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 ?

Another item touched on in another thread has been the command and control elements of CM. As the commander of one "side" in the enagement/fire fight/battle you have command and control of elements within your array. However, aspect of the game have been questioned for realism in the tretment of both command - the ability to direct resources to and end - and control - ensuring that the end is achieved. The smallest unit provided with a "non-manual" form of comms (radio) would have been the platoon (and this is country dependant) and even then the availbility of spares and their comparative delicacy would indicate a reasonable U/S rate. They would then be required to use runners... (In the defence line would be used as a preference - cheaper, more secure and more reliable.) My question is I suppose - does CM take account of "realities" in a realistic way or are there deficencies? If there are deficincies, what are they and how could or should they be accomodated in future releases...

Other threads have touched on this matter (some have become bogged down it probably inappropriately) so I thought it better to start a specific thread on the matter. It is aimed aimed at those who see it as vital to conduct of the defence or attack. Engineers (be they called Combat, Assault or Field depending on one's background) have a role in: - creating and/or enhance natural obstacles to impede the enemies advance, to channel him into killing grounds, to assitant in the protection of vulnerable or vital assets; - to destroy or overcome thos obstacles in the attack so as to improve the advance of own troops... They have an array of technological and "native cunning" attributes and resources to fulfil their mission. (Not textbook but good enough to start the thread). How, where, why and when they should be included in CM is the aim of this thread - not necessarily just the means employed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Sheriff's department. Please avoid starting more flame wars, there is no need. My status of being active, reserve, or other at this moment means nothing to this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually it can have a big bearing IF you hold out to be the arbiter of what did/did not happen in the real (military) world (and you most certainly do). There was a theme on military history list that basically said that if you had not served extensively you could not write good military history. Others disagreed - they wanted a military historian to have "smelled the grape shot". I don't agree with either school necessarily but there are advantages to have had an appreciation of "what the hell was going on" through at least some form of military service (rather than paramilitary). Some here have studied military history for a good many years. some here may have created it, some hope to their diety(ies) that they don't have to .... But do not discard them because they seem not to fit in your concept of the world of the military........

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: I'm not sure what you mean here by "immediate ambush." I am curious to see the tweaks that CMBB will bring to ambush methods, as noted earlier by Simon. But the basic mechanic for an ambush is already on hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Immeadite ambush is defined as almost a "target of opportunity" ie not planned, rehearsed and prepared for by the troops concerned. Typical scenario may be a platoon on a fighting patrol (or a section as part of a larger fighting patrol - generally not despatched at less than a platoon) may encounter a small group moving through close country. The 'friendlies" decided that the ground and enemy size is favourable for an ambush and so set one immeaditely (hence the name !)...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Not really, especially for countries without rapid fire weapons. Ambush was possible, just not likely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually not just possible - how about a battalion sized ambush ? I suggest you read of the actions at the Muar River, Malaya 1941 by the 2/19 Bn 2nd AIF. Involved a delaying action which resulted in the destruction of 10 tanks and infantry of approximately battalion size in one large ambush..... The question is not wether they can or cannot open fire but rather should they. Average troops (ie those who are not new to battle and have also recieved adequate training and are led by average leaders (from the section commander upwards), can fire when directed, at places they are directed to .... If they do not, they end up dead, demoted and/or sent for "refresher training" along with their troops. The "boys" soon sort out the "wheat from the chaff"..... As I said earlier - fire discipline in the US must be pretty slack.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Was "ambush" actually in the lexicon of 1944-45? I know that there were Ambush Patrols in Vietnam, but have never heard of such a thing in WW II. I am open to correction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From WWI pams (Oz admitedly) on warfare - yes it was. Look up the "Art of Peaceful Penetration" as practiced from 1917 at least by I and II Anzac Corps on the Western Front (and by the Canadian Corps), by the Australians in the Tobruk perimeter in 1941, et al. One of the tenets of the infantry is domination of the battlefield to allow recce (and deny the enemy the same), to engender good morale in ones own troops (and the converse to the enemy) and to allow prepartion for and possible siezure of ground short of formal offensive operations. An ambush patrol is a fighting patrol (up to platoon or even company size) with a particular task (rather than just "spoiling for a fight".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very gamey of those troops, firing without waiting for orders from Battalion command. And completely unheard of in the annals of war for sergeants think they know the situation on the ground better than Majors and Colonels. . And remember in BritCom practice your "sergeant" would be a corporal. In fact after extended battles (ie your "operations") many platoons would be commanded by corprals and companies by junior subalterns or even WOs or Senior NCOs. Yes, lets make the men automatons that do not think for themselves. My - fire discipline in the US Army in attack or defence must have been very slack. In the defence - the first shot is vital. It can cause an attacker to deploy and thereby delay (a longer range shot) or it can be used for destruction of the attacker (generally closer range - pracised particularly in close country/MOUT situations). Sheer survival would have taught the section/platoon commanders when to use it to achive the effect required (by the battalion and higher commanders). In reality, this is just another realistic simulation of the scale and scope of fighting. You tell troops hide here. If you have time, you tell them to fire, but if things happen before you give the order, of course the troops open fire rather than let the guy in the rear tell them what to do. That is an extremely accurate simulation of warfare. One that should never ever be removed. Actually I find it extremely unrealistic. In this system how would a deliberate ambush be initited and when ? By the person at the start of the ambush or by the ambush commander ? Would this mean an immeadite ambush is impossible ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Vanir though is correct. A reference to ETO is a term of art used for the past three years to mean the European Campaign in Germany, France, and the Lower Countries, 1944-45. Very, very few people would fail to get this so it is not a bad term to use. This is similar to the terms battle and operation, defined in the manual and dictionary correct, but not possibly correct in everyone's mind. They are, in fact, terms of art now. [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately only in the US lexicon. ETO was never a term used outside the US but because of the the all-pervading influence of US-speak has become understood elsewhere. It is well to remember that: - all here (and who play CM) are not necesarily US-based - all are not necessarily speakers of English as a first language - all who claim to speak English do so from different perspectives THerefore it would do well for us all (and here I suffer occassionaly (at least) from the same fault) of not falling automatically into jargon/country-centric language without explaining the terms. How would terms like "noahs", "joe blakes" "tray, ash, receiving", "A510", "AN/PRC9A", "Tank, Infantry, MkIII" or "Sdkfz 161" go in this forum or indeed places like TacOps ? The need for precision in laguage dates back to at least the monk Abelard..... (Oddly enough probably the most understood jargon used around here is German terminology !)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Although it may understandably not be apparent to people who haven't been around here for long, any time someone refers to the ETO on this board they can be assumed to be refering to the June '44 - May '45 time period unless they specify otherwise, as that is the only period covered by CMBO. [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not necessarily so particularly in this thread as discussions have moved from Italian (MTO in US-speak), NW Europe (ETO ditto) and as far as the use of Scorpians (or should that be Barons ?) at El Alamein in 1942. Other areas covered include CDLs (first conceived on Matilda II chassis but deployed on M3 Lee/Grant) and Valentine bridgelayers (only used in the Pacific as far as I am aware though present in the Order of Battle for 79th Armoured Division in NW Europe). We are tracking over a large area of operations, equipment, employment, concepts ("the engineering battle") and of course time frame. Does not hurt to be a little more precise..........

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Ahem. I think Steve was referring to the post-Overlord period, which is after all what CM covers and would be relevant to. Michael [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not implied by the original quote......