BAR vs M1919A6: Why the U.S. Military Preferred the BAR in World War II

During World War II, the United States deployed various weapons in its arsenal, each designed for specific roles. Two prominent automatic weapons of the era, the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and the M1919A6 machine gun, played pivotal roles. However, it's often speculated why the U.S. military did not mass-produce and distribute the M1919A6 universally to GI squads, especially considering its suppressive fire capabilities. Let's explore the reasons behind this choice.

Why the M1919A6 Didn't Fit the Bill

The M1919A6, despite its enhanced suppressive fire capabilities, fell short in several aspects due to its portability and logistics:

Heavy and Inconvenient: It required a multi-man crew and a Jeep to carry the weapon and additional ammunition, making it less portable compared to the individual BAR. The weapon was not designed for sustained, mobile engagements. Ergonomics and Accuracy: In the man-portable role, the M1919A6 had poor ergonomics, making it difficult to shoot accurately while on the move or standing up. It required more ammunition than a single or even two men could reasonably carry.

Furthermore, the M1919A6's design relied on a lighter barrel, which hindered its ability to handle prolonged firing sessions and reduced its range compared to the M1919A4 variant. These limitations made it less suitable for the tactical maneuvers that U.S. troops employed during the war.

The BAR: A Superior Squad Automatic Weapon

The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), although originally intended for individual use, proved to be a superior squad automatic weapon (SAW) for several reasons:

Ammunition Compatibility: The BAR used the same .30-06 cartridge as the M1 Garand, a weapon commonly issued to U.S. infantrymen. This simplified ammunition shipment and procurement, ensuring that both primary and supplementary weapons used the same ammunition. Superior Range and Stopping Power: The BAR offered far superior range and stopping power beyond close quarters. Its range and effectiveness were crucial in open-field battles, where the ability to suppress and support from a distance was a significant advantage. Flexibility in Use: In open-field environments, the BAR was far more effective than the Thompson submachine gun. At ranges of 300 to 500 yards, the BAR was effective at suppressing fire and providing support, whereas the Thompson excelled only in close-quarters combat.

Comparison of BAR and M1919A6

Both the M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and the M1919A6 machine gun were flawed by modern standards, but they served distinct purposes. The BAR, despite being an awkward, overly heavy automatic rifle, was repurposed as a light machine gun due to a lack of a dedicated squad-level automatic weapon in U.S. military inventory.

M1918A2 BAR: Heavy and unwieldy 20-round magazines Small precision sights Difficult adjustments with thumb screws M1919A6: Belt-fed medium machine gun with a shoulder stock Capable of more sustained fire Less portable and prone to unreliability

The M1919A6, while capable of delivering more sustained fire, was inherently less portable and less reliable. These limitations made it less useful in the intended role, leading to the continued use and praise of the BAR, particularly in the Korean War, for its portability and ability to fill gaps in defensive lines.

In conclusion, the decision to use the Browning Automatic Rifle over the M1919A6 in World War II was based on the weapon's effectiveness, portability, and tactical suitability. Both weapons, while imperfect by modern standards, performed their roles—albeit inadequately—based on the context of the battles they were engaged in.