Hon John Howard MP LLB
-
Posts
74 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
Why then is there a picture in I believe Chamberlain and Ellis's excellent little monograph, "Field Artillery" in the WWII Fact Files series (admittedly now a 30 year old work), which shows US forces during the winter of 1944-45, equipped with 25 Pdrs with the caption that many units were thus equipped? This is also mentioned, I believe, if memory serves me correctly, by again, Hogg, perhaps the best authority I've come across on WWII artillery.
I have no idea how many units were thus equipped but again, I point out that the 25 Pdr did have a superior range to the 105mm M1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Probably goes with the need for the US at the end of 1945 to request the Brits release stocks of Shermans to them in NW because they had underestimated losses. The Brits had in turn overestimated their losses of vehicles in NW Europe so had the necessary spare.....
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
No, this bloke'd be using Vickers on the Tampas, if he really was the PM.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>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.......
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:
Say what you will, but the Israeli's are the most battle-ready, battle-WORTHY army on the planet right now.
God, that Merkava is a work of ART! If I didn't have a healthy peace-loving respect for human life and all, I would like to see a good war just to see those Israelis PERFORM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which makes you wonder why the bulk of the Israeli armoured forces are still made up of modified M60s and Centurions....
Anyway if they have any brains they will not go to all out war. They would not be fighting any pushovers.
Yom Kippur showed that they had too much confidence for their own good.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:
Now now, it ain't gas. It's petrol. Just like it ain't aluminum, it's aluminium. Or, it isn't crevass, it's crevasse. Only thing bothers me, is I keep wondering what would make a wicket, sticky?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Don (may he rest in peace) would have said moisture but having the greaest spin bowler in the world (av wickets per match or runs per wicket) in Clarrie would not have mattered...
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:
Did the Commonwealth countries ever field this weapon (besa) as a 'medium'? It seems that it would have been well suited to use in one of those carriers instead of the bren.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. Besa MGs in 7.62 mm and 15 mm were used as AFV (ie coaxial, hull front or main armament) only. Ammunition was a problems (as they were no rechambered to take then British standard cartridges) as the time from introduction to start of war was too short to allow redevelopment (even if desired).
Individual weapons may have been used from damaged vehicles ("scrounged") but in general not.
(The 7.62mm Besa was as heavy as the Vickers with no appreciable gain and in fact really a loss of barrage/sustained fire capabilities)
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:
Perhaps. But I think it more likely that they were considering something more on the order of the weight of effective fire that the weapon could produce in a given span of time.
Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And therefore why is there a distinction between a water cooled Browning and a Vickers ?
Which had/has the "greater rate of effective fire" ?
What is definition used for "effective fire" and how can it "rated" ?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:
In the official U.S. Army history book on Okinawa, there is an account from a tank unit on just how effective WP was on caves. It described a Sherman putting a WP round in a cave entrance, then watching smoke rise from twenty or more widely seperated points on the hill. Sure would make finding tunnels a lot easier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I also saw a training film made in 1945 where US forces demonstrated how various weapons worked with cave systems.
Targets were goats tethered in the caves in a rock formation somewhere in the continental US.
Used were various artillery calibres to 8in firing direct with HE Fused super quick and delayed (allow it to penertrate the caves in theory - in practice the rounds litterally bounced everywhere).
Tank fire up to 90mm, RR using HESH etc.
The goats generally survived it all except those caught by accident and those in the higher reaches after WP were fired into the lower caves (pillar effect) but many in the lower caves and chambers below the entraces survived because they were below the burst.
Then they brought on the aircraft.
A Bomb Group of Mediums (B25) with 500lb, 1000lb HE and SAP did not do much except to disturb the dust.
A Fighter Sqn (P/F51)with 500lb HE skip bombing (scared the hell out of the pilots - the bombs bounced and follwed them to explode (seemingly) just behind the tails !
No real effect on the animals.
Next they did the same with napalm tanks - lots of smoke and fire but not a lot of effects.
Next they did it with all but 'tail-end charlie' dropping unfused napalm tanks (build up the fuel load on the rock). 'Tail end charlie' dropped his tanks with fuses and the hill literally exploded.
All goats were killed even in the deep cavans, becuase they had been deprived of oxygen in the conflagration....
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:
I've also seen films of WP bombs being dropped on the flightlines of Japanese air bases. It ignites avgas real nice.
WP was not the preferred smoke round I am told. There was a chemical smoke round that produced denser, more persistent smoke. But of course, that wasn't much use at burning the enemy.
Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
WP has some very bad charateristics from the point of view of the user:
It is a much harder substance to handle because of the necessary safety precautions. Exposing the filler to the air is as bad for you as it is to the enemy. All ammunition establishments (and in peacetime firing mounds) have a means to exclude air (from the humble 44 (IMP) gallon drum of water to large dams of water).
It has a tendancy to pillar. When used for concealment it heats the surrounding air and so causes an updraft and a pillar of smoke (much worse than Chenm smoke which tends to just hang there as it is heavier than air). Like all smoke it should be used in a light wind ideally across the path to be obscured.
It is as dangerous to your own troops as it is to the enemy. You cannot enter it (to pass through it) so while it may obscure it also limits your own movement. Petrol powered vehicles or vehicles with combustable loads may be in danger. Crew of full NBC protected vehicles may survive but then will the vehicle burn....
It is expensive, much more expensive than chemical smoke both because of the cost of the material but also because of the special handling precautions.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
That's in direct conflict with the on-line info at The Bren Gun on-line manual. I quote:
"Condition of breech on:
(a) Cease fire. Open.
(
Empty magazine: (i) Box. Open. Moving parts held back by projectors on rear of magazine platform.
(ii) Drum. Closed"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yup - I disagree with it. Having fired the Bren Mk1 and the L4A4 many times - the magazine did not hold back the working parts when empty in either weapon.
In the latter case it could not because the 30 round mag for the 7.62x51mm cartridge was interchangle with the L2A1 or C2A1 (depending on which Army you were in - grin)and by implication L1A1/C1A1 and this would have interferred with the operation of the weapon - it was just not fitted to allow the platform to rise that high !
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:
In the game, I cant recall that the vickers is ever named heavy, medium, etc. But the HMG42 is called a heavy, the US 50 cal and water cooled 30 cal are heavy and the US air cooled 30 cal is called a medium.
The BREN is called a LMG btw (in the game).
Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps then the game is wrong ? Or has it recognised the unique place of the Vickers (but denied it its real capabilities) ?
Capable of sustained (only limited by ammunition supply, water and replacements for worn parts) direct or indirect fire to a range of 2-3000 yds (direct fire) or 7,000 yards (indirect fire).
They have fallen for the classic trap - wieght of equipment versus role in which it was employed.
And using differnt terminology from differnt perspectives.
Prior to WWII the British only had two terms - LMG and HMG witht he Bren/Lewis and Vickers fulfilling the two roles.
Witht he introduction of 15mm Besa and .5in Vickers and particularly Brownings into the Army inventory the need for a redfinintion took place - hence the divisions into LMG (rifle calibre section, magazine feed automatic weapon - Bren and VB), MMG (rifle calibre, belt fed weapon with sustained fire capabilities - Vickers) and HMG (larger than rifle calibre, belt fed, capable of indirect fire - .5in Browning). Date of change is really unknown but offical probably after the war (but generally used from about 1943/44).
The Germans used their terms to distinguish the role the MG34/42 was employed in and its support requirements (ammunition, manpower, spares, accessory equipment, transport) even though it was the same weapon.
God knows what the US called theirs and why......
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:
Yes.
The weapon is fired in bursts. Some say 3-5 or whatever.
What I am asking is, is it possible, that a BREN gun can be fired and it will fire a burst (using up the last round lets say at the end of the burst) and the gunner does not realize he is out till he attempts to fire again?
Its a subtle point I am trying to make so as to compare the belt fed weapon to it. A belt fed weaapon allows the visual indication of ammo being at the ready.
Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bren - until it stops or the firier can "count" his rounds in action - there is no indication that the weapon is out of ammunition until the first IA (now jst called the IA - Immedate Action) is carried out.
Belt fed weapon. The last 3-5 rounds ar not visible to the firer as they disappear into the feed mechanism so the same condition can apply.
During my time "in" with M60 and MAG58 it was practice on patrol and/or advance for the gunner to only have a short belt of around 30 rounds "loaded" - this was to prevent ingestion of dirt into the mechanism and/or catching of belts on foliage.
On contact, the first action by No2 on the gun was to slap another belt onto the tail of the belt thus preventing a stoppage and was contiue to do so for the enagagement. His role was to keep the gun working - secondary to his other role protection of the weapon. Control of the gun group was the responsibility of the section 2ic.
In the defence, full belts could be used.
One lesson I was taught and passed onto to all I taught -
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:
You disagree? Maybe the Canadians didn't operate under the same scrounging philosophy as the Aussies, Kiwis and Brits? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When did the Australians encounter the MG42 ?
When/how did they supplement their firepower with this method ?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
Buna and Sanananda.
I was also thinking of Crete.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Buna, Gona and Sanananda - north coast of NG.
An area where the bulk of the fighting was done by Australians and credited to the "septics" (remember - Blill Slim credited the first land defeat of the Japanese to the Australians at Milne Bay).
AFAIR Bren carriers (and they and the scout carrier would have the predominet types) were not used as assult vehles as there were a few Light Tanks Mk V or VI and A9/10 series mediums (but in any case with domination of the air by the LW any movement by vehicle have been problematical)
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace:
Given your role as Prime Minister of Australia and with a federal election coming up, do you really think you have the time to discuss MMG theory?
Mace
btw, where's my tax-cut, ya bludger!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As apublic servant you would be aware that you do not pay tax (as this implies wealth creation) but you just get the amount less any tax at the appropriate rate.
Anyway if I paid tax - I would complain too (OOPS! Dang let the cat out of the bag - where is my Minister for Small Business when I need him ?)
So - back to the point in hand (and it is a small point indeed), if I cannot partake of a little relaxation by exercising my mind ('cos with such a great team of boot-lickers like I have who needs to strain one-self running a country).......
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stoffel:
Hey!
Another mag gunner
Still in the army?
Anyway its not a smart idea to sustain such fire over longer periods,since it is the squads most precious weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But this is done through the MG Pl (part of the Spt Coy) or through the Divisonal MG Bn in the period in question (and the weapon in question).
In modern times it is still the MG Pl as the section uses M242 LMG.
Doing so will only attract enemyfire like mortars or artillery to take it out[/QB]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:
I've seen plunging fire/beaten zone creation been covered in our GPMG manuals (the MAG) but have never actually practiced it. Maybe the infantry does it, but the artillery already has a reasonable capability for indirect fire... 8)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As does the Infantry - the 3in Stokes-Brandt mortar in the British Inf Bn in the period in question.
But surely it is the use of all the resources available to the commader that is the question.
If he/she (he of course in the period in question) wishes/requires an effect from the resources available to him it would be criminal not to exploit all of them.
If the weapon in question (the Vickers MMG) could be employed in and has the necessary support mechnaisms (range finders, fire controllers, ammunition, etc) why not use it ?
Indeed that it contiued to be used that way in WWII is beyond doubt. That it was used in at least Korea is to its credit. Does it (the weapon) and the method still have a roll to play ?
And to bring it back to the original questions - was it an advantage ? If so, why was it not employed by other nations ?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra:
I had thought that was strictly a Canadian thing. Nice to know people were watching.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not Canadian - just not well known "south of the border" - something of the "not invented here" sysndrome perhaps ?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dfgardner:
There is a concept inherent with all automatic weapons, including MGs, called plunging fire. If I recall correctly (going back on infantry platoon leader days) it was related to us that you could position the weapon to make the rounds strike more vertical than horizontal, creating this effect.
This could be used in the defensive mode when the MG was typically mounted on its tripod. By adjusting the elevation mechanism you could create the plunging fire effect and perhaps hit targets hiding behind berms, folds in terrain etc. Of course, adjusting the weapon to hit these dead spots meant you had sufficient defensive preparation time to test and see if you could hit the area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Requires techiques of plotting and fire contral analogous to that used with mortars.
In the period in question rangefinders were still issued to MG Pl of the Inf Bn and to the MG Bn of the Inf Div (think BritCom) to assit in the plotting of targets.
Remember the British were the past maters at "silent registration" of targets....
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rather than a specific doctrinal technique, it was just related to us as something to put in the bag of tricks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To not have a doctrine implies a lack of reconition of the characteristics of the equipment and its employment.
-
Just a thought picqued by another (now closed thread).
BritCom forces had a theory and practice on the use of indirect fire from MMG (ie the Vickers MMG). This included the use of barrage fire where needed, ability to use FOs, etc - essentially using MMG as an artillery stle weapon. The Vickers was exceedingly useful in this area because of its design.
(It could be used in direct fire and fixed lines as well as any other weapon in its class).
Exapmples of it used in barrage mode in WW2 that I am aware of include El Alamein, in the relief of Kohima and Imphal, Sattleberg, Caen, Crossing the Rhine....
The Germans moved from their Maxims to lighter GPMG style M34/42 and do no seem to have continued (and may not have ever developed barrage fire concepts - I am a little unclear on this). They opted more for direct fire and fixed line styles.
I have been unable to identify any Russian doctrine on the matter perhaps because their mountings tended to obviate against it....
Japanese again appear not to have had the practice though again their weapons may have not been up to the task (with their MMGs based on Hotchkiss practice).
Where was the US on the matter ?
Was it an advantage to the BritCom forces over their opponents in the desert, NW Europe, SEAC/SWP ?
(Indeed it is still taught now in some areas using L7 GPMG)
Cheers
John Howard
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Why, then, were there 13 carriers in the Carrier Platoon?
While carriers were used to transport 6 pounder AT guns and 3 inch mortars in the infantry battalions, and also used by RQMS/CQMS staff to move wounded, rations, ammo, and equipment, the carrier platoon was used on occasion for recce, or even assaults. The Calgary Highlanders used them that way on at least one occasion during the fighting at the neck of the Beveland peninsula. I wonder if other regimental histories would not yield info about similar uses?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Carriers were used as assualt vehicles by the BritCom forces in the desert where space allowed them dispersion and some degree of protection.
When used in the "Battle of the Beachheads" (who can tell me where that was (grin) - give you a clue - think 1942/43) they were destroyed in minutes for no gain as the enemy could bring to bear weapons at from concealed positions at extremely close range.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:
Someone pointed out in another thread that the brit rifle had a fixed magazine. You had to load two seperate 5 round stripper clips into the rifle. This is the last thing I would want to be doing in a battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually in WWI the "Old Contemtables" actually carried a second (or more) Magazine to enable rapid change over but then they also were fitted with magazine cut-outs.
Where required aimed single shot or evey volley fire was used (can you guess where this would be used?). When necessary, they could use the magazine and either replace it (but only good for 10 more rounds) or reload with the 5 round (magazine) chargers (please use th correct term - they are not "stripper clips" in the context of BritCom forces). Speed of reloading was about the same.
Oh - by the way you could use single rounds, a five round charger or fully reload (2 x 5 round chargers) - you were not required to load"... two seperate 5 round stripper clips into the rifle...."
By WWII the British had under development a new calibre and a new weapon (a semi-auto) BUT with the demands of war the ability to change courses in mid-stream prevented it.
Unlike the US - they tended to be in the war from the start and no have the luxuary of a a couple of years to prepare......
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hanns:
The Enfield (and Springfield) being copies of the Mauser are similiar in their ease of use.
The Lee action uses rear locking lugs versus the forward locking lugs of a Mauser action. Fundamentally different. The Lee action is as much a copy of a Mauser action as an elephant is a copy of a mouse - both mammals ain't they ?
The only problem is after each shot you must reacquire your target. There is a lot of moving around, especially when prone to chamber a new round.
Obviously poorly trained on the Lee action - bet you used the palm of the hand to chamber the next round ?
On the other hand with a semi-auto you squeeze the trigger, make minor adjustments to your target and fire again. It's a Hell of a lot simpler than using a bolt-action and the more simple things are in combat the more attention you can pay to what's going on around you.
While reacquiring the target - the problem of all large cabre (full power) rounds in a compartively light frame. That is one of the reasons why an LMG/MMG/GPMG weighs so much - to absorb the recoil while maintaining some semblance of contact with a target.
snip a bit of irrelevance
The main point is that if the Enfield was as good as the Garand, then why did both the Germans and the British attempt to copy it during the war?
Citation please !
I have found no evidence of them "copying the Garand". if anything the UK was ahead of the US - attempting to produce a semi-auto rifle in a new calibre OFFICIALLY before WWII but the war intervened (what was needed was weapons not the promise of them some time in the future).
German developments were influenced by encountering Russian semi-automatic weapons rather than US.
Another interesting note is that the Americans had racks of Garands sitting in armories during WWI
!!!!!!
but considered it too much of a risk to let fall into enemy hands so they kept them in the US.
Citation please !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cybeq:
To me, this topic is rather laughable. Around the turn of the century the Germans invented their Mauser action and developed the K98. This rifle was vastly superior to anything anybody else had.
A combination of cartidge (propellant) and action made a good weapon - for pinpoint, long-range work (as in the Second Boer War).
The contemporary Long-Lee Enfield was only just inproduction following the successful Lee-Metford (which was a balck powder cartridge weapon).
The Brits and Americans came up short in the bolt-action rifle department and desired a "K98" of their own.
See above - British contemprary weapons were comparable. Tactics ("Field Craft" and command and control) let them down in the Boer War.
The Americans developed the 1903 Springfield and the Brits developed the Lee-Enfield, both borrowing heavily from the Mauser design.
Could I be enlightened where the Lee-Enfield (and by this I assume you mean the Rifle .303 in Short Magazine Lee Enfield) borrowed "heavily from the Mauser".
Among these three rifles the K98 is generally considered to be superior with the 1903 Springfield a close second and then the Enfield.
For what purpose ?
All in all a fairly equal bunch. These rifles all participated in WWI. When WWII rolled around the Brits and Germans carried their WWI weapons into battle while the Americans developed a next-generation battle-rifle. This rifle, the Garand (designed by a Canadian no less) is considered by many to be the greatest battle rifle ever developed (including Patton). It's accuracy, range, power, and rate of fire surpass the Enfield.
Funny - I note that it was never adopted as the US sniper rifle (the Springfield reigned supreme in US circles) while both the Rifle No 3 and No 4 had sniper developments.
If ist was so good why was it never adapted to a sniper weapon ?
It is still used today in rifle matches.Garand Match
So are the match versions of the Kar98 rifle an carbine, Lee-Enfield series, Springfields ('03 and '97 models) as well as just about any other rifle that has been made in the last 100 years where there are stocks available of weapons, ammunition, parts and dedicated people who want to use them.
It's value today on the open market surpasses the Enfield by a huge margin.
Perhaps because it is harder to convert to match standard - semi-automatic is not necessarily an advantage.
In short it is superior to the Enfield in every conceivable way.
Still has not produced any evidence to support superiority of the Garand.
Well, except magazine capacity. If your American friends give you a hard time about the superiority of the Garand again gently remind them it was invented by a Canadian, John Garand.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>null
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Empty magazine: 
British Field Artillery Undermodelled?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:
Probably goes with the need for the US at the end of 1945 to request the Brits release stocks of Shermans to them in NW because they had underestimated losses. The Brits had in turn overestimated their losses of vehicles in NW Europe so had the necessary spare.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correction that should read end of 1944... specifically around Oct44 it began to dawn on US planners that they had not allowed enough shipping space for spare vehicles and replacement parts to repair equipment which their own practices had led to be discarded. An effort was made to cannibalise but to make up numbers they had to go "cap in hand" to the Brits.