Jump to content

Talk:M1918 Browning automatic rifle: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
DMorpheus (talk | contribs)
BARs in Abyssinia
Line 34: Line 34:


::: I don't mean any disrespect but you may all be missing the point. The fear of the Germans capturing a BAR was during WW1, not WW2. [[User:DMorpheus|DMorpheus]] 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::: I don't mean any disrespect but you may all be missing the point. The fear of the Germans capturing a BAR was during WW1, not WW2. [[User:DMorpheus|DMorpheus]] 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== BARs in Abyssinia ==

I recently came across a photograph from the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). The photo shows two deceased Ethiopia soldiers and what is clearly two early-style (1918) BARs propped up on their position.

Anyone know who BARs ended up in Ethiopia during that period (late 1930s)? The photo in question is in a book; if I could find it online I would provide a link.

Revision as of 22:26, 14 July 2006

  • I should add what distinguishes the BAR from a LMG, even though that's the catagory that it usually fits in. Oberiko
  • Was it true that the US ordered Chauchats instead of the BAR partially because they didn't have the time to manufacture new guns, but also because they didn't want the technology to fall into the hands of the Germans? I remember hearing it, but thought it sounded strange. Hyperneural

I've heard the same thing, but I don't have a source. ASWilson 01:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The BAR hunting rifle currently manufactured by Browning is a modern semi-auto design that is toatlly unrelated to the military BAR.

I've looked at several sites, and they all saw the Browning saw some action, though a little, in the last months of WWI, so I edited the page. Mightfox

Falling into German Hands

I have heard that line before, and while I do not have enough solid evidence to confirm or deny I feel I can make an intelligent guess. To me it seems very unlikely we would be worried about the germans capturing the technology of something like the BAR. To many people think only of the MG42 when it comes to German Machiene Guns, and while it was superiror to anything else in the field of battle that day, it was not the only german full auto weapon to hold this distinction. Thus given the fact that the German technology was already so far ahead of the allies in that area, it seems unlikely to me that this would be a legitimate concern. Klauth 22:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans were a scavenger army whether people want to believe it or not. They impressed everything they could get their hands on. However, when it comes to BARs I wouldn't think US style ones would have been captured, since they were not sold lend-lease to the Russians to my knowledge and not to anyone else for that matter. However, I'm sure the Germans picked up a number of FN BARs and Polish clones too, and impressed them to some degree. If you can find pictures of soldiers in Russia using Thompsons then I'm sure they were using 8mm BARs. --Thatguy96 17:19, 20 February 2006

BARs falling into German hands was a real concern in WWI. At that age the BAR was the most advanced automatic weapon of its class. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

Scavanging

No argument that the Germans scavenged weapons, that was one of the primary things the Waffen-S.S. were trained to do (especially their volunteer regiments). The point that I was making is that when the other side already has better technology their capturing yours is less of a concern. It would be like being afraid that Ferrari will steal a Corvette. Both are nice but Ferrari wouldnt really have anything to gain from it. Save maybe one more car out there, they won't be gaining any remarkable technological advances from it.

Doesn't changet the facts. The German's went to war in 1939 with over a 100 different types of vehicles in inventory, a logistical nightmare, and still made heavy use horse-drawn wagons. They took because they needed the numbers, not because the equipment was particularly good. This would be one of the causes of the German defeat was the lack of logistical cohesion and industrial base to support the war effort for the prolonged period of time. Even by 1944 the Germans were still making use of anything they could scavange from the field to replace the heavy losses. --Thatguy96 21:28, 21 February 2006

You seem to have missed the point of my comment in totality. I am not debating if the germans scavenged or even if they needed to. My point was that there wouldn't be any advantageous gain of technology, by aquiring the BAR. The fact they did aquire them is immaterial, the only gain from doing so is being able to equip one more soldier. The fact they could not produce enough of their advanced technology of course taken into account and acknowledged. Klauth 02:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss your point, though I see it now. However, the fact that it happened regardless means that it should be mentioned in that light. The superiorirty of various weapons depending on doctrine and the like is probably debatable to a degree as well. --Thatguy96 22:50, 21 February 2006

agreed Klauth 07:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean any disrespect but you may all be missing the point. The fear of the Germans capturing a BAR was during WW1, not WW2. DMorpheus 18:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BARs in Abyssinia

I recently came across a photograph from the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). The photo shows two deceased Ethiopia soldiers and what is clearly two early-style (1918) BARs propped up on their position.

Anyone know who BARs ended up in Ethiopia during that period (late 1930s)? The photo in question is in a book; if I could find it online I would provide a link.