As we know the BAR was developed during the later stages of WW1 and when comes to it's role as an LMG it didn't performed well. But why didn't the US tried to replace the BAR with something more modern like how the British adopted the ZB vz 26 for example. Or Why didn't the US upgraded the BAR to suite the role of an LMG better like how the Belgians did it with their version of the FN models of the BAR with a pistol grip and a quick changed barrel?
Hey there,
Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.
If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!