edward_n_kelly
-
Posts
69 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by edward_n_kelly
-
-
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?).Originally posted by Blashy:As I said, a stupid leader can kill you.
But my personal BIGGEST mystery that will never truly be known is WHY did those military generals let that idiotic fool live and not simply kill him on the spot and take over.
There are thousands of reason speculated but no one really knows why.
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).Originally posted by JonS:Slim and Montgomery were Indian Army, and they seem to have gotten on well enough.
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).Originally posted by ozi_digger:Have you tried the Official History series?
To Benghazi, et al?
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!)
-
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.Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:I can imagine the adrenalin rush to achieve that feat would have been pretty significant. I'd also bet he couldn't repeat the effort if not under duress and fire once the battle was over.
Regards
Jim R.
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.....Originally posted by YankeeDog:MG and light medium mortars can be, and were, moved short distances set up on their bases, and some kind of special command to represent this (not unlike the reverse command above) might not be a bad idea. Typically, 2 soldiers carry the weapon between them; not dissimilar to a 2-man rescue carry, if you're familiar with that.
YD
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).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.
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:Originally posted by Brian:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tarqulene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That my impression that US commanders were being sacked for lack of aggressive spirit, was correct, Tarqulene.
"Force forwards.... pure willpower"the US commanders were attempting to force their infantry forwards, through the use of what appears to be almost pure willpower, rather than a proper understanding of the conditions facing them.
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.....Originally posted by JasonC:(Edited for brevity)
Quibble two is the idea that shrapnel went out of fashion in WW I because it was harder to make and use. Jons mentioned the real main reason - because it simply was not effective against dug in troops. Shrapnel was used extensively in WW I, especially by lighter guns, and it had dismal results.
It was much more effective to put a heavy HE shell well into the ground with a delay fuse. That sent out a powerful horizontal shock wave, which could cave in the side of trenches without direct hits. It also cut wire much better, blowing up the stakes holding it in. HE was not preferred for simplicity, and by the end of WW I the gunners of all the major powers used far more sophisticated methods, more effectively, than colonial era armies had.
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.Originally posted by JonS:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Offwhite:
Should it be obvious why this is an effective tactic? I'm missing something... :confused:
Brian - LOL on why 14th Army used the reverse approach
I suspect other armies used a similar technique ... for the same reason!</font> -
Originally posted by Shatter:
Too true.Have a mate who was the M-60 gunner in a section in Vietnam. He was 6'1" and played top-level Australian Football before and after going "on tour" - he weighed in at just on 149 lbs when he was admitted to hospital (for a football injury !). For states that play this game - he was played as a "knock ruck" or "ruck follower" in the "old" terminology....
Another was 5'10" and about 160lbs (and he can still pick out the "splash" from his eyes from the round that hit the bipod when it was in front of his face while changing his "arc" when patrolling).
Anyway - back to the questions that started all this...
So JM Browning developed his weapons and then tried to "flog 'em" to the whomsoever would buy them...
He would not have tried to invent/develop something that did not have some prospect of sale (somewhere). So the BAR was standardised to suit the doctrine and practice of employment as it then stood in the US - 1916 and "walking fire".
How did doctrine change during WWI, between the wars and early WWII if it did at all (I pick early WWII 'coz anything later would have had little prospect of development and fielding in the timeframe)?
Were new/alternate weapons considered (if it did change ?
Did the weapon fit the doctrine or was the doctrine made to fit the weapon(s) then availble ?
Edward
Edited to fix the "scanning" of a line or two...
[ April 22, 2002, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: edward_n_kelly ]
-
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...Originally posted by lcm1947:Maybe they were speaking of the M1 carbine which shoots a entirely different round the .30 Cal.
Big different as everyone knows. This has to be the answer as the 7.62 can only be beefed up by so much and even then no noticeable difference would be seen in power to speak of. My guess anyway.
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 thatOriginally posted by BloodyBucket:As to what JMB was thinking of when he came up with the design, I would guess, since I really haven't read anything on his thoughts, is that he was trying to provide the infantry with fire support that could go "over the top". I would wager he was after an "assault" rifle, and since the tripod mounted HMG was showing itself to be more than up to the task of defensive fires, the lack of a changeable barrel and the twenty round magazine were small matters.
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....The original BAR was the result of a long design process by Browning, starting in the previous century and running to the first world war. Before the war his idea did not get much notice, although his use of gas operation and other public elements of his design (which were in fact also in use in his shotgun and in the potato digger) formed the basis of almost all light weapons -- because it was very difficult to size down the Maxim and the Gatling was a non-starter as a manual weapon."
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?Originally posted by Big Time Software:Simon and Edward, gee... what a total shock to see your contributions to this thread. Tell me, do you troll our BBS specifically looking for opportunities to get your digs in on Slapdragon? Neither of you have been a part of this thread, so why are you hear now? Hmmm...? And at least Aunty Jack was a part of the discussion before he made a purposeful flame bait post. But in any case, kindly keep your own personal vendettas off this BBS. It is tiring to say the least and is, IMHO, 10 times worse than anything you accuse Slapdragon of.
And Triumvir,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />BTS may want this BBS to be nicey-nicey; hey, it's their BBS and I'm all for letting them screen out behaviour they don't like. All I ask is that when UBB comes out with a killfile or a scoring system where we can filter out authors, they upgrade to it; in the meantime, we have no choice but to listen to idiots and tune them out as best they can.
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:Originally posted by Simon Fox:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Big Time Software:
John,
Could you please take the edge out of your posts? There is no need for it. If you have an issue with what someone writes, fine. Point out what you take issue with and state why you object to it. There is absoluely no need to toss in a bunch of "tosh" when having an intellectual conversation, even if you disagree with the other side.
Thanks,
Steve
Very perspicacious. Don't worry, I'm sure he'll soon settle down now he's familiar with the nature of the beast.</font>Inventing silly statements and putting them into the mouth of your interlocutor is a childish and unconvincing mode of argumentation, and I strongly suggest that you pack it in right now. -
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 ?Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Determinant, you are of course correct, and you raise the further water-muddying question of written versus spoken English. I would indeed (and in fact, always have) refer to two men holding the appointment of sergeant major, verbally, as "sergeant majors."
I have no idea who comes up with this stuff. Verbal english has always been prone to shorthand, reference the word "ain't" - for decades used in spoken English only, it is only recenlty and reluctantly, I suspect, that it has been formalized in the dictionary as written English as well.
Such is the same for our Sergeants Major.
(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
Will be possible HMG indirect fire? (reverse slope fire)
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
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