Clyde Barrow's Sawn-Off BAR

[Edsel]

The standard BAR M1918A2 from Pulp Hero page 305, is a bulky focus.

Clyde Barrow (of Bonnie & Clyde fame) used a BAR on which he had cut down the barrel and cut down the butt to enable the weapon to be lighter and more quickly brought into action. Of course I imagine that such a modification ought to impart a -1 Range Modifier and perhaps increase the STR minimum of the weapon since there is less weight to counter recoil. The thing had to be hip fired since the butt was now too short.

In your opinion would this allow the weapon to do away with the "bulky" limitation? The PER Modifier of a standard BAR is +7 how much less do you think the PER Modifier would be for the cut-down version?

[Beast]

doesn't the gas tube under the barrel still need there for auto fire
I would not say you could get it smaller than a full side thompson smg using a 30 rnd clip

[Edsel]

Yeah, the gas tube did limit how much it could be sawn-off. Perhaps 6" or so. This also meant no bipod.

[Peregrine]

Munchkin!

(Somebody had to say it... :) )

[lapsedgamer]

Munchkin!

(Somebody had to say it... :) )

Why is that munchkin? He is citing a well known historical example, so you know that it's "realistic." Now if he said that he wanted to do the same with a water-cooled machine gun, then we would be talking munchkin.

[Manic Typist]

Why is that munchkin? He is citing a well known historical example, so you know that it's "realistic." Now if he said that he wanted to do the same with a water-cooled machine gun, then we would be talking munchkin.

I believe he was calling Mr. Barrow's action munchkin...

Not to his face, mind you.

[Peregrine]

I believe he was calling Mr. Barrow's action munchkin...

Not to his face, mind you.

Close. :)

It was more of an ironic inference that if a player wanted to do something similar in a game, and no one in the group had heard of Mr. Barrow's having done so IRL (or maybe even if they had), that player would be (falsely, IMO) accused of munchkinism.

[mudpyr8]

I think this is mostly going to affect the concealability, which is the point. The STR min wouldn't change much (if anything it might go down 1 or 2 points due to weight reduction).

Range is unlikely to be affected all that much. What you would be losing would be the bonus a rifle would give you vs. range.

Typically the BAR is used for suppressive fire or general autofire uses, much less on the aimed shot front.

[Barton]

I think this is mostly going to affect the concealability, which is the point. The STR min wouldn't change much (if anything it might go down 1 or 2 points due to weight reduction).

Range is unlikely to be affected all that much. What you would be losing would be the bonus a rifle would give you vs. range.

Typically the BAR is used for suppressive fire or general autofire uses, much less on the aimed shot front.

Yes, reduce the STR min by 1, it would be a shorter weapon and a little lighter.
Reduce the range bonus. In the military the BAR is used suppressive fire or general autofire uses, but a skilled operator can use it for precise shots. Barrow was considered (by accounts of his actions) a good shot with it. Barrow IMHO had one or two skill levels in BAR.

[Beast]

str min should go up, we are talking about firing a 30.06 (a full sized rifle round)on full auto with no shoulder stock to brace against

now it could be braced against the get away car during a getaway
the BAR has only 20 rnds per clip so it is not ment for general suppresion
I feel in this situation the Bar is ment as a BFG for Pre attacks while in the bank and then used to disable any vehicle that may try to pursue


I think this is mostly going to affect the concealability, which is the point. The STR min wouldn't change much (if anything it might go down 1 or 2 points due to weight reduction).

Range is unlikely to be affected all that much. What you would be losing would be the bonus a rifle would give you vs. range.

Typically the BAR is used for suppressive fire or general autofire uses, much less on the aimed shot front.

[Manic Typist]

Close. :)

It was more of an ironic inference that if a player wanted to do something similar in a game, and no one in the group had heard of Mr. Barrow's having done so IRL (or maybe even if they had), that player would be (falsely, IMO) accused of munchkinism.


I got it.

I just explained the set up, and left the subtext for the reader to discover once the initial misunderstanding was resolved.

Most of human advancement is munchkinism, if you think about it...

[Peregrine]

I got it.

I just explained the set up, and left the subtext for the reader to discover once the initial misunderstanding was resolved.

Most of human advancement is munchkinism, if you think about it...

Yep. When you can change the world around you instead of just reacting to it, that's munchkinism in most gamers' eyes.

[lapsedgamer]

I got it.

I just explained the set up, and left the subtext for the reader to discover once the initial misunderstanding was resolved.

Most of human advancement is munchkinism, if you think about it...

That's kind of deep.

I imagine some guy playing a 5th level Caveman saying, "I want to be able to buy the Create Fire feat that was only available to the Shaman class and there's nothing saying I can't."

"My character has a club too, but he has lashed a sharp rock to it with hide strips so it does more damage. What?? Tell me where it says in the rules that you can't do that. In fact, I want to put them on the ends of lightweight sticks an fire them out of a thing called a bow, so I can have a ranged attack better than just throwing things."

[Kaeto]

Actually Clydes' having cut it down made it where Bonnie could use it as well. Before it was just too big for her.

[LordGhee]

According to interviews with surving gang members and family Bonniie just reloaded during fire fights. She practice with with them. the intresting thing is they made thier living robbing gas stations with an average take of about 15 dollars and gas and food.
some thing like a hundred robberies, it was one of the ways they got found it was easy to track them to the area they where in.

and about the firepower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At 11 p.m. that night, Sheriff Coffey led a group of officers armed with Thompson submachine guns toward the cabins.[19] But in a pitched gunfight at considerable distances, the submachine guns proved no match for Clyde Barrow's preferred Browning Automatic Rifles, stolen July 7, 1933 from the National Guard armory at Enid, Oklahoma

the Posse chose to arm itself with BARs.

the Barrow gang killed nine police officers which largetst total I have ever read about.

You ride with the gang you die with the gang.

Lord Ghee
El paso TX

[Toadmaster]

I've actually seen the BAR in question, it is at the Texas Rangers museum in Waco, TX. As I recall the most noticable modification was the removal of the bipod, I don't believe the stock was removed, just trimmed down probably to fit him better. It was 10 years ago that I was there so I could be remembering wrong, they had several BARs on display.

The BAR and Colt Monitor (civilian BAR) were actually fairly popular with gangsters when available because they were quite effective at taking out pursuing police cars, much better than shotguns or Tommy guns. The BAR was also known for its accuracy when fired in slow aimed fire.


Personally I don't think the BAR or BREN should have the bulky limitation, they are basically just big rifles. They were part of a regular rifle squad and could keep up with the riflemen. Now I could see the Browning M1919A6 or MG42 having the bulky lim as they were considerably larger, heavier and belt fed which is one of the reasons they were seperate elements in a platoon.

[Edsel]

In case anyone is curious...

In my current Pulp Hero game one of the players is a typical two-fisted hero type. The PC has a 20 STR and uses a BAR whenever he can get away with it. As it turns out he was able to get the weapon to the big ending fight in the Hero Plus Adventure "Curse of the Vulture God."

This was a huge fight. The High Priest, 4 summoned mummies and 40 Vulture cultists (half armed with old 6-shot carbines) verses 5 Player Characters and 10 Brotherhood of the Western Ankh (all armed well). The BAR was very effective in this fight (as was the flamethrower they had gotten their hands on). It was a really huge battle and took us about 2 1/2 hours to fight to conclusion.

All of the BAR questions stem from the PC wanting to somehow lighten the weapon so it would not be bulky. Since it was mainly used while braced behind a vehicle the bulky aspect was really never an issue during this battle.

[WarriorKnight]

Found this site with pics of Clyde's BAR. http://texashideout.tripod.com/guns.html
Love the pic of Marie Barrows Scoma hefting a BAR.Gives a new meaning to "Pistol packing mama":eg:

[Markdoc]

Personally I don't think the BAR or BREN should have the bulky limitation, they are basically just big rifles. They were part of a regular rifle squad and could keep up with the riflemen. Now I could see the Browning M1919A6 or MG42 having the bulky lim as they were considerably larger, heavier and belt fed which is one of the reasons they were seperate elements in a platoon.

Dude, have you ever toted or fired a Bren? I have, back in ATC days. It's as heavy as **** (way heavier than a heavy rifle like a Enfield .303) and also is hard to control on auto (oddly Bren's don't really kick: you have to brace yourself, because they actually pull forward and slightly to the side). According to my dad, standard practice in the field was to give the bren to the biggest guy in the section and then parcel the ammo out across his mates. I've never seen a working MG42, but I have hefted the one at the armoury here and it's only (if memory serves) marginally heavier than the Bren.

Edit: turns out my memory isn't too faulty - according to Wiki, there's about 2 pounds difference between Bren and MG42 in weight

cheers, Mark

[Toadmaster]

Dude, have you ever toted or fired a Bren? I have, back in ATC days. It's as heavy as **** (way heavier than a heavy rifle like a Enfield .303) and also is hard to control on auto (oddly Bren's don't really kick: you have to brace yourself, because they actually pull forward and slightly to the side). According to my dad, standard practice in the field was to give the bren to the biggest guy in the section and then parcel the ammo out across his mates. I've never seen a working MG42, but I have hefted the one at the armoury here and it's only (if memory serves) marginally heavier than the Bren.

Edit: turns out my memory isn't too faulty - according to Wiki, there's about 2 pounds difference between Bren and MG42 in weight

cheers, Mark


It's all interpretation, I imagine bulky as appropriate for hip firing a .30 cal water cooled MG, a weapon not intended for firing from the shoulder.

I'm not sure about the BREN, it was a much better LMG than the lighter BAR. The BAR was supposed to be used as a rifle, and as a light machinegun when fired from a bipod, that was why it had two rates of fire (some semi and full auto, some slow auto 300 rpm +/- and fast auto 600 rpm +/-). The first BARs didn't even have a bipod, it was to be fired from the hip as the shooter walked across no mans land in WW1.

[LordGhee]

Just so you know

We our Soliders and Marines got off the boat in France their brigth shiny new BAR where taken away and put in storage and they where given the Chauchat with it open tray feed which always jamed do to supply fears.
The fighting men hated and gave the Chauchat (pronounced show shat) a fighting mans nickname that rymed.

The French learn and licenced the BAR and turn the reciver so that the clip was on the top like the bren. it equiped their infanrty during the interwar and ww II period.

The best bar work in movie is in the sand pebbles with Steve McQueen
and a very young Robert Wagner in From heaven to hell

Lord Ghee

[Lawnmower Boy]

Just so you know

We our Soliders and Marines got off the boat in France their brigth shiny new BAR where taken away and put in storage and they where given the Chauchat with it open tray feed which always jamed do to supply fears.
The fighting men hated and gave the Chauchat (pronounced show shat) a fighting mans nickname that rymed.

The French learn and licenced the BAR and turn the reciver so that the clip was on the top like the bren. it equiped their infanrty during the interwar and ww II period.

The best bar work in movie is in the sand pebbles with Steve McQueen
and a very young Robert Wagner in From heaven to hell

Lord Ghee

Not quite. While all major armies entered WWI with what were later called medium machine guns, it was the French who first realised saw that a new tactical category of "light machine gun" had emerged on the battlefield. Their first attempt to design an LMG on the fly, the Chauchat, was a notorious failure. Nevertheless, American troops in Europe were issued with Chauchats and British Lewis Guns because there was as yet no American equivalent. The Browning Automatic Rifle, of which a Frenchman might say that it was magnificent but no LMG, began to appear in 1918.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Automatic_Rifle
The French were very impressed with the Browning action, but less so by the BAR. The nature of infantry warfare had been transformed by the LMG, and the French army was about to reorganise on a fundamental level, replacing the 13 man rifle squad with a 9 man LMG-based section. For that they needed an LMG, which, for all its similarities to the BAR, the Mle 24 was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mle_1924
Americans, who fought the entire Second World War in the conceptually obsolete squad organisation with the unsatisfactory BAR, have been contriving to ignore this ever since, hence the premiere tactical game of World War II, Squad Leader, which contrives not to notice that no army fought WWII in squads except the American.

[DusterBoy]

I guess Marie Barrows Scoma is a descendent of Clyde Barrows, yes?

And yes, that is a very cool pic. :D

[Kristopher]

Not quite. While all major armies entered WWI with what were later called medium machine guns, it was the French who first realised saw that a new tactical category of "light machine gun" had emerged on the battlefield. Their first attempt to design an LMG on the fly, the Chauchat, was a notorious failure. Nevertheless, American troops in Europe were issued with Chauchats and British Lewis Guns because there was as yet no American equivalent. The Browning Automatic Rifle, of which a Frenchman might say that it was magnificent but no LMG, began to appear in 1918.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Automatic_Rifle
The French were very impressed with the Browning action, but less so by the BAR. The nature of infantry warfare had been transformed by the LMG, and the French army was about to reorganise on a fundamental level, replacing the 13 man rifle squad with a 9 man LMG-based section. For that they needed an LMG, which, for all its similarities to the BAR, the Mle 24 was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mle_1924
Americans, who fought the entire Second World War in the conceptually obsolete squad organisation with the unsatisfactory BAR, have been contriving to ignore this ever since, hence the premiere tactical game of World War II, Squad Leader, which contrives not to notice that no army fought WWII in squads except the American.

And yet it didn't cost them the war...

[Yansuf]

Not quite. While all major armies entered WWI with what were later called medium machine guns, it was the French who first realised saw that a new tactical category of "light machine gun" had emerged on the battlefield. Their first attempt to design an LMG on the fly, the Chauchat, was a notorious failure. Nevertheless, American troops in Europe were issued with Chauchats and British Lewis Guns because there was as yet no American equivalent. The Browning Automatic Rifle, of which a Frenchman might say that it was magnificent but no LMG, began to appear in 1918.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Automatic_Rifle
The French were very impressed with the Browning action, but less so by the BAR. The nature of infantry warfare had been transformed by the LMG, and the French army was about to reorganise on a fundamental level, replacing the 13 man rifle squad with a 9 man LMG-based section. For that they needed an LMG, which, for all its similarities to the BAR, the Mle 24 was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mle_1924
Americans, who fought the entire Second World War in the conceptually obsolete squad organisation with the unsatisfactory BAR, have been contriving to ignore this ever since, hence the premiere tactical game of World War II, Squad Leader, which contrives not to notice that no army fought WWII in squads except the American.

Not sure this is the correct forum, but I disagree.
First, WWI squads were 8 men, for almost all the participants. WWII squads were also about that size, except for the US.
Two, British Commonwealth squads used the BREN gun, which was magazine fed like the BAR, and so was not really a LMG. (Yes, it was easier for an assistant to reload than the BAR, but still not a LMG.)
Three, the reason the US squad did not center all its tactics around the automatic weapon was that with the M1 semiautomatic rifle, the US squad had much more firepower. The effective rate of fire with a springfield (bolt action) rifle was about 10 rpm (rounds per minute); with an M1 it was 30.
Four, the Germans used squads without LMGs in the units that had the MP44 (first assault rifle, the AK-47 is basically a copy of it).

[DusterBoy]

And in the MP44 can be seen the basis of all Heckler & Koch designs.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Not sure this is the correct forum, but I disagree.
First, WWI squads were 8 men, for almost all the participants. WWII squads were also about that size, except for the US.
Two, British Commonwealth squads used the BREN gun, which was magazine fed like the BAR, and so was not really a LMG. (Yes, it was easier for an assistant to reload than the BAR, but still not a LMG.)
Three, the reason the US squad did not center all its tactics around the automatic weapon was that with the M1 semiautomatic rifle, the US squad had much more firepower. The effective rate of fire with a springfield (bolt action) rifle was about 10 rpm (rounds per minute); with an M1 it was 30.
Four, the Germans used squads without LMGs in the units that had the MP44 (first assault rifle, the AK-47 is basically a copy of it).

I don't doubt that you're right about the basic WWI infantry formation, Yansuf, but I'm going to stand my ground on two positions that seem important.
First, the French clearly need to be given credit for recognising the change in the nature of infantry warfare and basing new infantry organisations on the LMG.
Second, the United States really did fight WWII with the wrong organisation on the ground. An article in Journal of Military History even resolved the long debate over S. L. A. Marshall's findings by explaining that too many riflemen were just standing around while the BAR section did the work. (I may be wrong, but I think that this is the article: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=K71HVPp5J6ndXVng7y31B vmcvkQgX6LCVTF0y2QCzKJ0CJ1jr2QN!1273633868!-1334397701?docId=5002560343)
The problem is simple --opportunities for fire. An LMG concentrates the section firepower at a single point, vital in the artillery-dominated battlefield. Imagine a hole in a hedge, a culvert, the concealment of a shock of wheat in a field. Whatever: the point is limited concealment/protection.
Even if there were room for 10 riflemen (with or without semiautomatic rifles), they shouldn't be there. You're risking their lives against artillery to no good purpose. The fire position should be occupied by the LMG team, with the supporting riflemen dispersed on its flanks. (And if they are armed with assault rifles or additional BARs all the better.) That's why the United States Army cut the rifle squad strength prior to Korea, even though it did not yet have a true LMG to arm it with.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=NpOp2OO1-DAC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=United+States+squad+organization+korean+war&source=bl&ots=Zixx95NXFv&sig=UOcTG_wcBRLcV2UnnWmkoAu60Yo&hl=en&ei=NsO7SobNMYfatgPY8f26BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Now, the problem here is straightfoward. Up until 1950, the European powers spent far more on defence (at least per capita, and more effectively, since wages were lower) than the United States. As a result, countries like France and Germany, but even the United Kingdom, had far more vigorous weapon design communities, amongst other things, than the United States.
American generals, however, remember that thing about the priority of policy. They did not say, in the 1930s, that "Congress is not giving us enough money to develop new LMGs/AA artillery/aircraft/shellmaking plant/fire control equipment/demolition explosives/ [on and on]." They're not there to start military coups. They're there to defend America with what Congress gives them on the basis of the risk analysis that is Congress' job. They said, and you can find this quote again and again in contemporary media, that American soldiers had the best equipment in the world.
And they said it even when it was ludicrously wrong, because that was their job. When you find the commander of the AA branch saying that the army's improvised WWI 75mm cannon-turned AA gun was the best in the world at the same time that the UK and Germany were rolling out the 3.7" and 88mm, you realise that defending the 13 man/1 BAR ratio on the grounds of effectiveness hardly made noses grow at all.

That said, what was defensible then is a little bit less defensible now. I've seen any number of arguments that make out, somehow, that the US infantry was just perfectly equipped in WWII . But the notion that the "Bren gun wasn't a real LMG neither," is a new one on me. And the fact that the Germans deployed infantry sections without LMGs is not evidence that they didn't need one, because volume of fire is not, as I've noted, the issue.

[Yansuf]

I don't doubt that you're right about the basic WWI infantry formation, Yansuf, but I'm going to stand my ground on two positions that seem important.
First, the French clearly need to be given credit for recognising the change in the nature of infantry warfare and basing new infantry organisations on the LMG.
Second, the United States really did fight WWII with the wrong organisation on the ground. An article in Journal of Military History even resolved the long debate over S. L. A. Marshall's findings by explaining that too many riflemen were just standing around while the BAR section did the work. (I may be wrong, but I think that this is the article: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=K71HVPp5J6ndXVng7y31B vmcvkQgX6LCVTF0y2QCzKJ0CJ1jr2QN!1273633868!-1334397701?docId=5002560343)
The problem is simple --opportunities for fire. An LMG concentrates the section firepower at a single point, vital in the artillery-dominated battlefield. Imagine a hole in a hedge, a culvert, the concealment of a shock of wheat in a field. Whatever: the point is limited concealment/protection.
Even if there were room for 10 riflemen (with or without semiautomatic rifles), they shouldn't be there. You're risking their lives against artillery to no good purpose. The fire position should be occupied by the LMG team, with the supporting riflemen dispersed on its flanks. (And if they are armed with assault rifles or additional BARs all the better.) That's why the United States Army cut the rifle squad strength prior to Korea, even though it did not yet have a true LMG to arm it with.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=NpOp2OO1-DAC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=United+States+squad+organization+korean+war&source=bl&ots=Zixx95NXFv&sig=UOcTG_wcBRLcV2UnnWmkoAu60Yo&hl=en&ei=NsO7SobNMYfatgPY8f26BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Now, the problem here is straightfoward. Up until 1950, the European powers spent far more on defence (at least per capita, and more effectively, since wages were lower) than the United States. As a result, countries like France and Germany, but even the United Kingdom, had far more vigorous weapon design communities, amongst other things, than the United States.
American generals, however, remember that thing about the priority of policy. They did not say, in the 1930s, that "Congress is not giving us enough money to develop new LMGs/AA artillery/aircraft/shellmaking plant/fire control equipment/demolition explosives/ [on and on]." They're not there to start military coups. They're there to defend America with what Congress gives them on the basis of the risk analysis that is Congress' job. They said, and you can find this quote again and again in contemporary media, that American soldiers had the best equipment in the world.
And they said it even when it was ludicrously wrong, because that was their job. When you find the commander of the AA branch saying that the army's improvised WWI 75mm cannon-turned AA gun was the best in the world at the same time that the UK and Germany were rolling out the 3.7" and 88mm, you realise that defending the 13 man/1 BAR ratio on the grounds of effectiveness hardly made noses grow at all.

That said, what was defensible then is a little bit less defensible now. I've seen any number of arguments that make out, somehow, that the US infantry was just perfectly equipped in WWII . But the notion that the "Bren gun wasn't a real LMG neither," is a new one on me. And the fact that the Germans deployed infantry sections without LMGs is not evidence that they didn't need one, because volume of fire is not, as I've noted, the issue.

We are getting way off the original topic.
I will PM you.