Simon Fox

Hey Jon where's that bloody turn? I could be doing that instead of blathering away in this foolishly titled thread!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is not a Bren bad, MG-42 good issue. The Bren survived in service for a long time, it was an excellent weapon, and it performed well, but it was an AR, and would be closer in its function and purpose to the modern concept of a SAW, than the LMG which matches more closely the idea of a GPMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No I know that, it's an issue of semantics. Interesting point about SAWs and GPMGs. So which one should be in the section/squad?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, you are making a few mistakes. The first is that anything that can be criticized can have the answer thrown back, "well, that is only your opinion." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I would be if that is what I was doing, but I'm not. I don't have an opinion, I'm quite open minded about the issue. I say other people disagree with your opinion, which I do not say is unsupported. I was wondering how you could account for their point of view, which in many cases seems to be based on personal first hand experience, without characterising them as hidebound dinosaurs. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally an issue you have confused. The Bren and the BAR are not truly LMGs. They are Automatic rifles, and are not capable of firing continued 20 rd busts. The German ability to carry a true LMG on the advance was an immense advantage in combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did I mention the BAR? Well obviously definitions of LMG must vary. That many people refer to the Bren as such must be really confusing to you. Rest assured that neat categorisation is the least of my concerns. Finally an issue you have confused. I am not picking up the mantle of Brian.

You disagree? Maybe the Canadians didn't operate under the same scrounging philosophy as the Aussies, Kiwis and Brits? It's a common enough practice, more prevalent in some nationalities according to my impressions. Not something that's easy to quantify of course But if you disagree then we'll just have to leave it there because there is no way I'm going through a bunch of first hand accounts and digging out specific quotes which might not satisfy you anyway, hehe. When it comes to CM3 though then there is more hard data for that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I vote for Brian as the most annoying new guy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your vote has been noted. Personally I can think of quite a few who are streets ahead of him. He has a heck of a long way to go before he can aspire to the giddy heights of annoyingness embodied by yourself. Anyone who can get under your skin can't be all bad. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But lets not get sidetracked by all this. The game doesnt allow non-belted infantry weapons to be bought as seperate units. Thats the way I like it and lets hope it stays that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, let's not get sidetracked. You are wrong. The game does not allow non-historical unit organisations to be bought has units. The fact that they are belt fed is purely coincidental. As far as I know the principle criteria employed by BTS to determine the presence or absence of a particular unit is the extent of it's historical existence. The most likely explanation for the absence of a bren team unit is ignorance on their part not a "belt fed weapons policy".

Thanks for the history lesson slappy not quite what I was looking for but still of interest. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here is the history of aimed versus suppressive fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really is the distinction that well defined? What about aimed suppressive fire ? Obviously the 'lessons' the Germans acquired in the thirties aren't that all infantry should have fully automatic weapons because they fought most of WW2 without them. The German squad/section organisation for most of WW2 and certainly the bit when they were most successful is not significantly different from the British. Sure they had a more versatile MG which was certainly more effective in a static situation but it seems to me that it is the US that is the "odd one out" in WW2. The question occurs to me as how SMG equipped troops used used their weapons. Did they always use burst type firing? Certainly the Beretta SMG which equipped a number of FJ units in NWE was by all accounts very popular weapon both with them and the Brits when captured, principally because it was selectable for single shots. Someone posted a link in that other thread regarding aimed SMG fire too. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, this is a case of the words getting mouthed by the militaries but the weapons reflecting reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really slappy it's an easy way out for you to characterise the armed forces of the planet as being run by "stuffed shirts" and dissemblers. There were a lot of intelligent and professional people who came out of WW2 and remained in the army. Those people had a lot of combat experience in a variety of situations using a variety of different weapons including captured ones and having them used against them. The fact that they didn't all arrive at the same conclusions doesn't mean that the ones that don't agree 100% wholeheartedly with the point of view to which you ascribe are hidebound or dinosaurs. I get the impression that you think the current emphasis on aimed fire from riflemen in armies which 'learned' the lessons those naughty Germans taught them in WW2 is some sort of red herring. In this regard it would be best if you made a complete distinction between what is expected from a squad/sections riflemen and their LMG. You are misrepresenting the issue if you think aimed fire means some sort of antiquated rifle line sans LMG. I don't know, but a lot of WW2 stuff I have read gives the impression that the authors felt sometimes aimed fire is more useful and sometimes automatic fire is more useful (I emphasise this is not from the section LMG). If the US troops felt that they didn't have enough firepower vis a vis the Germans was the proper answer to distribute more firepower to the individual soldiers or give the squad a decent LMG? My impression is that this was not generally the opinion of Commonwealth troops who fought the same opponent. As rune has pointed out the British were well aware of the superior firepower of the MG34/42 and going by various accounts they didn't need an ordinance board test to tell them the bleedin' obvious Why didn't they leap to and adopt it? Well they did British and Commonwealth troops habitually used the MG42 to supplement their firepower when on the defense. In other circumstances they seemed to prefer the mobility of the Bren. Who knows? *shrugs*

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US Army was wrong in its entire concept of aimed fire. The soldiers knew it, and the data would later come out in the SPIW, SAWS, and other studies conducted in the 1950s and 1960s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So how is it that other countries who did listen to their soldiers during WW2 and did adapt their infantry training and doctrine did not come to the same conclusions? I am not trying to be argumentative I just find it interesting. The definition of suppressive fire may differ or even that of 'aimed' fire. I wonder whether for example the US had a more capable squad LMG in WW2 what would have happened then. The whole issue is also clouded by the rather fuzzy distinction between the fundamental capabilities of a weapon and the way it was tactically employed. All in all an interesting subject with varied opinions and even varied "lessons from combat".

Hey John, GST please fix or do somefink

I would just like to point out that Brian's comments regarding airpower were in response to this statement from the_Capt: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hell if airpower continues to excel at the rate it is we could all be out of a "warfighting" job and be restricted to peacemaking and security roles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which seems to imply that other arms will become redundant. Thankyou for your attention. I now return you to normal programming....

Gee Slappy all that sparring you've been doing with Lewis is really paying dividends, you're really getting a bit of power in behind that viscious rejoinder.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: I'm talking about the MG42's that come as part of a squad(hence the use of the phrase "Squad organic"), then being able to "split" the MG42 or an MG42 team off of the squad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I think the discussion has moved on somewhat from there. The fact is that British squads were organised on a 3/7 (some people say 4/6) split not the 5/5 split currently in force. I can't say what the practice of other nationalities was but maybe they didn't have an even split either. This is an entirely different issue to that of seperate Bren teams as pointed out by David and Ben. Their understanding of the BTS rationale for the German LMG teams is closer to my impressions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My point is that the BAR and Bren performed the exact same duty and were used in similar manners. How could BTS justify the making a BREN team without making a BAR team? I believe they made the 2 man MG42 team because it was often truly used separately from squads quite often.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I am not particularly familiar with US squad practices but as pointed out by David the BAR and the Bren aren't exactly in the same league. The BAR may have been a one man weapon in the US squad but the Brit squad actually had a 3 man bren element. The rationale for making a seperate Bren team is exactly the same as that for making an MG42 LMG team: they were part of the TO&E for a higher formation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, if there is a specific Commonwealth TO&E that has Bren teams non-organic to platoons, that's a different matter... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I gave that earlier in this thread. The infantry Bn AT Plt, mortar Plt and Carrier Plt had Brens.

Well I take Brian's point, though I venture to suggest that he is really imagining two seperate games. Since the game currently allows splitting of squads it hardly seems inappropriate to suggest that in future the splitting occurs in a manner which more closely matches historical practice. Nor would that be particularly difficult since it would be only a variation of the current game. The current half-squads are somewhat brittle and the addition of a couple of bods to the maneuver element might add a bit of interest to those small scale games where platoons are quite important. It may not be as good as the utopia of every man modelled but that is a giant leap and this is a little step. Of course the game is not going to be changed at this stage but these discussions are all grist for the mill for future iterations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yea, that would be just like my original comment on cite was directed at Babra not you. Even though I was addressing you directly. See?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's a word, and it's a noun. Its nominal (as it were) absence from a dictionary is a sign that the dictionary is not complete, not evidence that cite can't be a noun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's nominal absence from the dictionary is a sign that lawyerspeak hasn't made it officially into the English language. If in the halls of justice it has acquired, through laziness or other means, a meaning other than that it originally had then fine. Just don't be suprised if the rest of the planet isn't enamoured with the idea of lawyers making up new meanings for old words. If you use it as a noun then say so and explain it as such, but don't go trolling around trying to 'prove' it is one. BTW (just for you babs) Jon is not a lawyer and therefore should be expected to use it properly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Subvet: Shouldn't that be "A-bre-vi-a-tion?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No that should be A-bbre-vi-a-tion tut tut Maybe it should be Aberration? Anyway the proper abbreviation for citation is cit.

Could you possibly cite a dictionary source for your definition of cite as a noun, Andrew? It may well be that in Amglish cite is a noun, though I have looked at two American English dictionaries and in both cases it was a verb. Generally speaking I try and restrict myself to dictionaries when ascertaining the meaning of a word. My original comment was to Jon who is from around my part of the world and can be expected to know what I am on about. As can be seen from his response he did. If the rest of you want to get your backs up and start sooking about how hard done by, misunderstood and maligned you are then carry on. I'm working on it Jon!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you're going to correct people's English, try following it yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Getting bitter and twisted again Babra, hardly suprising that you should take umbrage at the inconsequential. I'm not correcting anyone's English or spelling for that matter, I could only do that if I could edit their posts. I am quite happy for my own lapses to be pointed out after all I can quite happily brush them off with the trusty 'consecrated by usage' argument. Just pointing out the correct definition of cite, feel free to misuse it at your own whim. Perhaps you could enlighten me on your usage of it for future reference: do you cite your cite? or do you reference your cite? perhaps you could citation your cite? It's certainly a useful concept to devolve multiple meanings to the same word, makes things so much more streamlined.

No cite is not a short form of citation. Cite is an entirely different word. Cite is the act of making a citation, as in to cite a reference. A citation itself is not the original reference or source that you quote or refer to but the making of that reference.

Oops, yes it was 1938 when the British army was getting used to the fact that the provision of an LMG in the section meant that now it could both fire and maneuver at the same time. BTW cite is a verb not a noun. I've let Babra and Dorosh get away with it in the past, you've gotta make allowances after all, but you should know better.

I'm sorry Babra but your refined thought processes are confusing me. Perhaps you could help this ignorant gutter-dweller by explaining your point somewhat? Just want to be absolutely sure not to misrepresent your meaning....

Mmmm I am enjoying this thread. Nothing like stirring up the septics, Go Brian! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The US and the British designed their squads though around the concept that the rifleman was the guy who did all the damage in modern warfare. The BAR and Bren were designed to be fired by a single man who had ammunition carried by others in the squad. This weapons would suppress the enemy, allowing the squad to close to vantage points that allowed aimed fire. The leader would often carry a SMG to allow retreat and to further supress close in. The Germans did things exactly opposite. The soldiers in a squad were there to support the LMG. Squad members pointed out targets, kept the enemy off the LMG's back, and were cannon fodder, while the LMG was the main element of the squad. Later, the squad members stopped being cannon fodder when they got SMGs and larger weapons of their own. As to the issue of support size for automatic weapons. The ARs in the squad were normally 2 man teams, and assistant and a gunner, with the assistant expected to pick up the BAR or Bren in case the gunner was killed. An LMG team was 2, 3, or 5 people depending on how much sustained fire was needed to give. The two man teams was often called an LMG, the 3 man team an MMG team, and the 5 man team an HMG. The British and the US of course only fielded ARs, not LMG. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is not beautiful. I see Lewis is ever vigilant on the Slapdragon front and has shown you the error of your ways. Kindly do not lump the Bren and the BAR in together Slappy. They are an entirely different kettle of fish. The Bren is an LMG and with a good number 2 could keep up a good rate of fire. The MG42 only barely qualifies for that tag IMO being such a profligate guzzler of ammunition. What the BAR is continues to mystify me.

Bren teams acting entirely seperately from their section, probably not. But. the location of the Bren gun within infantry sections was not considered an inviolate structure: "The Bren gun should be made available, away from its section and the men of its section, if the Platoon or Company Commander has a definite use for it in some other way. To tie the Bren gun to its section on all occasions may be to lose its usefulness whilst, on the other hand, it is likely to slow up and disorganize the action of the attacking rifle sections." 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 Bren teams in another role, probably so IMO. The British infantry battalion TO&E had a number of Bren guns in addition to those in the sections. If they weren't fired by a section then who the hell used them? Musta been a Bren team! Typically support weapon units were issued with Bren guns for defensive purposes. So for example the Bn AT platoon had 3 Bren guns (one for each 2 gun section and a 2in mortar I might add) for defense. The 3in mortar sections (2 tubes) were also typically issued with Brens. The Bn carrier platoon was also of course issued with Brens and of course the carrier crew was a Bren team whether mounted or dismounted, as they frequently were. The Bn and Co would be able to draw on the extra Brens floating about as required for their own defense. I mean they wouldn't want to rely on the woeful Brown Bess or whatever that antiquated rifle they had, would they? Extra Brens? you ask. Well in CM the Brit infantry Bn has somewhere in the vicinity of 38 LMG (though this was fixed up a bit in the last patch excepting that some of them are "fixed" on carriers now). The historical issue was somewhere in the vicinity of 63 ("British Army Handbook 1939-45" George Forty). I agree that the British section should be split 3 (support element) + 7 (assault element). As to the issue of morale/firepower penalties for split squads I am uncertain as to the solidity of the rationale. If the typical tactical employment of a section is to split it and indeed if the training and practice of the sections within a platoon is to do so to what extent should they be penalised. The employment of a "Bren group" (ie pooling all the Bren sub sections under his command) was a typical tactical option available and used by a Brit platoon commander. For a brilliant read on this and related subjects (ie Brit tank-infantry cooperation) try: "Military Training in the British Army, 1940-1944: From Dunkirk to D-Day" T. Harrison Place (2000)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: How do you really feel, Simon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well Mr Spkr I have a vision in my minds eye. Picture this if you will: A plush corporate suite. Within Matt reclines on a luxurious leather chair. A sycophantic flunkey is gently polishing his hairless pate, another feeds him grapes by hand while a third trims his toenails. Occasionally he rises and lumbers over to a computer and gleefully deletes another bunch of emails. Suddenly, a door slams "Matt!!" In walks Steve and Matt's demeanour quickly changes from relaxed arrogance to obsequious subservience "Matt, our latest review of your work has shown that you replied to a whining thread on the Forum. Whatever possessed you to do such a thing?" Matt responds in a wheedling tone "I'm sorry Steve, I don't know what came over me. It won't happen again, I promise" As he turns and walks out, Steve says: "Well don't. Otherwise we'll have to send you off for reeducation again. Just lock 'em up, nothing more!" As the door closes behind Steve, Matt turns on the flunkeys with a mad gleam in his eye...... [ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grey Fox: Learn this lesson well. Never criticize BTS on this site.It just isn't done without immediate and voluminous rebuttal by a sycophantic chorus. By the way I do agree the game is superb and worth the wait-but don't criticize.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is just a complete load of bollocks! I don't see any sycophantic chorus in the 25pdr thread nor in a number of others about "mistakes" in the game. By and large (with a few feral exceptions) posts are addressed on their merits. I wasn't at all prompted to respond to this thread until I read your viewpoint. It's fairly obvious that you haven't read the thread very closely: corn55 wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have sent numerous emails to every possible email address listed on their website, and I got no responses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Madmatt (head conductor of BTS sycophantic choir) wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Actually I responded to you twice already Corn. Once to get your order number and the second time to tell you that orders ship within 24-48 hours. To say that you have heard nothing when in fact you replied to my first email is not at all truthful. All this is spelled out quite clearly in the order confirmation email. You ordered on the 14th, today is the 16th you have GOT to have some patience it will arrive in the next few days.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Someone's lying. Either Madmatt is a sleazy underhanded obfusticator or corn55 was a very spoilt child. Take your pick.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: The statement that "many US units assigned counterbattery work use 25 lbers" strikes me as an error. No US artillery unit in the ETO was equipped with 25-lbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well it strikes me as in error in the sense that in all likelyhood they wouldn't have been used predominantly for counterbattery work although the 25pdr with it's superior range was probably better than the M3 105mm for that purpose. The US units equipped with 25pdrs were probably employed in a similar fashion to 105 equipped units. Your latter statment is wrong. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Earlier in January, Communications Zone Headquarters (COMZ) had arranged with the 21st British Army Group, commanded by Field Marshall Montgomery, for the loan of one hundred 25-pound guns, along with sixty days supply of ammunition, to the United States 12th Army Group. It in turn divided them equally among its three armies, which were the First, the Third, and the Ninth. The Ninth Army then immediately assigned its quota to the 691st and the 692nd Field Artillery Battalions. During the next three days at Schilberg, January 31 through February 2, the firing battery personnel underwent intensive training that was supervised by British troops. The training involved every aspect of the 25-pound gun and its drills, from sighting and setting up the weapon to firing, cleaning, and servicing it. At the same time, fire direction personnel were busy creating, on their own, a system for measuring and computing firing data. One of the major problems for both fire direction and firing battery members was changing to the system of using degrees and minutes instead of mills for angular measurements. The fact that the battalion was ready to do it alone after only three days of training is a testimony to the intelligence of the troops of the 691st as well as to the skill and patience of the British troops who were teaching them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]