Rifle Squads Double BAR

[Landsknecht und Deutscher Ritter]

I remember when I started a thread on Normandy 44 where a Eugen employee argued with me that it was generous for an American rifleman squad to have a single BAR when I said they should have two and specialized assault teams should have three. I'm glad they did some research on the subject and made a step in the right direction lol.

For those of you unaware the TO&E for having 1 BAR per 12 man rifle squad would require 729 BARs per infantry division. Where 2 would require 1,458 per division and 2,187 for 3 per squad.

The US had 290,000 BAR rifles during WWII and 70 Infantry divisions. meaning they'd need 150,000 to have 3 BARs per rifle squad while still leaving enough for all the other units like Airborne rifleman to get there single BAR.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

Neko. I cannot blame them for getting it wrong. I also don't really think your over all figures for BAR production prove much beyond a lot being made.

Here is what my Osprey book says and why I think it might be hard on the devs to expect such detailed easy to miss knowledge:

"The Browning Automatic Rifle provided only light support. Wieghing just over 20Ib, it used the same .30 rifle ammunition, and could be fired from the support of its muzzle bipod (although this was often discarded), theoretically it had a high rate of fire, but it did not have a quick-change barrel, and this lack, plus its 20 round box magazines, limited it in practise to short bursts. The result was an 'automatic rifle' which could be used ina very agile manner, from the hip on the move or even from the shoulder when standing, but it was unusual for it to lay down more than 60 rounds per minute. Nevertheless, the value placed upon the BAR was underlined by the fact that in many squads a second weapon was carried, a practice which was offiicially recognised late in the war. Taking the Garand and BAR together, it is clear that US squads had good firepower, with fairly even distribution throughout the group."

So as you can see. Officially until very late, it would have been very easy to miss a second BAR per squad.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

I could draw from the surplus that they intended to give every member of the squad a BAR. Or they intended to supply Russia via lend lease or another ally etc. You are assuming. The US did not have to be as sparing as the Axis with their resources.

[Noblesse Oblige [KG] ⳩]

All I am trying to point out is that what you are presenting is not conclusive. You do not have a period document in front of you from an official source stating an intent for the production numbers. What you have is a conclusion based on one piece of circumstantial evidence.
You could be right and logically probably are. But for game research it's easy to get wrong, if the sources are not clear up until near the end of the war.

[Dindomir]

They now made two units, a Rifles Early, with one BAR and a Rifles Late, with two BARS and a Thompson. Also, some produced weapons never reach the front, and a lot are only used for replacements. Normal combat tends to damage weapons frequently.

[Dindomir]

There was not necessarily a problem with production as with doctrine. They possibly thought that squads didn't need a second BAR until they realized the troops liked to take a second BAR at every chance they get. I would much rather go with what the Osprey book says than what pure production numbers say.

[Dindomir]

Not everyone. Only those who could. Everyone else had one. And maybe some guys got a third one, but I'm pretty sure that no matter how many BARS the Army had, it wasn't just going to hand them out in those numbers. Plus, you have the Airborne, the Marines, I'm sure the Navy had some for sentries. At the end of it all, if the sources say that most troops had one or two BARS, they had one or two BARS. Anecdotal evidence from a couple of soldiers is not enough to prove that it was common.

[[EUG] MadMat]

Originally posted by Graufuchs:

I remember when I started a thread on Normandy 44 where a Eugen employee argued with me that it was generous for an American rifleman squad to have a single BAR when I said they should have two and specialized assault teams should have three. I'm glad they did some research on the subject and made a step in the right direction lol.

For those of you unaware the TO&E for having 1 BAR per 12 man rifle squad would require 729 BARs per infantry division. Where 2 would require 1,458 per division and 2,187 for 3 per squad.

The US had 290,000 BAR rifles during WWII and 70 Infantry divisions. meaning they'd need 150,000 to have 3 BARs per rifle squad while still leaving enough for all the other units like Airborne rifleman to get there single BAR.

I do not recall such debate.

US infantry divisions' squads went to Normandy with 1x BAR and 11x Garand, nothing more as per TO&E.
Only from June 30th, after almost a month of costly combat in the bocage was the February 1944 TO&E modified and more automatic weapons added, with an additional batch of 6x BAR & 6x SMG allocated per company.
But those were allocated to the company headquarter, which would distribute them as fitting for, if you do the math, 6 of each doesn't make enough for the company's 9 squads to have one of each.

Hence, our original 1x BAR setting was right, as is the 2x BAR "late" (aka post-June 30th) setting for 2/3 of the squads. I'm sure some companies may have allocated 3x BAR to 1/3 of their squad instead, since it was left ot the company commander's decision, but I have never seen such a loadout.

Regarding paratroopers & BAR, it is a very old debate.
From what I had concluded, most pictures showing 101st/82nd AB troopers with one are dated from Market Garden, not Normandy (dating of pictures usually done from the huge US flag on the paratroopers' shoulder, only worn from Market Garden).

[Tossblade]

Originally posted by Graufuchs:

Originally posted by EUG MadMat:

I do not recall such debate.

US infantry divisions' squads went to Normandy with 1x BAR and 11x Garand, nothing more as per TO&E.
Only from June 30th, after almost a month of costly combat in the bocage was the February 1944 TO&E modified and more automatic weapons added, with an additional batch of 6x BAR & 6x SMG allocated per company.
But those were allocated to the company headquarter, which would distribute them as fitting for, if you do the math, 6 of each doesn't make enough for the company's 9 squads to have one of each.

Hence, our original 1x BAR setting was right, as is the 2x BAR "late" (aka post-June 30th) setting for 2/3 of the squads. I'm sure some companies may have allocated 3x BAR to 1/3 of their squad instead, since it was left ot the company commander's decision, but I have never seen such a loadout.

Regarding paratroopers & BAR, it is a very old debate.
From what I had concluded, most pictures showing 101st/82nd AB troopers with one are dated from Market Garden, not Normandy (dating of pictures usually done from the huge US flag on the paratroopers' shoulder, only worn from Market Garden).

How come you don't follow the TOE when you give Panzergrenadier squads 2 MG42s and no assistant gunner armed with nothing but a luger tho?

Not only did they take time to respond, but with detail and attention to your points. You should thank them for that if you can before pursuing another question.

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Graufuchs:

MG42s and no assistant gunner armed with nothing but a luger tho?

Because

- Pistols don't exist at all in this game (and why aren't you complaining about that?)
- Infantry squads are abstracted for the sake of gameplay; every single machine gunner in every nation had a loader-assistant, but none of them are represented in-game, because it doesn't matter in the slightest
and
- this is a combined-arms-tactics game, not "WW2 Infantry Machine-Gunner-Simulator 2020".

[BlackFoxSamaki]

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

Originally posted by Graufuchs:

MG42s and no assistant gunner armed with nothing but a luger tho?

Because

- Pistols don't exist at all in this game (and why aren't you complaining about that?)
- Infantry squads are abstracted for the sake of gameplay; every single machine gunner in every nation had a loader-assistant, but none of them are represented in-game, because it doesn't matter in the slightest
and
- this is a combined-arms-tactics game, not "WW2 Infantry Machine-Gunner-Simulator 2020".

When allies lack equipment it's because of realism, when axis has non-realistic amounts of equipment it's suddenly because game-play is an abstraction.

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by BlackFoxMisogynist:

When allies lack equipment it's because of realism, when axis has non-realistic amounts of equipment it's suddenly because game-play is an abstraction.

Except the Axis aren't missing anything by not having the loader. There is no point to including one as it would have zero impact on gameplay.

Also, as pointed out in your other thread, the "lack of infantry AT for Soviets" is a non-issue, because real-world Soviet infantry did not come with AT direct-fire weapons as a standard piece of kit.

[[EUG] MadMat]

Originally posted by Graufuchs:

How come you don't follow the TOE when you give Panzergrenadier squads 2 MG42s and no assistant gunner armed with nothing but a luger tho?

We don't do pistols ingame.
Hence why MG loader gets basic rifle or carbine.

Originally posted by BlackFoxMisogynist:

When allies lack equipment it's because of realism, when axis has non-realistic amounts of equipment it's suddenly because game-play is an abstraction.

The same applies to all nations, not only Germans.

[BlackFoxSamaki]

Originally posted by EUG MadMat:

Originally posted by Graufuchs:

How come you don't follow the TOE when you give Panzergrenadier squads 2 MG42s and no assistant gunner armed with nothing but a luger tho?

We don't do pistols ingame.
Hence why MG loader gets basic rifle or carbine.

Originally posted by BlackFoxMisogynist:

When allies lack equipment it's because of realism, when axis has non-realistic amounts of equipment it's suddenly because game-play is an abstraction.

The same applies to all nations, not only Germans.

Why does all russian armor in the game carry mostly HE rounds? It's because that's what they had realistically right? But they historically carried so much HE because the axis were laughably short on armor. In game however the battlefield is swamped with panthers, tigers, and king tigers, meaning that all of that HE is actually a bad thing. So the axis are not constrained by historical factors like lack of armor while the russians are confined to realistic ammo loadouts and available equipment.

[Dindomir]

They actually carried even less AP, they carry an adequate amount right now. And again, on a divisional battlegroup level, the Germans had a decent number of tanks during Bagration.

[Dindomir]

At the lowest level, the basic Panzergrenadier unit was the gruppe or squad, usually about 12 men mounted in a half-track or often a truck. The squad was led by a squad leader, usually a junior NCO eg a corporal, who was armed with a machine pistol and was responsible for the squad to the platoon commander. On the move, he also commanded the vehicle and fired the vehicle mounted machine gun, usually an MG 34/42. His rifle-armed assistant was normally a lance-corporal and could lead the half squad if it was divided. The squad contained 2 light machine-gun teams, each of 2 men, four rifle-armed infantrymen and the driver and co-driver. The driver was also responsible for the care of the vehicle and expected to remain with the transport. A Panzergrenadier platoon was made up of 3 squads, with the platoon HQ in a separate vehicle. The HQ troop consisted of a platoon commander, usually a junior officer but sometimes a sergeant, a driver, a radio-operator, 2 runners, a medic and usually some form of anti-tank gun.
Source
https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/04/17/panzergrenadier-tactics/
So if two carbines make Panzergrenadiers OP, they are OP.