Brian

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: My knowledge of Soviet aviation is slim, so take this with a grain of salt, but my recollection is that one command of the Soviet airforce was called, not coincidentally, Frontal Aviation and its regiments were more or less permanently assigned to the various fronts to do with as they saw fit. That organic enough? Michael<hr></blockquote> Mmm, my understanding of Soviet aviation was that initially, it was a case of "penny-packetism" with individual regiments being assigned to divisions and so on. In the mid-war period, as the Soviet Airforce's strength was built up, they started to experiment with various types of allocation of aircraft to ground commanders but it wasn't until late in the war that they had sufficient strength and understanding that they had to centralise control and place their maximum air effort in support of one Front or another. I am aware though, that while the overall direction of Soviet air units was a great deal more centralised than in most other airforces, by war's end they were experimenting with Air-Liason officers who would travel behind the foremost units and direct air support to where it was required. Partly this was being done because they now had sufficient radios in most aircraft to make ground-air comms much easier but also because they had found that pre-tasking CAS was difficult in an extremely fluid situation as they had in the last part of the war. I think I'll have to redig out my copy of "The Soviet Airforce in WWII".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Ogadai, this is truly the most funny post I have read in a while. Spook is talking to Brian! Brian originally tried to base an entire argument in three pictures, much to the chagrin of the posting body with historical background. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As usual, Slappy, you get the wrong end of the stick. I didn't actually base my "entire argument in three pictures[sic]". However, as the entire argument passed over your head, I'm not surprised you've misunderstood it. Now, who was it who attempted to claim that the Bren wasn't an LMG? [ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: When they were first converted, they used surplus Churchill Mk.I. The Cromwell was considered too valuable for this kind of use, and probably also unsuitable, since they needed a lot of space inside to carry the extra guy and the engineering equipment. The round is actually a 40lb (26lb HE) HESH (?) round (I think) that was designed to destroy bunkers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Designed by Dennis Burney, the "wallbuster shell" for the Petard was the first application of the "pancake" effect that plastique explosive had when it was spread over a flat object and exploded - the shockwaves caused flaking or "scabbing" to occur on the inner surface and these would fly around, causing damage to the occupants. Burney after developing the Petard round, went onto design a gun which could fire it - his range of recoilless rifles, varying in calibre from 3.45in up to a proposed 7.2in weapon. While effective, his method of achieving a recoilless effect - exhausting an equal amount of gases from the chamber to the rear to counter-balance the recoil from the round travelling forwards out of the barrel wasn't found to be practicable - it suffered too much erosion around the jet venturis because they turned at right angles to exhaust behind gun. Elements though, were combined with the Rhienmetall system of utilising a frangible base in the shell with one large ventnuri to produce a successful range of RCLs utilised in the British Army after WWII (BAT, MoBAT, WomBAT).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ogadai: [/qb] I was under the impression that the Bren was equipped with a quick change barrel. I seem to remember from my training as a school cadet, way back in the days of yore that indeed it had this thingy called a carrying handle and a lock on the barrel which was flicked up, after cocking the weapon and which allowed the No.2 to change the barrels quickly. Am I misremembering or something?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, you haven't misremembered. Yes, the Bren did have a quick change barrel. Andreas is merely trolling for a response. Slappy believes that Brens are machines guns but rather automatic rifles. Which indicates more about his ignorance of the difference between the two classes of weapons rather than necessarily reality. [ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: Perhaps this shouldn't be dwelled on, but this comment rises to the surface for me: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Each to their own, Spook. However, I must take a certain degree of umbrage at your next comment, though: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I suppose this regards the "tripod Bren" and pictures of same posted to advocate inclusion into CM's future. One picture, IIRC, showed the tripod-Bren set up as apparently on a training exercise. Another showed a similar setup in combat conditions, but in a static trench position during the Korean War IIRC on that also. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, the first was of a tripod being used as part of an instructional lesson for RAAF ADG's in the Northern Territory of Australia in 1943 and the second was of a tripod being used in training during the extremely hurried and rushed (fortnight's?) training undertaken by 3 RAR before its dispatch from Japan to Pusan, in 1950. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There was no fault in posting these pictures, or using them to HELP make a case. What the fault was at the time was this line of thinking: "Here's one picture of a tripod-Bren setup. Here's another showing it set up in combat conditions. Thereby, they were commonly used in NW Europe in WWII, and MUST be included in a future rendition of CM." This, in effect, was a "leap of logic" to surmise that two pictures alone suffice to demonstrate "common" usage of the tripod-Bren. Perhaps their usage indeed was more than occasional in WWII NW Europe, but the prior topic threads never reached that stage of compelling proof. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *SIGH*, Spook, I would ask you to find a quote from myself where I made that claim, because I cannot remember making it. What I did do was utilise those pictures to illustrate that the tripod was in fairly widespread use, across a longer period than even I myself had believed them to be. I was derided for that, but as soon as Ben Hall posted his information, which was basically the same as both Michael Dorosh and I had posted, it appears that the critics went pretty much quiet, all of a sudden. Funny that, hey? As I kept saying, I was arguing from the viewpoint that this piece of equipment existed. It was in fairly widespread use. That they were used in NW Europe was confirmed by Ben Hall, Michael Dorosh and the site which quoted extensively from the 1942 Bren training pam. I also believed they were used for a great deal longer than most people realised. My argument was based upon the concept of {b}availability - in exactly the same way certain other pieces of equipment for other nationalities, no matter what its rarity, has been in the game. I offered the photos, along with other pieces of evidence, as proof of that availability. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That argument COULD reach a compelling level someday, after a sufficient array of first-hand accounts are researched to correlate to a trend in usage. After that, then it becomes a matter of how BTS regards that issue in its order of coding priorities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would hope the matter will be considered in the new version of the game. [ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: Well, I can tell you this much: Only some 20 flammpanzer 38(t) Hetzers were built --- all specifically for use in the Ardennes offensive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There were several other flammpanzers, built on Panzer I, II and III chassis. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Compared to the some 800 Churchill Crocodiles built. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That number sounds a trifle high, to me. What was the total production run for Churchills of all marks? BTW, not Crocodiles were utilised as Crocodiles. David Fletcher makes the point that all the Churchill AVRE's which served in Korea were plumbed as Crocodiles, although no trailers were shipped to Korea and none were utilised as Crocodiles. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Then again, there were only 4 Sherman Crocodiles built --- all used by 2nd Armored.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Were they? My sources suggest that they never saw service.

I think you'll find that Soviet Naval Infantry (different to their Marines BTW), were involved in quite a few battles, ranging from the far north, outside Archangel, through to the far-east, against the Japanese. From memory, they fought along the Baltic coast, around Leningrad, took part in the Siege of Sevestapol and along the Black Sea coast, back to the Caucauses. Their Marines were much smaller in number and primarily fought in the Black Sea and the Far East, I believe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: I've noticed that the German flame half track (251/16) and the Flammpanzer have a max range of 50m compared to the British Wasp which has 75 and the Crocodile which has 100. Are these numbers correct in real life? Why did the Germans have such inferior guns on their flame vehicles/tanks when the guns on their other tanks were superior to the Allied counterparts? Also, which of these units do you use? I know people use the Wasp a lot but what about the others? Is it worth it for the Germs to spend precious armor points to buy a Flammpanzer which has such a limited range for the weapon? Is the Sherman Crocodile too much money for the Allies or can it be used effectively in reasonably safe roles to make it worth it's high price tag?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, its actually the Churchill Crocodile, not the Sherman. However, that aside, the ranges are basically correct. The reason why the Wasp and the Crocodile were so superior was because of the methods used by the British over the Germans to pressurise the fuel tanks. As I understand it, the Germans relied upon either gas generators which burnt solid propellant or pumps to force the fuel out of the flame gun's muzzle. The British used nitrogen held under pressure in bottles to pressurise their propellant tanks and then utilised high-speed aero pumps. This was not only safer (being a cold propellant) but it allowed higher pressures to be maintained. As to their availability, Wasps were I understand extremely rare outside of the Canadian army, which developed it while the Crocodile was actually very rare. The German 251/16 was much more common than either.

Mmmm, perhaps I'm missing something but I cannot see the value of conducting such a test, unless of course, you're seeking to verify/ascertain the hit propabilities? You mention in one message "play balance" - I'm sorry but I fail to see the point in "balance" - in reality, in battle one side has the advantage over the other or believes it has. "Balance" and "fairness" don't come into it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: No value judgement. I presented my evidence to the people who wanted to see the evidence in a forum without trolling. It was discussed and the various parts of it broken down by several people. They in return replied about Commonwealth artillery, and that was dicsussed. No one flamed each other, there was no insulting, at points there was disagreement, but it was adult disagreement. As the average reader can see, trolling started on page one, so the material that the trolls could not handle was taken off line. BTS is saved from banning anyone, the forum is saved from trolling, the subject is still discussed by people who wished to discuss it, and that is it. Not so hard to understand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, you assume that I care about what or how you discussed this matter with your cotorier, Slappy. I don't. I see you made a "nationalistic statement" and then, when pressed you ran away, screaming, "Mummy, mummy, the rude men are insulting me!" Despite there having been no insults offered. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am happy though that you have come around to understanding that a picture or two, taken out of contect and posted as evidence, does not represent proof or disproof of an entire issue. This is of course a very basic historical lesson, that evidence must be broad in nature and approrpiate to the issue discussed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, your problem is that I have, when posting a serious picture, always offered an explanation to accompany the photo concerned and my line of reasoning as to why it did constitute evidence. You however, believe it seems that merely offering a photo, achieves all. I'm not surprised that you cannot understand the difference. As others have noted, you appear to have a reading comprehension problem. It must make life interesting for your journalism students, when you fail completely to grasp what they are arguing in their essays. And that is my last word on the topic. You can run along now, back to your intellectual topour which you've been roused from.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: No, I still feel I was correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds to me that its a value judgement, Slappy. Your unwillingness to expose it to real critical analysis appears to indicate that you're not sure of your certainity. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My picture is only justification enough for you, most other scholars would find a picture or two not enough proof of anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As they say, a picture is worth a ten thousand words, Slappy. However, in this forum, an explanation is usually required. Your picture indicates that your military had a big gun. No one has disputed that. However, I'll also indicate that the British knew all about big guns well before you came along: What we want to find though out, is how the fire of those big guns were directed. Was it like this? [ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

My question is, were the Panzershrecks intended to be fired from the vehicle, as is alluded to on the site or were they instead dismounted by teams and fired away from the vehicle? If fired from the vehicle, then they'd have a hell of a backblast.... [ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: [scene] "Croc-hunter-guy" is humping a Eastern Australian Salt-Water Crocodile wearing a Paul Hogan mask. [/scene]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Errr, there isn't any species called an "Eastern Australian Salt-Water Crocodile", Slappy. There are two species of Crocodiles in Australia, the Salt Water (ranges across most of the Northern half of Australia and into SE Asia) and Fresh Water (John Stonesis), which is found primarily across the north and eastern third of the continent. Fresh Water crocodiles can be distinguished from Salt Water ones by the longer, thinner snout and the number of teeth. They tend to eat fish. Although will attack humans if provoked, they avoid them if possible. Salt Water crocodiles will eat anything, including humans, particularly tourists. Despite its name, Salt Water crocodiles are quite happy in fresh water. Fresh Water crocodiles however tend to prefer rivers and estaurine waters. Salt Water crocodiles have been sighted up to several hundred kilometres from land. So Slappy, the next time you come to Oz, please do (not) go for a swim when you're up north.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I have not wasted any time, I have had a nice, off line discussion with three people on a subject that cannot be discussed in a rational manner here because of troll problems, learned quite a bit about Commonwealth artillery, possibly brought my point home on why I feel the way I feel, all in a heck of a lot fewer posts. The people who really wanted to understand my point of view do, and it costs them very little to understand it. They don't have to agree with me, and to varying degrees they do not, but they heard me out and pointed out where they felt I was wrong, and I was wrong with at least two things on the British side and am now corrected. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good for you, Slappy. So, this is an admission that you were wrong, I take it? I suppose its the closest we'll come to such an admission but I suspect it will have to do for the moment. I look forward though to reading how you'll justify your picture to Ogadai... [ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Sorry Brian -- troll as you wish and I still wont post the discussion from off line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, get this, I'll say it once and once only - I don't give a rat's arse about your off-line discussion. What matters in this forum, occures here. You have failed to back your claim, therefore your claim is hereby declared dead, null and voice. It will be treated with the (apparent) contempt you like to reserve for all "nationalistic" boasting. BTW, interesting piccie. A "Long Tom", obviously employed, I'd guess on coast defence duties, by US soldiers (Marines perhap?), as evidenced by the circular track, just on the edge of the photo with the right trail locked to it. Panama or Hawaii? Its relevence was? Anyway, I'll raise your bid with this By gum, we know how to organise artillery! [ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The point is that all of this talk about dishing it out, taking it, and the rest means nothing. There is no reason to start flame wars to derail a subject no matter how you feel about it. It is not adult behavior. This entire desire to see people dish it out and take it rather odd. I would prefer to discuss intellectually. [ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, the only person who has "derailed" anything is yourself. I made a pointed, ironic comment. Your thin hide took it to be an insult and you ran off in a huff. You've been asked to justify your statement. You have refused. Therefore, it appears you cannot substantiate it. QED. As to the topic, I don't particularly care one way or the 'tother which fire control system was "best" or "better". Indeed, I've been very careful to make the point that in reality, both produced the same result. They merely arrived at that result through different methods. Both worked. You are the one who decided to try and claim that one nationality's system was "better" or "best" or "more efficient". People have been trying to determine ever since, in your unwillingness to substantiate that claim, to figure out exactly what you meant. You, however, have decided to turn it into your usual song-and-dance routine of how us 'orrible unwashed masses are trying to "flame" you or "hijack the debate". Slappy, you've well and truly hoisted yourself on this one and its not onto your high horse, either. I find the whole matter incredibly amusing, as I'm sure does everybody else with a modicum of a sense of humour.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This was your first post. It sets the tenor for the level you want to play on. I want to discuss and not play flame an fulminate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Noted, Slappy. I look forward to seeing you then live up to that claim. You've failed dismally, as far as I can tell thus far. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That is not negotiable. You have posted a half dozen taunting posts and I have responded each time that this subject needs to be discussed off line, and several people have taken me up on that (while maintaining that they do not agree with me). After that conversation is over, you may contact them to your hearts content to find out what I thought and why. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, it appears that you're not willing to put your claims to the test, in an open forum. You appear very thin skinned, Slappy. You like to dish it out but when it comes to taking it, well, we've seen how well you perform. You have no idea of how ironic my original post was and instead took it all so personally to heart. My advice to you is, lighten up son, 'cause you've got a long way to go in life. [ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: As I said, I am not willing to get down in the mud with you Brian. Bastable e-mailed me offline, he is a known calm and rational poster, and I am following up with him in an alternate forum. If you had handled the discussion in an adult manner I would have been perfectly willing to answer with the same information that I am sending bastables. But your only purpose here is to devolve this discussion into a mud throwing contest and not to discuss historical fact and theory in a rational manner using recognized means of discourse, and thus not worth wasting time composing a three thousand word 50 cite attempt to qualify and quantify my statement -- which is what bast will be getting. I wont duck out of this conversation just because a flamer is hijacking it, but I also wont waste the breath composing a complex discourse on a subject that said flamer will be unwilling to follow in an adult manner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, the only person who refuses to discuss the matter is yourself. Must be a bit painful up there on your own petard...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: As I said, I am discussing this off forum to keep the flame baiters and nationalists at bay. In fact, I have already replied to bastables and will be e-mailing him more grist for the discussion off line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, Slappy, whose being nationalistic? I'm not. I am asking YOU to justify your own nationalistic comment. I wonder, has anybody else detect the "contradictions" in Slappy's justifications for his refusals to answer the very reasonable question that I and others have put him?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Brian, you are demonstrating my point that this subject is not possible for intelligent discussion in the current circumstances because of the flamers and the ubers piling on the rugby scrum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, you enjoy handing out flames but it appears you can't take them in return. As the old adage goes - if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen... Now, I and quite a few others have asked you to defend your assertion. The best you've come up with, thus far, is "the US army had more men". Yet the Commonwealth got away with fewer and achieved at least the same results. This would tend to indicate that sheer numbers contributed nothing to efficiency within the organisation, Slappy. Therefore, if that is the only basis of your assertion, it can be seen to be rather sadly lacking in subtance and logic. [snipped a great deal of irrelevant flaming]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: But here's your problem, Brian, and the problem of a few others, when describing relative effectivenesses of US & UK artillery. Insofar, you haven't substantiated, or cited by references, as to how the WWII US artillery fire control system in specific was "bloated" or "inefficient." The claim might have some validity, but there's no follow-through. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, I haven't said it was. I've merely offered it as an alternative explanation to the numbers which Slappy claims made it so superior. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In effect, I regard US & UK artillery control to be comparable overall. Perhaps I'd give the UK artillery a slight edge, but a razor-thin edge on the basis of my own past historical review. In reviewing a ream of small-unit actions in the Bulge battle, the recurrent theme is that US artillery firepower & control for that battle was extremely effective & timely in its application.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And having just finished Blackburn's book, I can make the same statement about the Commonwealth armies as well, Spook. You'll note, I've been careful not to claim necessarily that the UK system was superior, merely comparable. I have noted that it appears only the British had a system which allowed a single FOO to call an entire AGRA onto a single target. If you can produce evidence that the US FO's could do the same, I'd be more than happy to accept it. Slappy is the only one whose made the nationalistic claim that merely because of numbers present within the US chain of command, that then made the US Army's artillery the BEST, no ifs, buts or maybes. We are still looking for him to justify that claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This would be nationalistic bias -- as I said the people were used to stream line a number of communication jobs, all of which need not be gone into here. I should not e that in the Battle of Britian, it was the British tossing of people at the problem of aircraft direction in the form of regional direction centers hooked by a reliable communication center to dispatch and down to squadrons on the ground that made them so effective, but following your theory this was merely bloat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My, how unsurprising that you chose to ignore the other points I made, Slappy. Why am I not surprised. I gave my reasons as to why I suggested the US Army NOT the RAF might well have merely been bloated by comparing it to the British system which worked and worked as well if not better than the US system, utilising less people. Indeed, if in reality you knew anything about systems analysis you'd know that merely throwing more people at a problem is not going to solve it. There is a point, usually reached very quickly where the bottlenecks in the existing communication system become even more evident and information flow is confused even more by the gabbling of more people like chickens. The RA rather than having more people, decided early on it was better to make sure that the flow of the communication was eased. Bidwell goes into considerable detail about how they developed and refined the artillery and air control systems in the Western Desert and then carried them on, into Europe to their advantage. Blackburn provides an excellent view from the user's perspective of how that worked and was used. Now, you have failed thus far to justify your claim, beyond this assertion that mere numbers made the US Army's artillery fire control and direction system so superior to all other combatants. Looks to me like you're the one whose made a nationalist boast, no one else in this discussion, Slappy. Even worse, your knowledge on this topic has been shown to be so shallow even an ameoba would be hard pressed to take a bath. Now, run along while the rest of us get on with a serious discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper: British disadvantages: - No doctrine - Apparently, doctrine was regarded as unnecessary, and the British Army had no doctrine. As a result, there was a tendancy to muddle through. This disadvantage was more pronounced in the armor, because it was the combat arm most in need of an effective method of fighting. The US and German doctrine was similar (read "When The Odds Were Even" for an analysis). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting claim. On what basis do you make it? I'm not familar with the work you cite but from my understanding, the British definitly had a "doctrine" and it was a continuation of the tradition which stretched back to at least the turn of the century (as did the German).

Slappy, you appear to be making heavy weather of it to make your assertion, as you have that merely because of numbers that makes the US system "the best". I believe in fact the case could be made that in reality this means the US system was merely bloated, not more efficient. The British system might not have been "the best" but it definitly was efficient and timely in its provision of firepower on target. Its communication system was streamlined and efficient as well, in ensuring that the FOO's could call back to their FDC's and be provided with that firepower. In addition, the British took the development of the provision of timely firepower to greater heights than the US Army did by creation of the ability of a single FOO to direct an entire Army Group's artillery onto a single target. Claiming that simply because you had more people sitting in the CP means you're more efficient or that your "artillery was the best" is pretty stupid, Slappy. Now, to turn this discussion more towards game matters, I find it interesting that there is no provision for the style and type of barrages which could be fired such as linear concentrations - where the rounds were fired to fall in a linear formation, along a feature, rather than merely bracketting it. I have no idea if the Americans or the Germans could do it but I do know the Empire forces could.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: I would like you to justify your contention that the "US system" was "better than any other country". I have seen you make it before and I would like to know why for example you consider it better than the British system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I too would like to see Slappy justify that comment. One could almost believe he was putting forward a *GASP* "nationalist agenda" or even proclaiming an "uberAmerican" position. Of course that can't be right. Afterall, he has proclaimed he has a "superior intellect" and is above "all that" sort of thing. I suspect you'll find he's scurrying for his books, Simon. It will be interested how he goes up against Bidwell... :eek: