Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: No. WP will liberate the oxygen from the water and keep burning. In Korea, I think the would use copper sulfate (or something like that) to try and make it go out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you sure about this? You are saying that it will break down liquid H2O into O2 and H (gasses)? One of the ways to manufacture WP shells is to fill them with molten WP under water. Lewis

(7) First aid -- treat burns caused by WP in the same way as ordinary burns. If particles of WP are embedded in the flesh, immerse the wound in water or pack with wet cloths to halt combustion. Then pick out or squeeze out the WP. The particles will reignite spontaneously if allowed to dry. Apply copper sulphate solution to halt combustion of the WP particles. This permits them to be removed without igniting. P4 is white phos. It ignites in air reacting with oxygen in the air. It is unstable/insoluble in water but JonS is wrong. Having it stowed in a vehicle, like the shermans did with wet stowage lockers, would be preferable to open air. But JonS is just trying to pull my string. http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/dts/docs/detwp.pdf Have a nice day Jonnyboy Lewis

The 251/9's , of course, are not the IG but the 75mmL24 KWK tank gun from early PIV, and StuG B. But they played the same role as the IG for armored infantry. I dont think the germans used the 75mm IG's in a SP or portee type application. Lewis

http://www.1914-1918.net/mgc.htm Machine gun tactics There are many, many instances where a single well-placed and protected machine gun cut great swathes in attacking infantry. However, it was found that multiple machine-guns, firing in interlocking fields of fire, or in coordinated barrages, were an incredibly destructive weapon. Increasingly, the infantry took advantage of this, as did the MGC. The machine guns of the 2nd and 47th Division fired an indirect barrage over the heads of their advancing infantry, and behind the German trenches (in other words, this was an interdiction barrage, to stop German attempts to reinforce or re-supply their front, during the Battle of Loos, on 25th September 1915. This was possibly the first time an indirect fire tactic was borrowed from the artillery. Later, and certainly by the Battle of Messines, machine gunners were also employing creeping barrages, with fire falling ahead of the artillery barrage to catch troops moving to the rear. They would concentrate fire on specific targets, or sweep the enemy ground behind his front and support positions. Machine guns for these tasks were generally placed about 1000 yards behind the advancing infantry, and were moved up as soon as the enemy positions were captured. Machine gun tactics had in fact, become more like those of the artillery than of the infantry. This is from the website. Its WWI of course. These tactics seem to be part of set piece attacks. [ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

I think teh 75mm IGs were used throughout teh war. Ive read the 150mm IG might have been replaced with heavy mortars. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: plus, the topic line was fine(except for one misspelled), so why include it among "worst topic lines"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just expanding the nature of this thread to include Worlds funniest text. And paying back that cheap shot he took at me. I read it about 4 times before I got through it, it kept cracking me up. I see he editted it also. too bad. Lewis PS Heres a new catagory, Worlds most obnoxious Topics: 1. Commom'wealth' weapons?, They are certainly common but rather poor. 2. Vickers Intercontinental Plunging Fire: Model it or we will have a hissy fit 3. CM3: Lend Lease Bums? PPS This is what is called a fun thread so dont get your kilts in a knot

I remember BTS said that it wouldnt be that hard to model. Its major effect, smoke, should be quicker in appearing than typical smoke shells. It should also be shorter in duration than a smoke shell. Its 'blast' effect would depend on the cover of the unit. It would also have a good chance of burning terrain and starting fires. I doubt its a issue in CMBB. Lewis

Whereas with the Vickers, plunging fire was utilised - the round was fired in a ballistic trajectory so that it fell nearly vertically. Is this defined as being 60-70 degrees? 70-80? 80-90? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway: I can honestly say that the threads I post to typically end up in “fruitless discourses”. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No argument here mr yellah shells.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman: Bingo! So why dose he need anther Lt/ Cpt ect.? [ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dose? Drugs? What????

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman: Any topic started by Username... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Topic A question about artry spotters This is a current example of poor spelling AND rambling in the text of the opening post of the thread. Text Ok artillery spotters are Lt. right so then why do they need independent HQ to decrees there moving time? ie get ride of the red radio symbol. I didn't do a search becuase, it took just timed out when I tried to use it. Panzerman, tsk, tsk, drinking and typing on a holiday weekend? Lewis [ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

For one of the worst thread starters, see Panzermans latest. Artry? He mispells arty in the topic line and then is incomprehensible in the thread. It must be saturday on a long weekend. Lewis

Is that what he means? I still cant tell.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman: Ok artillery spotters are Lt. right so then why do they need independent HQ to decrees there moving time? ie get ride of the red radio symbol. I didn't do a search becuase, it took just timed out when I tried to use it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway: Thanks for the clarification. I figured from the way you were spouting off about the combat merits of various weapons that perhaps you thought you actually knew something about them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> REPEAT: Is this a hard concept for you matty? Does every thread you get into turn into fruitless discourses?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I'm not going to pay out the Ginger-Beers, some of whom I have for mates and whose ability to work and fight I greatly admire. I'm just interested how you feel your experience qualifies you to try and tell me that my experience and knowledge is not valid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Brian Talking with you is an exercise in futility. Dont despair. I think that there can be some good come of this. You and matty can compare notes and be pen pals. You should ease up on the ginger-beers perhaps. I never said your experience is anything. But it is not a combat experience (by your own admission) and its nice that you have peacetime preferences but its not the end all to any discussion. Your knowledge is limited to your experience. So is mine. I can tell you that and so can anyone else. I prefer a combat vets thank you very much. No one said anything about validity. You are impossible to talk to. But still bearable compared to your new buddy matty. Lewis

Grazing fire normally means flat fire against a piece of land. Here, the author seems to be refering to the effect of MG fire coming down teh back side of the hill slope. In effect, it is running parallel down the reverse slope. The lower the velocity, the better this effect can be under certain circumstances. So having a low velocity can reach certain reverse slopes closer to your own position. I wonder how much effect wind would have on bullets at that great a range? Does anyone know if smokeless powder was used by the commonwealth? The US evidently didnt use it.

I forget BTS' stand on this. They said that infantry WP grenades werent common and the tank/arty use was not different enough than regular smoke?

Still not quite getting it there soldier. Lets spell it out for matty some more. I was getting the "info" (it was training) from a first hand source (THEM, again, being the first hand source being the VETS). I could compare it to the poor basic training I recieved in Ft Dix. I could interact with them and ask questions. Is this a hard concept for you matty? Does every thread you get into turn into fruitless discourses? Consider your remarks as a reflection on yourself. This, like the german 88mmHE discourse, is a waste of time. And yes I was in lovely Ft Bragg. Drank in Fayetville (Fayetnam) and went for 10K jogs to Iron Mike (statue of trooper). So much fun. Lewis

Since it was an engineering unit, we had a static mission; we only went on long marches infrequently. This is grammatically correct. You astound me matty. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway: uSer: I am making a point that being in the service is not the same as combat and that weapons appreciation would hinge on going against other weapons. If you haven’t been in combat how would you really know? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh look, RiDgEwAy (isnt that 'little kid type' in the chat rooms?) has decided to show he cant read. 1. I served with combat vets. 2. They discussed their experiences. Now, just to be absolutely clear, I am not a combat vet. They were. Lets repeat that for matty. THEY, the combat vets, COULD tell me the real sh*t. THEY (thats the combat vets again matty) related the big difference between THEIR (you know who) training and what combat was really like. THEY (following me son?) wanted to share their knowledge for several reasons. 1. THEY were such big hearted older-guys (cough) 2. It could be that WE (thats them and me and the other kids) would have to be in combat together someday (the real reason). We (the kids) learned when to be quiet, when to be quick, when we were fu*king up royal, and what we needed to do to kill and not to get killed and not to get the older guys killed. If I could draw you a picture I would matty. Someone might say "hey Lewis, ask him about his military/combat experience." But thats alright, I really dont care a flying hoot about you or what you have to say. Always a pleasure matty. Lewis

i think they are actually doing a phased testing approach. Since there are significant changes being introduced, they want to make sure that as they fold in, the sum of the parts isnt a big lump of changes that dont work together. Or maybe they are having office parties and rubber band fights. Lewis

The North Koreans , who used the maxims, used this indirect fire. The first post in this thread doubted that the russians would. http://rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/30calhv.htm "The North Korean armies, on the other hand, were well supplied with the Maxim heavy machine guns by the USSR, and used them in large quantities in the Pusan Perimeter battles. The NK, well trained and largely veterans of China's civil war, would site these weapons at long distances to place grazing fire on slopes we were attacking. Beyond hearing range, using smokeless powder, sighted in with great professional accuracy, the first inkling our troops would have that they were under aimed fire would be when their comrades' bodies and faces were suddenly torn and shattered." So, I doubt that the Vickers had any advantage in this department. Ive read of german MG companys and battalions also using similar tactics. Its really outside the scale of teh game. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan: Here we go again... Lewis, you may have half a point about the belt vs mag fed debate, but PURLEESE, don't have the temerity to lecture serving or former soldiers on the merits of their training, especially as you consistently refuse to qualify your remarks with details of your own service (if indeed you served at all.) .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The point about experience, and its a valid one, is that very few people here have combat experience. Including myself. i was in Ft Bragg. Even though it was peacetime , all the NCOs had combat experience from vietnam. They made the training as realistic as possible. They were lifers. They were professional career soldiers. Since it was a engineering unit, we had a static mission, we only went on long marches infrequently. Guys feet would be torn to shreds. Its a fact that wearing boots all the time just wears out the boots. You have to march and run and train in them to toughen the foot up. I am not belittling anyones service. I am making a point that being in the service is not the same as combat and that weapons appreciation would hinge on going against other weapons. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrPeng: That's OK, Lewis, I have always had an uncomfortable twinge in my innards about you. You are a strange and wonderful man. I don't like you either. But that doesn't mean I don't disrespect you too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Speaking of twinges..how about these fanciful Topics? "Wild Bill's Rumblings Of Diarrhea"- A Tournament Winecapes Winos journey-where Berli gets his oats Obviosly Peng doesnt recall the time I ranted about *asterixisis* and how much I hated them. Oh well, first its the knees and then its the memory. Lewis