Slapdragon

[ April 19, 2002, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

OK Aunty Jack, now I understand why you are seemingly coming from left field with this, you have not read his sentence: The man's job on the beach was doing the above tasks, of which the Bren may or may not have been of use (not stated). It was used in the AA role on a tripod. I too figured that the Bren would be used in those situations because he mentions them in this paragraph of his short comment, and I really could see the Bren being used in a static role covering the mopping up stage of a beach landing. But it is apparent that it was not used like this, or at least he does not mention it. So the evidence from this comment is that it was really only used in an AA role on a tripod, and even that very rarely. I most definately withdraw that post as possible evidence that it was used in static situations. I was wrong about this -- it is apparent that static situations may have been as rare as use in mobile situations as the evidence for it is so slim.

What I think is also very interesting is that in the long drawn out gashing away over a modification that would not even be noticeable in the game, no one has yet, in six months, presented any sort of information to lead anyone looking at the issue from a neutral point of view that the Bren was deployed in any numbers on a tripod. It says something that with all the people who have looked, nothing has turned up.

Ithink there has been a miscommunication, see below: [ April 19, 2002, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

Perhaps you're confusing Carrot Top with Yahoo Serious? Easily done, I understand. But before we begin trashing and thrashing all things from Upside Down Land, we need to give special amnesty to AC DC.</font>

Only if you are ignorant of the history of weapons design. The Bar design parts, all made by Browning, predates the Chauchat by years. (I should have noted that the Browning closed bolt may have come in part from the Chauchat, even those the gas mechanism was much much older -- the oldest BAR designs prewar were all open bolt. ##edited##) </font>

The info I've seen indicates that they used the same round, at the same muzzle velocity (2800 fps). Why did it penetrate when fired from the BAR but not when fired from the M1?</font>

The info I've seen indicates that they used the same round, at the same muzzle velocity (2800 fps). Why did it penetrate when fired from the BAR but not when fired from the M1?</font>

Perhaps you're confusing Carrot Top with Yahoo Serious? Easily done, I understand. But before we begin trashing and thrashing all things from Upside Down Land, we need to give special amnesty to AC DC.</font>

Given that And that the supremacy of the tripod machine gun had not been demonstrated until the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 (and indeed its lessons seem to have been ignored generally as far as the armies that went to the Great War were concerned), I find the two statements a bit hard to reconcile.... Browning and his backers would not have undertaken such a lengthy and costly development process without some indications as to its (BAR) employment according to the doctrine of the time (pre-1914), but what was the market he aimed at (and therefore the doctrine that drove his work) ? Edward</font>

Besides, the 240mm is just the boogey man here, not the all powerful killer. People fear it because when they mass forces, and if the other guy is on his game. you can pay hell for having them target you. But if they are targeted even a little away from a large concentration, and if the accuracy is down, then they can waste themselves on a field. No, this weapon was not like being struck by lightning. Jon makes the once per month suggestion which is probably reasonable for this class of weapon. You con't see these often because it takes a big game to attract them anyway, and they are really a gamble.

Noba you half-witted squire, send me some screen shots and tell me how things are going on your quest. You act like the phone lines are down between here and the heights of Jerusalem.

It is really hard to get it for small battles (or impossible for the smallest) and even medium battles it represents a chunk of your resources. In a 1500 point attack I think you could get one (based on a 2250 point total) and maybe an 81mm mortar, assuming you maxed out arty. The 240mm in US Army usage was tasked with siege and built up fires, and was not the most cross country mobile piece in the inventory. I think that the 240mm is gamey if every game is played with it, but as an occasional part of the US arty picture it is not all that gamey. Rarity would help here, since 15 battalions was not all that large, and these guns where held at Corps and Army levels, but they did fire support of ground troops, so there is no reason to deny them from the game as gamey. In fact, against a city this piece and the 8 inch are the primary US methods of dislodging MG and Chreck heavy infantry from buildings without wasting huge amounts of armor.

Having examined the corpse closely, I can tell you the damn thing was still born, so why not play stack the bodies and enjoy yourself?

Hey Mister Slappy Pants. The bard was my sponsor but not my master. He taught me nothing as is evidenced by my lack of wins. I do hope you can "fugure" out a way to send a setup, if that is what you want to do. I have a special place in my heart for bumpkins. I got pulled over by the Alabama state police once and he was a fine fellow. Granted, I wasn't doing any crack, so you can't really relate to this story. Tell your brother/cousin/uncle I said "Hey, ya'all"</font>

I too am happy to see the simple clod Hacking Cough returned, he who has many spellings of his name because it makes no fecking sense. This is because it give me one more person to shine against. In a hundred yard dash, one more racer on crutches just adds to the glory of the victory, and maybe you will get the chance to kick a few more cructhes out before you sail across the finish line. As for Joe, what can I say. I would call him a turd, but that would mean I have to bold the word turd, so why bother. I do know that he is the floater in everyone's bowl. Now Sedai I have special plans for. I would challenge him to a fight, except I am afraid that he will be as gamey as his fawned upon master Seanachi. Perhaps I will weave him into the next post I make on the barf? I have heard some humor quite on Sean's level recently from a crack dealer, and now I only have to fugure how to simplify it so that Hiram too can enjoy it.

The original BAR was the result of a long design process by Browning, starting in the previous century and running to the first world war. Before the war his idea did not get much notice, although his use of gas operation and other public elements of his design (which were in fact also in use in his shotgun and in the potato digger) formed the basis of almost all light weapons -- because it was very difficult to size down the Maxim and the Gatling was a non-starter as a manual weapon.

Someday, when the lynch mob has lost my scent (running through the Peng thread covers it up, and they loose track of me, since the majority cannot deal with the environment) I will discourse on the truth of grogginess. I presented the thesis of this simple idea to Seanachi last night, and he actually seemed to understand every-other word I said (about an 800% increase for him). But TRUE grogginess, of the Michael Dorosh / Andreas Biermann variety, is the belief that the free challenging of ideals and ideas using mutually understandable zero points, no matter how down and dirty, and even if friends disagree, is part of the process that leads to greater understanding of subjects. A subject untested, which is incapable of weathering the slings and arrows of peer review, such as the Bren Tripod debate, is a subject worth little thought. Only by tempering in intellectual fire can an idea grow, prosper, and spawn new ideas. So your comments, although idiotic and uneducated ( just to make Peng happy ) were valid, interesting, and groggy. Had the hijack not occurred I would have had many replies for you, some to bow to your wisdom, some to point out points you did not consider, and some to utterly thrash you in your blinding stupidity. And you too would have done exactly the same to me. Alas, it must wait for the mob. By the way, sorry Marlow. Next time I will not inform the general public that I can be bought to throw my bet.

LOL - you need to spend some time in the Army if you really think that. </font>

Funny, the quote attributed to you by Marlow appears in your message of April 15, 2002 02:00 PM, in the second paragraph Slapdragon. John quotes it in his message of April 15, 2002 06:42 PM. Perhaps you should be more careful about checking your sources (again)?</font>

I agree Jon, but finish the quote. I said e-mail me or let us start a new thread on the BAR and Browning. I wanted to do this since the BREN issue of tripods is a dead issue anyway and the noise had risen way way above the signal. Also, John Salt needs a chance to read at least Ezell and possibly one of the books on Browning I have (or a different one for that matter -- most should tell the same story). At the same time he is getting a lot of his data from the 1975 edition of Janes, I have the 1989 edition and it may take a while to find the 1975. Since we both lack sources the other has, the subject is off topic, the subject is conceptual rather than concrete, and the tone of the thread quickly got ugly, I felt it might be better going to a new venue, either on the forum in a new thread, or if it was way off CM topic, just as easily handled by e-mail, although I always prefer the forum (you never know when someone like M. Dorosh will drop buy with a bunch of groginess and send me back to my books for a week).

If anyone wants to handicap their bets, contact me off line....

John, we should probably revisit this discussion after you have chance to dig into the history of the ZB series of weapons. If you are serious about discussing this we can talk about it either off line or in another thread with the animostity dropped. The history of the ZB series, and the BAR for that matter, are fascinating, but it is far for complex than just a weapon geting adopted triggering another, and the thinking of the time was very very complex. We both could learn from each other if we let it. The ZB-24 is listed in the 1925 BRNO catalog. A gas operated belt fed machinegunm it was the basis for the whole ZB magazine fed automatic weapon line. And I should have said. The BAR was adopted for marching fire, but the intention of JMB was to create a man portable automatic weapon of great reliability, easy use, and good firepower. Models of this weapons were around before WW1, an open bolt version was presented before war (which you can find by reading the very book you earlier quoted) and by 1916 the weapon in its final form was being considered bu the military. 1917 represents the adoption date. By wars end 80,000 weapons were produced, 40,000 reaching military units. How many were used (or really, how much they were used) when they were issued is anyone's guess but they were used. I do not know how they would fit into the TO and E of the Eastern front, but since very soon post war they were being issued one per squad, I can make the assumption that this was the planned WW1 issue. So, e-mail me, or lets start a new thread to duck away from this, if you want to continue this. [ April 17, 2002, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

Really? Got a source for that statement? It is my understanding that one of the reasons for finally retiring the Bren in the 1980s(?) was that its beaten zone was too small. Since the beaten zone is a function of the weapons scatter, this would imply that your statement is 180° out of snych. Regards JonS</font>

Don't worry, we will get you up to speed. Well, first you are making some serious errors of assumption. First you assume that a weapon whose patent was applied for in 1917 was not contemplated, worked on, designed, or presented earlier. The only way your assumption would work is if a weapon took only a day or two to design and then was thrown into production on day three -- clearly you have a old testemant / biblical view of the world with regards to arms development. In fact, this would seem sort of absurd at the very least. The gas system for a man portable rifle was under works by Browning in the late 1890s. The bolt design was patent let at the turn of the century. Shoulder arm versions of a semi-automatic rifle firing on a similar patern to the BAR went into commercial production at the turn of the century. BAR mockups -- much different than the BAR of army specifications, but with noticeable family lineage, were around from before the war in Europe even started. The next is the assumption that the Browning was designed for marching fire. Browning's concept was to produce a weapon to create a base of fire from which troops could advance in rushes. He felt this needed a shoulder fired automatic weapon carried by one man. Only if you are ignorant of the history of weapons design. The Bar design parts, all made by Browning, predates the Chauchat by years. (I should have noted that the Browning closed bolt may have come in part from the Chauchat, even those the gas mechanism was much much older -- the oldest BAR designs prewar were all open bolt. ##edited##) Again, while it is easy to dismiss the influence of John Browning on weapons design, and the BAR on the thinking of weapons, and it is very easy to try and confuse an issue that Browning was looking for what the US Army was looking for with his weapon (he was not). Again, you are making the assumtpion that weapons spring magically from the forhead of Zeus. Reread my previous comments and address them, you have gone afield of what I said by quite some bit. About 40,000 were used in combat. I assume that means your operational definition for being used in great numbers is 40,001 or better. Except that the designer of the ZB24 claimed influence of the BAR, and I have never seen a claimed influence of the Madsen. Not saying he did not have 40,001 of them in his attic, just that he did not claim influence. And, to make you happy on this subject, his influence was to keep the best elements of the BAR deign but fix the rest. You don't need to look at this as a compliment of Browning or his rifle, it was the faults of the BAR, along with its strong points, and a desire to produce a better (lighter) weapon than the 15/08 which drove the design. Try looking in the Czech section of Ezell, 9th edition or better. My 8th edition has a rather nice write up though also. There is a much older book, Talor's "Machine Gun Development" that has a nice bio on the designer of the ZB24-33. Mine was published in 1955. It is very academic, paper cover, no pitures, and looks typed, but it appears to be a great source. I have a couple of other books on the ZB series that I will see if I can dig out. [ April 17, 2002, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]