True. But it was the combination of machine guns and barbed wire that drove armies into stationary positions where artillery could be most effective.
I once owned a BAR, loved it. However the stock was a bit flat for my size.
On the other hand a A Bolt in a Magnum Chambering is a dream rifle. Carried one from Texas to Alberta, CA. Nothing ever ran far that I put a chunk of lead/copper thru.
Unfortunately one day while boating...
I also remember the Aussies didn't do to well when they went over the top in the face of Turkish machine guns at Gallipoli. That debacle almost ruined Churchill's career.
Cool. Hope the Pentagon gives it a good look.
The BAR was outstanding because it was supremely reliable, accurate and steady as a rock. I remember being able to see the strikes of my rounds through my peep sight and controlling the hits. Nice slow, controllable 450 RPM rate of fire.
One could say the best, BAR none...
And all this time, I thought it was for mixing pizza dough.
Who knew?
Incompetent and arrogant military leadership is the *real* killing machine.
The problem began with Napoleon, who while not particularly brilliant as a military planner himself, had at least two senior generals who were military geniuses. How their strategy worked is best, and fairly simply illustrated by the Ulm-Austerlitz campaign.
To start with, Napoleon had two unusually large armies. He sent one of them to Italy, to protect his southern flank. So with just his single, grand army, he went into battle expecting to fight SEVEN Austrian and Russian armies.
He was helped immeasurably by a fluke. The European armies used the Gregorian calendar, but the Russians still used the Julian calendar, which was about two weeks behind the Gregorian in its dates. So they left Russia two weeks late.
To make matters worse, they had to pass through Prussia, and the Prussians were not happy at all to see four Russian armies pass through their country. So more severe delays.
In any event, on to strategy. Napoleon decided to confuse his enemy as to where he was going, and what he was going to attack. So he put his army in a north-south line almost the width of Europe. As the line marched East, units formed and reformed so the enemy could not tell who was where, while gradually reducing the length of the line while thickening it. Eventually it split sideways, so that there was a front line, and a rapidly moving rear echelon.
The concept (called the “Axe” technique) was that the front would engage the enemy on a wide front, and the rapidly moving second echelon would go up and down the line, looking for a weakness in the enemies defenses, then pour through, splitting the enemies forces.
It worked exceedingly well for the times.
In any event, the Austrians figured that the French would have to do a major river crossing, and that the best place to do that was at the German city of Ulm, which was inside an L shaped bend in the river. So they put the best of their three armies in the city.
With considerable razzle-dazzle, Napoleon’s army carried out a major river crossing with their engineers *North* of the city. Then very quickly surrounded the city with their fast moving second echelon.
Pinned in on two sides by the river, and encircled on the land, that entire army had to surrender or be slaughtered. And surrender they did.
This was the preface to the battle of Austerlitz, which is regarded as one of the most important battles of maneuver in history, and was extensively studied by all modern armies. The French won an incredible victory, defeating two Austrian armies and a Russian Army, with the other three Russian armies returning home in a hurry.
Now all of this explains World War I, and easily.
Every modern army of the time adopted these Napoleonic tactics as the only way to fight a war. And the zinger is, that *they do not work*, if both sides are using them.
If both sides are doing so, you end up with a horrific bloodbath and stalemate. And victory goes to whoever abandons the Napoleonic tactics first.
The utter carnage of World War I forced all the western European nations to make a huge review and revision of their tactics, but because of the Russian revolution, the Russians *never did*.
So up until the collapse of the Soviet Union, they were still embracing Napoleonic tactics. Modern technology was adapted to those tactics. Even having nuclear weapons didn’t change those tactics.
And NATO knew it. So planned its defenses using tactics formulated to *defeat* Napoleonic tactics.
But in the final analysis, it does not boil down to technology, but pragmatic leadership.
And the legendary Browning M2 (Ma Deuce) .50 cal MG was and still is the deadliest MG around with probably more kills and damage inflicted than a lot of military arms. Browning did know what was needed in the field.
I remember shooting the BAR off our Fletcher-class DD in 1966. We'd run about 200 rounds through the old warhorse. The barrel was really cooking. when I handed it off to a new shooter. He made the mistake of grabbing it around the exposed barrel, and got an immediate blister 2/3 the width of his hand. The next time I saw him, his whole hand was swathed in bandages. That was a very painful lesson for him and all the shooters were very aware what NOT to touch!
I have one of the 1918A3’s from Ohio Ordnance with the walnut stock. Beautiful weapon. Definitely turns some heads at the shooting range
You would think that after seeing men being killed the first time by the thousands as they ran directly into the machine gun fire that the generals would think to use different tactics.
On a recent thread someone wrote that the BAR sucked, largely because it was heavy and the mags only held 20 rnds. It stuck out because most people only have positive things to say about it.