JonS

IIRC the LMG42 (or maybe it was the 34 ... maybe both?) used a conical drum magazine, in addition to belted ammo. Did this go out of service early in the war, or continue until the end? If it was used during the timescale of CMBO, how would that affect the comparative performance?

Not true. Sorry L. Wrong again.

Yes it has started, and has been going for 9 game hours (3 turns). AFAIK there is no press corps this time. Sorry. Suffice to say, there has been mucho fighting, some very large battles, and a modereate amount of confusion generated I'd like to post more but ...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Isn't there still self propelled 8 inch guns?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> nope End of an era [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Babs, I think he's talking about SP Artillery. I.e., in the name of increased mobility all the really heavy calibres have been dropped. And he's right, depending on how you count MLRS I suppose. Although, having MLRS handy kind of makes the heavy calibres moot ... Note: No malice was intended in the construction of this post. Some smilies were forced to work overtime however. [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Of course. The bren was also very dependant on a clip monkey. It was not a belt fed weapon. Bottom line. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And the LMG42 isn't dependant on a belt/mag monkey?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: ... Britian developed some heavy armor and a decent tank gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who are you? And what have you done with Lewis? :confused:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: I dont have to prove anything! The game agrees with me that the BREN belongs within the squad<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The point, Lewis, that people are trying to make is that in this respect The Game (and you) are wrong There. I said it. Regards JonS Clarification: Wrong in the sense that the Bren didn't only belong in the squad. [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: JonS to clarify] [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

Cani - is that more or less a direct quote from Belton Cooper? His is a good book, but I sometimes wonder about the veracity of his speculations and strategic thoughts. When he stays in his lane and talks about armoured recovery and repair his writing is great. Otherwise ... :confused:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Excuse me. If any SNCO in a MMG Section saw a gunner "holding the trigger and not letting go" he'd quickly get a rocket so fast he wouldn't know what day of the week it was. Vickers were fired in bursts, get that BURSTS, in exactly the same way all MG's were. The only difference was that the bursts were longer. In the case of the Bren, it was 3-5 rounds. For Vickers, 8-12 rounds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you're being a little harsh on David here Brian. I thought he made it clear that he was talking about firing bursts, but that the Vickers allowed those bursts to be fired or longer - ie hours if need be. Regards JonS

Um, it was something I read a loooong time ago. "Don't Cry For Me Sgt Major" perhaps? I thought it was a little odd too when i read it, but I thought it made a humourous annecdote nonetheless

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: ... my next book <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your next book? Out of curiosity, what are the others? (I didn't see any others on the SP website) Congratulations, BTW. It must feel great to have it completed! Regards JonS

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan: ... HOWEVER, and this is my major nit pick, neither Ox & Bucks nor Para would have worn berets in action, but would have worn helmets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not a WWII story, but related none-the-less. When the Paras went to the Falklands in 1982 they apparently had a reversable beret. In normal use it was the familiar maroon colour, but in the field it could be turned inside out to reveal a camoflage/DPM pattern. Prior to one of their actions several of the soldiers were busily turning their berets inside out (and probably wishing they'd brought their helmets ...) when the RSM came along and asked them what the bl**dy hell they thought they were doing, reminded them they were paras - descendants of Frost, et al - and ordered them to turn them back the 'right' way out. So off to battle they trotted, all decked out in Red Berets. :cool: Regards JonS

There are various 'new' technologies to improve range - "Base Bleed" and "Rocket Assissted Projectile" for example. These two appear similar, but work on different principles. Both trade off payload for an improved range, so you could say they are less effective. Depends how you look at it I suppose.

Has anyone determined yet whether the incidence of bogging on railway tracks in CM is affected by the weather? "All or Nothing" is the only scen I can think of where this has hppened to me. Although, "AoN" is also the only scen where I have made extensive use of railways to try and avoid the muddy ground ... (I can't do any testing at the moment. Sorry)

Babra * You contend that in your world "cite" and "citation" mean the same thing, and that one is an abbreviation of the other. * In support of your claim you post the url of the definition of the word CITATION (which was never in question). * I used the same website to check the meaning of the word CITE, about which there has been some ongoing debate. This website - which you originally introduced to support your contention - indicates that CITE is a verb (transitive), and not a noun. * This website does not say that CITE is an acceptable abbreviation of CITATION. Uh-oh, I see you're "bored" and have changed your last post before I could respond to it. No matter - the above is still true. It's just out of context because of your editing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: I'd refer you to "Definition 1:" Citation<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And I'd refer you to "Definition 2:" http://school.discovery.com/cgi-bin/dbarch3.cgi?matchent=cite&submit=GO%21 [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: How did you get that from one word? Or are you trolling too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. And if it wasn't, as you say, directed at me then I apologise. I got it from the flow of the thread - the previous several posts had been between your goodself and I, then suddenly you played the "Trolls ... :rolleyes:" card, so it appeared it was directed my way.

Excuse me? Since when is using source material "trolling"? :eek: By your definition Rexford, not to mention BTS, are trolls, since they make extensive use of source material. Bad Rexford. Bad, bad Steve. Shame on you Charles. Put those references away, and just accept what everyone says.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Read my lips. Ab-re-vi-a-tion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? Its not a contraction, or an Ab-re-vi-a-tion, nor even an abbr.

er, thanks Andrew, but if I want proof I think I'll use the COD rather than Google. Oh, here it is: cite /sait/ v.tr 1 adduce as an instance. 2 quote (a passage, book, or author) in support of an argument etc. COD, 1991 Seems Simon is correct - it is a verb [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: JonS because he had comments mis-attributed ] [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon & Babra: increasingly off topic blather<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, yes. But Simon, you don't have time for this. Where's my turn? [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: BTW cite is a verb not a noun ... but you should know better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for pointing that out. It didn't feel right, but I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was. Ones use of language is never so good that it can't be improved upon. My favourite signature on this forum from years gone by was "Sbelling chequed by MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!"

This might be making it hard for you to see things at night: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1490000/1490649.stm "for 40% of the US population ... it is never dark enough at night for human eyes to become adapted to night vision" I find I can see quite well at night, but I put some riders on that comment: * I can move and navigate around easily * looking for man sized targets is hard, especially ones that aren't moving * using your ears helps a LOT * in a combat situation the many bright flashes etc would screw your night vision fairly quickly * I eat lots of carrots Regards JonS err, I just read the other thread. Feel free to ignore this post [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: JonS ] [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: ... Lt-Col R.L. Sherbrook "The New Infantry Weapons; Their Organization and Tactical Employment", Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, Vol. LXXXIII, February to November, 19 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Simon, is there a couple of numbers missing from that cite? I.e. "Feb to Nov, 1938" or "Feb to Nov, 1940" Regards JonS