Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman: Better yet would be welding a roof on an M36 turret w/90mm and dropping it into the Sherman chassis (which did fit and was done) so they could cope if the Pershing was late to the party. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I gave it alot of thought and yeah. It would have been the way to go. It would have released alot of HVAP 76mm to shermans also. The M18 was too specialized and probably stopped Chaffee replacement of M5 in Europe. The TD thing was really built around big panzer counter attacks happening every other week. Sorry. Didnt happen Lewwis

Of course. The bren was also very dependant on a clip monkey. It was not a belt fed weapon. Bottom line. Lewis

OK..OK..I am in control now..(heh)..yeah. I am a soldier. Control is the middle name. (hmm-heh-hmm-hehheh-{heehee}...HA..heehooooo-HAHAHA!!!!) What was the brit battalion that walked into a german unit that was in crossed linked tunnels? They literally were 3-4 year vets from the eastern front and wiped out the brits while they walked backwards? OK. That was bad. But who was it? Lewis

Maybe if I walked around holding a flaming hot BREN barrel will I stop laughing.. heheh.,.... woo.. heheh HARAHARHAAAARRA..eee...uh..OH GOD!!!.. oohjeez..heehee nope..god..still laughin Lewis

sorry..uh..Christ/GOD..hep me.. uh ... still laughin..hehe..uh Lewis

I am literally falling on the floor!!!!!! I remember reading that too. I enjoyed the seven roads and Currahhee best though. Funny. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Actually, you are wrong about the M1. When firing one on the range with lots of other shooters, I never hear the clip but it is totally and immediately obvious that it has come out since it spins in front of your face like an ejected cartirdge only much bigger. The M16 does not have the same system of telling when it is unloaded as a bolt action. Most bolt actions have no system of telling other than a click instead of a bang (unless you watch your chamber. The M16, unless you mag fails, holds open after the last round like an automatic pistol and the hammer is locked to the rear so the trigger becomes tight. No mistake there at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So there you go. I have seen many M1 Garands being fired and never is it in doubt when the last round is fired. I have fired plenty of M16 and AR15 and it is very evident when you are out of ammo also. Stalin you have alot of experience with weapons huh? Lewis

Theres lots of uber TD info next to the file with all the extensive info about the german nafferwaffleflingynugey.

I dont need an argument here. Its about brit tanks. I can kick back and laugh. Lewis [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: [sarcasm] Yes, its called the brain. Soldiers count rounds. If they don't then there is another, audible indicator built into the design. The head of the bolt goes forward when the trigger is pulled and it goes "click!" [/sarcasm] Perhaps I'm being too harsh but it appears to me that people assume that unless your weapon flashes in letters 10 feet high to you that its empty or holds open its bolt or does wonderful things, the user won't know the magazine is empty or that it needs reloading. They are trained to know, people. Trained.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Brian the Brained You arent being harsh but just not quite on top of the discussion. Its possible that a bolt action weapon can be: 1. cycled discarding the last round 2. not loaded but the bolt put forward 3. aimed 4. "fired" 5. mistake realized 6. Bolt retracted 7. as many strippers as needed put in as quickly as possibly 8. back to business as "training" dictated. Training survives combat like any good plan survives enemy contact. So your 'advice' isnt based on experience. US weapons were. The 'brain' and 'counting' is crap. All it would take is a little break between the drill and reality would send the drill on its way. The drill assume that a soldier is going to move around and keep his weapon load in his mind. Absolutely inane firing line BS and laughable. More fodder that the M1 Garand is better. Lewis

Brian the Brain Could you figure out how to bold and not-bold already?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: .....thanks for the lecture User! [sARCASM]I'm glad yo were able to tell me that, 'cos I would never have realised it afterwards, and it's good to know that there's someone out there who's so much better than me![/sARCASM]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Someone? Think theres maybe more than one?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: And as for your closing comment... wha? What wavelength are you on? Are you suggesting that British doctrine was intended to prolong the war? We wanted to spread our movement and ammunition over, say, ten years, instead of using it all up in five? Oh never mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well heres Aitken maybe 24 hours ago.. "Oh I don't care about the Lee-Enfield vs. Garand debate and I doubt most people here do either. Personally I have no reservations about the British infantry weapons used in the Second World War and I don't feel the need to be defensive about it (see the one post I made to the thread in question, on page six I think). This thread is unrelated to that and concerns the important issue of Commonwealth troops being denied a stand-alone LMG which they had in reality, while all other armies have their equivalent modelled in the game." Seems you are in a bit of a turnaround. Anyway, noone is saying that the brits dressed like they were in WWI and had nothing to squauk about but a mag fed foriegn designed LMG. Everything else being much the same as the great war. But you had Yanks (yeah) on the Great Island. Infusing Love and money where it counts (and it wasnt put in the bank let me tell ya). Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: You should have seen everyone's faces when I took the bolt out and said "Sarge - whadoIdowiththis?"! !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Any outfit I was in would have given you a blanket party. Theres no excuse for poor safety anywhere. Weapons safety deals with peoples lives.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: You can say the British lacked a sufficiently mobile belted machinegun. I can say the US lacked a proper squad automatic. What are you trying to prove? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dont have to prove anything! The game agrees with me that the BREN belongs within the squad. The US, with its air-cooled mgs didnt need a BREN. This platoon level belted MG fire freed up the need for a dedicated belt/clip fed multiman automatic weapons squad-level team. The whole US squad could then be more mobile and function as an attacking group. The US wanted to get the war over with. Lewis

Awww roughhouse has turned to tears... I think that maybe if the brits had melted down all their tanks and turned them into STEN guns, parachuted them to the underground boy scout resistance groups in Sweden, more would have been done for the war effort. Lewis

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Username: In the heat of battle, just having a self loading and self ejecting rifle instills confidence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Bugger - so the M1's better than all the modern SLR's ever mad e that don't "self eject"! Damn - I knew we were going wrong somewhere!" Again, for the people that don't fire weapons. The M16, on the last round, locks to the rear. This is a SLR. It does the same function that the garand is performing, it is letting the firer know that the last round has been fired. The garand firer wont be playing with his bolt knobby and loading an invisable round and aiming, pulling the trigger and hearing a click. Niether will an M16 firer. Its a valid point and your attempt at belittling is not going to make it go away. In fact, the rest of your post is weak too. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Nowadays you get even less indication of an empty magazine. At least with a bolt-action rifle you can look and see whether there's a round in the breech. Andy McNab (not his real name) of the SAS speaks in Bravo Two Zero about switching magazines in his M16 without really knowing how many rounds he has left, all to avoid the "dead man's click". The Steyr AUG has a transparent magazine for this purpose. How soon before we have computer game style LCD displays which tell us the number of rounds left? It wouldn't surprise me if the OICW has that facility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> David I thought you went on about how you didnt care about this stuff in the other thread. The M16 definetly lets you know its empty. The bolt stays to the rear. It isnt a click like a firing pin on a empty chamber. The normal recoil is different. In military weapons, any light, even from an LED is a no-no because of nightfighting. It would be better if there was a physical indicator that would pop-up when the clip was below 3 rounds. An alternative is some sort of slider tab that would come through the mag and a person could physical feel where it is along the banana clip and guage whats left. I would always flip-over a mag during a lull to be at full-mag level. Lewis

Yes , of course, spook. Seems theres a firing range warrior here. In the heat of battle, just having a self loading and self ejecting rifle instills confidence. Just knowing that if a gaggle of enemy springs up close to your position, you can squeeze off as many rounds as you have , as quick as you can, can make all the difference in the world. Just knowing that loading once is sufficient is also heart warming. Its nice to know when you are out to. Next we will be hearing about the amazingly wonderful STEN gun and how it won the war for the free world. No one in this thread or the other thread 'BRENs: nearly an MG42' want to face facts. The brits had a lack of belted mobile MG firepower and coupled with bolt action rifles couldnt rely on the BREN to save the day. Armies that are quickly raising recruits and replacing infantrymen right and left cant train everyone to sharpshooter status. Its hard to BE a sharpshooter when the air is alive with shrapnel and MG fire. G'day Lewis

Only belted MGs should be modeled as separate weapons. Thats the way it is now. If clip fed weapons are reduced to one man through a casualty, can they move? Do they have a reduction in firepower? Only one guy to man and load the weapon? Suddenly, the 'near-mg42' slider goes definetly towards the BAR end of the spectrum. Lewis Aitken, why so snippy? Chin up lad..

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: The biggest mistake that the US Army made wrt armor was not substituting the 76mm gun for the 75mm gun much earlier. What they needed was about 3 76mm Sherms for every 1 75mm Sherm. What they had was no 76mm Sherms in Europe in June '44. Even by the Bulge, many units involved in the fighting had no 76mm Shermans. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The biggest mistake was the TD doctrine. It stated that TDs were to fight the armor and the tanks were for exploitation/manuver/etc. This made the tanks timid of enemy armor and gave them an excuse to avoid butting heads with other tanks. The TDs were not fit to face down armor and the envisaged role they were to play never came about. If the shermans were given 76mm, then what is the point of lightly armored TDs with 76mm? Luckily, the US didnt have to face down much armor till later in the campaign. By the end of 1944, everyone had 20-20 hindsight and time was running out anyway. The US had a shortage of tankers before they had a shortage of tanks. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Originally posted by Username: [qb]Someone pointed out in another thread that the brit rifle had a fixed magazine. You had to load two seperate 5 round stripper clips into the rifle. Correct me if I am wrong (never happen of course ) but isn't that the way you reload the Garand as well ? From the top by pushing the rounds in ? Also the Mosin-Nagan family of rifles is reloaded with 5 round clips or loose rounds. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Its a 10 round magazine in the brit rifle. This would mean sticking two of the things in wouldnt it? The US is one 8 round stripper clip. Does the brits have an indicator (like the garand kicking out on the last round) so they know they are out of ammo? Lewis

Someone pointed out in another thread that the brit rifle had a fixed magazine. You had to load two seperate 5 round stripper clips into the rifle. This is the last thing I would want to be doing in a battle.

You really think Patton had that kind of pull? I agree that he probably was opinionated about mobility but he wasnt the guy with the juice. After Africa, Gen Devers reported to McNair. He said that the TD policy was crap and that heavy tanks arent needed. Considering the sherman and stuart were better than most of the tanks the germans were using, he wasnt that far off. But McNair was a guy with a crusade. He was the main champion of the TD policy. He ignored the TD remarks but used the report to put the whammy on heavy tank development. He also decided that half towed and half SP was the way to go for the TD policy. The 75mm halftracks in africa (SP) didnt do very well and he wanted to hedge his bets with towed units! As the war in the ETO progressed, these same towed units were hastily converted to M36 and M18. The fact is, tank warfare was evolving on the eastern front. Both sides were moving towards fleets of tanks that consisted of both light, medium and heavy tanks. Tank destroyers and assault guns were also evolving. Even Britian developed some heavy armor and a decent tank gun. The US policy about shipping tanks was BS. What good is a surplus of tanks that cant fight? If the US had just a heavy tank company in each of its armored divisions, the war would have been over in 1944. McNair, by the way, decreased the number of trucks in US divisions early in the war because he felt that it would be a strain on logistics to ship them overseas. After the US landed, they increased the number of trucks because many divisions didnt have the load lift capability. McNair was an idiot. In his final act of stupidity, he was caught in a fratricide incident (this pissed off his superiors because they wanted to use him as a ruse. He was to supposedly replace Patton and fool the germans). US bombers unloaded short over the lines and blew him to pieces. They found a half of a shirt with three stars on it. Good riddance. Lewis

The recoiless effect is actually balancing out the forward and rearward forces. The shell still bites into the rifling with a band and there is a jerk felt in the shoulder fired weapons. Together with the terrific blast, it makes a very uncomfortable weapon to fire. I read about a battle in Vietnam where a M48 tank was firing away. A RR (90mm) setup behind him and was using the tank as cover to fire at the same targets. The tank commander would jump out of his sh*t every time the RR fired because he thought that his tank was hit by something. The tank ran out of ammo and the RR offered him some of his to fire but neither of them knew if it would work in a tank gun. Lewis