Dima wrote: |
IIRC they have never positioned BAR as LMG in USArmy, it was Automatic Rifle and was almost fully suitable for the infantry tactics doctrine USArmy had during most of WW2.
BAR was never meant to provide sustained fire according USArmy doctrine . and again it happened only when u try to provide sustained fire with it that was not meant with neither it's design nor doctrine . |
Quote: |
You may notice the energa type grenade launcher (third from the bottom, picture) designed for the No 4 mark 1 |
Quote: |
yes the British were grenade launcher capable in 44 ( as they were thru out the war ) |
Quote: |
just to prove a point (I dont need smiley faces ) |
Quote: |
That the yanks took it thru to Korea... well they took shermans too... |
Quote: |
EDIT, added: Thing is, a doctrine is not the same way as success.. It don?t mean weapons are good just cause it fits doctrine, and it sure don?t mean the doctrine work when face the enemy. |
Quote: |
Stiff rigid minds bash there head in the wall cause the ?doctrine say so?, the Americans adapted to reality. Adaptation, more BAR, and more 1919 belt MG was ONE of the results of meeting Germans in Normandy. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT