Once again I feel a compulsion to come to the defense of the BAR. Neal Scroggs answer is likely correct in that US soldiers and Marines loved the weapon partly because they had no experience with anything better. The Bren and the Japanese Type 96 were better weapons with most of the BAR’s strengths and few of it’s weaknesses. Probably the closest comparison with the BAR was actually the Soviet DP/DPM guns. They had a larger though more awkward magazine and likewise lacked a quick change barrel. Like the BAR they were popular and effective with their users which brings me to my point. US troops loved the BAR, as surveys conducted in the 3rd Army indicated, and by late 1944 most US Army divisions and the USMC were allocating 2 or sometimes 3 BARs per infantry squad. It is easy to argue that the say the Bren gun was superior to the BAR but the fact remains that it was the BAR that allowed US infantry squads on patrol or the attack to have immediate access to automatic firepower. Being completely fair so did British or Commonwealth squads but the Germans? Not so much, at least as far as patrolling went. German patrols on foot mostly had to rely on the MP 40 for portable automatic fire. An MG 42 and it’s associated ammunition was simply too heavy. When US infantry was attacking the BAR compared poorly to the MG 42 but had the Germans been equipped with any other dug in belt fed weapon the same thing would have been true and at any rate the alternative for the US was no automatic weapon at all. Arguing that say a Bren gun was better isn’t wrong. It just misses the point. It also not totally correct to say the US didn’t have experience with a better light machine gun. The USMC had plenty of experience with the Lewis Gun which honestly was a better light machine gun than the BAR mainly because it was a light machine gun. Lewis Guns had been taken from USMC divisions in WW I prior to their introduction to combat, something that thoroughly disgusted the Marines, but they had been used in the Banana Wars, China and the early stages of the Pacific War. The US Army in the Philippines had likewise used Lewis Guns there though obviously this experience was lost to the US Army. At any rate for the immediate future for the US it was the BAR or nothing.
That’s a great question! And here is your answer. There are many and I mean many tactics used at the squad level. But just to go into a few since each doesn’t necessarily have a name or a code kinda like how the army has theirs. Let’s set a scenario up. A squad. Roughly around 12-14 people. Broken down into 3 teams. Patrolling through the outskirts of a village. They take shots from the right. They will scream contact right. Immediately beginning what we call RTR. Return fire, take cover, return accurate fire. Now specific to the Marine Corps, erahhhh. Our job as a rifleman squad is to “close with and destroy the enemy”. So we will go into what we call a squad attack. Which will incorporate, buddy rushing along with fire and movement, cover and movement and suppression. If the enemy fire is persistent and effective, meaning they are hitting near us which is considered effective fire then we will stay in fire and movement, which is the process of moving each team at the same time, but in specific way. If I had to explain it, if there were 4 people. Labeled 1 ,2,3, and 4. If they all started on a line together, 1 and 3 would move together sprinting no more than 15ft and dropping into the prone yelling “set” while 2 and 4 are firing at the enemy. Then letting 2 and 4 know they are taking over suppression. 2 and 4 will do the same. Also with cover and movement it’s the exact same but no one is getting in the prone or firing, only taking a knee and the enemy fire is ineffective. Ultimately they do this until they reach a closer range in which they can more easily destroy the enemy. You can also accomplish this with an offset machine gun team doing over head fire and then shifting their fires as the friendly rifle squad moves up. Same with mortars, rockets, ect.
Given that FOX News is a business, I can see two reasons. The first one is indeed conviction. As soon as you start to move your political position from the center, your perspective does change. The farther you move, the smaller the differences of other positions become. Esspecially if they are across the center. And here is where the Trumpets show a tendency to sit down on a slide and barrel into the land of selective freedom, selective equality and selective justice that is beyond the democratic realm. From there, everything is just “about commiwards”, because it is far behind the entry to the populist mudslide. Something that is fun as long as you are allowed on it, but dirties you with brown stuff, of which you hope is mud, all the way through. And from this place, Lindsey Graham could be trying to spot the difference.
Oh lots. Assuming they resume control of the House. Democrats broke a number of norms that will haunt them the moment they lose power. But as usual that party learns nothing and always assumes its majorities, no matter how slim, will remain forever and ever and ever and ever. They’ll all likely be stripped of committee assignments and marginalized. All those antisemitic comments by a particular Representative will come back to haunt her hard. Her party shielded her and got away with it at the time. But Pelosi broke that norm over that deplorable Taylor Greene woman and will not be able to shield any of the Squad members again assuming she loses the Speakers gavel. This is the inherent problem with ruling in the manner Democrats have since 2008. They’ve managed to revive the old problem of monarchies: succession. Nothing is durable and all past sins come back to haunt you if you cannot ensure your successor agrees with you. It’s a terrible way to rule in a country that utilizes democracy in any form.