David Aitken

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slapdragon wrote: This is exactly why your arguments here have been suspect -- because you fail to understand why the ORV example or firing a .45 ifast is relevant<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have explained exactly why I think those examples are irrelevant, if you had cared to read my comments. I am compelled to reiterate, mainly because that is the only way I am able to continue with this discussion, as those I am speaking to apparently need much encouragement to listen. No-one is arguing that the Bren is able to put out a certain volume of fire for a certain length of time and should therefore be regarded as a LMG. This is exactly what your .45 analogy suggests, and it is just a silly analogy. On one hand, it in part compromises your own argument, because your argument is based on functionality, and you have succeeded in suggesting that a pistol can, under specific circumstances, parallel the functionality of a machinegun. On the other hand, I am arguing that a Bren is a LMG on the basis of its design, whereas your analogy uses a weapon which is obviously not designed as a machinegun. You comment that a car which can go off-road does not automatically become an ORV. In response, I pointed out that a GPV which I call and use as a car does not automatically become a car. Your analogy at best suggests that your case may be credible, but utterly fails to back it up, because it works both ways. You might claim that the Bren is an AR which some would like to see employed as a LMG, whereas I can argue that the Bren is a LMG which you regard as an AR simply because it was partly used in a role which you believe to be that of an AR. The analogy is cute but irrelevant. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and because you choose to say "that is irreleveant" rather than discuss the issue of the system I presented which asks the question, "what can this weapon do?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have presented my argument for the Bren as a LMG. My argument that some aspects of your case are irrelevant is separate from that. I have also indeed responded to the relevant aspects of your case. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you think barrel weight is not a factor, and that an extra 3-4 pounds of metal along with cooling protrusions are meaningless to a weapons combat effectiveness, and if you do not consider the factors which change its ability to fire longer -- then what you are saying is that you don't know much about how weapons work. Well -- that is fine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do not disagree with these comments. I do, however, disagree with your arbitrary definition of what level of performance is enough to qualify a weapon as a LMG. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>since my taxonomy is functional, it calls into question the usefulness of a Bren in some ahistoric roles that people whould like to see them available in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The roles in question are no more ahistoric than those of the LMG42 which is modelled in CM, for reaons which I have explained more than once.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stuka wrote: Speaking of which, for those who have seen the film, did it cross anyone elses mind that just before the big battle scene, when the ape army is approaching the ruins that all the humans needed was a couple of HMG teams and maybe a King Tiger with its honking great gun and them pesky apes would have been toast.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The problem is that POTA was released before CMBB, and therefore would not benefit from the improved modelling of machinegun teams. Depending on the organisation of the apes, the machineguns would be aiming either at the centre of the entire mass, or at individual apes. Therefore they could not hope to lay down any kind of effective suppression fire, let alone wound or kill any significant number of the apes. If Burton had waited a few more months, he would have benefited from faster target switching, not to mention fire lanes and grazing fire (yes I know they're the same thing).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slapdragon wrote: This also comes at a bad time when people want a change in how the Bren is perceived<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I have already said (and I have no intention of continuing to repeat myself, so if you wish to conduct the discussion in Lewis fashion by ignoring anything that doesn't support your argument, feel free), this discussion has nothing to do with the Bren-in-CM thread. Lewis is solely responsible for bringing elements of that discussion in here, and also for cross-referencing my posts in order to find out-of-context quotes in one which appear to contradict my comments in another. He may congratulate himself in making it very difficult for myself and others to conduct these discussions in a mature and sensible manner. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Basically, an automatic rifle is a man portable weapon capable of automatic fire from a limited capacity magazine that can be carried by a single person at the same speed a squad moves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is totally arbitrary. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have presented taxonomy based upon useful functionalist lines, and no one has chosed to attack the functional taxonomy, only to come back with a political taxonomy or attempts at trick questions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your logic is arbitrary. The barrel isn't heavy enough, or the magazine isn't big enough. This is totally subjective, and if you desired, you could turn the argument around, and use the same logic with a different arbitrary cut-off as proof that the Bren is indeed a LMG. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One thing that is telling is that no one else has tried to explian there own taxonomy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then either I don't exist, or you haven't been reading my posts. I think my feature-based argument is far more logical than your arbitrary degree-based argument. I argue that the Bren has all the features of a LMG, and is therefore a LMG. You argue that while the Bren has all the features, the physical implementation is not quite to the degree that you dictate as the cut-off for a LMG. Therefore you can argue for whichever side takes your fancy – your logic is relative, and that's why my question regarding the Sterling SMG was important to establish your way of thinking. It is also why your comments regarding fast-firing .45s and Beetles used as ORVs are absurd, and really nothing more than soundbites which bear no relation to your argument, and succeed only in throwing its credibility into question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ASL Veteran wrote: Any comments about this from David or Slapdragon<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure why I'd have anything to say in response to Lewis's post, because I didn't notice him addressing any points of contention. I'm not saying he should have, but you ask me for a response when I have nothing to respond to. Slapdragon has just repeated what he has said earlier in the discussion and I have replied to in detail. I disagree with what he has said – and think some of it is nonsense – and my thoughts can be found a couple of pages back.

Problem is it destroys night vision. Plenty of previous threads on the subject: Night NIGHT FIGHTING Did starshells make it? Are star shells and bridge demolition simulated? Night and illumination Lighting -other than fuses & flares Night combat revisited (long) illuminating rounds for night fights night time visability Flares at Night

Look at this... (taken from "warmonger Bush" thread on General forum) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Madmatt wrote: As CMBB gets more and more into testing and development, My, Steve's, Dan's and the other people that keep an eye on forums' time will become less and less. You are already seeing that now as we just can't take the 2-4 hours a day to scour the entire board. What that means is that any past tolerance on our part for indiscretions is now at an end. What does this mean for you? If you screw up, go over the top, break the rules, or basically just be an ASS to someone, you will be gone. This forum was and is a living library of knowledge and information but it must also be one of mutual respect and civility. Calling someone names, calling them stupid, calling their country stupid, calling how or what they think stupid is NOT PERMITTED. The sign of an educated mind is not one which is closed to any new possibilities, but one which is open and willing to take in new opinions and perspectives and subject them to the light of intelligent scrutiny.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> By these criteria, Lewis's termination is long overdue!

Here are a couple of the previous discussions on the subject: can we flatten them?? BTS und truppen: Since AFVs can't grind infantry could we...?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Andrew Hedges wrote: The most logical explanation for this is simply that Brens were provided to these crews for local defense. No one would go to the AT crews, strip it of two or three members, give them a Bren, and put them in the front line to support an infantry attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But this is exactly the reason why the LMG42 is modelled in the game – because it was attached to AT batteries and the like. If such formations are going to be modelled in CM, which they are, and these formations in reality had their own LMGs, then they should certainly be able to use them in the game, and for this reason they must be modelled as teams. Just like the LMG42.

Some discussions on reconnaissance for your interest... Scouts Recon Units and Spotting Recon units in CM missing Who uses scouts? Everyone except me?

Combat Mission does not model individual soldiers, and therefore exactly what they are doing with their weapons is outside the game's scope. Firing accuracy changes with the experience of the soldiers, eg. a Veteran squad will shoot more accurately than a Green squad. Firing effectiveness changes not with the firer's terrain, but with the target's terrain, and the terrain in between.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Username wrote: Slight correction old boy, I brought it up numerous times. I brought it up initially. I brought up the fact that 28 rounds was the realistic magazine fill. And if someone were to be following the other thread, your comments here might be taken as another flip-flop. In the other thread, you claim that the new MG effectiveness has no bearing on the matters and here you are actually saying that BRENs should be eligible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If I were you I would be careful about the comparisons you draw between my comments in this thread and my comments in the Bren thread. You have succeeded in drawing them together, but they were originally, and I continue to regard them as, separate topics. My involvement in this thread has been on the issue of the Bren's classification. My involvement in the other thread has been about the Bren's modelling in CM. It is you who has blurred the line between the two discussions. However you have perceived my comments, my position has always been that the Bren would indeed benefit from BTS's more realistic modelling of machineguns. This does not, as you have persisted to claim, mean that the Bren will gain powers beyond its real-world performance. It will simply gain a more realistic representation within its capabilities, as will all other machineguns. I think you may be confusing yourself over my comments that BTS's improvement of machinegun performance has no bearing on the issue of the Bren being modelled more correctly. I was responding to your contention that it would be impossible to model the Bren correctly without giving it unrealistic powers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No. Jams are a peculiarity of support weapons. Might want to investigate that. Hence my comments about painting yourself into the corner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure why you think I am "painting myself into the corner". Neither am I sure exactly what you mean on the jamming issue. I understand that only support weapons jam in CM, and therefore, if the Bren were modelled as a support weapon, then it would indeed be susceptible to jamming. The issue of transferring the possibility of jamming to squad weapons is up to BTS. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the other thread you distinctly said LMG42 and BREN were comparable. Then when everyone scoffed you lower the rod and say they are reguraly the same (or soemthing inane).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, what I said was, the Bren is quite capable of the performance currently bestowed upon the LMG42 in CM. It is ironic that your own bizarre logic and failure to accept the facts has necessitated my use of explanations which you are now turning around and using to confuse the matter yet further. It is increasingly obvious that confusion is an argumentative device of yours. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So what do you mean? you accuse Slappy of rounding up or down? What are you doing? raising the bridge or lowering the water? Should BREN be able to run? Should BREN be able to jam?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> More confusion. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by pulling random quotes out of the discussion and asking what I meant by them. If you understand English, then you will get a pretty good idea of what I mean by reading my posts, and the posts to which I am replying. However, as I am now quite aware, you choose not to consider what has been said, and instead make an impressive effort to portray it as nonsense, which it indeed seems like once it has received the Lewis treatment. As long as you are unprepared to consider what is being said, then there is no point in me or anyone else replying to your posts. This is what I said in the other thread, and you accused me of telling you not to post supposedly because you would not agree with me. This is yet another example of your refusal to consider and respond, when you obviously prefer to wilfully misrepresent what has been said in an attempt to discredit the speaker. Occasionally, you present what seems like a perfectly logical and reasoned argument. If you did that from the outset, there would be no problem. However, your technique appears to be to keep your logic until after you have frustrated the opposition so much that they are unwilling to discuss with you further, so that your credible argument goes unchallenged. Whether you intend it or not, you have a very clever and effective means to prevail in an argument – but for every credible post you make, there are ten which cannot be taken seriously. Therefore you should not be surprised when your logical questions go unanswered.

FROG!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mace wrote: David though, he's fair game!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't worry, I shall shortly be moving to England for a few years, so you may continue regarding me as the Englishman that to all intents and purposes I appear to be.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lewis wrote: As other people as well as myself have pointed out, the BREN support weapon would be no more of an asset than the presently modeled CMBO MG42 LMG (available separately). In fact, it might even be weaker. It would be subject to Jams.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Despite this being irrelevant, it is also wrong. As I have said numerous times, when BTS enhances the realism of machineguns, they will all become more useful, including the Bren. As for jams, I thought all machineguns were subject to jamming. Again, you are singling the Bren out for attack. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I brought up this issue and I have 'say' in threads so don't tell me where I can post and don't advise others how to think. It only makes you look WEak.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I didn't tell you were to post. I simply stated that, as long as you were behaving in the unnacceptable manner you were at the time, you might as well not take part in the discussion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At this point, you have painted yourself into some corner where you will accept nothing but correctness and weakness at all costs. Unfortunately the game has abstractions in many areas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have no idea what this means or what relevance it has. Another example of Lewis-speak, an attempt to confuse the matter and strengthen your argument with decisive-sounding but meaningless statements. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You never call out from the top of holy mount BREN to the gods of BTS. You rather want to have everyone here think the way you do instead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have a very strange impression of my involvement in this discussion. I would be interested in exactly what aspects of my contribution here you think are attempts to convert "everyone here" to my way of thinking. As far as I am aware, I have only been speaking on the subject in question. You also have an unfortunate habit of insulting or demonising your opponents. In this or the Bren thread you casually insulted Brian on several occasions, while he continued to deal with you in a mature manner. It is symptomatic of your inclination not to address the topic, but rather to attempt to "expose" what you imagine to be the underlying motives of those involved, and to argue your case from the outset not by dealing with the facts, but by dealing instead with the people involved and the related circumstances. One of your first comments in the Bren thread was to claim that it was simply an opportunity for "Her Majesty's servants" to complain. You chronically fail to offer your arguments any credibility, so it should come as no surprise to you when people start to focus on your self instead of what you are saying. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why dont you put some effort into contacting BTS? You arent changing my mind with your heavy handed converting at the stake mentality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I never imagined that it would be possible to change your mind. What I have been hoping to do is limit the force of your confusion and Anglophobic bigotry in the discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Username wrote: I have never claimed to be in a commonwealth army. I have never fired a BREN.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No-one ever suggested that you had. My point is that I find it very strange that you regard the simple mechanics of operating a weapon as a great impediment to its combat effectiveness. You make cocking a gun seem like a huge effort. In other words, your viewpoint seems very like that of someone who has never been trained to use a machine efficiently, and would therefore be expected to understand how easy it can become to operate a machine, however simple or complex, when you are used to doing it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Username wrote: Many people , including myself, are suggesting that also! Furthermore, if there were 'extra' BRENs in the TOE, then they should be in squads so that when you split them, the squad will have a half squad with two BRENs in it and the remainder having rifle/smg. I have also suggested that platoon HQ could have a built in BREN or maybe the other HQs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is you who is making all the ahistorical suggestions. There is no precedent for putting the extra Brens from the TO&E into squads or HQ units, but bizarrely you are desperate to see this happen. Anything but model them individually. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Its just that some people here are on some kind of crusade for BREN support weapons and they are not accepting anything else. Read this thread again. Slappy, who I admit to giving a hard time, has not once fallen into the Aitken mindset of non-discussion. Aitken wont accept anything but his own point of view and has even demanded in anothet thread that I stop posting because I wont change to his point of view! How utterly simpleminded!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's an interesting take on my comments. I earlier provided a link to the post in question, and I shall leave those concerned to decide for themselves. What I and others have been doing is simply responding to the unusual arguments of youself and Slapdragon. You in particular have been reacting hysterically to any suggestion that the Bren should be modelled as the LMG it was, refusing to listen to logical arguments, making sudden topic switches and doing your best to confuse the issue. This is why I recommended that you stay out of this and other discussions, as you have little credible argument to offer, and are not interested in the facts. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My position is that BREN support weapons will have to wait till after CMBB anyway, so wouldnt it be prudent to see how the face of infantry battle changes before demanding what "has to be" now?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a perfect example of your take on the subject. You are not offering anything that is actually relevant. You are simply trying to deflect attention from the subject. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the crusaders want to vilify/marginalize/etc. All very tiring, believe me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed, and you are the leading crusader. Arguing not from a desire for correctness, but from a bizarre perception of the way things should be, and apparently also from a contempt for the British war effort.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slapdragon wrote: Well, the designer of the weapon first wanted to design an LKMG, but downgraded his concept when various militaries stated they wanted a better BAR. That is the point. The thing could have been an LMG, but was not an LMG -- it was actually modified from being good in that role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This contradicts your own story of the weapon's development. The original design could reasonably have been called a GPMG, but was most certainly a LMG. The alterations that were made did not suddenly change it from a LMG to an AR. Your own logic that employment does not override design, dictates that although some armies might have wanted to use the Bren as an AR, it did not suddenly become an AR. It was always a LMG. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Bren team cincept is the same as the way the BAR was used -- to cover the advance of infantry from within the section / squad. Seems like your argument is that the Bren is an LMG despite what the designer thought he was creating (by modifiying his weapon) the British position that it was a sectional weapon,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is exactly the mistake I have pointed out. Just because the US used an AR as their squad automatic, does not make everyone else's squad automatic an AR. The British used a LMG as their squad automatic. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and their post war resistance to making it a true LMG while later purchasing the MAG-58 for the LMG role (one of the roles a GPMG can take), retaining the Bren in the AR role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are slanting the facts again. Instead of saying that the MAG filled the GPMG role, you put the emphasis on "the LMG role (one of the roles a GPMG can take)", in an attempt to make the Bren seem like an AR. Bren: LMG. MAG: GPMG (and usually HMG). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This seems to be because people want to have individual Bren teams outside of their historic use from another thread (which I have not really read).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This has nothing to do with the Bren's modelling in CM, and everything to do with your contention that it was an automatic rifle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The BREN had to be cocked between magazines? Good God.. The '30' round clips were only loaded to 28 rounds according to several sources. The gunner (its number 1 to you people) had to do this with which hand? You have to look in for remaining rounds? Please. Great fun on a firing range, I am sure, but like the argument that troops were counting how many rounds were in the bolt action magazines, a bit much under combat conditions. I am beggining to think that british weapons were for well trained peace time armies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am moving into the camp which doubts your military service. Complex procedures can be very quick and easy when you are trained to do them. Your contentions would only be relevant to a civilian attempting to use the weapon. Apparently anything more than pulling the trigger is extremely complex in your mind. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the BREN does have its atributes. I read often about its accuracy when firing automatic at point targets. This would be very useful for supporting a squad. It would be very useful at suppressing a small house. A MG42 could suppress a small two story building in my opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not the LMG42. Yes the HMG42. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rune posted a british document that pointed out that even the british felt the inferiority to BELT FED weapons. It was largely ignored and much interest has been turned on to me instead. As for myself, do a search. As for belt fed weapons and going-for-broke, BTS has already made comments. Do a search there also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rune's post was largely ignored because you reposted it out of context. No-one is claiming that magazine fed weapons are on a par with belt fed weapons. It is only you that repeatedly makes this claim. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slappy is right. Theres a lot of politics and ingrained feelings/traditions/etc. here. There has been no BTS feedback on the topic. I would gather up some of that if I were in the BREN camp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All the politics and feelings are coming from the Bren-is-AR / Bren-is-not-support-weapon camp. As for BTS, you may not have noticed, but they are busy on CM2 and rarely reply to any topic these days.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Andrew Hedges wrote: The Patton Museum needs to invest in some subdued grass.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Brilliant! Either Maximus lives in a place without much sunshine, or much grass, or he doesn't get out much. I will concede that he has been recovering from an accident, but presumably his house has windows...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slapdragon wrote: Otherwise, My neighbor has a Volkswagen beetle which he claims can go off road, thus making it an ORV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You might have a more credible argument if you would avoid making disingenious comments like this and your earlier suggestion: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>just because a person is given a .45 and told to pull the trigger really fast does not make the .45 a HMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A Volkswagen Beetle is a car. It was designed as a car. No-one is disputing the fact that using a machine for tasks beyond its conception therefore makes it a more substantial machine, simply through employment. Similarly, of course a fast-firing pistol does not suddenly become a machinegun. You continue to deny that the Bren is a LMG despite it being designed as such, and bearing all the characteristics of a LMG. Your perception of what weight of barrel makes a LMG or what size of magazine makes a LMG is totally arbitrary. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I suspect this is coming down to a more political issue. People want the Bren to be given the firepower and use of a MG42, so anyone who points out that it is just a rather heavy AR acting as a squad automatic weapon is throwing some mud on that image.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you are listening to Lewis's nonsense. He is the only one claiming that we want unrealistic capabilities bestowed upon the Bren. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>was used just like an automatic rifle (except for the rather odd emplyment as a vehicle mounted weapon)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now you are clearly deluding yourself. The Bren correctly filled the role of LMG in the British squad. Now you are claiming that the role was actually that of an AR, and your only basis for this is because the US squad used an AR in the same role. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fact that the British did not have a really good LMG<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That comment would come as an immense surprised to the entire British army, and probably a good number of other armies, including the US and Germans. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>or for that matter an MMG does not mean that the Bren suddenly and magically becomes a good candidate for either role<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Bren is an excellent candidate for the LMG role because it happens to be a LMG. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>or that the designers of it thought they were making a GPMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who is arguing that the Bren was a GPMG? Now you are moving the goalposts in an attempt to make your argument sound credible. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In 1924 Vaclav Holek decided that the Belgian BN and the American BAR were not useful automatic rifles, so he started work on what he referred to as a "light machinegun. It was essentially a Bren with belt feed and a heavy barrel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are doing a good job of undermining your own argument. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Always an excellent salesman, he modified his design to make it fit into the BAR model -- removing the belt feed and replacing it with a magazine fed from the same direction. So like the bastard child it is, it retains some of the LMG characteristics, and indeed although the British used it as an AR inside of sections, they called it by what Holek called it in 1924.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are simply using narrative to try and put a slant on the facts which makes your argument sound credible. The facts you have delineated are that the Bren was designed from the outset as a LMG, and was simply modified to have a lighter barrel and a magazine feed. It does not "retain some of the LMG characteristics". The BAR has some LMG characteristics. The Bren is a LMG which could, in its original design, have been a MMG or a GPMG, as you later suggest: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After the war, the ZB26 concept was revisited in an attempt to make the weapon back into a true LMG or even see if it could fill the GPMG concept<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So you have provided lots of evidence that the Bren is and always was a LMG, and besides trying to put a slant on the facts, have offered little to reinforce your own argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slapdragon wrote: I think that the Bren was the best AR made, allowing it to fill many roles that it was clearly not designed to fill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And for the reaons I have explained, I think the Bren most certainly was designed to fill the roles it was used in. Your only justification for claiming that it was not designed for these roles is because you insist on calling it an automatic rifle, which it patently is not. The BAR is a true automatic rifle, and what you say about the Bren would be accurately applied to the BAR. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, it lacked magazine capacity to be an LMG. Do like the Lewis, and pop a 90 round feed device on top, and you would have had it right in the LMG camp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, like your barrel weight argument, this is completely arbitrary. In effect you agree that the Bren is a LMG, but the 30-round magazine makes it an AR. This is nonsense, even before we consider the training given to the Bren team number two, who was able to change the magazine so quickly as to make no serious degradation to the weapon's performance. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Relying on what the commonwealth called this is also not an issue because they had a really odd sense of nomenclature. Ab example was with tanks, which they continued to call Infantry, Cruiser, and Light sometimes bouncing the tanks from one section to another for no good reason, long after every other country had just thrown them into functional and weight classes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not relying on the official designation, I am relying on analysis and commonsense.

This thing, the Tortoise, was intended to mount the 3.7in / 32-pounder. Designed in 1942, prototype in 1947, never produced. The 17-pounder was probably regarded as a more than adequate AT gun during the war, but if the 32-pounder had ever appeared it would have been unbeatable. However, considering the trouble we had fitting the former into a AFVs, it's no surprise we didn't get around to the latter. [ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Andrew Hedges wrote: (altough I will add, based on my usage of LMG teams, that they will be pretty useless).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS modelling the capabilities of machineguns more accurately will probably make LMGs significantly more useful as well as MMGs and HMGs. This does not, as Lewis believes, mean that magazine-fed LMGs will suddenly gain superpowers, it just means they can do their job properly, as they do in the real world.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Username wrote: Not quite. First you post a pic and say "Slapdragon: A simple question. Not a trick, I am just interested to hear what you think. What kind of weapon is this man holding?" But then go onto some roundup/round-down BS. The only thing simple here was your argument. The pic, btw, is not clear, the mag is out the side on the weapon away from the photographer. From the angle of the pic, it isnt clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First of all, you are the only person crying foul here. Slapdragon is continuing the discussion. Secondly, it is apparent to me that Slapdragon understood the intent of my question, and recognised why I chose a picture of a Sterling. I considered using an American SMG to avoid doubt, but I credit Slapdragon with the power of intuition. I probably would have cut down the odds if I were asking you the same question, for reasons that you are ably demonstrating. Thirdly, I said it was not a trick question and it was not. I did not use underhand methods to try and make Slapdragon say something he would regret, and then grill him on the basis of a few casual words. I was only interested to see whether he would classify the Sterling – or any weapon which I would call a SMG – as a SMG or an automatic pistol. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But you are just showing everyone your true colors by doing something like this. First you say "oh trust me, really I care what you think" then come off with your weak "you round some weapons up and some down, hmm, whys that?". Very poor show old boy (I am starting to tawk like these blokes ).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, it appears that you are confused by simple logic. It is apparent to me that the Bren is a LMG, by analysing its design. However, Slapdragon is using relative logic to classify it as an automatic rifle. Therefore it was necessary to establish the basis of this relativity, by asking him what he considered to be the class of a different kind of weapon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Theres no hard and fast dilineation between weapons. But a weapon having a belt feed, and the resulting amount of short call firepower that a belted weapon can deliver DOES make it a class apart from clip fed weapons. I am glad that the game, whether intentionally or not, at this point models it that way. Hopefully it will in the future!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is getting into the territory of the other thread. You continue to make the strange assumption that if BTS were to model the Bren correctly, they would somehow be unable to give it its true capabilities, like every other weapon in the game, and would be forced to give it extra powers. I really don't think you are making this argument on a technical basis – you just seem desperate not to allow the Bren its real-world capabilities. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slapdragon wrote: The LMG is the lightest class of machinegun that still retains a heavy barrel, a large magazine capacity, and is used as a base of fire where its extended magazine and barrel can keep it in action. It however must be light enough to keep up with a platoon, and is thus usually bipod mounted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, so I was mistaken in my assumption that a belt feed was one of your criteria for a LMG. That leaves only the weight of the barrel. Therefore, you apparently regard the Bren as an automatic rifle simply because the MG42 has a heavier barrel. No matter that it bears all the characteristics of a LMG and functioned extremely well as such, you just think the barrel was a bit too light, and therefore you knock it down a peg and give it the same classification as the BAR, a true automatic rifle and a significantly less capable weapon. Granted, you may think it neat to call the Bren an AR because it held the same role in the British squad as the BAR held in the US squad. But the fact remains that the Bren was used to its full potential in the British army, and held the position below the Vickers very well. Lewis claims that this was only a stopgap, because he is convinced the the Bren is inferior, largely because it is British apparently. But the US platoon was in need of his beloved M1919, because the BAR was only an AR, and couldn't fill the role of LMG, making a MMG necessary. It all evens out. Think of the Bren as you like, but it is clearly a LMG in form and function.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CaSCa wrote: my canned vegetables are not aligned in alphabetical order in my kitchen cabinets<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow, you must be the only one! Right guys...? Sorting out your units at the beginning is half the fun of the game! If the computer did it for you, that would be just like the computer playing the whole game for you! Any commander worth his salt ought to get up in the morning with only one thought in his mind: How much sorting of units in CM can I do today? Never mind the fighting, war is all about SORTING! Now, where is my Bowl, Breakfast, For the consumption of...? I must be ready for action in minutes three.