Stalin's Organ

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Finally an issue you have confused. The Bren and the BAR are not truly LMGs. They are Automatic rifles, and are not capable of firing continued 20 rd busts. The German ability to carry a true LMG on the advance was an immense advantage in combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um...since when did any "LMG" (a "true" one or otherwise) fire 20 round "bursts"? And if they did, why couldn't the Bren or BAR do so? (note not why _didn't_ they, but why _couldn't_ they)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stuka: [i am of course refering to Noo Zeeland, a country named after Holland fer chrissakes! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sigh - yeat another ignorant Orztrayleeanne flops about the place. New Zealand (note the spelling, not that you'd ever expect an Aussie to get it right) is, of course named after part of teh Netherlands - the part that's so tough that even the sea is afraid of it and goes elsewhere! Australia, on the other hand, is named after a mythical great southern land - which is highly appropriate of course - more especially the mythical bit!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: So why dont you think about that next time you are taking a 'Number 1 and/or 2'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROFL!! Thanks Lewis - I shall most cerainly think of you next time I'm taking a #1 or #2!! :eek: :eek:

Nice photo! Just goes to show that even with all it's shortcomings as an LMG teh bAR still had more firepower than either a SMLE or a Garand! Slap and Leis - I've fired an M-16 - several dozen of them when they were standard long arm in hte NZ army, likewise with the FNFAL, FNMAG and L4 Bren LMG. I've also fired an AK47 (only once tho), SMLE, Mk4 and Moisson Nagant full length and M44 carbine. The auto weapons were a few years ago now, the SMLE and Moissons were last year in Oklahoma. My neighbour is a hunter with a range of bolt action rifles. While I'm not an owner myself I count myself as familiar wit hthe concepts. I had forgotten that the M-16 bolt stays open, but my point remains - there are degrees of everything. Al lweapons tell you when they're empty somehow, even if it's just by not going "bang" - the M1 is actually different from all others in that it does something before you pull the trigger without any ammo on board. In that respect it is better than any other weapon I'm familiar with. Yet I keep reading that the sound of a clip being ejected was hated by the troops because they thought the enemy could hear it and know they had no ammo left......so how much use was it really?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Actually, you are wrong about the M1. When firing one on the range with lots of other shooters, I never hear the clip but it is totally and immediately obvious that it has come out since it spins in front of your face like an ejected cartirdge only much bigger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I sit corrected. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The M16 does not have the same system of telling when it is unloaded as a bolt action. Most bolt actions have no system of telling other than a click instead of a bang (unless you watch your chamber. The M16, unless you mag fails, holds open after the last round like an automatic pistol and the hammer is locked to the rear so the trigger becomes tight. No mistake there at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um, well that's what I meant in general terms... you pull the trigeger and something happens other than what you expected, and that's how you know you're out of ammo..........

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Its possible that a bolt action weapon can be: 1. cycled discarding the last round 2. not loaded but the bolt put forward 3. aimed 4. "fired" 5. mistake realized 6. Bolt retracted 7. as many strippers as needed put in as quickly as possibly 8. back to business as "training" dictated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's also possible that the owner of an M1 might not notice the ejection of the loading clip, since I believe that it didn't make much of a sound until it landed, and it might be too close to the face to be noticed in the genral hullabalo of combat. Also I believe that the clip was known to indicate the empty magazine to the enemy, which surely must be a point against the thing! Plus of course the failure to feed a round means that an empty bolt action feels different to a full one so it might be picked up befoer the shot was "fired", and it really, erally is NOT that hard to rememer how many rounds you had on board - I used to be able to do it with 20-round magazines firing semi-auto over a period of half an hour or more. and, lastly, the action you metnion is pretty much the same for the M-16 n'est pas? And didn't you say somewhere that teh M-16 action means that it has an inbuilt indicator to therifleman that his mag's empty? So therefore so does the bolt action rifle!! lol

Commiserations Mouse. As a pathetic mewling reminder of how bad humanity can get you had an excuse for being you. But now that you're a big bad brave kay-nig-it of the pool it's sad to see that this was actually your true character, and not just a put up job to amuse us all with! Oh well, another good chap lost to the clutches of despair - you do realise that this also means you can never win another game don't you??!! Edited 'cos such a sad occasion deserves a smilie!! [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

.....thanks for the lecture User! [sARCASM]I'm glad yo were able to tell me that, 'cos I would never have realised it afterwards, and it's good to know that there's someone out there who's so much better than me![/sARCASM]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Damn... I still remember seeing old, really hokey British training films about the dangers of misfires. I'm surprised you didn't see the misfire when you cleared the range... you never stared down into the chamber, did you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep - from behind, and the Sargeant cleared al wwepons from an open bolt before we fired downrange too....so it was eggies all-round! What had happened was the ejector had sooted up and the round had only cocked over to one side a wee bit. when I held teh bolt back for inspection the round was so far back that a look up the barrel didn't see it. WE'd been on a yippee - 10 ppl, 5000 rounds of 556 and 1000 rounds of 762 over a weekend - we couldn't get through them all, even firing auto, falling plate and all the other fun stuff we never usually got to do! I was in the recce pln of the local territorial infantry bn, so we had M-16's and FN MAG's in the SF role (tripod mount).

Be fair David - if you're going to include the Black Prince and Tortoise in yuor WW2 ambit then yuo've got to include the Centurion too - one of the greatest tanks ever made!

Tri - I once carried a misfire on teh end of a M-16 bolt about 20 miles from the range back to barracks without knowing it. this after removing the mag, workign the action and "firing" the "empty" weapon downrange. You should have seen everyone's faces when I took the bolt out and said "Sarge - whadoIdowiththis?"! 20 yrs ago now, but I still remember it like it was yesterday!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Stalin's Organ... by hitting the hook, you too have proved yourself a _pendant_... 8) as in that which is, well, pendulous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But it's fun - you dont' think I'm taking any of it seriously do you?? And being pendulous implies swinging from side to side - one thing neitehr Germanboy nor myself can fairly be accused of! And you description of the Valentine as "not optimal" for 1944 is a bit quaint - I would have said grossly obsolete!! [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Since you seem to be too dense to get it:.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sigh - nothing to get. The T34 wasn't upgunned past 85mm, and the Centurion never carried a 120mm. Your criteria for a "failed design" is pathetic. Your point is pathetic, your justification of your point is pathetic, and your continued studied ignorance of counterpoints made against you is pathetic. You consistantly fail to address any of the comments I have made - I went through your silly little comparison and gave my reasons - you ignored that, just like you ignored my requests that you define what makes a "failed design". It shall be my great pleasure from now to give your silly posts all the attention they deserve instead of trying to engage you in sensible conversation - an art you clearly are either not interested in or incapable of sustaining! [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

And of course the M16 is a paragon of a rifle that everyone loves to death too....NOT! User let's face it - the bolt action rifle was a perfectly reasonable weapon. I and many other posters know and have said here that generally an SLR is better, but your over-the-top adoration of the M1 is just as pathetic as those who thnik that every Brit infantryman iwth an SMLE or derivative is a sniper. Nweitehr of you are in the real world.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I think it was, I don't really care what you or anyone else believes. If you think the Valentine was great, hey fine. I've got a used car to sell, interested? Good runner.?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You really are a moron aren't yuo!! Hello? Hello? anyone home - knock, knock! Several people, myself included, have posted that the Valentine wasn't a particularly good tank, let alone great. Why do you persist in miserpresenting what's bene posted? Is it because you're stupid? Or perhaps you're being deliberatly pathetic and obnoxious? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Once CMBB comes out, we can have a duel. Date is 1944. You take Valentines 6-pdrs, I take Panzer IV 75L48 or captured T-34/85 or KV-1s. All four are 1930s designs, so that should be fair, eh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. the Velntine with a 6 pdr is a 1942 design - the PzIV with a L78 is a 1943 one, the T34/85 is a 1944 one, and the KV-1 is a heavy tank whereas the other 3 are mediums. Personally I think the Valentine would be only a bit inferior to the PzIV - which isn't bad for a tank of half the weight. The others would clearly outclass it. If you have any usful info to add to this debate then now might be a really good time to start saying it. [ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: In the heat of battle, just having a self loading and self ejecting rifle instills confidence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bugger - so the M1's better than all the modern SLR's ever mad e that don't "self eject"! Damn - I knew we were going wrong somewhere! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just knowing that loading once is sufficient is also heart warming. Its nice to know when you are out to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah...so an M1 rifleman only ever needs 8 rounds to defeat the enemy, and again all those modern SLR's are crap because yo have to be able to count!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: The best of them (Valentine, Churchill, Matilda, Comet) still laboured under the fundamentally flawed Infantry/Cruiser divide. End of story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> End of what story? Do you say that the Matilda 2 was a failed tank? Or the comet? Do yuo really expect us to believe that he Comet was a failed tank? I guess you might as well add the Sherman, teh Tiger and the Panther to your list then too! Perhaps we might be able to understand your point better if you told us what your criteria is for a "failed" tank? IMO a particular doctrine that a tank was built under does not automaticaly fail a tank - or you'd have to fail the Sherman as it was built for infantry support vs TD's for anti-tank work. Note that no-one here is saying that the Valentine was a particualrly GOOD tank (except in comparison to T-26's perhaps), but you seem to be hung up on the word "failed"?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Of course, the Valentine _was_ a crap tank, but that's beside the point for a pendant. 8)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The word is PEDANT - the thing hanging around your neck doesn't particularly care about the Valentine at all! Of course what pple forget is that the Val was an INFATRY tank after the pattern of the Matilda, with the 2 pdr that was standard at the time. To say that is is a FAILED tank is complete nonsense. Tanks such as the Covenanter are "failed" - so bad they didn't even make the front line of the Brit army!! To say that is was a good tank is another matter entirely. IMO it was a mediocre tank when it was first produced - it had good armour and reliability, a better turn of speed than the Matilda 2, but was severely limited by the 2 pdr gun. It was also a very, very small tank - maybe 2/3rds the size of the Sherman for example, and IIRC less than 2/3rds of the weight. Of course it was outclassed by 1944 - how many 1940 designs were not? The T34/76 was marginal, as was the Pz4 (and then only the upgunned versions can be considered)....and the Pz 3 was obsolete as was the Lee/Grant and every Italian and Japanese design, and who ever heard of the M2 tank in combat?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz: For instance, if BTS announced say: "CM II minimum requirements will be 1 gig processor, 256 MB RAM and 32 MB video card, I suspect a lot of us would start saving the old pennies, pfennigs and pence. What say you all?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep - my 2 year timeframe for replacement would suddenly becoem "befoer BtB is relased"! Of course I wouldn't be able to meet it, but I'd try......

AFAIK the main similarities between the Bren and the BAR are that they are both magazine fed and both gas operaetd. With the MG42 the simlarities are: Quick change barrel designed as a squad automatic weapon tripod mount Now appart from those teh three weapons were, of course, completely different!! :eek: And BTW IIRC common practice withthe Bren was to load 28 rounds in the mag - supposedly the last 2 caused a problem deeding.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: The BAR can be fired like a rifle, at the shoulder, while moving, the BREN would be a handfull. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There's a documented case of a Fijian soldier in Malaya in the 50's using 2 Brens at once - one in eahc hand. From teh hip. so yes, you are right - 1 Bren = 1 Handful. But on a more average note I've fired the Bren from the hip, and I'm not a 6'6" 250 lb Polynesian. It's actually very easy to do. accuracy is another thing of course.

Yep - I'm still playing the Capt too. Dunno where GClement is tho'!

500 MHz P-3, 128Mb RAM, 32 Mb NVidia TNT2 Graphics. and it's not going to get replaced for at least a couple more years yet!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Interesting bit about the firepower of the Lee Enfield in 1914. Why then were SMLEs equipped with magazine cutoffs (requiring the SMLE to be loaded one round at a time)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was told this was so eth soldiers could shoot at a fairly slow "normal" rate, loading single shots, and retain 10 rounds (a full magazine) for immediate use in case of emergency. For those not familiar with the weapon this is a simple flat plate that is hinged to cover/uncover the magazine feed - it slips out the RH side of the weapon IIRC. Of course the rifles also had lobbing sights calibrated to 3000 yards or somethign like that too......I wonder which one got used the most?!!! :eek:

Only an Orrzy could edit a one word posting!