Kim Beazley MP Ma

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: I'd suggest that the use of fascines (which is where the thread really started - we seem to have become IMO a tad too preoccupied with the Ark) were very important to the way in which British commanders conducted their battle - they allowed ditches and narrow streams to be easily crossed. The latter not being expressly modeled in the game. So what is the point again of having a device that allows the express modeling of crossing something that is not expressly modeled? Answers on a postcard... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It might not be modelled in the game but that does not mean they did not exist, I'd suggest. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: As at the present moment we have the IMO rather unusual situation - bridges are the only way to cross a water obstacle with vehicles. Fords do not work, except for infantry (a strange definition of Ford, I would suggest). The attacker cannot bypass the obviously enemy held/defended bridges. Well no sh*t?!! I never noted. More importantly, neither did Monty. Now if someone had only told him, this strange pre-occupation with the bridges in Arnhem, Maastricht, Son etc., and the delay in crossing the Rhine would never have occurred. He would just have thrown some fascines into the Rhine and walked across... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Being rather silly now aren't you, Mr.Germanboy? I'm not talking about the Rhine, I'm talking about the numerous minor rivers and streams and canals which existed to limit movement in NW Europe. It appears that like Mr.Slapdragon, you believe union rules apply to battles. "Oh, we've come to a river. There is no established bridge here! Time out! Union Rule No.105 states that we will only cross water obstacles at established bridges!" *TOOOOOOOOT!* "Bloody hell, is it knock off time already? Oh, well, back off home to the wife and kids. Next shift!" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: Therefore, all the enemy has to do is find a suitable riverline and he will more than likely successfully repulse the attacker. Hmm, let me think - oh bugger, yes. Well, IIRC the Germans seemed to do this an awful lot... The Odon, the Albertkanal, the Maas, the Rhine, the Weser, the Oder, just to pick a few. Gamey bastards. So, why did 79th Armoured not just prevent them from doing so (note - this answer maybe included on the above mentioned postcard). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps 'cause it was the role of the 79th to make sure that this method of defence did not work by providing the attacking commander with more options than just charging straight ahead a'la the Somme? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote: Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma: If alternate means of bridging the river were available, it would be a hell of a lot easier. Non sequitur. If pigs could fly the airspace would look a lot more interesting, but the danger of being shat at from above would increase dramatically. Alternative means are not in the scope of the game. The rivers you see in the game (how often has that been said now?) are 20m wide. Again, what is the max distance a Valentine B/L can bridge? How many fascines do you need to bridge that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> River tiles are 20 metres wide. Rivers can be wider. Even a 20 metre wide river should not be allowed to represent an obstacle, forgotten that the British specifically developed means of putting in place complete bridges, very, very, quickly? It seems you're content with hitting your head against a brickwall, Mr.Germanboy. I'm not. You keep harping on about the Valentine Bridgelayer - it was but one of the options available to an attacking British commander and{/B] it could be utilised in tandem to produce a longer bridge, BTW.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: uh, Slap? I just opened my game and found that I could make a scenario up to 120 minutes long. What was your point about playing the game for long enough?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ooops! :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Sorry, here is one that is so off the wall that it suddenly dawned on me that you have not really played CM all that much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've never claimed to play it "all that much". I have been playing now for about 6 months or so. I do have an alternative life, unlike yourself... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Err, the longest battle in CM you can have is 60 minutes, the average scenario will be 30 minutes. Open you game and try to setup a 6 hour battle so you can meet your "objectives". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So? The combatants had union rules which limited them to 15 minutes at a time fighting? As I said, its an artificial constraint. It does not represent any real period of time. "battles" or "engagements" can be 1 minute to days or weeks in real life, Mr.Slapdragon. [ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Don't worry Cauldron, it wasn't what you posted that amused me the most. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very true... Simon, send me some email!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: :eek: Surely you mean Croquet? Messing about with string and fiddly knots making tea-cosies is hardly a martial activity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You haven't been down the Ladies' Institute after they've downed a few cups of the "special tea", now have you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Listen, the above statements are just dodges, and you are trying to start a flame war. I think you are a bigot, but I do not think you are stupid. The concept here is not tough. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your condescension is not necessary, Mr.Slapdragon. The only bigotted person here is yourself - you apparently dislike anything British, so seek to create an atmosphere of distrust towards anybody who seeks to redress the historical inaccuracies evident in the game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Take the 15 minute issue. Why 15 minutes? Because an operation that takes 30 minutes will only ever show up in the longest scenarios and at the end. Not exactly when you want your enablers to your assault to show up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The 15 minute issue is an artificial constraint placed on scenarios, nothing more. I've yet to come across an account of a "battle" which lasted so brief a time. Engagements, yes, battles no. It might be a question of terminology, nothing more but it indicates we're not really talking about the same thing, Mr.Slapdragon. Personally, I have no problem with longer scenarios if it means I achieve the objective. I prefer to be methodical about my approach to gaining an objective as against going bull at a gate. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Several other things you just failed to read. No problem, when you have read them and reformulated your reply I will be happy to discuss why this system, and the related subject of veracity in historical research, are important.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You make severa big assumptions, none of which can be substantiated, Mr.Slapdragon. You really do more than teach journalism, you appear to practice it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This is a fair summary, and I believe that if every proposal looked at this list honestly in this way, then used supporting evidence (historical and technical) then discussions would stay on the ground much better. I would next add my earlier discussion of methods of historical validty and reliability as it relates to simulations, since it outlines how evidence works.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Translation = "I was wrong to attack Kim and others for desiring to see funnies included in the game purely because I didn't believe they were important as they are British and I hate everything to do with the British as a true anglophobe should."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: So, to spell it out in simpler terms for you, each new unit or concept must meet certian considerations for inclusion. 1) It must be directly supporting of the battle. Tanks are included because they directly support the battle, strategic bombers are not, because if they did get used, they were used way before the foot soldiers show up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would suggest that the means of crossing obstacles and demolishing obstacles are indeed in direct support of the battle, Mr.Slapdragon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 2) It must be able to be used within the confines of the battle (the average scenario is 30 turns, so say 15 turns, or 15 minutes). Tanks guns can be fired in under 15 minutes. Prepositioned artillery can support the troops in under 15 minutes. A battery of 105mm artillery on the move would never get set up in time, registered, and placed into contact with an infantry unit in action in time to get shell one into the air as indirect fire. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Errr, if I can put it impolitely, bull****. Time into action for most field artillery is a lot less than 15 minutes, Mr.Slapdragon. However, that is a whole new thread in itself. WRT to funnies, the dropping of a fascine or the laying of a bridge can, as Brian's post pointed out, occur well within the artificial 15 minute limit you've laid on matters. If CM is intended to simulate a "battle" of only 15 minutes duration, I'd suggest we should stop using the term "battle" and instead substitute the word "engagement" or even "firefight". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 3) It must have some effect on game play. Medics are assumed to be carting off wounded in the game, but in terms of play, they can function in the background without concern of coders because the presence or absence of medics is not a short term variable that will increase or decrease the battles effectives. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would suggest that the ability to effectively bridge rivers or ditches would very much have an effect on game play. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 4) It must fall into the realm of the codeable. If you cannot quantify it at least by approximation, the game engine cannot handle it. It would then be more like a mod -- eye candy that is really nice to have, but having neat mods wins no games. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anything is, in my experience, "codeable" if sufficient resources are thrown at the problem, Mr.Slapdragon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 5) It must be historically possible or historically proven as a relevant factor in relation to the effort of including it into the game. Could the Maus have fought? Likely not, or if it did it would have been a localized event. Do you include it? You could, if nothing else needs your attention. Of course if you are forced to leave out the M16 for lack of time, including the Maus would be a bad move. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As the funnies existed and were utilised, I think that question has been answered, Mr.Slapdragon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 6) The engine has to be able to handle it, and again the issue has to be worth it for engine inclusion. So -- how often was the CDL used. The current engine does not handle 5 kilometer maps with 1 kilometer wide rivers very well for various reasons, and the engine lacks a ray trace element. To add the CDL into the game when it was only used to light runways or once on the Rhine is a serious waste of time unless you are including ray tracing anyway, and the CDL is just a half day of coding on a model you already have (a few tanks got in just because the models were easy to do). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe that comes under the topic of "coding", Mr.Slapdragon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I would suggest that many of these recent threads fail on these points, or more importantly, the historical points. US units did not carry huge numbers of SMGs, Brens did not often travel with tripods and usually fought with their teams / vehicles, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Still missing the point - its not a matter of how often it was done - its a matter of the fact it was done and could be done. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now, to convince BTS, you need to develop better arguments that tell them how to model the issue / item, what is the historical context, and why your idea better simulates reality than the game. Since the burden of proof is on you, it is more important that you develop these ideas in depth rather than just saying "my Tiger was killed by a Sherman, wahhhh -- BTS do somefink."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I sense that finally Mr.Slapdragon you are starting to see some sense. You have moved considerably from your original position which derided any suggestion that these vehicles should be included. Perhaps the increasing weight of evidence and argument is finally penetrating your smug exterior?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: It is no co-incidence that the only engineering vehicles in the game are the ones that were used to directly support the infantry through their weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, the armour battle is not being attempted to be simulated, only the infantry battle? I'd suggest that the use of fascines (which is where the thread really started - we seem to have become IMO a tad too preoccupied with the Ark) were very important to the way in which British commanders conducted their battle - they allowed ditches and narrow streams to be easily crossed. As at the present moment we have the IMO rather unusual situation - bridges are the only way to cross a water obstacle with vehicles. Fords do not work, except for infantry (a strange definition of Ford, I would suggest). The attacker cannot bypass the obviously enemy held/defended bridges. Therefore, all the enemy has to do is find a suitable riverline and he will more than likely successfully repulse the attacker. A good example of this is the "All or Nothing" scenario. Its not impossible to defeat the AI when its defending, its just bloody hard and expensive. When I've defended, I've successfully managed to defeat the AI attacking several times - despite being handicapped by a screwy deployment of weapons. If alternate means of bridging the river were available, it would be a hell of a lot easier. Slappy'd just prefer to ignore the whole problem and impose the idea that its "outside the concept of the game" - it might be, as a game but as a simulation?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D'arcy Montague: Beazley, what planet are you living on? Dorosh, German boy and the rest of the lads are right.Armour Arty and intelligence were not on tap as you seem to mistakenly believe. Aerial photographs, Prepatory bombardments, Accurate maps and time for a nice leisurely reconaissance.... Well, wouldn't that be nice. Then we can all sit down in the langorous afternoon sun to enjoy a nice game of bridge, with our tea and scones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Crochet, actually, old chap. However, you appear to have mistaken what I'm saying - that essentially before a battle starts, apart from the verbal or written briefing notes that a commander is given, other sources of intelligence are provided. I'm not claiming that that intelligence, what ever its source, should be 100% accurate but rather that before playing a game, a player is expected to "purchase" his forces (or accept what the AI throws up), and deploy them almost completely blind. Such a situation would only exist, I'd suggest in meeting engagements or hasty attacks/defences. In deliberate attacks/defences, both commanders would have some idea about the terrain they are going to fight over and would make plans based upon that knowledge. However, even that is denied to the players by the game sequence/mechanism.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xavier: Great, but these screenshots aren't new for everybody on this planet Is there such a space between the turret and the hull of the T34-85 ?(I'm talking about the high turret ring). If so, is there a particular reason for this design ? :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I noticed that as well. I hope it will be corrected in the final release. I also noted that lack of "hang" on the upper-run of track on the SU-85. Apart from that minor quibble, it looks quite impressive.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: From my (limited) reading, the sentence should be 'were intended to be used to blind the enemy at night'. Apparently they were so secret that commanders did not know about them and did not request them. One of the CDL regiments was converted to LVTs (Buffaloes) IIRC. Bovington Tank Museum has/had a call for veterans to come forward and tell them whether and how they were used, indicating that there is not a lot of material to go on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only reference I've ever seen to them being used was in India - a regiment was sent out there in late 1944/early 1945 and ended up patrolling the streets of an Indian city during riots with their Grants. Can't remember where I read it though, I have to admit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Nope Beaz, he presented evidence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which I acknowledged, Mr.Slapdragon. So, what is your beef? That I refuse to play the role you assign to me? Sorry, I'm not the fool around here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for dodges, may I suggest that the whole engineering topic became to hot for you when Hof tried to pin you down on sources and books, and I on why overall setup time including surveying should not be considered in use of the funnies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe I posted quite a good link to "numbers", did you follow and read it, Mr.Slapdragon? One suspects not. As for the "surveying" I did not suggest it should not be considered - you have made that claim. I have made the point that it is something seperate to the actual deployment of the vehicle. Indeed, I started an entirely new thread, on the topic of pre-battle recces, which is where it properly belongs. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You also never responded to ideas about just giving bridge and fascine in place ability and leaving go of the vehicles, since it may, through real research, come out that they do not fit in the scope of CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I must have missed those, Mr.Slapdragon and if I did, I apologise. I would suggest that as they were intended to be utilised in the assault, as a means of bypassing obstacles, they do very much fit into the "scope" of CMBO as I understand it. BTS chose not to include obstacles or even water tiles narrower than 20 metres. I think that was foolish of them but its their choice. I should also point out, that you have dodged every mention of the difference between historical accuracy versus your claims of a desire to create an "uberBritish" force/creature. Could it be that you are more concerned with oneupmanship than you are with historical accuracy? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> However, don't feel bad about having a problem with constructing useful arguments. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, your patronising doesn't work, Mr.Slapdragon. Its very obvious that I do construct very effective arguments which all too often confound you. The mere fact that you keep confusing and erecting strawmen, instead of talking truthfully about what I say, tends to indicate that it is yourself who has problems following or understanding other people's arguments. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In my undergraduate honors research class, one of the first things we do with st udents is break them of the habit of argument from opinion and retrain them in debate from supporting evidence. It is a difficult skill, and many of my students who have gone on to be NSA, Rhodes, and NAFH scholars have had a great deal of difficulty mastering the skills of evidence supported debate. Most students in my research class do master these skills, it just takes time and dedication. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wonder if you also teach your students how to deliberately misrepresent their opponent's viewpoints? Oh, thats right! You teach journalism, don't you? No wonder thats what you do! I find it amusing that for a person who likes to claim he argues so much from evidence, Mr.Slapdragon I've yet to see you refute what Brian has said about deployment times, which is quoted from a military manual. Isn't it interesting how the US Army, which didn't have any funnies of their own, has a manual which is very different to that of the British Army which created them in the first place? Could be a lesson in that. [ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pacestick: What I think is "funny" is that there are people that thought you may have been a rather portly politition. It got better, it then turned out there were people who knew you were not but were concerned you were pretending to be the said portly gentleman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pretty good, hey? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you hear a knock on your door some Sunday morning and it turns out to be Jenny George and Cheryl Kernot they will not be there to convert you, be afraid.... very afraid<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah, I'm holding out for 'tasha...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Given that the Kiwis (at least in my own personal experience) are a sensible people, I think its tendency to want to lie down in the midst of its duties would have proven sufficient reason for them to quietly set it aside regardless of whatever else may or may not have been available. There is, after all, such a thing as "a danger to one's own side". Michael [ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, then in your opinion they should not have adopted the barometric fuse used on 3in mortar rounds? I cannot remember the correct designation at the moment but it had a tendenancy to be quite lethal to the users as well as the enemy - if dropped the difference in barometric pressure was sometimes sufficient to set the round off. I can think of several other, similar weapons which quite often proved as dangerous to friendlies as to non-friendlies. One uses what weapons are available. If the Japanese had suddenly appeared off the coast of New Zealand and it was not possible to get better vehicles through, I'm fairly sure they'd have tried to use what was on hand.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: An amazing dodge by Beazeley: Hof picthes a post full of facts, and Beaz just waves his hand in the air and ignores them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who ignores them? I in fact quoted from them, Mr.Slapdragon. Is this yet another example of your attempts to misrepresent what your opponent is saying? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Can't loose the debate that way Beaz. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unlike yourself, Mr.Slapdragon, I'm not now to "win" or "lose" anything. I make my points in the hopes of helping to come to a thesis which takes into account all factors. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am being too hard, since at least you have changed your sig and info screen after having that little bit of cowardice rubbed in your face by all and sundry. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, Mr.Slapdragon, I'm about to change things much more significantly than a mere few little references. It wasn't done in response to what you said, it was done in response to something someone else suggested, in order to dismount you from your high horse. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think I am going to help Beaz out a little if you don't mind Hof, since he is smoking a bit both from the booting you are giving him over the puppchen and the current Challenger thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Am I? Funny, I cannot smell any smoke. I can imagine how steamed up you must be at being the laughing stock of the entire BBS. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Beaz, wild geticulation and word games does not suffice for a succesful argument of position. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you mean "gesticulation", Mr.Slapdragon and I can assure you I am not moving my arms further than it takes to type this message. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You must present a line of reasoning that is clear, supported by evidence, and compelling, and show that the point you do not believe in is lacking in some fundemental way by using facts to break down his or her argument. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? I think the problem is that this is how you believe "debate" should be conducted, whereas I believe in discussion. Perhaps you should try it sometime? It can be fun. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> An ideal situation to do this in is when you hold different sides, thus making proving your point equal to proving against the other point. As is often the case though, you don't get a perfect congruency, so you have to do both to get your point across, or accept his point as able to coexist with yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: PDF, Mr "Beazley", reminds me of the allied view in WW II that the 76mm would be the be-all end-all forever to deal with everything since it worked so well against everything when it was conceived... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mmmm, perhaps you'd care to indicate which vehicles it won't penetrate which are in production today? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> IMO you are dangerously underestimating the capabilities of modern armor (one aspect where the Challenger II *really* shines bright!). actually, although the russian 125mm does suffer from accuracy, its sheer power is comparable. still, iraqui T-72s failed to penetrate M1A1s from the front in the Gulf War. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Except the Iraqi vehicles were very much downgraded export versions, as was their ammunition - large quantities of which weren't even tungsten but rather plain steel penetrators. Its not surprising that when you team poor vehicles, crewed by unwilling conscripts for the most part, up against an opposition which has spent the last 50 years honing its abilities waiting for exactly the sort of battle the Iraqis provided them with. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> as to the rest of your world view that the Challenger is the best MBT since the Bob Semple and that rifled MBT guns are superior even though *everyone* else but the british designers think differently then I cannot help you further here, I suggest you try it over at the flat earth society <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know, its nice to know that some things never change - Mr.Slapdragon, Herr Hofbauer and a few others - why be polite when rudeness will do the same job, hey? I did not claim that the Challenger was the best tank since the Bob Semple. Indeed, I made the point that it was adequate, no more. I did not claim that rifled guns are superior either - merely that the British have a preference for them and perhaps they know something we don't? Its obvious that you have been taking lessons from Mr.Slapdragon's school of debating. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> (it's noteworthy that noone else but the UK considers or uses the Challenger II, the Swedish even refused to accept one for their evaluation tests for their new MBT (only looking at M1A2, Leclerc and Leo2); <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Price perhaps? Political preferences? I have no idea why they refused the Challenger. Do you? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Of these six vehicles, out of a maximum possible operational and technical score of 100%, best performing were: Leopard 2A5, 78.65%; M1A2 Abrams, 72.21%; Leclerc, 72.03%; and Challenger, 2E 69.19% <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My, how interesting so there is a grand total of 9.46% difference between the winner and the loser - hardly the earth destroying revelation that its as super bad as you attempt to proclaim it to be. As I've suggested all along - it is adequate, its got its problems but it has its advantages as well. It merely represents a different approach to the problem of the MBT. You, however attempted to paint it as a disaster waiting to happen. Such hyperbole, Herr Hofbauer!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife: Informative post on digger SMGs. Thanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anytime, I always try and inform. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I've read some about the Owen & Austen, yet know little of their usage (which units/battles). I know that they came about after the North African & Aegean Theatres were pretty well sewed up... Primarily Burma/China/SW Pac. Islands? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I'd have said definitly not Burma, as no Australian forces served there, except that I came across, in my search for those photos one of an Australian serving with the RAF in that theatre showing him carrying one. I am aware that some numbers were exported to Burma for use by the British but I'm unaware if they were used. Ditto for China, for the Chinese - Owens also were shipped there, as well. The Owen has a very interesting history and was almost never built, both because of circumstance and official interference. The designer, who had built his first prototype in his father's garden shed was called up and when on leave returned home and took it out to shoot one day. On his way home, he had to run an errand and left the weapon, wrapped in a sack, hidden in the driveway of a suburban house. Turned out the house was owned by the General Manager of the Lysacht steelworks who discovered it. When it was demonstrated to him he enthusiastically took up the cause, had the designer seconded to his factory and badged the government and the military into trying the weapon and then adopting it. It was shown to be considerably more reliable than either the MP-40 or the Sten, against which it was trialled, being far less prone to stoppages and able to survive treatment which would have rendered the other two weapons useless - including burning and immersion for weeks in mud. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I know that the MP28 (the basis for the Lanchester) was prized by the Waffen SS for its excellent craftsmanship (they even took over production after April 1940)... The following excerpted from Waffen-SS Soldier 1940-1945 (Osprey Military History/Chief Editor C. Gravett c.2001): However, the Waffen-SS preferred the old MP28 to the more modern designs because of its superior manufacturing quality and because its magazine slotted into the side of the receiver instead of underneath it. This meant it could be fired from the prone position much more easily. I assume that the Lanchester & Patchett would follow suit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm aware the the Lanchester was abandoned because it was simply far too expensive to manufacture, being precision made and utilising Bronze and other naval materials in it. I was under the impression that while the Patchett was better than the Sten it arrived too late to see widespread service and was ultimately developed into the Sterling. It was definitely better than the collection of weird weapons I've seen in various books which never progressed beyond the prototype stage to replace the Sten.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: As a neutral party in the Slapdragon/MP wars, I do have to say that you have repeatedly shown that you really don't know what you are talking about. The Bob Semple business is just the latest example. look comparable to the real tanks that the UK (Matilda, cruisers), the U.S. (Stuart, Grant) Sov. Union (T-34, KV-1) and Australia (mostly British, but the Sentinal was under development) had in the same time period? Get real. [ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Marlow ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Errr, where did I claim that? I mentioned that it was comparable to other emergency efforts made in those nations to put armour on virtually anything and refer to it as a "tank". The British efforts to put armour onto farm tractors, in 1940 springs to mind, as do the "Terror Tanks of Odessa" - tracked tractors mounting MG's and light tank guns used around Odessa in 1941. In Australia there were the Kirsch Improvised Armoured Car, the Dingo Scout Car and Rover Light Armoured Car - indeed, the Rover was semi-officially known as the "mobile slit trench". As I said, desperate times create desperate measures. Do you think they'd have abandoned it if there weren't better vehicles available and the threat was greatly reduced?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But what of the Patchett? [ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife ][/qb]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why stop there? The Owen and the Austen should perhaps also be included: Interestingly, the Owen, while popular with the diggers was fought most voriously against by the military heirachy who much preferred the adoption of the Sten (hence the development of the Austen - AUStralian sTEN) for most of the war. Even more interestingly, while the Owen was a private design and development and was perhaps one of the most reliable SMG's ever produced, the Austen was the reverse - military designed and very unreliable. Which is why, despite many thousands being produced, it was usually given over to second-line forces, such as the RAAF or native auxillaries, such as the PIB: Then almost complete scrapped as quickly as possible. [ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Robertson: It has a nice study stock and heavy weight. I would suspect that a combat shooter would find this easier to shoot with than a lump of iron with a metal stick rivetted to it, like the sten gun<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That, plus a well-made barrel (instead of one barely machined) and good sights might have increased its effective range to about 250 metres. Even at that range, the stopping power of the round would be fairly dubious - there were numerous examples of PLA troops in Korea surviving close range hits from multiple 9mm rounds when wearing heavy, quilted coats during the winters there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thermopylae: As to the attackers knwoing defensive positions, well then you have to incoporate defenders knowing attackers positions...its not bloody likely that they magically materialized at the CM jump off points without being observed by a dug in enemy with OPs....and of course pre-emptive defensive fires that the battalion commander would call at long range (especially Americans). But there have also been about 10 threads on the topic. i reccomend a search.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think its obvious there has to be a bit more thinking about pre-battle/operation requirements. Defensive barrages, pre-attack bombardments are indeed something else which should be considered. Just as should be surprise and camouflage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen: They adopted a cartridged based on .222 rem, 5.56mm. This was not because 5.5mm is more effective that 7.62 NATO, it is because it is lighter, cheaper to produce and cheaper to transport. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not matters which are inconsequential in modern warfare I would suggest. I'd also suggest that this might be the reasons why the US Army adopted the M193 round but they are not the reasons why NATO adopted the SS109 round. One of the main tests it had to pass was that it had to be able to penetrate a standard M1 helmet at 500 metres. It actually does so at 900 metres. According to the trials conducted in the late 1970's the SS109 met or exceeded all the critaria laid down by NATO for its future small-arms round. And this is the point, the SS109 round is not the same as the M193 round. Indeed, its superior in accuracy and penetrative power at all ranges.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: You could do trews, but what self respecting Highlander would wear his trews?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dress uniform for Highland Light Infantry is trews. "Is anything worn under a Scotsman's kilt?" "Nay, its alllll in perrrrrfect workin' order!" Old Goon show joke.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: JonS, the Challenger may now have in the meantime eventually been refitted and enhanced sufficiently to put it on par with the Abrams and the Leopard 2A4, when in the meantime these MBTs have already taken the next step in evolution. E.g., compare the AP performance of the rifled Challenger gun to the new 120mm L/55 and the DM53 ammunition plus the other improvements on the Leo2A6. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, you have access to the actual armour penetrations of these weapons? I'd suggest that in reality, as there is nothing which has the capability to withstand even the shorter barrelled 120mm, whether smoothbored or not, adding the extra length and hence extra MV is IMO a tad pointless. As to the advantages of rifled over smoothbore or vice-a-versa, I'd hazard to suggest that the British are comfortable with the use of a rifled weapon - they feel it improves accuracy, as well as sealing around the round through the use of a driving band, perhaps they know something or believe something different to the rest of the defence community? As has already been mentioned, HESH is not affected by the rifling, so therefore its accuracy is increased at longer range with its presence and a higher velocity is possible. As to the supposedly superior performance of one vehicle over another - I remember when the Chieftain first introduced a laser rangefinder. I saw film (ah yes, that demon medium which so many distrust :eek: ) of trials between a Chieftain still fitted with a .50 cal RMG and one fitted with the new laser rangefinder. In the film, of the five engagements shown, two were won by the laser and two by the RMG and one was a draw, basically. The reason why the RMG did so well was because the crew were "veterans" whereas the laser trained crew were "green" with the laser. Which is why "competitions" results can be misconstrued - in the Gulf, the Challenger proved it was more than a match for the enemy, which was all that was required. [ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]