Hon John Howard MP LLB

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Thingy, you dragged the AWM as support for your thesis about the tripod, and conveniently 'forgot' to mention that all it proves is use of the tripod mounted Bren in the AA role. Which makes it irrelevant. As I set out before, but since you obviously have problems understanding my English, I just reiterate. Mulga Bill, grow up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually I was the one calling for the quote not Mulga. I am not he and he is not me (thankfully - never could abide push-bikes). Still did not provide the quote. Cannot find any perchance ? Anyway, at least two of the photos that were published were of the tripod used for ground fire (one in Korea, one in training in Australia)- how does this prove your case and/or dispprove the original poster ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To make a more general point, since some people here seem to believe that some pictures or a single account/training film whatever constitutes all the evidence needed. First - if you want to be taken serious as a participant in a discussion, how about giving other participants all the facts? Sweeping the parts of the evidence that contradict your opinion under the carpet (as the guy masquerading as the Aussie PM has done) makes you look ridiculous if someone calls your bluff. Can I have it pointed out to me where I have "...Sweeping the parts of the evidence that contradict your opinion under the carpet..." ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Still trying to figure out what the point of the bren Tripod discussion is. It may interest some of the SL players that I devised a set of rules for the Bren Tripod for use with ASL STABILISED FIRE - from the online magazine VIEW FROM THE TRENCHES Basically, no one has proven one way or another how often they were used; I am reasonably certain (as Germanboy has added) that their AA use was quite rare, and I know for a fact that the ability to use them at all while on the attack was virtually nil. It has been pointed out by John Howard (?) that they were issued 1 per platoon - but no one has presented any evidence that they were ever used. Would be interested in feedback on my ASL rules, and on how you think the weapon would be treated in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mr Dorosh - on the site you cite one tripod per gun and then a reduction to one per three. Skennerton only ever mentions one per three weapons. Where did the one per weapon idea come from ? As to their use - I have seen numerous photos via the AWM site showing it was use and trained on quite extensively - at least in Australian Service. As to the storage on the platoon 15cwt - are you describing Infantry or motoised Infantry units ? The difference in vehicles on the equipment table determines where the vehicles were normally stationed (which echelon).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: They were held on the platoon trucks themselves - the infantry platoons being part of F Ech, but were the trucks in A or B Ech? Doesn't mean they ever got unloaded from the trucks. They were kept with the sleeping gear, etc., which was also not often used. I did not, for the record, cite their use at Arnhem, either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The trucks were where they were - it depended on the battalion orders. Won't provide the answer for Mr SN Jackson - lets see if he can figure out the echelons and their roles in a BriCom arms unit .... (Time running out Mr SN Jackson. Now you are having to research it rather than show some basic knowledge)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First, I would discard "pushing, cajoling" as a tactic since BTS is not swayed by that sort of thing. . Enough customers may demand it. Are you BTS ? Otherwise how can you say categorically that they cannot be swayed by public demand ?

OK - now back to the subject of the thread. Is there a bit of a consesus appearing (God forbid!) that the "engineering battle" is too complex for CM (as it is almost in real life - thats why there are experts in the field)? Is CM "just a game" ? Could it be developed into a "simulator" replicating problems and conditions that occurred in both real life and as "scenarios" ? Where should we be pushing, cajoling, encouraging BTS to take CM (as a concept - appears as though the engine is near enough to being discarded and replaced by something "bigger, brighter and better") ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I think I will let Mr. Dorosh post it, since it is his argument you ignored.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK so you don't know..... Argue on BritComm matters when you have some knowledge (unfortunately you have just displayed gross ignorance). (In fact there is nothing inconsistent with waht Mr Dorosh has said. I have given the scale and method of holding of the equipment nothing more.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Indeed. In my understanding, Recce was not strong enough during the break-out and the 'Swan' to do that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> British doctrine on recce (and it is still current AFAIK) was for the recce regiments to "discover" routes, road condtions, etc as well as any enemy dispositions NOT to fight for possesion (hence their equipment and organisation was structured "flight" not "fight"). Fighting was left to the "heavier" units. Most continental (ie German) doctrine revolved around siezing the initiative from the enemy and if need be fighting him for position of particular bits of ground. Hence the British relying on compartively lightly armed/armoured vehicles without much organic supoort while the German Aufklarungs Abtielung was almost an "all-arms" entity.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Except you did not read Mr. Dorosh's long and scholarly discussion of the subject, they were rarely carried with leg platoons who left them in camp or in the trucks as an uneeded mass, nor did you respond to at least four threads questioning what, if anything, a tripod did that can be modelled in the game. Then you did not read and take into account the role Bren were used for by ground fighting courtesy of Germanboy. In other words you have successfully advanced the debate back a month and 400 posts with a single flash of insightful brillance. [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you know what the A, B and F Echelons are of an Infantry Battalion ? Can you show where I have disagreed with Mr Dorosh ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Not attempting to claim they were common merely that they were used. Something which even you pointed out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually Bren tripods were originally issued on a scale of one to every three weapons (ie one per Platoon) - source Skennerton Australian Service Machine Guns (ISBN 0 949749 125) (Knew I had a copy but living between properties and other crises....) As Australian practice mirrored that of the UK and other Commonwealth forces it would have been consistent across them all. How they were employed: Bren tripods were held as Company stores (ie were part of the company assets at the disposal of the Company OC) generally in the B Echelon (particularly as the war dragged on) though could be held in A or F Echelon as needed. They were on the equipment tables of Infantry Battalions at this level until at least very late in the war Remember Brens were used also as AA weapons and provided the only organic AA capability to the Inf Bn - the tripod was designed to act as an AA mount. Anyway - the argument is passe according to Mr SN Jackson.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: PS Hurry up and call that election will you?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry - that is not for the public to know until it is needed. If I told you now I would have to arrange for ASIS/ASIO to "terminate" you ! But then given given thier track record they would probably "do" me .... (Don't make plans for November unless you can vote absentee/postal

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer76: Well, I don't agree with some of the points he makes. I was the first to begin swearing, well if saying "bull****" is swearing, then I did so, but I also apologized for it afterwards and refrained for doing so again. My "Tampa" post was ofcourse a very "hot" topic, bringing to the surface lots of nationalistic feelings. And I guess I could have choosen my wording a bit more carefully. And as a consquence of that I became hugly unpopular with quite a few Aussies, and some others as well. But this has nothing to do with the subject, (as most of the posts on this thread ) and I'm sorry that I made even more OT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now, now children.......... Take two asprin and come back in the morning when BOTH of you have had time to think and to hone your skills in gamesmanship. Anyway, I cannot see this argument (more like two cats stuck in a forty-four (imperial) gallon drum spitting and scratching at each other) going anywhere (but then where have many of them gone anyway ?)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: Do you write technical manuals for a living? Perhaps programming instruction books? All communications in CM are an abstraction of the myriad ways that the "word" got around the battlefield. To go into further detail in the game might make things more complicated than they are worth as far as any gain in playability. Perhaps with future versions' implementation of a relative spotting system, enemy actions like cutting field phone wires would be worth to model, but right now the "borg" mode (One sees & hears, All see & hear), while not realistic, is what we have to use. Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps I did not phrase it correctly. Is C2 (and indeed C3) adequate in CM ? Is it realistic (ie what was in place technology wise as well as its employment)for the timeframe being "modelled" in the game engine ? Pehaps from debate of these matter CMII may well be a better engine...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: The current brouhaha has little to do with that and more to do with Slappy using an entirely spurious line of reasoning. Now there are two possible explanations for this, either: 1) Jacko is trying to stir the stirrers or in more common parlance out-troll the trolls OR 2) he hasn't got a clue. Personally I favour the first option. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps you are too generous to all parties !

OK - for those who prefer real combat. Just how small a unit can be represented in CM ? Can you get down to the individual section and have them engage in an asaualt, defence, ambush? Could you follow them as individuals almost through a "life" cycle ? If you cannot - what is/are the limiting factor(s) which prevent it ? Would like to see it ?