The Browning Automatic Rifle and the M4 tank.
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2025 9:03 pm
One of the expressions I encountered in my life I found astute. There are two kinds of people:
1) Those that are happy to have what they want.
2) Those that are happy to want what they have.
Those are not the same.
I had a cousin, she's dead now, much older than I am. She married a guy of the first type. Every year he traded his car in on a new one. After buying a Boss Mustang, he'd trade it in on a Z28. The next year it'd be a Challenger or whatever. Always sportscars. He never kept a car for over a year. His marriage lasted not much longer. Never wanted what he had.
I'm the second type. I want what I have. I've had the same girl since I was 16. I drive my cars until the wheels fall off. Then glue them back on and drive some more. Most of my power tools are 30 years old. I bought them all new. A side benefit of that is the wife and I have no debt. Great incomes and inexpensive tastes. What of my gun collection? I had to put the money somewhere as I maxed out the amount I could put in the bank every year. By the time I stopped working, I had more in the bank than my retirement was worth. The wife too. We're both "want what you have" types.
General Crozier's type is obvious. The quote from Lewis is incredible. "We are always getting something better, but we never have anything good."
One of my bosses in the distant past was like that. If you told him you needed a ride to work, he'd start designing a car factory. You'd still walk to work while he was lost in that.
With their "Ordnance Experts" telling them one thing, and Lewis telling them another, they called in a neutral party. You'll notice above that Lewis claimed the Ordnance Department "experts" were anything but.
Gatling was called in. Gatling was an attorney so one of the same guild as the men in Congress. He was the son of the gun guy, in fact he worked for his father early in life; and thus knew quite a bit about ordnance. Gatling was a lawyer on Wall Street. Bonds. Not in the munition business and had no financial interest.
Bingo twice. Lewis was clear on it. Gatling hit it as well. In fact he said it better with fewer words.
Borie was the head of Savage. He warned them. Colt and Winchester were in over their heads with the Brownings. It wasn't going to go as well as they thought it would. They didn't have good experience with making machine guns.
Bingo for four. The Browning Automatic Rifle was in fact found deficient - it didn't work. The Browning "heavy" didn't arrive until the war ended.
I can prove both of those assertions with documentation in spades.
"What was the impact?" Actually, not much. The French covered the shortages with their guns. Until they ran out anyway.
What is that? That is an M18 tank destroyer with the 90mm cannon.
The Armored Forces told Ordnance, in 1943, that the war would be won or lost with the M4 Sherman. General Gideon Barnes, of the Ordnance Department, didn't like hearing that. Barnes wanted a spanking new tank. He blocked the installation of the 90mm cannon in M4 tanks. Why? Clearly he didn't like the competition. The M36 TDs, built on M4 tank hulls, made it clear it could be done. Even the M18 could handle it. A T26 turret, complete, was installed on an M4 chassis. It worked just fine. Why not just make turrets, with the 90mm cannon, and ship those for installation on M4s in Europe? Gideon Barnes had the ears of the right people. He, like Crozier, was "an expert."
General Barnes was clearly cut from the same cloth as General Crozier had been. Whereas the French were able to cover the loss that Crozier caused, there was nobody to cover Barnes's loss. How many tankers died due to Barnes? It's clearly non-zero.
Half the population is Type 1.
In Vietnam, the USAF discovered that all of their fighters and interceptors were designed for incoming bombers; they had nothing useful for enemy fighters. The latest, and greatest, F4 Phantom II didn't even have a cannon. One doesn't shoot bombers with cannon, missiles are for that. What does that have to do with Type 1?
The powers that be, with all those "Century Series" fighters, were "always looking for something better and does not act always with good decision."
The wife. Is female obviously. Females shop wrong. Instead of dreaming up what you imagine what you want, and then looking for it, you take a look at what is available and select from that. My truck is white. Why white? Because the auction I bought it from only had white trucks. It was what was available.
The Lewis was available. It worked.
The Browning was a paper gun. Paper guns don't kill the enemy. The M26 arrived too late to have any impact. It was also, like the BAR, deficient. Under-powered and unreliable.
Yes, I have some familiarity with the BAR. That is my son. A good time was had by all. Two days with that, a Thompson, and various other guns. Out with a friend - he owned that. Low mileage WW1 made Winchester. Low mileage as it was sent to England as lend-lease. Ergo, not used.
1) Those that are happy to have what they want.
2) Those that are happy to want what they have.
Those are not the same.
I had a cousin, she's dead now, much older than I am. She married a guy of the first type. Every year he traded his car in on a new one. After buying a Boss Mustang, he'd trade it in on a Z28. The next year it'd be a Challenger or whatever. Always sportscars. He never kept a car for over a year. His marriage lasted not much longer. Never wanted what he had.
I'm the second type. I want what I have. I've had the same girl since I was 16. I drive my cars until the wheels fall off. Then glue them back on and drive some more. Most of my power tools are 30 years old. I bought them all new. A side benefit of that is the wife and I have no debt. Great incomes and inexpensive tastes. What of my gun collection? I had to put the money somewhere as I maxed out the amount I could put in the bank every year. By the time I stopped working, I had more in the bank than my retirement was worth. The wife too. We're both "want what you have" types.
- Something_better-1.jpg (136.67 KiB) Viewed 734 times
General Crozier's type is obvious. The quote from Lewis is incredible. "We are always getting something better, but we never have anything good."
One of my bosses in the distant past was like that. If you told him you needed a ride to work, he'd start designing a car factory. You'd still walk to work while he was lost in that.
With their "Ordnance Experts" telling them one thing, and Lewis telling them another, they called in a neutral party. You'll notice above that Lewis claimed the Ordnance Department "experts" were anything but.
Gatling was called in. Gatling was an attorney so one of the same guild as the men in Congress. He was the son of the gun guy, in fact he worked for his father early in life; and thus knew quite a bit about ordnance. Gatling was a lawyer on Wall Street. Bonds. Not in the munition business and had no financial interest.
- Something_better-2.jpg (13.62 KiB) Viewed 734 times
Bingo twice. Lewis was clear on it. Gatling hit it as well. In fact he said it better with fewer words.
- borie-1.jpg (86.71 KiB) Viewed 734 times
Borie was the head of Savage. He warned them. Colt and Winchester were in over their heads with the Brownings. It wasn't going to go as well as they thought it would. They didn't have good experience with making machine guns.
- Gatling2.jpg (175.42 KiB) Viewed 734 times
Bingo for four. The Browning Automatic Rifle was in fact found deficient - it didn't work. The Browning "heavy" didn't arrive until the war ended.
I can prove both of those assertions with documentation in spades.
"What was the impact?" Actually, not much. The French covered the shortages with their guns. Until they ran out anyway.
- M18-1.jpg (40.65 KiB) Viewed 734 times
What is that? That is an M18 tank destroyer with the 90mm cannon.
The Armored Forces told Ordnance, in 1943, that the war would be won or lost with the M4 Sherman. General Gideon Barnes, of the Ordnance Department, didn't like hearing that. Barnes wanted a spanking new tank. He blocked the installation of the 90mm cannon in M4 tanks. Why? Clearly he didn't like the competition. The M36 TDs, built on M4 tank hulls, made it clear it could be done. Even the M18 could handle it. A T26 turret, complete, was installed on an M4 chassis. It worked just fine. Why not just make turrets, with the 90mm cannon, and ship those for installation on M4s in Europe? Gideon Barnes had the ears of the right people. He, like Crozier, was "an expert."
General Barnes was clearly cut from the same cloth as General Crozier had been. Whereas the French were able to cover the loss that Crozier caused, there was nobody to cover Barnes's loss. How many tankers died due to Barnes? It's clearly non-zero.
Half the population is Type 1.
In Vietnam, the USAF discovered that all of their fighters and interceptors were designed for incoming bombers; they had nothing useful for enemy fighters. The latest, and greatest, F4 Phantom II didn't even have a cannon. One doesn't shoot bombers with cannon, missiles are for that. What does that have to do with Type 1?
- Something_better-2.jpg (13.62 KiB) Viewed 734 times
The powers that be, with all those "Century Series" fighters, were "always looking for something better and does not act always with good decision."
The wife. Is female obviously. Females shop wrong. Instead of dreaming up what you imagine what you want, and then looking for it, you take a look at what is available and select from that. My truck is white. Why white? Because the auction I bought it from only had white trucks. It was what was available.
The Lewis was available. It worked.
- Paper_gun-1.jpg (24.98 KiB) Viewed 734 times
The Browning was a paper gun. Paper guns don't kill the enemy. The M26 arrived too late to have any impact. It was also, like the BAR, deficient. Under-powered and unreliable.
- bar-1.jpg (62.95 KiB) Viewed 723 times
Yes, I have some familiarity with the BAR. That is my son. A good time was had by all. Two days with that, a Thompson, and various other guns. Out with a friend - he owned that. Low mileage WW1 made Winchester. Low mileage as it was sent to England as lend-lease. Ergo, not used.