its like GW. Every army gets special rules. They really should have "continuous artillery bombardment all day every day baby."
It is more firepower then British units and German units at range (until STGs of course) but its not much more. In close range the Germans had more with their plethora of submachine guns and ability to swap out barrels.

Interestingly I'd argue the Marine Corps should have this rule more. They developed not only fireteams but their platoon developed into having nine BARs per platoon.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At last, a well written post.

You know when you say things like that I die a little inside, unlike when the American Army joined the Jin Dynasty to bring about the fall of Wu and end an era of conflict and turmoil.

This is directed at Kronk as well, but America claiming credit for U-571 and the enigma machine is one thing, but Agincourt, one of England's greatest victories?

A line has to be drawn somewhere

China once drew a line in the sand and then built a wall on it. Then the American Army crossed that wall and killed Genghis Khan.

You're welcome, Australia.

 kronk wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At last, a well written post.

You know when you say things like that I die a little inside, unlike when the American Army joined the Jin Dynasty to bring about the fall of Wu and end an era of conflict and turmoil.

This is directed at Kronk as well, but America claiming credit for U-571 and the enigma machine is one thing, but Agincourt, one of England's greatest victories?

A line has to be drawn somewhere

China once drew a line in the sand and then built a wall on it. Then the American Army crossed that wall and killed Genghis Khan.

You're welcome, Australia.

It is only because of American Freedom that Sitting Bull did not conquer the Welsh. You like potatoes? You're welcome.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The big issue with the Mg34 or 42 vs the BAR is that the 34 is lighter with a higher RoF and 5-10x the ammo capacity with a chanagble barrel, allowing for a much greater weight of fire on a unit basis, particularly as the MG's were the primary weapon of german squads while US units were built around riflemen. In a purely small scale tactical engagement, the German unit should have the upper hand in terms of firepower and maneuver ability, but issues of supply, mechanization, artillery, etc is where the US was able to bring crushing weight to bear in ways that a German unit could not match, and either would dramatically outshoot most UK, Japanese, or Italian units. Soviet units equipped entirely with SMG's sportinf 70 round drum mags were another issue however, as were thr few late war german units equipped entirely with STG's.

A good point about the Germans and the MG34, but the British had the Bren, the Sten. the Thompson, and the SMLE, so I don't think there's much in it compared to an equivalent US unit IMO. But American industry, as you allude too, could supply US troops better than anybody else, so supply and logistics was never an issue.

WW1 British were extremely aggressive when assaulting German trenches, learned the hard way in WW2's early years, but could hold their own IMO.

And the Soviet sub-machine guns? Yeah, they were bad-ass.

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At last, a well written post.

You know when you say things like that I die a little inside, unlike when the American Army joined the Jin Dynasty to bring about the fall of Wu and end an era of conflict and turmoil.

This is directed at Kronk as well, but America claiming credit for U-571 and the enigma machine is one thing, but Agincourt, one of England's greatest victories?

A line has to be drawn somewhere

China once drew a line in the sand and then built a wall on it. Then the American Army crossed that wall and killed Genghis Khan.

You're welcome, Australia.

It is only because of American Freedom that Sitting Bull did not conquer the Welsh. You like potatoes? You're welcome.

Wait, I thought Sitting Bull overran Greenland while the Grant subdued the Saracens during the Austro-Hungarian revolt against the Tokugawa Shogunate?

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I would suspect the rule is a more general acknowledgement of how much more bullets a US infantry unit could put down range than its opponents.

The BAR was one of the first squad support weapons to see wide deployment in any military force. While the Germans, Italians, and Japanese had their own designs they either never saw wide distribution or only came out late in the war. The BAR had a lot more mobility than a other similar designs. It was lighter and could be manned by a single soldier. The MG34 was probably a better weapon but I'd suspect the rule is an acknowledgement of a more general factor in the US Army at the time, namely the ability to pour out more bullets than comparably sized opposing forces between BARs and M1s.

As to the fire and and maneuver I suspect they're referencing the emergence in the Army of Fireteams during WWII. The initial concept was pioneered by the Germans and the British in WWI, but by the time we get to WWII they're still largely using the basic infantry tactics to develop in the later stages of the First World War. The US Army advanced this concept in the Interwar years through the use of shotguns, the Thompson, and the BAR with the goal to pack as much fire power as they could into as small a unit as they could. For this reason US Army squads in WWII were generally much more heavily armed than those of Germany, Britain, or the USSR. The Army went on to incorporate this concept into platoon composition with each platoon consisting of designated fireteams and each squad member in those fireteams having a role in maneuver warfare, which the other armed forces of the time hadn't quite gotten around to yet.

In terms of Doctrine I'd say the rule is justified. The US Army in WWII focused heavily on what Rommel would call "the winner is the guy who shoots first and shoots hardest." Especially since Germany, Italy, and Japan generally were on the defensive these three enemies developed sophisticated fortification, overwatch, and suppression abilities. The US army in turn ended up developing and using a much more methodical combat scheme if only by the nature of being the aggressor force more often than not (and the Army got really good at it).

Well except for the Communist Chinese who kind of had their own thing going on at the time.

Its like GW. Every army gets special rules. They really should have "continuous artillery bombardment all day every day baby."
It is more firepower then British units and German units at range (until STGs of course) but its not much more. In close range the Germans had more with their plethora of submachine guns and ability to swap out barrels.

Interestingly I'd argue the Marine Corps should have this rule more. They developed not only fireteams but their platoon developed into having nine BARs per platoon.

Good point about the Marines, and it was something they did in Korea as well, but you're forgetting the field craft of your average Japanese soldier when it came to stealth and infiltration, so a lot of Pacific battles were decided by short ranged assaults, and brutal hand to hand combat.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At last, a well written post.

You know when you say things like that I die a little inside, unlike when the American Army joined the Jin Dynasty to bring about the fall of Wu and end an era of conflict and turmoil.

This is directed at Kronk as well, but America claiming credit for U-571 and the enigma machine is one thing, but Agincourt, one of England's greatest victories?

A line has to be drawn somewhere

China once drew a line in the sand and then built a wall on it. Then the American Army crossed that wall and killed Genghis Khan.

You're welcome, Australia.

It is only because of American Freedom that Sitting Bull did not conquer the Welsh. You like potatoes? You're welcome.

Wait, I thought Sitting Bull overran Greenland while the Grant subdued the Saracens during the Austro-Hungarian revolt against the Tokugawa Shogunate?

You are correct. Thats why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

Good point about the Marines, and it was something they did in Korea as well, but you're forgetting the field craft of your average Japanese soldier when it came to stealth and infiltration, so a lot of Pacific battles were decided by short ranged assaults, and brutal hand to hand combat.

Yes I know. I had a grandfather that didn't come back from Tarawa.

 Frazzled wrote:
Interestingly I'd argue the Marine Corps should have this rule more. They developed not only fireteams but their platoon developed into having nine BARs per platoon.

This is also true, and unlike the US Army the Marines actually had opportunities to experiment with their doctrinal developments in the Interwar years and was much more active in sending observers to overseas conflicts to see what other forces were doing. This would pay off huge for the Marines in WWII, because one of the forces they studied in depth was Japan By 1941 we had their entire infantry doctrine broken down and memorized, and Japan was still using vintage WWI tactics by and large.

I always thought that rule was there to represent the fact that the US had much more ammo and guns available.

I mean, WW2 was when the US manufacturing machine was really running hot. They had trucks full of bullets to spend, while the Germans were running out of clean socks!

Never underestimate the ballistic lethality of clean socks

 LordofHats wrote:
Never underestimate the ballistic lethality of clean socks

It was clean socks that took out Hannibal's elephants and bought Washington enough time to escape from Hoth!

<Insert Freedom Intensifies gif. here>

I would consider it justified from '44 onwards. Compared to their German counterparts the US infantryman had more semi-automatic weapons and more rounds to put through them. The idea of the elite Panzergrenadier dismounting from the legions of hanomag halftracks and firing away with his STG44 in Normandy is largely a myth. The Wehrmacht could never supply their soldiers with enough semi-automatic/automatic weapons. But this made a modicum of sense when you consider that German infantry doctrine held that the squad's main weapon was the light machine gun and all other soldiers are there to service it or giving it covering fire. For your average Grenadier the best your squad could hope for was a G43 and even then it was usually one per squad. They were by and large using the same Kar98k their ancestors used when invading poland. The saving grace here is that typically the sarge had an MP40 and there was usually an MG34/42.

There was also supply issues to take into consideration. By the time the allies invaded Normandy Germany had all but expended herself fighting the Soviet Union. She was short on critical resources including metals to make ammunition. The German Landser was short on ammo or even got this shoddy steel ammunition that the reich coated in lacquer that would then horribly jam their rifles. The US had an excellent logistics chain that ensured the GI had plenty of bullets to send down range and into the huns. There were of course times where US forces found themselves cut off but these were exceptional circumstances.

As for comparisons with the British and Soviets? Like others said, I think it more represents the US's ubiquitous semi-automatic rifles and their ability to supply them.

I'd question anyone looking to FoW for historical accuracy. Where Allied soldiers thought every tank was a Tiger, in FoW every tank is a Tiger!

The BAR was however wholly unsuitable for its role as other have noted. The A6 version of the M1919 Browning in 1943 (albeit still a hefty beast) was far more suited to the Squad sustained fire role. I'm pretty sure these are not seen in Fow but how about BA?

How are mortars modelled in Bolt Action? I understand they they represented the biggest caused of injury to Western Front Soldiers.

 LordofHats wrote:
[q and the Germans and the British were organizing themselves more like the Imperial Guard with infantry sections armed with rifles and MP40s and heavier weapons dolled out at the company level.

Britain had it's infantry sections broken into a rifle and a Bren group since at least the Battle of France while German squad level doctrine was centered around light machine guns with supporting riflemen so while the US did have more support weapons its not as if they were the only nation to make use of fire and maneuver.

Personally I don't think that wargame special rules that increase firepower should be allocated unless there are good doctrinal or training reasons. US squad level firepower was high due to the universal use of automatic rifles rather than particularly high training or marksmanship so special rules, if they are included at all, should be attached to the equipment rather than the man.

 notprop wrote:
I'd question anyone looking to FoW for historical accuracy. Where Allied soldiers thought every tank was a Tiger, in FoW every tank is a Tiger!

The BAR was however wholly unsuitable for its role as other have noted. The A6 version of the M1919 Browning in 1943 (albeit still a hefty beast) was far more suited to the Squad sustained fire role. I'm pretty sure these are not seen in Fow but how about BA?

How are mortars modelled in Bolt Action? I understand they they represented the biggest caused of injury to Western Front Soldiers.

Individual support weapons that cause AoE damage. They can also lay down smoke.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
[q and the Germans and the British were organizing themselves more like the Imperial Guard with infantry sections armed with rifles and MP40s and heavier weapons dolled out at the company level.

Britain had it's infantry sections broken into a rifle and a Bren group since at least the Battle of France while German squad level doctrine was centered around light machine guns with supporting riflemen so while the US did have more support weapons its not as if they were the only nation to make use of fire and maneuver.

Personally I don't think that wargame special rules that increase firepower should be allocated unless there are good doctrinal or training reasons. US squad level firepower was high due to the universal use of automatic rifles rather than particularly high training or marksmanship so special rules, if they are included at all, should be attached to the equipment rather than the man.

But there were substantial differences in doctrine (which in turn made differences in training). US Doctrine called for more movement, to include the BAR using marching fire. German and UK doctrine had their respective squad automatic weapons mainly firing from fixed positions as opposed to firing on the move. The BAR was lighter than the MG34/42 and lighter than the Bren, and as mentioned the US use of semi-auto rifles to increase fire power on the move augmented the BARs.

 CptJake wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
[q and the Germans and the British were organizing themselves more like the Imperial Guard with infantry sections armed with rifles and MP40s and heavier weapons dolled out at the company level.

Britain had it's infantry sections broken into a rifle and a Bren group since at least the Battle of France while German squad level doctrine was centered around light machine guns with supporting riflemen so while the US did have more support weapons its not as if they were the only nation to make use of fire and maneuver.

Personally I don't think that wargame special rules that increase firepower should be allocated unless there are good doctrinal or training reasons. US squad level firepower was high due to the universal use of automatic rifles rather than particularly high training or marksmanship so special rules, if they are included at all, should be attached to the equipment rather than the man.

But there were substantial differences in doctrine (which in turn made differences in training). US Doctrine called for more movement, to include the BAR using marching fire. German and UK doctrine had their respective squad automatic weapons mainly firing from fixed positions as opposed to firing on the move. The BAR was lighter than the MG34/42 and lighter than the Bren, and as mentioned the US use of semi-auto rifles to increase fire power on the move augmented the BARs.

Basically this.

I'm not saying everyone but America was dumb and couldn't figure out the concepts of fireteams and fire and maneuver. They did, but they didn't implement it the same way the US did with a from the squad up organization on these concepts.