Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I think you need to broaden your search critaria, Germanboy. The AWM is like many such organisations, highly dependent upon how good the original cataloguers and captioners were. If you do a search just under Bren and then browse the photos, you'll find a large number of them are actually, of Brens on Tripods, as well as Bipods. When I posted those photos, I did a search under several critaria and found the two clearest. You appear to have not realised that in order for two pictures to exist, one taken in 1942-3 and the other in 1950, of the same piece of equipment, in two very different locations, the piece of equipment must have been in fairly widespread and continious service. The AWM though, is an incredible resource for the military researcher, being one of the few military museums which has been willing to put a lot of its information online.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While your opinion about the AWM appears to be correct, the rest of your post is just what Rune said. Bollocks. I just did a search for 'bren'. Returns 911 hits. I scanned the first 310 of them. This is conclusive proof that: a) there were tripod mounted brens in the Australian army these were used in the AA role, and in the desert with the fluid situation the dugouts would be adapted for dual purpose, without changing the primary mission of the gun. That is all they prove. Come up with something better than harping on about this old chestnut. Otherwise, join the clowns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Maybe, but at least he's OUR clown! Regards Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My condolences.

I think Jason's suggestions are all very good. I especially like the morale check for presence of FT, but this would of course have the effect to make the unit more pricey (because of its effectiveness), or would lead to the player bringing a Crocodile to the party to be declared the instant winner. A rarity system would take care of it though - although it may mean that the Flammpanzer III would come in at 500 points...

Numbers delivered to the Heer for 2-cm Flak 30 und 38 (Luftwaffe had far more): 1939 95 1940 863 1941 873 1942 2,502 1943 3,732 1944 5,041 1945 739 Still on strength in March 1945 6,265 guns. I would venture the guess that the rapid increase between 1942 and 1944 is directly linked to the deteriotating control that the Luftwaffe could exert over the battlefields. The Flak would therefore be seen foremost as an AA weapon. Just a guess though.

To make a more general point, since some people here seem to believe that some pictures or a single account/training film whatever constitutes all the evidence needed. First - if you want to be taken serious as a participant in a discussion, how about giving other participants all the facts? Sweeping the parts of the evidence that contradict your opinion under the carpet (as the guy masquerading as the Aussie PM has done) makes you look ridiculous if someone calls your bluff. Second - qualitative research theory (which is what this comes down to) acknowledges that you can never know The Truth. What you can do is collate as much evidence from multiple sources as possible, so that you can feel confident about your conclusion. At some point of your choosing you say - this is enough, I am confident. That is when you go to expose it to peer review, which in our case would be the board, in academia it is a conference, a seminar, or a journal article in a peer-reviewed journal. This comment is aimed at the Australian who asks about what history is. His opinion is wrong. History is not the experience of multiple individuals, it is much more than that. Historical study is the analysis of these experiences, and other evidence. In qualitative research, relying on a single source (be it a few pictures, a training film/manual, a vet's account) is the short-cut to failure. All you then have is a strong opinion. If you want to arrive at something that is believable, you have to collate all the pieces of evidence, see how they stack up against each other, and analyse them as a whole. Now whether you like that or not, or whether you think I am arrogant or whether some Australians or anyone claim a dispensation from this approach, the hard fact for those of you with strong opinions and not a lot of evidence is that this is the way things are done by serious people - so if you want to be taken serious, you conform to it. If you want to be seen as a clown, you don't. At the moment, the guy masquerading as the Aussie PM is a clown. FWIW. [ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: As to their use - I have seen numerous photos via the AWM site showing it was use and trained on quite extensively - at least in Australian Service. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, next time you drag the AWM into this, could you also mention that a search on 'bren tripod' turns up a wooping 13 out of 200,000 pictures, with all of the captions on WW2 mentioning their use as AA guns, and the only mention of a ground role being an exercise in Japan and then Korea? In the spirit of being a bit more honest with your evidence? Would help to take you more serious too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: ... just like Andreas <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehe - I am not an Anglophile though. Tomorrow morning when I wait for my train (again) I will roundly curse this dastardly country

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Kruger: I find the idea of a campaign game very appealing, especially if it tracks your stats in a detailed maner... men lost, enemy casualties inflicted (known and after you are done the actual number etc...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CMMC is better than that - it is larger than life. So there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: That's how I see it too. Of course I'd prefer to put the defenders in the bag if possible. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed. In my understanding, Recce was not strong enough during the break-out and the 'Swan' to do that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Dead horse or not….It looks like a large group of folks have actually taken it upon themselves to create some sort CM campaign. I don't know all the details, but I get the impression they are using an Operational level wargame to generate CM battles (Operational Art of War perhaps??). Some folks handle operational movements and other folks fight the CM tactical battles. Sounded pretty cool. Now if this level of player initiative isn't an indication of the popularity of this campaign game add-on idea I dunno what is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff, if you are talking about CMMC, it actually uses custom-made software and human GMs, as well as CMBO. Email me if you want to find out more or play.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: While i am quite willing to believe that a petard would demolish a roadblock, would it also clear the resulting debris? In other words, was it found sufficient for opening a hole that, say, wheeled vehicles could make it through? Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How long is a piece of string again? To be honest, I doubt that they cleared it completely. It was probably as much a friendly invitation to the potential defenders to bugger off as anything else. I would suspect that after petarding it, first infantry and then tanks went through it gingerly, and after the first troop it would be okay for wheeled, because all the constituent elements of the late roadblock would be the size of a badly mishandled cigarette match. But often roadblocks would just be outflanked too. That was SOP for Recce units anyway. One lot pins the roadblock defense, the other outflanks it. Thereafter you wait for the dozers, and chase the defenders to the next village. Lather, rinse, repeat.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: [/qb]They are proof. They are proof that (a) the equipment existed; ( it was in fairly widespread use (two of the photos are at least 7 years apart in time and several thousand kilometres in distance). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What do you mean by 'use'?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: edit: I see that Germanboy already did it. [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but I can not give your opinion on their usefulness, Du Nase

The only reference I have ever seen to it being used was during the battle for Cassel, 1940, in an AA role. I have read my fair share of UK accounts. FWIW.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: You appear to have completey lost the plot about what history IS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funny, the same thing was said by Mulga Bill about three pages earlier... Anyways, since it seems to be a particular Australian figure of speech, mind telling me what history is? I am intrigued. Dictionary.com (Cambridge does not seem to work today) defines it thus: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>his·to·ry (hst-r) n. pl. his·to·ries 2. a. A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events: a history of the Vikings. b. A formal written account of related natural phenomena: a history of volcanoes. c. A record of a patient's medical background. d. An established record or pattern of behavior: an inmate with a history of substance abuse. 3. The branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events: “History has a long-range perspective” (Elizabeth Gurley Flynn). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: The following is a partial list of reference material utilized by Janusz Piekalkiewicz in his book “The German 88 Gun In Combat, The Scourage of Allied Armor”, Schiffer 1992. Could you translate what the tittles of these manuals are. Also what is your thinking as to what these references are. Thanks much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not Marcus, but here goes anyway. They are as far as I understand it the technical manual and SOP documents. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: "Der Reichsnninister der Luftfahrtund Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Einsatz, Verwendung und Kapoffuhrung der Flak- artillerie", LDv 400/10, Teil III, Berlin, September 1942<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Imperial Secretary of State for Air Traffic and Commander of the Air Force. Combat, use and combat command of the AA artillery. Air Force SOP 400/10, Part III, Berlin, September 1942. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: "Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Ausbildungsvorschrift fur die Flakartillerie", LDv 400/10, Teil V, March 1943<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Imperial Secretary of State for Air Traffic and Commander of the Air Force. Training manual for the AA artillery. Air Force SOP 400/10, Part V, Berlin, September 1942. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: "Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Ausbildungsvorschrift fur die Flakartillerie", LDv 400/10, Teil IV, April 1943. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Imperial Secretary of State for Air Traffic and Commander of the Air Force. Training manual for the AA artillery. Air Force SOP 400/10, Part III, Berlin, September 1942. Piekalkiewicz also uses memoirs, KTBs, and articles from scientific journals as sources. Apologies if there are inconsistencies in the translation. It should be pretty accurate, but some of the nuances might have escaped me. BTW - the English title of the book is just corny.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: This is a workable alternative to the present situation, which is IMO rather silly. I was just reading David Fletcher's "79th Armoured Division - Vanguard to Victory" where he makes the point that AVRE's were used to demolish beach obstacles - the inference which can be drawn by other comments in the same book, that the AVRE's Petard was utilised to do the same against obstacles inland from the beach.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Petards were used to demolish roadblocks and blast holes in bocage, going from the 1945 history.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Runyan99: I agree 100%, and that is the problem as I see it. The 8.8 cm Flak, with a crew of 7, a highly sophisticated range finding system, and some of the best sight optics available in WW2, is not any more or less accurate than the short 75mm gun on a Sherman tank in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cory, after watching a shoot-out between 75mm Shermans and 75L48 armed Panzer IVs in a scenario (Panzer IV 4 - Shermans 0 after three rounds) I simply posit that this is not correct. The Shermans could not hit the broadside of a particularly large barn at that range, while the Panzer IVs achieved a number of hits (we did not continue the scenario because it taxed the machine of my opponent too much). Also, range-finders were used by other German guns, down to HMGs and other nations as well. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Runyan99: Also, at long range it seems obvious that misses in CM are distributed randomly, where in fact the gunners should be bracketing the target constantly, increasing the to-hit chance with each shot. That means that generally, you should only see rounds falling short, or going long, with very little spread to the left or right, unless the gun is very poor or the gunners themselves are very bad. Some of the long range tests that people have run show a target surrounded by random misses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Despite this visual appearance, as Dan pointed out in the other thread on gun accuracy, bracketing is actually modeled. Obvious case of WYSINWYG.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Justin5471: So there I was, by the sign 20.00 - 20.35. What happened? :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which sign? I was there too, looking for you. Email me and we sort it out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: you can read it online here http://tiger1e.com/fibel/index.html and on a series of other sites (to which I can't find the links right now). IMO it's pretty detailed about how to guesstimate ranges, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks, that is very helpful.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holien: As it is in no-way a democracy I will go with the will of the leader. (chants we are not worthy and scrapes and bows on the floor!!!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed. Right - game, screen, bugger. Hmmm... Somewhere around Charing Cross should be reasonably nice. I check with some people who may know their way around there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I admit, no. I was unaware it was possible. Still seems like a clumsy work around to me, whereas I simply desire them not to fire unless ordered to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am quite sure it works. Whether it is clumsy or not *shrug* - if you want to make sure they don't fire you have to use hide and the ambush function anyway, so if you then break cover, the ambush point will be there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: there I am, explaining this to myself (or rather to a figment of my imagination named germanboy).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No you are not - you are a figment of my imagination. Now go away, you bother me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holien: Hmmm I guess to conform to the group I had better stop using "Mr Smiley" Mind you it will give the dogs something to yap at and take the heat of Peter... I have a cunning plan. I have talked to the G/F and mentioned Shopping and London in the same breath. As she is a Northampton Lass she was so shocked she did not ask why I wanted to take her down to London on Saturday. Now don't let me down lads, I am making a great sacrifice to be down in that neck of the woods. I would risk great personal harm if I now tried to back out of this arrangement. Hmmm I perhaps should not have said that... Bugger... Anyway It would be good to have a one off meet up to put faces to the obnoxious comments on here. Bugger sorry lads that slipped in.... H<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh alright then. I am always partial to the odd pint or two. I check with the others tonight. Saturday after the game, right? What time? hmmm, Northampton lasses... Has she recovered from fainting yet?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: The Tigerfibel's section on calculations for hitting moving targets suggest that you should not shoot at moving targets beyond 1200m because that would be nothing but awaste of ammunition. Mind you, this is the same manual that others like germanboy suspect of being overly optimistic about hitting things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, once it is actually quoted in full it somehow sounds more reasonable. I extended that comment only to the 'If you observe the rule, you can't miss up to 1,200m'. I have read it in full a long time ago, and I do not own it.