Username

The BAR evolved further into the automatic role as troops removed the bipod (couple of pounds) and later models had plastic instead of wood stocks. The BAR could be fired from the shoulder, giving it better accuracy on the move, then any heavier weapons. Its certainly a heated subject and has brought out hissy fits and lots of proper english here, but I still say that a weapon like the BREN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAME should be held within a unit element. By that, I mean that it is either in a squad or in a HQ units. If extra BRENS were within TOE then buy the whole platoon and get an extra one built into the platoon HQ lets say. Or have a BREN squad that is 8 guys with 2 BRENS. Split this squad and be happy. I dont see the big deal that Aitken and the others are crying about. The german LMG is a waste as a support weapon. But why should I expect anyone to have anything resembling thinking at this point. Is it true that someone said the English are an ungovernable people? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: You are wrong about the "squad carried" issue, because the Bren was not only a squad carried weapon. It was used in this role, but it does not immediately become a BAR just because the US happened to use an AR as their squad automatic. As for the "magazine fed" issue, you can indeed argue that an LMG isn't an LMG unless it has a belt feed, but the fact remains that the Bren is a LMG. No matter how the bullets get into the chamber, it is a LMG, and is strongly distinct from an AR for the reasons I have explained to Pak40.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lets face it, the bren was a light machine gun, a heavy machine gun, an antiaircraft weapons system, an assault rifle, an automatic rifle, a snipers dream, a gravity fed killing machine, the queens walking stick and when all wrapped up in an armored carrier a freaking tank too! Does anyone know why a magazine fed weapon would need a tracked carrier? Maybe the brits should have welded plates onto motorcycles and created the STEN gun carrier. The sole passenger/driver (he doesnt get a buddy to load for him) fires his trusty sten gun through an aperature in the front of the armored handlebars. Steering with one hand, firing with the other, popping wheelies and jumping over barbed wire too! God save the Queen! Lewis

Pheww the BREN stench gun smell is wafting in here... I think that Slap is saying that it would be better to have two MP44 men then 1 two-man BREN gun under most circumstances. I would agree. The brits did not have a very mobile belt fed weapon in WWII. The BREN had to make up for alot of that. It is in no way comparable to a MG42 in any role. Perhaps MP44 men should be sold separately? Lewis

Yeah. Its a dead end thread. Notice that I suggested that a course of action could be to argue for the inclusion of soviet LMGs based around the drum fed weapon. I am pretty sure that BTS has firmly stated that CMBO is done. In other words, they aint putting no more time into it. So, what exactly is this thread about? CMBO? CMII? Notice also that I have repeatedly pointed out that there is a CHANGE coming in the form of machinegun firepower effectiveness. How will that effect your cheery plans for separate BRENs? Again, falling on deaf mob ears because of all the experience we have here. Is the MG firepower effectiveness linked to the use of belted weapons? You havent heard one thing from BTS about this. Ever occur that they are the ones who will supply your answer? Calling them ignorant isnt a very productive approach. I think the handling of Maxim HMG will show what the Vickers will be like in the future. Same with the sov LMG. Good luck Lewis

I believe the germans that could get enough MP44s would group them into 2 squads and the LMGs were in a seperate squad together. This makes sense in that the speed of the squad, which is often limited by weapon weight, was homogenous. The LMGs were a covering firepower squad then. It would make the handling of ammo, supplies easier also. These platoons were very usefull at counterattacks and assaults. The US platoon, built around semi and full auto weapons, had similaritys. The belted full auto covering MGs were not squad elements. The squad with garand, BAR and carbine and tommy gun could all move at nearly the same speed and be covered by the M1919s. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: Lewis I thought you told me change is always good, allowing the Bren would be change would it not? !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS is changing the MGs effectiveness in the game in general. The rate of fire (mostly due to belt feed), going for broke, covered arcs, etc, will all have major effects on the infantry game. I will wait to see the effects of this before deciding. This whole thread is just a big waste as I have stated before. Dont hold your breath laddies. It aint happening any time soon. So split your squads and dream on. Lewis

It will probably take a real infantry type war to change peoples minds. If you look at the Balkans footage, everyone seems to have either a full auto weapon or a scoped rifle. I remember reading a book by a Major Johns about a US infantry battalion attacking St Lo. He was very clear that building a base of fire was absolutely a prerequisite to infantry moving out. To be clear, he meant gaining fire superiority with most people and weapons so that a small manuver element could gain an objective. He was also very clear in that Garand fire should be fired at likely enemy locations but that a target was not needed. He also reprimanded a new replacement for just going through a full clip rapid-firing at a noise during a lull in the action. Lewis

I vote for Brian as the most annoying new guy. I think others here have already pointed out your lack of reading and following the thread, so I will skip that part and just reiterate the points you missed. 1. I said the BAR can be fired from the shoulder while moving. 2. You go on about standing and firing while not-moving 3. And now you are going on about firing from the hip. Most games, like ASL, note that the US squad, built around mobile semi and full auto single man weapons, has superior firepower on the move. 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. In any case, it wouldnt be changed till CMII and the engine rewrite (long time). I dont see the point in any of this since the game allows squad splitting and the bren will end up in a small infantry group. Most people here, if they despise me or not, know that I have a military background, have worked on weapons development and hold an engineering degree. So why dont you think about that next time you are taking a 'Number 1 and/or 2'. Lewis [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

Given the realities of post d-day fighting, the US should have gone on a crash Jumbo-76 build. Tank battalions short 76mm tanks should have been given M10 for one company as an expedient. The M18s should have been given to the armored recon guys. These poor saps had to tool around in M5 tanks, M8 armored cars, jeeps, halftracks. The speed of the M18 would have complented the recon well and gave it real teeth when they came across some cat. 90mm M36 or some other expedient like a priest with a 90mm mounted in place of the 105mm should have been pressed into service. The US was lucky that it wasnt the one facing Caan. The vet panzers there would have chewed them a new one. Lewis

The M16A2 three round burst is at a higher cyclic rate then "normal" M16A1 full auto? So a firer can rapidly pull the trigger and get pretty much the same thing with better control? Lewis

jason seems to be railing against something. I am not really sure if he is just using this thread to settle old business or start new troubles. But its funny how he is spouting off and you never know to who or about what. rexford is great too, throwing in non-sequitars about fragments, etc. hey rex. put your book on CD rom and sell it for 12 bucks. Ill buy it for 12 bucks. Anyway, the TD policy IN THE ATTACK works with 30 battalions of 105mm and 36 flights of Jabos supporting it. Wouldnt that make an interesting scenario. I am presently trading emails with a vet that served in TDs both towed and SP. Very enlightening info too. He claims the hellcat drew air through the fighting compartment to the engine! This made for frigid cold weather fighting. He said the rear deck blew up hot air and they hung out there when it was cold. he claims that they always fought in small groups, roadblocks, etc. He also says firing on the move was ineffective and that under no circumstances would they allow themselves to be targetted. I will post the emails in a thread once we finish. He has a nasty virus on his computer that my software caught in an attached doc he was sending. if anyone has questions they want asked, please put them in that thread. Now back to "the world according to JasonC". Lewis

CM2 is not CMII

CM2? AKA CMBB? CMII (aka CM part doo) is the engine rewrite after CM2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H: "The germans didnt seem to learn much about invasions from Italy. Rommel wanted to have armor and troops massed at the shore in France. He would have been slaughtered in much the same way as in Italy." -I beg to disagree. I am actually reading a book on the Italian campaign. If anything this was the hardest capaign of the war for the Allies. With the terrain the way it is, and the Germans having Kesserling as the commander the Allies had a very very hard time of it. Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The point was that they could not stop an invasion force. Not that it wasnt a hard campaign. The germans should have learned that an attacker can choose where to land and dominate with local superiority. Since the terrain in france was not as difficult along the shore, there was no way the germans could have stopped the invasion of france. They should have realized this and started a fighting withdrawl away from the ships guns once it started. Instead they dug in their heels and got ground to pieces. They had no anti-shipping capability. They couldnt fight the ships or stop supplies from pouring in. Lewis

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Username: The BAR can be fired like a rifle, at the shoulder, while moving, the BREN would be a handfull. Lewis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wrong. Part of the standard range shoot with the Bren was from the shoulder, standing unsupported. Its no harder than firing the M60 GPMG from the shoulder, which was also done. Brianed You do know that I am refering to motion when I say 'moving'? Then you go on about standing fire. Sounds like not moving. Looking at a BREN, there doesnt seem to be a way not to burn your fingers standing or moving. I wouldnt fire an M60 from the shoulder while moving. Thats for sure (and where does the all-important belt boy go? Does he run alongside keeping busy?) and I have fired M60 btw. I have fired M60 from the hip with pretty good results with just loose belt feeding in. For a FNG, you sure are especially contradictory. Lewis [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

The British thought the MG 42 was better then the Bren, proof? WO 291/473 Performance of bullet weapons. On the matter of relative rate-of-fire of the Bren and MG-42, this paper says "...the advantages of the German gun over the Bren are due almost entirely to the belt feed rather than to the cyclic rate." A trial was conducted to find out, for closely-spaced standing targets, whether "traversing fire" – traversing the gun over an arc without aiming at individual targets – was superior to "service bursts", that is, firing short aimed bursts at individual targets, with the Bren gun. The results tabulated here show the expected number of casualties per 30 seconds' firing: Range (yds) Spacing in feet Service bursts Traversing fire 100 4 9 16 100 8 5 8 200 4 8 12 200 8 5 7 Another trial concerned the relative accuracy of the Bren fired from the hip using ball and tracer ammunition. Firing at fixed targets at 35 yds and moving targets at 17 yds, an improvement averaging 24% was found firing tracer rather than ball. Yet another trial involved comparing the Sten gun against the service pistol. At a range averaging 10 yards, the following average results were obtained on targets exposed for an average of 5 seconds and moving across the line of fire at 10 feet per second: Type of fire Hits per shot Hits per engagement Shots per engagement Sten from the hip 0.12 1.86 16 Pistol from the hip 0.08 0.48 5 Pistol, aimed 0.14 0.71 5 Here is another interesting one: WO 291/476 Comparison of rifle, Bren and Sten. This paper investigates four theories about small-arms effectiveness: Rifle and Bren shooting is generally so poor that the real accuracy of these weapons is never used; Rifles and Brens are rarely used at long ranges except by snipers; For semi-skilled troops, automatic weapons are disproportionately better than single shot; The advantage of automatic over single-shot is increased by battle conditions. Trials conducted at the School of Infantry confirm 1, 2 and 4. "It is admitted that all the above trials have been on a small scale and that the sample of men was probably not representative of the Infantry as a whole; but it is expected that the trends shown will hold for all except possibly the first class shot." The Bren and Sten were fired at 100, 200 and 300 yards, and the equivalent 90% zones, in inches, calculated at 25 yards. Single shot Automatic Bren Sten Bren Sten 100 yds 2.4 4.3 3.8 4.6 200 yds 2.0 5.2 4.4 5.0 300 yds 2.0 5.4 3.8 5.6 Mean 2.2 5.0 4.1 5.0 Shooting was done lying with weapon rested; an improvised backsight was fitted to the Sten for shooting at 300 yards. An extra trial to confirm the lethality of Sten bullets at 300 yards was performed with ¾" deal targets covered in two thicknesses of webbing. All hits were "throughs". Another set of trials, each of 20 rounds, was shot on a 30 yard range, and the following results obtained. It was noted that "the average firer has a higher overall chance of hitting an enemy at 200 yards with a Sten than with a rifle." Note that on the above, the British feel 1,2 and 4 were correct. Just some interesting documentation... Rune Thanks Rune Lewis

Very interesting.

The germans didnt seem to learn much about invasions from Italy. Rommel wanted to have armor and troops massed at the shore in France. He would have been slaughtered in much the same way as in Italy. The germans would also strip russian troops from tanks in the east. massed arty/mortar/HMG fires would pin down the tank riders off the tanks. This would make the T34 hordes push on alone and enter the pak zones to be KO'd. Combined arms cooperation had to be maintained throughout a battle. Attacks SHOULD stall if the infantry/armor/arty coordination gets disrupted. Major losses will be taken by an attacker if attacks are allowed to go on to objectives without concern for cost. The US advantage of ship and airpower, added to the lack of german arty and disruption of combined arms coordination, doomed attacks like Salerno. The germans attacking/defending in normandy under the umbrella of naval guns and airfleets was a repeat mistake. Lewis [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: And the LMG42 isn't dependant on a belt/mag monkey?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not as much so. A box of belted ammo being 250 rounds. Thats a factor of 8. Cmon. Are there any good arguments? Lewis [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

Stugs probably were the best AT weapons on the eastern front. They had armor that took hits from MOST soviet weapons from 500 meters and could DESTROY sov vehicles twice that range and sometimes greater. When the stugs stopped resisting hits, and the range they could do damage decreased, then its reign was over. Lewis

Maybe gunners know this now but you want to fire BEYOND the target. In WWII, airburst arty was a waste unless it pointed the sides of the shell towards the target. This means you want to have a slight oversshoot before detonation. The side of the shell will then spray the target with ssplinters. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie Rock: If you take a look at what people consider to be effective TDs, vs ineffective, it wasn't the gun, it was the armor. What makes a jagdpanther a better AT platform vs a M36? By the end of the war, higher velocity rounds were coming on line. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. Armor is only good to keep the enemy away if your weapon can destroy them. Its just bullet proof speed-killer otherwise. the germans wanted to use Jagdpanther EXACTLY like the the US TD policy. I have never read if they did. Could be they just got so involved in any battle that pulling out wasnt an option. Lewis [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: In a bolt action, your last shot is a "plonk" on an empty chamber unless you keep track or keep your eye on the mag well. You now have to manually open the bolt, insert the stripper, strip the stripper in most models (shove down the bullets), ram forward the bolt (in some models you pluck out the stripper, in some like the Mauser the bolt throws it clear). You are now ready to fire again, but it took you at least 3 extra steps and a second or two if you asre fast more than the M16/M1 to complete the action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Even Slappy gets this. You shoot huh slapster?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie Rock: I think TDs would have had a better post-war reputation if the allies were on the defensive more, and could have used the tactics the TDs were designed for. It fared poorly when misused as an assault gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They were mostly used as arty. The post war they got pink-slipped. They really had to carry bigger guns than the opposition. Its the truth. They came to the party light handed. Sorry. Lewis