edward_n_kelly

Practiced it and taught it when I was in an SFMG platoon with M60s in the late 1970s. Saw it in a firepower demo with FN MAG58 (L7) in the early 1990s. Discussed it with a mate who was RSM of an infantry Bn (and then its Training Officer on taking his PSO) in the early 2000s - still doing it in the Army of Oz. Edward

My reasoning is a combination of a code of honour (within their own frame of reference very different to modern or indeed "western" concepts), a "yearning" for an "ordered" life and return to preeminence of the armed forces after the chaos of the democratic Wiemar Republic and a lack of moral courage to do the "best" for the "nation" (is the "nation" its people to the generals or something different?). Desperation in the later stages gave rise to Stauffenberg and his "plot" but even those participants generally still saw a war against the "communist horde" or "barbarians from the east" but allied with "western allies". They just had a totally different (and to us unreal)frame of reference which seems so alien to us (and to many of the leaders of the allies at the time). Churchill correctly identified the problem but still only had one solution war (he was predisposed to assassination but could not convince enough people or even himself to get it authorised). Stalin probably also saw it - but was fascinated by it for so long (and somewhat distracted by his own paranoia) that it was not until some weeks after JUN41 that he wanted to prosecute the war fully.... Edward

Sorry to continue an old thread but could not the troop lift be provided by the RASC (and Commonwealth equivalents) which, when not used by the infantry, could be put at the disposal of the ADD(Tpt) for other tasks ? Therefore the lorries would not be organic to the battalion but held at Brigade or Division though normally tasked to support their respective battalions ? Cheers Edward

Slim was (British) Indian Army - he had to resign his commission in the British Army to be appointed a Captain in the Gurkha Rifles (1st Bn 6th Gurkha Rifles). Montgomery was British Army. What they had in common was Royal Warwickshire Regiment (both were commissioned into it - Slim in World War One, Montgomery in 1908). Monty had served in India 1908-1913 (with the Warwicks) and again when he was an instructor at Quetta in the 1930s - well after Slim had been through. Edward

For detailed description of the makeup of the Australian forces in the area (and why it was so) might I suggest you "take a squizz" at Official Histories - Second World War Volume III - Tobruk and El Alamein (1966)

The Australian Official Histories for both wars are now on line (and available for downloading if you want and can spare the time and dwonload allocation). URL is: Australian Official Histories While you are at the AWM site why not look at their bookshop ? Cheers Edward PS can also recommend Hylands (if in Melbourne) or some of the good second hand book shops around like my mate's (and I don't get commission!) Adelaide Booksellers

Suggest you get MUZZLE BLAST - A history of the 2/2 Machine Gun Bn (available on inter-library loan and through many of the cheap jack bookstores/remainder piles) - not a bad round up of how they used them in NA and NG/Borneo. Edward

British (and I assume other combatents) used CW grenades in the last year of WWI. They were very handy in clearing dugouts. The Livens projector attack was a extremely effective in producing gas concentrations. They surprised the British with their effictiveness and the Germans even more. There was a case where a Livens barrage of mustard gas was fired prior to an attack (from memory part of Passchendale). The Livens projector attack was a extremely effective in producing gas concentrations. They surprised the British with their effectiveness and the Germans even more. There was a case where a Livens barrage of mustard gas was fired prior to an attack (from memory part of Passchendale). When the ground was taken and examined and unsuspected deep dugout was found. Inside was a Regimental command post - and the bodies were in a neat sequence. Nearest to the door did not have their mask cases unhitched, next from the door were those who had drawn their masks, next group had their masks partially on while the final group furthest from the door had masks on but had died from inhalation prior to masking or their filters were overwhelmed by the concentration (and the German mask was more prone to this that the Small Box Respirator). It was some distance behind the line of impact of the projectiles but the concentration was lethal for miles down wind. Remember attacks of these natures involved hundreds if not thousands of Livens Projectors. The Germans copied the Livens Projector (after all it started life as an oild drum that fired a smaller one!) but never understood how to use them (needed to be in concentration). They feared the sudden Liven attacks..... Edward Edited: Coz I cocked it up badly! [ September 19, 2005, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: edward_n_kelly ]

Actually I cn point you to at least one DCM won by an Australian. Occurred at El Alamein where he picked up and moved a complete Vickers MMG in a single load (ie assembled, loaded and full of water) from one side of a rise to the other to drive off a German attack. Distance was about 80 yards, under fire from all sorts of things..... There were other instances concerning British, Australian, Canadians and others in WWI and they had "Western front" conditions to contend with ! Edward

QUOTE]Originally posted by JasonC: The "for whatever reason" is easily stated. It was enourmously wasteful of ammunition. MGs can go through industrial quantities of ammunition in very short periods of time. And the "barrage" effect at the other end is minimal, compared to the amount of ammo expended. If you have the weight of supply to throw, it is much more efficient to have true guns throw HE, which distributes smaller splinters near the target much more effectively.

Which is interesting as the technique was taught in Oz until at least quite recently (and I have fired it, testing the techniques required to prove a point to the MG Pl Comd, with some M60s (not an ideal weapon by any measure) I was an MFC at the time and it required Mor Pl personnel because they were familiar with those techniques). I believe it is still discussed in theory during training of MG Pl personnel. And in regard to its use in WWII - Australians fired indirect at least in the Western Desert (at Tobruk Siege and the various El Alamein battles)and I believe in the Pacific (Sattleberg?). Anyway this was discussed/argued/destroyed in earlier

Ok, just makeing sure you weren't refering to: "Force forwards.... pure willpower" The statement could be easily (mis?)understood as a criticism of extreme aggression on the part of the US commanders, not too little.</font>

Actually one of the biggest problems for any of the protagonists in World War One was the cutting of wire..... Shrapnel shell was tried first but without much success, while initial fusing of HE was too unreliable. While it could be set for instantaneous effect in reality it was not - burying itself for a few feet before it exploded and lessening its effect by many orders of magnitude. Until sufficient shells with reliable fuses (of the SQ or Super Quick) variety were available (in about 1917) results were extremely variable. The Germans did not really have this problem - the West Front they were on the defensive in the main (or attacked in lightly defended areas like 5th Army in 1918) while on the Eastern Fronts the density of wire was just not there (and similarly the Turks and Austro-Hungarians)... As to the use of Heavy HE shell - again the guns, ammunition and relaible fuses were in short supply until 1917. Else why would there be so many dangerous objects unearthed each year in France.

And another thing - if some are going to nit pick shouldn't it really be the Knight's Cross (in its various grades) ? I believe its offical title ran along the lines of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (Or even more correctly the Ritterkreuz des Eisernes Kreuzes ie http://www.feldgrau.com/rk.html) Edward John 11:35

And now to provide an "after the action" report.... The dawn services may be becoming thinner with the original ANZACs (there is only one left – and he in Hobart), and the ranks of the WWII are lessening but there is more involvement from the newer conflicts and of the descendants of the earlier ones. Where I was, the local Army Reserve (RAAOC) unit has been involved since at least the reformation post-WWII (and probably before that conflict). With reorganisations over the years since it has now become the prime focus for a much larger organisation (covering at least 6 different Corps). It has now also drawn two Bands (pipe and military), choir and approximately 150 marching troops (through RAAOC still has pride of place – they have the “Freedom of the City” after all) Reflecting Australian society at large, there were those of English/Scots/Irish/Welsh ancestry on parade as well as Greek, South African (Boer), Chinese, Vietnamese and of special mention Turkish as well as others. Over my association with the event the crowning glory was commanding the catafalque party consisting of Irish/Scots/German (x2), Italian, Irish/English, and last but not least a “Johnnie” Turk. Today I remembered those who had “been there, done that” some to return (and some no longer with us), some did not return. To them all – thank you ….. Edward

Basically, what Brian said. The AP 'pick' breaks up the cover, then the HE 'shovel' moves it. The process was repeated until the position stopped resisting. Brian - LOL on why 14th Army used the reverse approach I suspect other armies used a similar technique ... for the same reason!</font>

In all probability it refers to the fact that any weapon firing two or three or more rounds in a compartively small group in rapid succession (as in full auto fire) will actually cause a certain amount of disruption in a target because of shock waves and heat. The sum of the effect is greater than the individual rounds... Effectively the target is "chewed to pieces". Semi-auto and individual rounds do not have the same effect because the target has time to "settle" and heat effects are largely lost. Edward

Given that And that the supremacy of the tripod machine gun had not been demonstrated until the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 (and indeed its lessons seem to have been ignored generally as far as the armies that went to the Great War were concerned), I find the two statements a bit hard to reconcile.... Browning and his backers would not have undertaken such a lengthy and costly development process without some indications as to its (BAR) employment according to the doctrine of the time (pre-1914), but what was the market he aimed at (and therefore the doctrine that drove his work) ? Edward

Like your post? Listen folks... if you have NOTHING to add to a discussion except to slam someone, please kindly keep it to yourself or go someplace else. We do not need any self appointed thread hijackers here. In fact, this repeated behavior is something which I am thinking is about time to make a banning offense. If your first post in a thread is simply to slam someone, I think the BBS would be better off without such "contributions" in the future. Understood? As for John, I am sure he can handle himself just fine without the usually bullies showing up. Steve</font>

With all the "interaction" in another thread on the role of the BAR versus the Bren (and others) just what was the BAR ? What was its purpose when conceived by Browning ? What was its role when it adopted by the US forces (in WWI)? What was its role in World War II ? How did it compare with "section/squad automatic weapons" in other countries in World War II ? Were its advantages or disadvantages in this comparison as a result of its design, employment or doctrine on the part of the US ? Edward [ April 17, 2002, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: edward_n_kelly ]

Funny, I was just thinking he was being admirably restrained considering the provocation. For all the history of the Bren tripod saga John Salt is not part of it and neither as far as I can see has this thread got much to do with it. John's just getting his introduction to the Slapdragon modus operandi, testiness is the natural initial reaction. As we can see he's already got it well and truely sussed out: Very perspicacious. Don't worry, I'm sure he'll soon settle down now he's familiar with the nature of the beast.</font>

Which brings to mind such ranks as "Corporal of Horse" who has the badges of (and the rank of) SGT and "Corporal Major" (rank and appointments of a Warrant Officer). Why not throw in a "King's Corporal" while we are at it ? Who can tell me who or what this was ? (and what of the possive plural noun like Sergeants' Major Pace Sticks ?) Edward

From Mr Churchill's Tank by David Fletcher: ...(April 1944)(7 RTR) moved to their concentration area, at Blackdown in Hampshire where they received a number a number of new Churchills from the 6th Guards Tank Brigade.... (p.139) and ...the brigade was obliged to hand over its new 75mm gun Mark VI Churchills to the 31st Army Tank Brigade in April 1944.....and before they finally embarked for France the 6-pounder tanks they had recieved instead had to be converted to 75mm by brigade workshops. (p.141) As an aside or two... Fletcher also mentions that a V1 landed on Brigade Workshops on Sunday, 24 June with 51 killed and 40 injured. Also a Church Parade in June 1944 was held at Canterbury Cathedral and presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Present was a junior subaltern of 6th Bn, Scots Guards - who was he and what was one of his claims to later fame ? Edward

A suggestion or two: Rather than provide a full manual - why not just a printed set-up guide ? The full manual can be in the form of a PDF file (or files) on the CD ROM - to be printed or not at the discretion of the purchaser. On the subject on multiple PDF Files - one could be written to cover each of the aspects above - a little history (and a reading list), the full "how to", the unit description tables, etc and also allows it to be printed page by page or complete “book” and in loose leaf format ! Then, depending on the customer's needs/desires, the cost of printing is his/hers - not BTS. This would allow updated manuals to be prepared and distributed electronically (and with their appropriate indices – the bug bear of “replacement page” scenarios). (It is becoming more common in the IT areas to use PDF rather than paper for the same reasons -cost, ease of update, ease of distribution, independence from operating system). Edward