Brian

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Its obvious people are not going to get over names. I dont care if its called a SAW, LMG, MMG, HMG or a Light, medium and heavy machinegun or a squad, platoon, company , battalion weapon, yadda yadda. It aint what you call it, its what it can do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Brian, first the use of the Bren in the functions you assign them was limited, and it makes your own Bren experience questionable. More -- your admition to handling an MG-3 (which I did handle at the Hesterly Armory during a foriegn weapons class) but failure to realize how heat sink etc. affects rate of fire, and how the MG-42 has much more metal up front, plus your misidentification of the heavy forward section as a barrel shroud makes me how useful your military experience was. There is a saying, 20 years of experience could mean 1 year of experience repeated 20 times.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Brian wrote: Thank you Brian for clarifying that minuscule technical point. Actually I did read the more important part where Germany and Japan surrendered in complete ruin. (The Italians kept surrendering, they just weren't sure who to surrender to). So much for their vastly superior technology aye? [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Their technology was immaterial to the point that it was claimed they never did something they demonstrably had. It ignored that the SIGINT war was very much two sided, not one sided as was claimed. Indeed, so much so, as I noted that when Rommel lost his ability to actually intercept and read the enemy's signals traffic, his supposedly "brilliant" generalship disappeared. Being "brilliant" is quite easy, when you're able to find out exactly what your enemy is doing, by reading his every move. The Allies did it, and managed to sustain and improve on it. Rommel couldn't. The US very foolishly decided that it was more important to seek revenge on an individual with its most secret source of intelligence than it was to guard and control its use to ensure it remained as a valuable source. They were just very lucky that the Japanese didn't put two and two together to get four. If they, despite the superior brute strength of the US might not have meant the war was as relatively short as it was.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: I again ask the question to Bren users: How long does it take to change the barrel? How many barrels would a 'Heavy' Bren team carry? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It takes about the same amount of time to change a barrel on an MG42 as it does a Bren, Lewis. All that is required is cocking the weapon, releasing the Barrel Locking Catch and then withdrawing the barrel from the reciever and replacing it with another and then relocking the catch and releasing the working parts forward. In fact, I'd suggest that its slightly quicker (by fractions of a second) on the Bren than the MG42 - simply because you don't need to maneauvre the Bren's barrel in and out of a cooling jacket. As to how many barrels were carried - two per weapon.

Slappy, you haven't grasped what has been said at all. You have fixated in your mind that as Brens were used like this - They were never used like this - (Interestingly this dates from Korea so the practiced lasted at least until then) or the Commonwealth armies weren't trained to use their Brens like that, either - I'd also suggest that as you appear to believe that as I've said nothing about the mechanical operation of how the MG42 operates, I have no knowledge of it. What would you like to discuss? Roller-locked breech? Delayed-blowback operation? I've at least handled, stripped and assembled an MG3 (the modern version of the MG42) - have you? When you realise that we are discussing tactical doctrine and employment of a weapon, not in comparison with other weapons but in absolute terms, you might start to realise what I and others are saying. [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: but the Germans and the Japanese did not break the US communications codes, it was the other way around, and what is more, for nearly the entire duration of the war the UK and the US were monitoring Axis communications in near real time or actual real time to the point of decoding the messages faster than the Germans and Japanese could. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *SIGH* I do wish people would read the history. The Germans and the Japanese and yes, even the Italians were quite adept at breaking and reading Allied codes. Indeed, most of the the successes which are attributed to Rommel in the Western Desert were actually more because of 1) Poor signals discipline amongst the British forces who used to send tactical messages "en claire" often attempting to make use of clumsy, and very obvious, personal codes to describe unit deployments and positions. 2) The breaking/theft (now usually considered the latter and attributed to the Italian intelligence service, interesting) of the US Consulate "Black Code" used by the US Consul in Cairo to send daily reports to Washington of British briefings he recieved from the British command HQ to keep him abreast of events. As a consequence daily troop returns were well known to Rommel throughout most of his battles. 3) Rommel's possession of an extremely highly trained and well equipped Radio Intercept service which allowed him not only to tap into 1) above but also to intercept and read the aforementioned Black Code messages. When this unit was captured by the Australian 9 Division at Tel El Arisa during first El Alamein Rommel's "brilliant" generalship suffered a marked decline. Other examples of the Germans breaking Allied codes were the Kriegsmarine breaking RN codes in 1940 and 1941. The Abwer and the Gestapo also broke a number of SIS/MI6 codes, as well as those used by the Resistence, etc. The Japanese broke several American codes during the course of the war but were unable to crack the highest level ones. Where the Allies excelled was that they managed to break the one "unbreakable" cypher/code that the Germans and the Japanese relied upon for the ultimate direction of the war. Something the Axis forces never achieved, but they did have their successes in the area of "Operational" level codes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Brian, teaching you why a heavier barrel and greater surface area leads to better heat sink characteristics and faster cooling would take 5000 posts, and you would never believe me about the science involved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, I am very well aware of the differences in surface area versus mass for heat absorption/disipation. However, I am also well aware of the need for airflow. A cooling jacket restricts the flow of air. Therefore a weapon which has one, versus one which does not, which is identical will cool slower, if all other factors between the two are the same. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Lets just say that a barrel shroud such as the MG42 had, or radial fins, can increase cooling effectiveness by an order of magnitude, allowing more bullets to pass by in less time without weapon failure. Heavier barrels have more heat sink ability, so more bursts can be fired. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Effectively, just what I said, except a "barrel shroud" as you incorrectly call a cooling jacket will actually slow the cooling of the barrel. Its trade-off though, as to whether or not you want your soldiers to be able to handle the weapon without fear of burning themselves. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Actually, by pointing out that you do not understand these two basic prinicpals of weapons design, in addition to your silly comment about the squad automatic Bren being squarely in the same camp as the higher firepower, higher ROF, more capable MG42, just shows how little you know about firearms.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Slappy, you make some very big assumptions, not backed by reality. Your pointless efforts to patronise, your use ad hominem debating tactics and your inability to grasp the points I've been making, simply indicate to me that you've lost the debate even before it begins.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz: The series is based on Stephen Ambrose book of the same name, basically describing the real-life experiences of members of Easy Company, 506 Airborne Inf. Rgt. Real people, real stories. Spielberg overall producer with various directors, including Tom Hanks (did the 5th show IIRC). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hope the stories/scenes are a little more believable than SPR was. It was pretty silly from a military viewpoint, most of what they did. While the first quarter of the movie was "reasonable" IMO, the rest of it was about the standard of Combat. I'd much rather see some of the lucre Hollywood throws at mediocre movies/TV shows about WWII put into making movies such as "The Way Ahead" or "Theirs is the Glory" which not only had good stories but good acting and were realistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: The guy in the making of special said the Tiger was built on a T-34 chassis. He could be wrong I'm just repeating what he said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm surprised. It looked too wide and low for a T34 to me. Unless some major surgery was undertaken, I'd have thought it would have been easier to use a T55/62 hull. Indeed, if anything the Tiger in SPR looks too low IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gpig: A bump . . . but also, a question. Will the Russian T-44 be included? I just saw a picture of one at THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD website under Medium Tanks, and it looks real cool. Sort of ahead of it's time, cool. (Even even looks like an American M-60, from the 60's.) Says it came out in '44.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: Wait for it ! Remember I still believe that "Zulu" is a a valuable training resource on tactics to be emplyed whenever the "natives" get restless.......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, the most marvellous of Australian Army training films. I saw/showed it over 30 times in the years I was in. Can you name the three most obvious "errors" in the movie though? At least we knew who the enemy was, after watching that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Which doesn't exist as a classification in military terminology, Lewis. I am making a point that names dont matter. Performance and functionality do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Partially I agree but the problem is that then you will have _real_ problems making comparisons _and_ understanding how the weapon _was_ employed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Comparisons can be made. Compare it to a heavy-barreled M1919 air cooled 30 cal. hows it compare in weight? Surge firepower? Compare it to a HMG42. (I wouldnt.) What other weapons system would you compare it to? What names are you giving to these systems? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I made that clear, I utilise the names the combatants used, historically plus I attempt to make it clear that where they make comparison difficult, I draw upon modern classifications such as SFMG - which covers your question about functionality. The problem is that you assume that because someone calls something a HMG, as in the case of the MG42 on a tripod, its directly comparable to a .50 cal, despite the two being very, very, different weapons which were employed in very, very, different ways. Ditto for the Vickers and the .30 cal. The Bren and the BAR.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Vk.4000 series I believe, if memory serves me correctly - my books are presently packed away after a house move and I haven't got them on the shelves yet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correction, make that the Vk.3000 series. Vk.3001p Panzer Series

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by catullus: [QB]The Pz.Kpfw. II Ausf. L was a cat, the Luchs we all love. Another version of the PanzerII was named Leopard, but never put in production. see http://www.achtungpanzer.com/leo.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mmmm, didn't Dr.Porsche name one of his tanks, which was meant to be the successor to the Mk.IV, the "Leopard"? The Panther basically replaced it, as it and the competing Rhienmetall design were underarmoured and undergunned compared to the T-34. Vk.4000 series I believe, if memory serves me correctly - my books are presently packed away after a house move and I haven't got them on the shelves yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Originally posted by Triumvir: [qb]Calling any recent involvement with professional forces against guerillas an arsekicking for the professionals seems somewhat... shaded. Perhaps. But we must not forget that these days more than ever the use of military force is governed by political considerations more than purely military ones. And that these political considerations a valid only as long as the attention span of the western TV viewer holds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QB] Errr, I'd sugges that the use of military force for most of human existence has in reality been governed by political considerations. Perhaps Clausewitz summed it up best? Wars are not fought for military reasons - they are fought for political ones. They might not be good ones but they are there. I'm also somewhat amuse by Slappy's insistence in classifying the Bren as an Automatic Rifle. The doctrine and employment of the two sorts of weapons AR's versus LMG's are very different and the Bren very much sits squarely in the latter camp. I'll also backup triumvar's point - you do not fire 20 round bursts. Indeed, I'd be ver y surprised the Germans did as well. Apart from cooling problems (and praytell, Slappy, why would a weapon which has a cooling jacket around its barrel cool better than one which doesn't?), you have problems with barrel wear.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speedy: What channel and when?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Channel 9, here in Oz is advertising BOB. Its a free-to-air network. As Simon indicates he's in Perth, as I am, I'm sure we've seen the same adverts. What I'd like to find out is what is the basic premise of the show. Is it SPR extended or is it going to be more realistic than just Sam Pechinpah directs Combat?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: Just caught the making of... feature on HBO. Not only do they have the Tiger replica built on a T-34 chassis from SPR but they also have what looked like a Jagdpanther. Looks interesting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Errr, I thought the Tiger I in SPR was built on a T-55/62 chassis. The Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were built on T-34 chassis. I'd be very surprised if they had a Jagdpanther. More than likely the Swedish SPG based on the 38(t) chassis which they used in SPR. Beats me why they can't just basically go and hire the working Panzers (various) from the German Armour Museum. They should also be able to, if they really scrounge around, get a few running Mk.IV's from Spain (last user of).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Looks like they called it a GPMG, more or less. Makes sense as that's what it really was. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I've been pointing out... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I found a site with some nice MG classification definitions for those who think they are important. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll stick to my Jane's/Brassey's and other similar serious publications rather than what appears to be a gun nut website, which again, gets the definitions wrong. "Battle Rifle" - pffft!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franko: Okay, I read this guys profile and I'm actually starting to get convinced that he really IS the PM of Australia. Frank<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, this bloke'd be using Vickers on the Tampas, if he really was the PM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: It's been suggested. The problem is the effect that would have on multiplayer games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? Simply have to have agreement on the various aspects of the weapons employed. If it was done, then you'd have basically a games engine which could be utilised for all periods of the 20th century+, basically. BTW, as for the Germans calling the MG42 a HMG, I've never seen a German reference refer to it in that way. I've seen translations and intel reports refer to it that way. Which indicates what?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: This is what I thought I read (but could be wrong real real wrong!) CMBO and CMBB current engine CMBII engine re-write. CM3 Africa and Med CM4 Early WWII and CMBO redone in new engine with backwards compatibility with CM3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Once you have the early periods of the European region done, it should be relatively easy to convert it to a Pacific game - all the vehicles will be basically present and most of the nationalities, with the obvious exception of the Japanese. I wonder, do they intend to make it so that you could take weapons/units from one game and play them in another? That way it would be possible to do Korea. Turning out a Pacific patch to either CM3 or CM4 would be pretty easy IMO. What I'd really like to see is weapon/vehicle characteristics stored in a plain text data base which would allow me to change parameters if I saw fit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: In game terms?, the Bren isnt in the game on those terms! In fact, the other thread never made it exactly clear if this is what they wanted. Since the Bren is not belt fed, I would call this a squad automatic on a rack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which doesn't exist as a classification in military terminology, Lewis. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BTS is making a game that represent many different nations weapons systems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd suggest that in reality they are making the American interpretration of different nations' weapons. They are not representing the "systems" aspects of them very well IMO nor are they utilising how the various nations themselves viewed those weapon systems. Personally, I'd have much rather they'd have not hard coded the various weapons' data into the game engine but rather left them as "plug-in" data files which could be added to or altered very easily - to allow players/developers to extend a good system and make it better.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FFE: Overrated: Archer. 99 points worth of pure junk. 20mm death, almost for certain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, the Archer was a very successful and populat SPAT gun. It lasted in the British Army well into the 1950's and in several Arab ones into the 1960's. Underrated: 40mm Bofors. "Death from where???" Great weapon. It kills all Axis light AFVs, chews through buildings and infantry. Added benefit: hard to spot over 400 meters. [ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: FFE ][/QB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuckd: So, exactly how does one go about using Flamethrowers correctly? Every single time I use them they just get smoked. Are they strictly a defensive ambush weapon or what? Any tips, grogs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The are primarily an offensive weapon. If you protect them, in the same way they were used in real life, move them under cover until the last moment. Use "bags o'smoke" (as a WO I knew used to say) and remember, they're short-ranged weapons. Sneak them up on their targets. Interestingly, both the Germans and the Russians used statically emplaced flamethrowers. No mention of them in the game though.