Slapdragon

First off, we need to look a little more carefully at the concept of automatic weapons. The BAR was not the failed last gasp of a dead design concept, but the innovative first useful weapon of a new class of designs, that because of its innovation was not as successful as later weapons, but which called the tune of later weapon development and was influential on weapon designers. The BAR had its start right after Browning finished the M95, or the “Potato Digger”. The M95 was far advanced for its day, and proved the concept of the machine gun in the Boxer rebellion (although earlier “proofs” exist going back to the Napleonic wars, such proofs were not dug back up until after WW1, when everyone knew the machine gun was a major factor in warfare) The reason why it is innovative is the same reason the model T was innovative – it took all of the concepts that came before it and put it in an original package that was useful. The mentioned Chauchat was the right concept, but a failed design. The Lewis was not designed to follow the concept of a man portable automatic weapon, it was just a lighter version of the standard machinegun that found a use on the ground. The BAR design went through a wide range of designs, some commercial, some military, but in its early design was mostly ignored by everyone. Browning could not even get a showing for it with most militaries, and the US, his home country, saw the mechanism and was impressed, but worried about the ammunition expenditure. Meanwhile the French had produced the Chauchat M/15 along a similar concept, but it was a dog. So in 1916, the US accepted the BAR on a low priority, and by 1918 is was standardized with 40,000 reaching France for combat. The Germans wanted a man portable automatic also, but they wanted the firepower of the 08, which they got by sticking a stock and a bipod on this Maxim design. The result was the 15/08 machine gun. The BAR came through WW2 as a unique weapon, the only really reliable man portable automatic weapon. While designed for advancing fire, this was dropped in 1919 by the US Army as a concept, with the weapon designed to support the advance of the squad with covering fire (a concept that was still evolving by WW2). The BAR was light enough to travel with the squad on foot, had good firepower in the day of bolt action rifles, and was easier on ammunition than the German 15/08 (as well as lighter). After the war several countries adopted versions of the BAR, but many countries started looking for a weapon to function in a similar manner – act as an automatic weapon for the squad or section, but with improvements based on experience. These included ability to change the weapon’s barrel, better prone firing capability, and better route carry. To fill this design need, a Czech designer at the Brno Arms Factory, designed the ZB24 LMG. It fired from a belt feed, had a choice of either bipod or tripod fire, a light mass barrel, and while heavier than the BAR was designed to handle a wider range of situations. The ZB24 though could not sell. Most nations except for Germany (which was developing its own set of weapons in secret) were concerned about controlling ammunition expenditure by front line infantry units and saw the machine gun as a support weapon to facilitate the advance of the infantry. Belt feeding was a non starter, so the 24 was modified into the ZB26, magazine feed replaced belt feed, and it was offered for sale in a variety of calibers. This weapon turned into the Bren.

Thanks Marlow, figured it was just a mistake.

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>

Please note Marlow, I never said what you have me quoted as saying. I think you are placing John Salt's quotes in my mouth by accident. [ April 16, 2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

The primary reason for tripods on support weapons, according to Hogg, was mass of the weapon and recoil in sustained fire (or rapid burst), not accuracy or increased suppressive ability. If a weapon was too massive to be hand held in fire, or if it fired ammunition from links and the gunner wanted to get the most out of this system, in terms of feeding ammunition into the weapon, then the tripod became the best way to mount the weapon. The Bren in and of itself does not have the mass to need a tripod, it is actually easier to use from the bipod for most missions (as is the M-60, the FN-MAG, the MG-3 and the MG34/42). In the squad it was employed just like the BAR (except in practice the assistant gunner for the Bar was rarely used so the Bar team was more like a rifle team with an automatic), which was the trend setting weapon in terms of putting an automatic rifle inside of the squad. Although the original ZB design which became the Bren used disintegrating links, following the theory of the time developed by US military thinkers with the BAR, the British (and other) governments had the weapon reengineered to accept magazines to slow ammunition consumption. ZB responded by dropping the ZB-23 model with linked belts. That model had a tripod because like most weapons with linked ammunition there was the possibility of using it in a sustained or rapid fire mode, in which a tripod was a boon since it allowed better control of recoil and a more stable platform for feeding of ammunition. Thus, the tripod was like an appendix -- built for when the ZB was a belt fed weapon, that survived just because it was around. During the first two years of the war in Europe, British forces were issued with Bren tripods, and apparently used them in the phoney war (mostly it seems to keep the Bren out of the mud, since no shooting was going on) and for a short time after. Then, they went the way of the gas mask. It was carried in the trucks, it found use once or twice in special situations, and was otherwise not important. The Bren just did not have the characteristics that needed or benefitted from the tripod.

One should be careful about making distinctions that the game designers may neccearily have not, too....</font>

When this issue originally appeared, I did quite a bit of research on the subject, including speaking to several people who used them in WW2 (or who where the offspring of such people) and talked to a large group of people who own functional versions of this weapon (mostly living in the US because of obvious legal restraints in other nations, but a surprising number did indeed live in other countries.) A couple of months later one gentleman helpfully pointed out to me to a conversation at a Bren website that covered a topic of interest. This conversation consisted of a "Brian Ross" (possibly no relation to our Brian) asking how common tripods where at the front. The answer he received was the same one that this forum discovered in its extensive research into the subject -- the tripods existed but were not used very extensively. http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=73719&messageid=1003797394 http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=73719&messageid=1009805614 http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=73719&messageid=1008029057 Most interesting is the response from Donald, whose father cannot remember having a spares kits for the tripod, only used a tripod once in combat (to clear beach obstacles). This titally mirrors the work Micheal Dorosh and other did on this subject. So most likely, the dead issue of Bren tripods is still dead. However, there is one solution to the tripod question. The use ofr a tripod on a magazine fed weapon would be unlikely to increase the FP rating of that weapon or make it any better at firing through a covered arc, which is probably why in real life they were not even carried by the troops and were just left behind, except when they used them to mount the Brens to vehicles as AA mounts. The best solution therefor would be to just assume the presence of the tripod in the game for those who desire it. Then no ahistorical inclusions will be needed for it, and everyone would have what they want on the contentious matter.

Tom, the usual problem with these discussions (many have been done before) is everyone wants a "better" AI but no one can turn their ideas into some form of math that game designers can code into small units (like, how do I react to x unit) or how these little AIs feed into the big idea. But still, you are basically on the right track. Defining the problem if the first issue needed to improve AI. It is not the only issue, but it is the start.

Can you give a tree or a diagram showing how you would improve the tacAI? Most people feel the AI is one of the most advanced elements of CM -- especially since AI programming is so difficult. I am sure BTS is working on the basic AI, but I would also like to see your idea for making a better one.

Me too, but that was in real life. Seriously, sometimes it throws some weird curves into the dec, but that is why built maps are better.

Evil? No. However, have two Ozzies have a go at each other does have its side benefits. If one of you kills the other, we all win. I'll put together a map and send it to Slapdragon. He can put together the forces</font>

Since only two Armies, the US and USSR, had made serious attempts at conversion to self loading rifles, I also think of the SMLE as a weapon that was verging on the obsolete, but not tipped over the border. It did not have the firepower of the Tokarev or the Garand, but things were moving away from the firepower of the individual rifle anyway and toward using fully-automatic weapons at the squad level as the primary basis for the squad's power. CM accurately reflects this by making the automatic weapons in the squad responsible for much more firepower than the rifles in any case. I think the BREN is around 5 times as powerful as a SMLE at most ranges, and the BAR is like 2-3 times as powerful as the Garand at most ranges.

My fingers hurt like hell, but you should see the gentlemen who it was my extreme pleasure to jam them on, or rather see him at his court date. Unfortunately, innocent until proven guilty, so I will say no more on Mister 2 meters 200 kilos and bad breath, other than to note that he is indeed an idiot. Now Noba my squire. I think it is time that you are off on a quest to earn your spurs, the final step in your education. Being a fan of the Uplift War, I like to see us as a mamber of a Clan, the Hell Clan, lead by his Devilishness Berli. However, I am at a loss. What quest could possible be good enough for such an occasion as becoming a full member of the Clan of the Devil himself and his wife? Should I send you off to slay a dragon? But the only three I know were slain by BTS. Rescue a damsel? There are no damsels I know of who need rescuing, although Sean in his idiocy comes damn close. So I think I will ask a boon of my own liege, the master of the pits of hell and ask him what proof I should require of your worthyness to join the members of clan Hades. Let me warn you, he is the devil, so the task will be hard. Would you like him to place it before you, to win your spurs or forever forget your name on the shores of the river Lethe? [ March 30, 2002, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

If you wear a paper bag over your head, I am willing to take you out for dinner. Mace</font>

I hate you......Don't check the thread for two weeks and this is what awaits me. I do have a good body though......Mace get the feck away from me.</font>

Noba. I have been dealing with some busted fingers. How many games have you won against members of the pool? I think there is some rewards for hard work coming if you have beaten some of the silly buggers here. [ March 29, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

Good point, and very true. Clauswitz refered to fire as the destructive act and the charge as the decisive act... that hasn't changed from his time to ours</font>

Rimmed cartridges are harder to make work in an autoloading weapon, not impossible. The original Bren design created after WW1, before it was the Bren or adopted by the British, was actually a full-blow belt fed LMG with a bolt mechanisiam designed to work in the trenches and handle a wide range of ammunition, some of it considerably more powerful than the rather average .303 round (in terms of pressure or recoil -- not in terms of killing power). In converting that design to use a box magazine, they were following a trend set by the US BAR and several French designs that saw the automatic inside the squad as too wasteful of ammunition when equipped with a belt. But the main parts of the mechanism including the bolt remained just as strong, and the very overbuilt gas operation rod and taps were unchanged from the weapon. So, in terms of using a rimmed cartridge, it was not a big deal. The mechanism started life very much like a MG-34/42 and only later down graded. Lots of machineguns used rimmed cartridges. Rims mostly become a problem in smaller mechanism. One change that had to be made to the Bren to feed a rimmed cartridge when most of the versions of the ZB-26 fired rimless was the adoption of a curved magazine, and the requirement that gunner pay attention to cartridge to make sure that they did not interlock case rims when loading the magazine. Later WW2 magazines even made this not much of a problem, since the lip design assured that the rounds went into the magazine in a proper manner (unless they were forced).

I am not sure mouse holing will be included, since most accounts of it do not make it an activity which was practiced on the spur even by engineers, but as a more planned out means of avoiding some obstacle leading up to an attack. As such it would probable be like a bailey bridge or an engineer's scissors bridge carried on an AFV -- something that would show up at the beginning of the scenario already in place, but not something that is done in the midst of fighting.

Magenta Onion is a metacampaign run for a small number of players that relies on humor and ease of play to provide an excuse to have a strategic layer and to fight lots of battles.

Ga damn Arax! How did you get a couple of bottom feeders like Marlow and OGSF to feel sorry for you? In two years I have only been able to get amused contempt out of the two even when I had tubes up my nose and an expensive machine that goes bing wired up to my bum. It is a complete marvel. Next thing you know Seanachi will be complimenting your posting style and Berli will be offering you a cool drink and a comfy chair by the fire.

Come to the Magenta Onion grasshopper. WE have a very unique campaign for you.

I think Arax that your apology was hansome and I hope that it is accepted by all. I know you lowered my blood pressure a few points. A nice thing I have found about Aussies, the majority of non-loopy ones are forgiving and very easy to deal with. Must be the comfort of knowing the Paul Hogan was born in Australia but Mel Gibson was born in New York.

Arax3, Your commentary fits three or four Australians out of what, 500 on this board? If you had restricted your comments to a smaller group and made sure that Sly is not included in your definition, I would just say you were bringing up something in the wrong place -- that conversation is in the General Forum. As a good friend of mine says, who happens to be from the Ukraine, said, you will never meet a nicer group of people than Australians, but when they go loopy they do it in style. I think you should apologize to the rest of the Australians on this forum for taking the personality failings of a small number of people from thier country and extending it to the the group as a whole. Think of it this way. Two weeks ago a black man jammed three of my fingers on my hand in. My typing is effected (hit way more keys than I normally intend to leading to scoldings by net spelling gurus and slow typing speed) and it really hurt. Plus it pissed me off on general principal. But I do not go out immediately and start blaming every person of color who I meet on the streets. I blame one man for one man's failings, not the nationality, race, religion, or gender which he belongs. Sly-- If money is no object, have someone in the USA buy the disk and overnight it to you. You may shave a week off the normal time.

My guess is that a Stuart Recce is a turretless Stuart with a .50 calibre MG - this is how I have seen this referenced. A Stuart Kangaroo I have honestly never seen in any of my Commonwealth literature. Is this an American term, or an actual British Army term? I would guess that a weaponless Stuart tank sans turret was called a Stuart Kangaroo, but again, if it was only used to cart dignitaries around 8 years after the war... I've given pretty good suggestive evidence that the Canadian Army simply didn't have any - at least not on official establishments. Would love to be proven wrong. But of course either way, it doesn't prove what the British did or did not do. rune suggests, via his sources, that they were sometimes used in recce units - but his sources don't specify armed or unarmed. If unarmed, how were they employed? Troop carriers? Ever stand next to a real Stuart? I also have the 1/6 scale Stuart by Ultimate Soldier; I just may have to take the turret off and try and jam my Dragon guys in to see how many will fit.... If not troop carriers, then why are they in CM? Ambulances, ammo carriers and other logistic vehicles are not represented, so what purpose do they serve? FOs can't use them, either. Infantry company commanders didn't use them - I've seen no reference to it, anyway - do you can't keep your Company HQ unit safe from shellfire. Interesting discussion. Oh, and it IS possible a .50 was removed from this vehicle for the parade - don't want Monty, who was in his 60s or 70s by that time, to fall over and gash himself on the machinegun during the roll past...</font>