Mulga Bill

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: You are correct about the AC series. First a single and then a dual mount was produced, less that a half dozen test models all told including static test rigs, and it was merely to see if the sentinel frame would handle the stress of the 17lb.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, Mr.Slapdragon, the AC3 was designed from the outset to mount the 25 Pdr, as it was the only weapon available which was considered powerful enough to be an adequate tank gun, after the obvious inadequacies of the 2 Pdr had been revealed (which armed the AC1). Then the Australian authorities became aware of the 17 Pdr and decided to mount it, instead in the AC4. However, in order to prove the concept and lacking a 17 Pdr, they decided to test an AC3 with twin 25 Pdrs installed. Brian is correct, in that only the Sentinel was ever designed to mount the 25 Pdr. No other British/Commonwealth tank ever did. Interestingly, the success of the AC3 with twin 25 Pdrs eventually was used to prove that it was possible to mount a 17 Pdr in a turret ring of that diameter, which in turn resulted in the production of the Firefly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Non est, crede mihi, sapientis dicere 'Vivam': Sera nimis vita est crastina: vive hodie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Si hoc signum potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes! Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I'd go so far as to say this is an accurate statement. Then again, Brian probably has pictures of them firing over open sights in the Korean War, so let's watch what we say. wow, how unfunny was that?!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very. George Blackburn has one episode when his troop of 25 Pdrs could have fired over open sites but didn't. He also mentions when his new CO during the initial landings took one of that officer's Regiment's Priests and used it as an Assault Gun. He does though, note that was most unusual. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Seriously, though, you can say the same about on-map 25 pounders after 1943, though they were used in the Western Desert as anti-tank guns (their circular gun platform made them particularly good for this ad hoc usage). For CM3 or whatever, they would be a natural, but as far as CMBO goes, makes you wonder why they were included - unless to use in some convoy type scenario?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What "circular gun platform"? I can't see one on the graphic representation of the 25 Pdr in the game. Funny, it looks remarkably like the M101 105mm gun to me...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Michael, on your webpage at Bren Homepage, off of the main Canuck page, you quote the following: Two items of Bren Gun equipment not commonly seen include the drum magazine, and the tripod. The tripod could be configured for antiaircraft work, as at right, or as a ground mount to fire on fixed lines. When set up as a ground mount, arcs of fire could be set with stoppers on the tripod. In static positions, such as the I Canadian Corps front in Italy in early 1944, this was actually done. The tripod could be man-packed, but was usually stored by infantry sections on their platoon vehicle. For anti-aircraft work, two additional tubes (stored inside the hollow body tubes of the tripod) could be added, elevating the gun and giving it a 360 degree sweep. The ground mount pictured above has had two rifle slings added in order to carry it. Do you have a cite for that usage? If so, then it would be a useful datapoint in this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oooh, Triumvir, be careful, you're trying to keep the discussion ontopic! And Ben, isn't it amazing how some people can run around expending so much energy trying to deny what your father experienced? To them, personal experience is valueless. Unless they can read it in a book, it never happened. So, I'd suggest your daddy get writing, if you want this mob to believe you! Brian, follow the advice of Gough! Just remember the to watch out for the flat head! :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: The U.S. version of the History Channel tonight presented a useful but flawed program in its series Battle Stations on Tiger tanks. The SPR Tiger was prominently featured. I won't comment here directly on wrong footage and such, but I will note that I saw Tiger crew members interviewed on camera whom I'd never seen interviewed before, including Otto Carius, author of TIGERS IN THE MUD, if memory serves. The interviewer managed to dance right up to the grog questions so many of us want answered, but never asked them. We learn that crews trained to rigid time standards, but we aren't told what the tasks or the standards were. I don't know when those interviews were done, but I think the professional historians and weapon specialists here should hammer out an agreed approach to the History Channel, ask the "are these guys still alive?" questions, and if yes, seek the relevant contact information so that a coordinated list of questions could be submitted, interviews arranged, etc. The information in these Tiger veterans' heads is highly perishable, if indeed these men still live. There were also a T-34 commander and a British TC who survived an exploding tank by being blown bodily out the open hatch of his tank. A questionnaire could be developed and then either used to direct the blind interviews or submitted to the individuals directly. Restated, ask the questions first separately, then think about some sort of group discussion in person, by phone or video hookup. The latter should serve as a memory jogger and a cross check on the memory of any one individual, aided of course by all relevant documentation. Given that anything Tiger is a surefire seller in the marketplace, indeed almost the only commercially mass marketable tank topic, it ought to be possible to line up some producer or video house to support this effort, say, Lou Reda, who does lots of History Channel documentaries already, or whoever put out the Tiger technical CD. We may have a golden opportunity here to get real answers to some knotty technical and tactical questions. As they say on the infomercials, though: "Act now! Supplies are limited!" Regards, John Kettler [ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: John Kettler ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An excellent idea. Of course, according to some around here, such experiences are less important than the archival information which is available.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune: Lets see what the experts say. From the: http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/weapons/bren/bren.htm States fired from the hip or the bipod., <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tsk, tsk, selective quoting Rune? Now, that is sloppy research. In fact, what it states is: "It was mostly fired from the ground, mounted on the bipod that formed part of the weapon, but it could also be fired from the hip. On the bipod, the Bren had an effective range of just under 550 metres, but mounted on a tripod it could deliver fire out to almost one and a half kilometres." How does that statement contradict what has been stated by Brian, John or others? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How about this one: http://www.wwiitechpubs.com/barrack/inf-uk/inf-uk-lmg-bren/inf-uk-lmg-bren-br.html I quote:... Bren operators usually fired from the hip or rested the gun on the built-in bipod, and only rarely set up the tripod. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What is the meaning of the word "usually", Rune? Does it mean there is a complete preclusion against other methods being utilised? BTW, I have problems with an article written by someone calling themselves, "Justin "LooseCannon" Riggir". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Or how about this one: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/6498/t2000ww2britishsmallarms.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It actually states: "The BREN was developed from a Czech light machine gun the ZB vz/30, the name was derived from Brno the Czech company that designed it and Enfield where it was built. It was a popular weapon which gained a reputaion for durability and reliability, in modified forms it remained in service with the British military into the 1990's. The Bren first entered production in 1937 but the main production version was the Mk 2 which entered service in 1941. The Mk 1 and Mk 2 are nearly identical and most of the changes were minor modifications to speed production. A tripod was made for the BREN but it was rarely used, most were left in France after Dunkirk. The BREN was commonly used as an anti-aircraft weapon on vehicle mounts." What is the meaning of the word "rarely"? Does it preclude its use "sometimes", Rune? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I have more where the people who USED them state they seldom used the tripod. Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wrong, you have [b}two quotes which states they were "rarely used". You have a third which mentions their being used and even provides some information as to their advantages/performance. I'm forced to ask again, though, how does this contradict what has been said? I've seen no one claiming they were "common" or that they were "used all the time". Rather I've seen people suggest that they existed and they were utilised and used for an extended period of service (well beyond 1940 in France, as well). They were also in use across a wide gamut of theatres of operations - at least for the Australians. How this has come to be equated in your mind to some sort of mention of frequency of use, I have no idea. [ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Mulga Bill ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: Ditto, please for myself and others.

While interesting in themselves, they are a trifle limited. It would've been great if they'd released a few more photos from the other beachs. You know, the ones where the Americans didn't land? Does anybody know of an online source which might show the other beaches or further inland. I'm intrigued to see just how big those "tiny bocage fields" really were. I suspect most of the ones in most scenarios are a little bit small to be very able to support intensive agriculture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: This one is way past lock up time. Gone is the return of banned Beazely in a new form<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Like Mr.Clemens Mr.Slapdragon, you're getting a tad ahead of yourself, I think.

Germanboy, I think your quote was more than adequately describing what history is described as. It failed though, and here I think Brian's caught on, to describe what history is constructed from - the experiences of individuals - be they high or low. This is what annoys me and others about Mr.Slapdragon - he automatically assumes, because he cannot find evidence in his records which are at best incomplete and worst inaccurate, information that corroborates the experiences of those who have done something, so therefore, according to him, their experiences must be invalid. This, BTW, is exactly the argument utilised by so-called "historians" like David Irving and we all know where that ended up, now don't we? If Mr.Slapdragon had spent a little more time away from his library, in his "FNG", he'd have discovered that not every minute detail of every day is recorded. The usage of military equipment is one very large grey area. The personal experiences of individuals are primary sources and if he was a real historian, he'd know that primary, not secondary ones, are the ones that make the best sources for historians.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Nope, I just choose not to answer someone with your attitude. I did however, e-mail Mike the answer in a friendly off sides discussion. Grow up, history and simulation is not a play school game that you can say "did not x 1000" or "race you to the tree" to win. It is actually a career for people (Like Mr. Dorosh) who put years of study into it and publish from their research. [ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nor is it someplace where you can run away and hide in the corner, with your fingers in your ears and hands over your eyes, chanting, "Can't hear you! Can't see you!" Mr.Slapdragon, I asked you to show us exactly how much you do know about Commonwealth military organisation by asking a very basic question. You've failed to answer it - either by choice or by ignorance. Ignorance is not a crime, if admitted to, Mr.Slapdragon, nor will it diminish you in our eyes. It might actually enhance you. Wilful ignorance does nothing for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Did not say that, I am just not going to repeat verbatim 750 words of ignored text from Mr. Dorosh just to give you a quick lesson in combat echelons in the Commonwealth that you do not need.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just answer Jonh Howard's question (which does not need 750 words). B Echelon = A Echelon = F Echelon = I think I (or anyone with any knowledge of the Commonwealth military) could do it in about one tenth that or even less. How about a clue - LOB could be part of B Echelon. Should we use the term for you that you used on Germanboy ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: My proposal is that being in a a practice ambush in training is great, I did that when I was 17 in the FNG. The little targets pop, you all shot on command, ande then walk home. But what if those little targets had popped to the rear, or what if three guys in the end think they hear the PL fire, or whatever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then I would suggest that your "FNG" (Florida National Guard?) did not train you particularly well, Mr.Slapdragon 'cause you obviously failed to make the necessarily leap from a training experience to a learning experience. No one is suggesting that soldiers are perfect and that they will always perform as they are ordered. Rather the point being made is that training does count for something. When you are trained to conduct an ambush in a particular manner, more often than not, your men will do as their training has instructed them and perform their ambush in that particular manner. As a veteran of many years experience, I'd also suggest that there is a world of difference between how part-time soldiers and in particular American part-time soldiers going by my experience of them train and how full-time soldiers train. I don't doubt that you'll take that as a "nationalistic slur" or something like that - in reality it is an analysis based upon my experience. Are you going to call that experience into doubt, Mr.Slapdragon? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for military service needed to be a historian, the famous historian Barbara Tuchman said, "I know of few who served in the trenches of World War One, or at the Battle of Agincourt, so I guess we can no longer write about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No one is suggesting that either. What we are calling into question is YOU telling people who do have a hell of a lot more experience of how the military works, how it works. You seem to think that unless evidence is presented to you in a book or has been written down, or corroberated from multiple sources which you can access, it does not count for anything. As an historian, I'd suggest that you've failed the first lesson of what history is, with that sort of attitude. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My question to those who want this is how many years of combat service did they get in WW2, and in what theaters?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps the lesson you should be learning Mr.Slapdragon is that you shouldn't be trying to teach those who have already done it, how it should be done. [ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Mulga Bill ]

<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> Rubbish. The entire basis of Australian jungle warfare is constant patrolling with ambush and counter-ambush being prepared. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As for the automatons, you can believe a Battalion or Regimental commander (note that you are not in cahrge of the ambush, but more like the person who is in charge of the person who is in charge of the person who is in charge of the ambush as it were), while I must select the truth here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your inexperience is betraying you, yet again, Mr.Slapdragon - battalion commanders have, as in the example from Malaya, controlled ambushes. All that is required is a phone and a line. Heaven help any subcommander who allows his men to open fire before the order is given - is my experience of the matter. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In reality, your primary mistake is failing to grasp the scope of CM and the role the player plays. A commander at Regiment can do a lot to keep a company attack moving, but in almost every Army (perhaps this was not true with the Australian Army) the initiative and intelligence of the men was recquired to make plans work. It also resulted in human failings. In the US and all commonwealth Armies but seemingly the Australians, and in the German Army, localized commanders carried the tactical battle home. Sergeants deployed squads and directed squad fire. Lieutenants gathered and moved platoons, Captians coordinated the actions of several platoons. A Colonel could and did say "move that damn position to the next set of trees" but he could not remote control his men, so he usually relied on their training and initiative. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Others have noted the American-centricity of your thought patterns, Mr.Slapdragon, so I won't belabour the point. I will note that you appear to misunderstand discipline as against initiative. I am unsure about the US Army but the British/Commonwealth ones prided themselves on their discipline in battle - they were not a bunch of yahooing hooligans who blazed away at any potential target in sight. At the same time, personal initiative was prized, particularly in the Commonwealth Armies - soldiers and NCO's were allowed, within the confines of the discipline imposed upon them, to think for themselves and to act on those considerations but they were well aware that there was a line over which they did not step. Perhaps the US Army didn't have that sort of conceptualisation? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Possibly here the Australian Army acts much more like the Russian Army, where small units commanders have very little training and initiative, thus causing this basic cultural misconception between the two opinions on this (although my research indicates they performed much the same as the rest of the commonwealth) but believe me, nothing works perfect in the field. Thinking that it does is simply unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would suggest, Mr.Slapdragon that this paragraph alone betrays your anglophobia, more than anything else. You have obviously never studied any Australian military history if you believe that! [ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Mulga Bill ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: [/qb] As I said earlier - fire discipline in the US must be pretty slack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It may have been. I suspect the problem is not in how the US Army did things but rather in Mr.Slapdragons rather strange conceptualisation of how military units operate and in particular how British/Commonwealth units operate. This is a problem caused more by his never having served in the military (by his own admission I believe in another thread) and his inability to counterance any other viewpoint but his own, based as it usually is upon viewing history through what appears to be in the case of those who have served, a distorted lense.