World War I At its inception, the M1918 was intended to be used as a shoulder-fired rifle capable of both semi-automatic and fully automatic fire. First issued in September 1918 to the
American Expeditionary Forces, it was based on the concept of "walking fire", a French practice in use since 1916 for which the CSRG 1915 (
Chauchat) had been used accompanying advancing squads of
riflemen toward the enemy trenches, as regular machine guns were too cumbersome to move with the troops during an assault. In addition to shoulder-fired operation, BAR gunners were issued a belt with magazine pouches for the BAR and sidearm along with a "cup" to support the stock of the rifle when held at the hip. In theory, this allowed the soldier to lay
suppressive fire while walking forward, keeping the enemy's head down, a practice known as "
marching fire". The idea would resurface in the
submachine gun and ultimately the
assault rifle. It is not known if any of the belt-cup devices actually saw combat use. The BAR was originally proposed for use by a team of three men. The gunner carried the BAR with six loaded magazines, while the loader carried eighteen loaded magazines and the carrier carried twenty loaded magazines. It was assumed that weight distribution would allow the team to move as fast as infantry riflemen. Although 17,000 BARs were in France by the end of July, 1918, the BAR only saw minor action in France during World War I, being brought into action only as late as September 1918, less than three months before
Armistice Day. The intentional delay had been inspired by General
Pershing, the AEF commander, in order not to let the BAR fall into enemy hands too early. Fifty-two thousand BARs were available by the end of the war in November.
Interwar use During the interwar years, as the U.S. Army was reduced significantly in size, the BAR remained in the smaller extant Regular Army and by the 1930s, was also issued to state
national guard units to be maintained at their
armories. Given the part-time nature, smaller manning and lesser security of these national guard armories when compared to regular army installations, some BARs were subject to
plunder by domestic civilian criminal elements. The BAR was also standard issue to US naval landing forces during the period. The weapon was a standard item in US warship armories, and each BAR was accompanied by a spare barrel. The First Marine Brigade stationed in
Port-au-Prince, Haiti, noted that training a man to use the BAR proficiently took a full two days of range practice and instruction, compared to half a day with the .45 caliber Thompson submachine gun. The BAR was issued as the sole automatic fire support for a twelve-man squad, and all men were trained at the basic level how to operate and fire the weapon in case the designated operators were killed or wounded. At the start of the war, infantry companies designated three-man BAR teams, a gunner, an assistant gunner, and an ammunition bearer who carried additional magazines for the gun. By 1944, some units were using one-man BAR "teams" with the other riflemen in the squad detailed to carry additional magazines or bandoliers of .30 ammunition. Contrary to certain claims, the BAR was issued to soldiers of various heights. As originally conceived, US Army tactical doctrine called for one M1918A2 per squad, using several men to support and carry ammunition for the gun. In some cases, particularly in the attack, every fourth German infantryman was equipped with an automatic weapon, either a submachine gun or a full-power machine gun. After combat experience showed the benefits of maximizing portable automatic firepower in squad-size formations, the US Marine Corps began to increase the number of BARs in its combat divisions, from 513 per division in 1943 to 867 per division in 1945. A thirteen-man squad was developed, consisting of 3 four-man fire teams, with one BAR per fire team, or three BARs per squad. Instead of supporting the M1 riflemen in the attack, Marine tactical doctrine was focused around the BAR, with riflemen supporting and protecting the BAR gunner. As a squad light machine gun, the BAR's effectiveness was mixed, since its thin, non-quick-change barrel and small magazine capacity greatly limited its firepower in comparison to genuine light machine guns such as the British
Bren and the Japanese
Type 96. The weapon's rate-reducer mechanism, a delicately balanced spring-and-weight system described by one ordnance sergeant as a "
Rube Goldberg device", came in for much criticism, often causing malfunctions when not regularly cleaned. The bipod and buttstock rest (monopod), which contributed so much to the M1918A2's accuracy when firing prone on the rifle range, proved far less valuable under actual field combat conditions. demand for the M1918A2 frequently exceeded supply, and as late as 1945 some Army units were sent into combat still carrying older, unmodified M1918 weapons. After a period of service, ordnance personnel began to receive BARs with inoperable or malfunctioning recoil buffer mechanisms. This was eventually traced to the soldier's common practice of cleaning the BAR in a vertical position with the butt of the weapon on the ground, allowing cleaning fluid and burned powder to collect in the recoil buffer mechanism.
Korean War The BAR continued in service in the
Korean War. The last military contract for the manufacture of the M1918A2 was awarded to the Royal Typewriter Co. of Hartford, Connecticut, which manufactured a total of 61,000 M1918A2s during the conflict, using ArmaSteel cast receivers and trigger housings. General Marshall's report noted that an overwhelming majority of respondents praised the BAR and the utility of automatic fire delivered by a lightweight, portable small arm in both day and night engagements. In his autobiography Colonel
David Hackworth praised the BAR as 'the best weapon of the Korean War'. A typical BAR gunner of the Korean War carried the twelve-magazine belt and combat suspenders, with three or four extra magazines in pockets. Extra canteens, .45 pistol, grenades, and a flak vest added still more weight. The large amounts of ammunition expended by BAR teams in Korea placed additional demands on the assistant gunner to stay in close contact with the BAR at all times, particularly on patrols. While the BAR magazines themselves always seemed to be in short supply, Gen. Marshall reported that "riflemen in the squad were markedly willing to carry extra ammunition for the BAR man". In combat, the M1918A2 frequently decided the outcome of determined attacks by North Korean and Chinese communist forces. Communist tactical doctrine centered on the mortar and machine gun, with attacks designed to envelop and cut off United Nations forces from supply and reinforcement. Communist machine gun teams were the best-trained men in any given North Korean or Chinese infantry unit, skilled at placing their heavily camouflaged and protected weapons as close to UN forces as possible. Once concealed, they often surprised UN forces by opening fire at very short ranges, covering any exposed ground with a hail of accurately sighted machine gun fire. While new-production M1918A2 guns were almost universally praised for faultless performance in combat, a number of malfunctions in combat were reported with armory-reconditioned M1918A2s, particularly weapons that had been reconditioned by Ordnance in Japan, which did not replace operating (recoil) springs as a requirement of the reconditioning program. to the
South Vietnamese Army and associated allies, including the
Montagnard hill tribespeople of South Vietnam. US Special Forces advisors frequently chose the BAR over currently available infantry weapons. As one Special Forces sergeant declared, "Many times since my three tours of duty in Vietnam I have thanked God for ... having a BAR that actually worked, as opposed to the jamming M16 ... We had a lot of Viet Cong infiltrators in all our [Special Forces] camps, who would steal weapons every chance they got. Needless to say, the most popular weapon to steal was the venerable old BAR."
Post-Vietnam use Quantities of the BAR remained in use by the
Army National Guard up until the mid-1970s. Many recipients of US foreign aid adopted the BAR and used it into the 1980s and 1990s. ==Variants==