David Aitken

I know you'd like that Lewis – when your logic fails (if it ever existed), the only way to press your argument is to do away with the dissenting voices...

1) The configurations you find in CM are usually reflective of the majority of real-life cases. In other words, I don't think German tanks historically used flexible machineguns. A few doubtlessly did, but it was not usual. However, you will find that the enclosed assault guns such as the Sturmgeschutz and Hetzer do have a flexible MG42, because this was more common. Essentially it was for close defence, but in CM you can use it for offensive purposes. 2) A search would most certainly turn up a few discussions about this. My intuition tells me that CM does not model rounds in the breech, only the time it takes to load and fire a round once the need has been established.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Andrew Hedges wrote: It won't function as an SMG/machine carbine/military-style assault weapon unless you load it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Username wrote: For you to go off on some discourse built around that begs desperation..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry for confusing you with some simple logic. The precise model is of no consequence. The picture I chose was simply a clear depiction of a soldier carrying a submachinegun. Slapdragon obviously understood that. You, on the other hand, would predictably attempt to confuse the issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>M. Bates wrote: He could also have a bumbling sidekick who is sent to assasinate Nelson, but fails and is killed by Napoleon with a dagger to the forehead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excuse me while I choke on my sandwich...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Username wrote: The game will be changing how it handles support MGs. I dont believe that the use of the BREN compares with other belt fed weapons. Particulary the ability to go-for-broke, continuous fire and switching targets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What you are talking about is a fundamental, across-the-board change in the way CM handles machineguns. It is nothing to do with the real-world capabilities of individual weapons, as though all those meeting particular criteria are modelled exactly the same in the game. The fundamental changes in the game will allow the Bren, MG42 and every other machinegun to be handled more realistically. But they do not suddenly cease to be modelled individually, which is what you are suggesting. Last time I checked, each weapon in the game had its real-world capabilities. How does this suddenly cease to be when the fundamental realism of all machineguns in CM is enhanced? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS has said some of these effects will be given to squad weapons in the squad. But at a reduced rate. Thats where the BREN should be. In a squad element.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Bren is in a squad. It was also historically used outwith the squad, because it is a LMG. I fail to see your problem with allowing the Bren to be used as it historically was. You seem to think that if BTS model it in its historical standalone role, they will simultaneously bestow upon it unrealistic powers. I'm not sure why you think they would break from credibility to do this.

The problem with joking about the English being evil and archaic is that many Americans think they're reading a factual document. (smiley with red coat and musket forthcoming)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slapdragon wrote: It is an automatic carbine. People who classify a weapon by the round it fires will call it a machine pistol, but it has a full stock which really brings it out of the pistol category, so this is technically incorrect. You could also call it a submachinegun (sometimes hyphenating the word) which is a cut down machinegun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for your response. What strikes me about your definition of the Sterling, normally classified as a submachinegun, is that you are systematically rounding up. I was under the impression that a carbine is a shortened rifle, initially for cavalry use, and later for vehicle and heavy weapons crews, and officers. To call a weapon which fires pistol rounds automatically a carbine is rather flattering. Even more so is calling it a submachinegun, or "cut down machinegun". And yet in the case of the Bren, you round down. It has all the characteristics of a machinegun save a belt feed, and thus it becomes an automatic rifle. If a weapon firing pistol bullets automatically can be called a submachinegun or "cut down machinegun", then what on Earth is a light machinegun, and why on Earth is a Bren somehow inferior to this classification? As you call the Bren an automatic rifle, I expected you to regard the Sterling as an automatic pistol. Employing your own logic, we can see that no matter if it is designed to be a submachinegun, it in effect bears no characteristics of any kind of machinegun. It is simply a stocked pistol with a large magazine which fires automatically. I quote: <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> With this in mind, I do not understand how you can regard the Sterling as either a carbine or submachinegun, when all it is, is a fast-firing pistol with some more substantial characteristics. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Calling it an LMG is more a morale exercise now, and may have even been one then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I conclude that you seem to reserve special logic for the Bren which you do not apply to other firearms. The BAR was designed as an automatic rifle, and it indeed bears all the characteristics of a rifle which fires automatically. The Sterling was designed as a submachinegun, and you agree that this is a correct term to use, or the equally flattering "automatic carbine", although both terms rather exaggerate its capabilities. But in the case of the Bren, even though it was designed as a light machinegun, and heartily resembles a machinegun in form and function, you reverse your logic in an effort to classify it as an automatic rifle.

Since there is a high proportion of American gits in this thread, I shall take the opportunity to expound on a revelation of mine. I while ago I wondered out loud why Americans (and MrPeng in particular) talk about puking so much, ie. "it makes me want to puke!". Then I went to a show called Ironic Yanks at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, which had some amusing things to say about British and American idiosyncrasies. Picture of aforementioned Ironic Yanks Then I thought about what I would say instead of "it makes me want to puke!". I was reminded of an occasion in the Korean war when a British unit answerable to an American commander reported that they were in a "sticky situation". The American took this to mean that they were allright, when in effect the British commander meant they were in real trouble. I concluded that American "it makes me want to puke!" roughly equals British "I didn't find it particularly enjoyable". By the same token, British "it was rather good, really" is on a par with American "that was totally awesome!" It should also be noted that British "well that's just marvellous" in a particular tone of voice means American "this is totally f***ed up!!". This has been a complimentary public service broadcast for our American friends.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slapdragon wrote: Looks like some mark of a Sterling to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are correct. But what kind of weapon is it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Username wrote: Have a BREN squad of 8 men with two BRENS and split it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why are you offering completely ahistorical alternatives to a straightforward solution? Allow the Bren to be employed as it historically was, as a LMG, just like the MG42 (comparisons of the two aside). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Still, noone here has really said what they want. They think CMBO is going to be reworked?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We set out to establish a principle which hopefully BTS will take into account for future CM releases featuring British forces. That was all fine and well until you hijacked the thread with your bizarre argument that on no account should BTS allow us to use the Bren in one of its historical roles. You say: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Its a dead end thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The main reason it's still on page 1 is because you won't let it go until you have convinced everyone that the British forces were inferior and the Bren shouldn't be properly modelled in CM because it doesn't matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Username wrote: But why should I expect anyone to have anything resembling thinking at this point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, practise what you preach...

Slapdragon: A simple question. Not a trick, I am just interested to hear what you think. What kind of weapon is this man holding?

I would advise anyone against wasting their time replying to the previous post by Lewis, as everything he says, he has already said, and we have already answered in no uncertain terms. He does not care what we have to say.

I would direct those concerned to Lewis's anti-British jihad and my last comments to him in the aforementioned thread about the Bren. Edit: See bottom of page here. [ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slapdragon wrote: no matter how heavy, a big magazine fed squad carried weapon is an Automatic Rifle. Concept pioneered by the BAR. Concept perfected by the Czechs. Concept obsolete by WW2 but gave good service anyway. Concept way obsolete in the face of the Assault Rifle, the SAW, and the GPMG but still clung to. Calling it an LMG just makes it seem like a bit more than a weapon that can fire automatically inside the squad without adding some of the key features of the the other weapons listed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You make a reasonably good argument that the Bren should be called an automatic rifle, and you may be able to classify it as such in theory, but the fact remains that it is a light machinegun. I reprint the following from the "Bren: Not Sold Separately?" thread. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pak40 wrote: I'm sorry, but I fail to see how the BAR and Bren are different in their rolls as a squad support weapon. They are BOTH mobile light mgs that support the squad with automatic firepower. Just because the Bren team has a 3 man element doesn't make it's roll different, it's still a squad support weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>David Aitken wrote: You might as well argue that the way an MG42 is set up makes no difference to its role, it's still an MG42. Very wrong. An MG42 with a two-man team is a light machinegun; an MG42 on a tripod with optical sights, a few more men, and as much ammunition as they can carry, is a heavy machinegun. By the same token, just because both the Bren and the BAR are magazine-loading automatic weapons with bipods which fire rifle ammunition, and were used as squad support weapons, does not mean they are both restricted to this role. Their design dictates how they can be used. The BAR was designed as an automatic rifle. Originally it was only semi-automatic, and the small magazine reflects this. It is a one-man weapon intended to be fired as a rifle from the shoulder, and indeed the bipod was also a late modification. It lacks a quick-change barrel, the location of the magazine is less than ideal, and the gun was poor in the role of light machinegun. The Bren is a purpose-designed light machinegun. Pistol grip, bipod, quick-change barrel, large magazine. It starts where the BAR leaves off; only through modification could the BAR approximate the role of light machinegun, and not very well. The Bren is first and foremost a light machinegun, and is suitable for many roles, from a squad automatic, to medium machinegun on a tripod, to vehicle machinegun. Give a BAR a second crewman and there's not much he can do. It's awkward for him to change magazines. He can't change the barrel. If he carries lots of extra ammunition, the gunner won't be able to fire it all because the barrel will overheat. No point putting it on a tripod. With a second or third crewman, a Bren can do all of this. So you are correct only so far as that the BAR and Bren were used in the same role, as squad automatic. But if you think that configuring it differently does not change the role, you are wrong. The Bren can do much that the BAR cannot, and this is why we are discussing the possibility of having this modelled in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You use the analogy of manufacturers calling a vehicle which is actually a SUV, an ORV for marketing purposes. Very well, but this works both ways. I can buy a GP, and call it a car simply because I use it as a car, but it is still a GP. This is what you are doing with the Bren – because it was used in the same role as the BAR, you claim that it is the same kind of weapon as the BAR. Again, you comment: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>no matter how heavy, a big magazine fed squad carried weapon is an Automatic Rifle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I understand that, but my unit bases are gray, not orange like in scenarios where your units are fixed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Units in neutral territory will have grey bases during setup, locked or not. Locked units within setup zones will have orange bases. So if you really, really want orange bases, for their aesthetic value, then create a setup zone around them.

Remember Fieldmarshall's masterful dissection of the role of Volkssturm in CM? I'm sure that followers of his research and discursive skills will be delighted to learn of his latest project. [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

If you define no setup zones then all units will be in neutral territory and immovable. If you have setup zones but leave some units in neutral territory, same thing. Padlocking is to fix units within setup zones.

I might also point out that the carrier modelled in CM is actually a 3in mortar carrier. It has the mortar and tripod strapped to the back, and the passenger/cargo compartment is half full with bombs. It would be nice to see a basic UC, which would be more apparently a carrier rather than some kind of support vehicle.

There was a big debate a few months ago about the US M5A1 halftrack. BTS originally allowed it to carry a full squad, but then decided that it was a command vehicle and only had space for six men. People provided numerous sources and pictures of the various different halftracks, their roles and capacities and whatever. One of the conclusions was that the vehicle was driven by a squad member, adding weight to the argument that there was space for a full squad. The fact remains that in CM, the two or three squad members who drive the vehicle and/or fire the guns remain on board even though the squad is dismounted, which is much the same issue as you raise concerning the UC. [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>chrisl wrote: I think the ease of destrution of a CD is proportional to the value of its contents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very true. I remember someone receiving their CM CD and it had shattered in the post. How the heck is that going to happen?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pak40 wrote: That's just plain silly in cyclic or practical ROF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Geier wrote: Not even close. At least if you are talking about firing more than 20 rounds. Reloading, no matter how drilled you are, takes time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry for the confusion, I was responding to Lewis's arbitrary claim that only belt-fed machineguns should be available as teams in CM. In CM terms, the Bren could easily manage not the same ROF, but the same regularity of fire as the LMG42 as it is currently modelled. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Username wrote: Of course. The bren was also very dependant on a clip monkey. It was not a belt fed weapon. Bottom line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Bottom line" of what? Your argument that we should not be allowed to employ the Bren in CM as it historically was? As JonS and Brian have pointed out, whether a gun is belt or magazine fed, its performance will degrade significantly if it loses its number two. This is and would be modelled in the game as appropriate. As I have explained, and you continue to ignore, the entire basic design of the Bren allows it to be employed as a standalone LMG where the BAR would be totally inappropriate. So far the only credible impression I am getting from you, is that you cannot bear to imagine that the British squad automatic might have been a better and more flexible weapon than the US equivalent, and very suited to heavier roles where the BAR was not. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Geier wrote: Hold on, is anyone arguing that a clip/mag/pouch/whatever equipped mg is somehow "better" (or just as good as) than a belt-fed? Or that it had a ROF/suppressive power similar or better than a belt-fed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, not at all. I am simply countering Lewis's argument that the Bren should not be employed as a standalone LMG in CM. As you might notice, he has offered numerous shallow ideas like... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...which have no relevance to his argument, only to the way the weapons are modelled once they are in the game, which he is desperate not to see in the first place. And he has the cheek to comment: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Cmon. Are there any good arguments?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lewis, you have been offered plenty of good arguments. Your own arguments are the poor ones. I have seen you employing your – I called it bizarre, but I think "feeble" is far more appropriate – logic on three different subjects recently, and it is apparent to me that you are not at all interested in an answer unless it is the one you want to hear. What you want to hear is apparently that the British forces during the Second World War fought badly with bad doctrine and bad equipment. This contention is nonsense, but there is no point in me refuting it, as you will not listen. To see such a wilfully ignorant person forcing their delusions upon this community is a great irritation for me, which I am sure pleases you no end, but I must allow you to continue, and recommend to myself and everyone else that you should not be challenged and should be allowed to remain in your own little world. Please, by all means, believe that the US forces were superior to all during the war, or indeed the Germans, or whatever it is you want to believe. Please also feel free to stay away from here, as I see no point in you engaging in the discussions on this board, as no-one is likely to accept what you say, and your own beliefs are certainly not to be changed.

Of all the shortcomings of CM and this forum combined, I think BTS have flagrantly ignored the one real problem for far too long. There is one major bug which jeapordises the Combat Mission experience for too many people. I demand that they fix Lewis immediately. If they cannot correct this feature, I suggest that they simply remove it. It has been degrading the performance of our discussions on this forum for longer than I care to remember. It's just the epitome of BTS's shoddy approach to business that they have allowed Lewis to go unaddressed, and show no signs of correcting their oversight in the future. Fix or do somefink, or I won't buy Hypothetical Mission XXXIV: Your Life As It Was And Might Have Been!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Username wrote: Seems you are in a bit of a turnaround.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have an ever-diminishing grasp of what you're on about. You use random quotes with no relevance to your topic, and make sudden topic changes with no relevance to the original. I find myself unable to conduct an argument with someone who employs such bizarre logic. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway, noone is saying that the brits dressed like they were in WWI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm glad, because that is entirely untrue. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and had nothing to squauk about but a mag fed foriegn designed LMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am the first to admit that the Bren is a Czech design, and have done so previously on this forum. If you get the impression that that's the only thing we had going for us during the war, it's only because you keep denying that it was any good at all, so we have to waste our time trying to hammer the facts into your thick head. As for the Bren being foreign, I would suggest that (1) we had the commonsense to select an excellent LMG for our infantry, and (2) we didn't restrict ourselves to local designs, unlike the US which ended up with a poor squad automatic as a result. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Everything else being much the same as the great war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course Lewis. In your world, I'm sure it makes perfect sense. And yes, I know your statement was in the negative, presumably because your sole intention was to provoke a response, and you have succeeded. Unfortunately I think you believe it though. I see no point in concerning myself further with your bizarre beliefs.