Browing Automatic Rifle

[Skrapwelder]

How would you rate this type of weapon? I'm curious to know if anyone has made any distinctions between this weapon and LMG's. In the couple of games we have played we have been giving it a rifle's range and 3 shots.

[Westfalia Chris]

How would you rate this type of weapon? I'm curious to know if anyone has made any distinctions between this weapon and LMG's. In the couple of games we have played we have been giving it a rifle's range and 3 shots.

That sounds reasonable. Basically, from what I know, it is an LMG (or an early type of LMG), but AFAIK there's only the 20-round magazine and no option for belt-feeding, which allows the higher rate represented by the additional Suppression Markers in our rules.

If you want to use it, I'd suggest you either rate it as an LMG with reduced extra Suppression Markers, or use the above and maybe add a single extra Suppression Marker to stress the full automatic aspect. The rifle x3 option may be a bit too restrictive and not fully indicative of its abilities.

Apart from that, feel free to do what works for you. The above certainly won't be a game breaker, I think.

[Gluteus Maximus]

I would say that your "3 round burst rifle" idea is a very good one. I reckon it would be useful at suppressing a small number of enemy, but nowhere near as many a belt-fed gun.
It's similar to a Bren, in that it has the range and stopping power of the belt-fed lmg, but with a much lower rate of fire. Actually quite a bit lower than the bren, as it only has a 20 round magazine compared to the Bren's 30 round.

As an aside, when I was in the Royal Engineers, I carried the 7.62 version of the bren - the "LMG" (the British Army is always good at snappy names  ) - as my personal weapon. We were taught to fire in two or three round bursts. This conserved ammo but obviously gave a lower rate of fire than the belt-fed GPMG. On the plus side it gave a very accurate weapon, which could put a large volume of fire into a very small target. A bunker, window or a trench would be the ideal target. With a bit of practice and when using the bipod it was pretty easy to put a couple of rounds into a man-sized target at 300 yards or so. The GPMG, whilst having a much greater volume of fire, was nowhere near as accurate. I would assume the BAR would have very similar performance to the Bren.

Generally a belt-fed lmg is preferable as an infantry support weapon, because of the suppressive fire aspect but the Bren/BAR should have a use as a sort of long-range automatic quasi-sniper rifle, if you get my drift 

[moif]

How would you rate this type of weapon? I'm curious to know if anyone has made any distinctions between this weapon and LMG's. In the couple of games we have played we have been giving it a rifle's range and 3 shots.

Its an LMG in the same way that a Bren gun is I think.

[Gluteus Maximus]

Its an LMG in the same way that a Bren gun is I think.

Sounds familiar ..... 

[Stu]

I would call it a automatic rifle in the same way that the FN FAL have a variant that had a heavy (thicker) barrel and a bipod. The BAR would have suffered the same limitations (overheating and inaccuracy) as the former but as the standard service weapon was the Springfield '06 it would be a far more desirable weapon in a firefight.

[commissarmoody]

I 2nd that, 3 shots with rifle range sounds good to me.

[Emir of Askaristan]

I watched Michael Mann's Film about Dillinger at the weekend and there were a few BAR's carried by both sides. They seemed to be used to shoot up the cars etc and blazed away just like the tommy guns carried.

Looking at the characteristics of both the BAR and the Bren they are remarkably simmilar in terms of RoF and muzzle velocity (500+ Rpm and 2000+ ft/s) Range is also similar up to approx 1500yds. The Bren has a 30round mag whilst the BAR has a 20.

I'd say treat the BAR as a Bren and if you want to give them a lower RoF than belt fed mgs you'd be on the right track.

[leadfool]

Too big differences between the BAR and the Bren,  First the Bren is twice as heavy and has a field replacable barrel.  The asst. Bren gunner was supposed to carry that barrel and when the Bren hot too hot from extended fire suppression, the barrel could be changed out.

I think the Bren should count as a LMG like the Lewis gun.  The question with the BAR is that is is limited and therefore as Skrapwelder proposed, some how not as good as a LMG.

[Gluteus Maximus]

Well, the Bren weighed 22.83 lb, the BAR 15.98lb. The Garand M1 weighed 9.5lb and the KAR98K between 8.2 -9. lbs.

I get your point about the extra weight and barrel-change facility of the Bren, but it was quite feasible to be used by 1 man (with extra magazines distributed throughout the section. That 15.98lbs of the BAR is pretty hefty for a standard rifle and light for a LMG. I'd still err on the side of the LMG though, purely for the fact that in it's day it was effectively a light automatic weapon that could give appreciatively larger rates of fire than existing rifles and it's greater weight and complexity made it a rarer weapon.

Each to his own, though 

[leadfool]

GLuteus Maxumus,
Are you sure about those wheigts?  I have hefted both the Bren and the BAR, without a scale around, the BAR seemed alot lighter then the Bren.  Ofcourse the Bren had its bipod and the BAR, as usual, did not.  Maybe the weight, like a baby, was all in the assescories.

As much as I love the BAR, and they are fun to shoot, I would not want to hold one after firing a few hundred rounds. 

For our game purpose we we just trying to distinguish it from a true light machinegun, but still make it a powerful weapon.

[ushistoryprof]

My father-in-law used the BAR in WWII and loved it.  He said he was choosen to be the BAR man due to his stocky build and strength as both gave him an advantage using it for the long hall.  He was taught to fire in short bursts and used clips loaded with a ball round, an ap round, a ball round an ap round etc.  This way you could blow through light "armor" protection, vehicles, structures and people with ease.  He used both aimed fire and "stiching patterns" (his term) to supress enemy activity.  He said with experience you became very fast at dropping a clip and popping in a new one so that the twenty round limit was not real hinderence to his rate of fire.

[leadfool]

Your father in law would know.  When I shot the BAR no one was shooting back.

[Gluteus Maximus]

GLuteus Maxumus,
Are you sure about those wheigts?  I have hefted both the Bren and the BAR, without a scale around, the BAR seemed alot lighter then the Bren.  Ofcourse the Bren had its bipod and the BAR, as usual, did not.  Maybe the weight, like a baby, was all in the assescories.

As much as I love the BAR, and they are fun to shoot, I would not want to hold one after firing a few hundred rounds. 

For our game purpose we we just trying to distinguish it from a true light machinegun, but still make it a powerful weapon.

Well, I have to admit those were taken off Wikipedia    as I was in a hurry before going out. The Bren is about right, though as I usd to carry the 7.62mm version when in the army. The rifles are about right too, as our SLR (FN FAL) was approx 9 lbs. As for the BAR, the figures could well be wrong and as you've used one I'll happily bow to your experience 

I suppose it's just one of those weapons that could be put in either category, so it's up to the gamer to decide.

I'd love to fire one though, as it's always been a favourite of mine ever since I made some Airfix 54mm multipart US Marines as a teenager 

[former user]

maybe these army regulation manuals could be og help
http://www.90thidpg.us/Reference/Manuals/index.html

rulewise, the BAR does not seem to fit into the LMG reduced mobility by design, so it would appear the 3 burst rifle is a good compromise.
Also combined rules similar to the colonial MG in the new supplement could fit better, with the 3 burst rifle for "walking fire" and LMG rules for stationary bipod deployment. Point Value would then have to reflect the versatility