Ogadai

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Ogadai, this is truly the most funny post I have read in a while. Spook was talking to Brian! Brian originally triad to base an entire argument in three pictures, much to the chagrin of the posting body with historical background. <hr></blockquote> Did he Slapdragon? He appears to believe and has stated otherwise. Whom is to be believed? A person such as yourself, with a notorious, if I may say it, track record of deliberately misrepresenting your opponent's argument or the person who made the original statements? <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Might I suggest it is a little early in your posting carreer to me the defender of trolls on this forum. I will, however, since you missed it, repost this for comment, <hr></blockquote> The first sentence doesn't make any sense and as for the comment, I read it the first time it was posted. I dismissed it then and I dismiss it again. It nothing more, it is an excellent example of of your condescending attitude, Slapdragon. The one which annoys the hell of me and it would appear most other posters from the antipodes. BTW, if Brian's "first two posts were flames" then what were your's to the thread entitled "the flavour of history"? Looks again, once more like a case of the pot calling the kettle, black, Slapdragon. Remember the quote I provided from the Bible? I suggest you follow it in future, if you want to try and claim that moral high ground which you're fond of assuming you occupy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> heh, I would have restrained myself, but with the thread topic I can't help myself to observe that seeing the pictures, it becomes obvious to me how the tripod would considerably enlarge ammo capacity and astonishingly facilitate barrel changes and therefore complete alleviate the Bren's main drawbacks... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was under the impression that the Bren was equipped with a quick change barrel. I seem to remember from my training as a school cadet, way back in the days of yore that indeed it had this thingy called a carrying handle and a lock on the barrel which was flicked up, after cocking the weapon and which allowed the No.2 to change the barrels quickly. Am I misremembering or something?

Slapdragon, the only person guilty of "distortion" is yourself. I've noted your inability to undertake self-assesement of your messages. The mere fact that you appear unable to percieve just how patronising you are, is indicative of that, as well as your belief that if someone criticises you, they are "insulting" you, whereas I presume that if you criticise others, you believe they over-react when they view it as an insult? My first two messages were critical. They weren't particularly insulting nor were they intended to be. I'm forced to wonder yet again if its a case of "don't do what I do but do what I say," with yourself Slapdragon. Now, you've chosen to run off and not answer your critics. So be it, I'll have to consider you a troll. As Spook has suggested, the problem with your picture is that it is merely that, a picture. It does not support your argument at all. Brian on the otherhand has utilised pictures to support or illustrate his points, as far as I can tell of the sample I've read. What I would recommend Slapdragon is that before you post that you step out of your shoes and put on those of someone who is reading your messages for the first time. You might find it a revelation.

Slapdragon, it appears that you continue to refuse to justify your original "nationalistic" comment. Further, it appears you're unwilling to explain the reasoning behind your picture. Therefore, I'm forced to conclude that you are very much a troll. You appear to delight in causing controversy and consternation. Such childish behavior on your part and you, a man who claims to be well-educated and knowledgeable too. I am disappointed.

Merely an observation. I can imagine someone would make the same observation if a gang of people started using British or German terminology to describe the US Army.

One other question slapdragon, what is your photo meant to prove? We all know the US Army had artillery, I thought the discussion was about artillery fire control systems. Brian's amusing picture at least shows that in action.

The US also produced an SP 57mm gun, mounted on a half-track. However, they never chose to adopt it, instead producing it exclusively for British use - who used it mainly in Italy, as far as I'm aware, although most were converted back to troop carriers as I understand it, once they hit the UK.

Slapdragon, I think Brian's been posting about your unwillingness to defend your position publically, rather than about your backroom discussion. So have most other people. We don't want to know what you said or did to whom. We want you to come out into this open forum and justify your comment that you made here. You've wasted so much time on avoiding it, one is forced to conclude that you know its shonky. I've noticed all too often that you appear to completely miss the point of other people's arguments and instead go haring off on what you believe they've said. Do you have an English comprehension problem? Its the only explanation I can come up with, for the consistent manner in which you invariably produce the completely wrong argument from what others are saying.

Slapdragon, appear to have a very poor ability to make self-assesements, if you believe you've only made 2 insulting posts. I've countered about a dozen in the last fortnight alone since I started lurking here. You may be more subtle than Brian but you still have this tone of smug superiority which makes most people want to leap through their screens and strange you. Now, as Simon has stated, you've made a statement in an open forum. To date, you've failed to substantiate it. You can run off and discuss it in your dark little back room with other members of your sewing circle or you can show some consistency and actually apply the same rules you apply it seems to everybody else, to yourself and substantiate your claim. Now, you've claimed I had it wrong about the ability of the US junior officer to call artillery. OK, substantiate that, please. How many radios did the US platoon cammander carry? What nets were he a part of?

I find it interesting how many American posters either refuse or unable to use the correct nomenclature for British or Commonwealth units. Note for Slapdragon - its merely an observation, not a criticism.

Slapdragon, this is pot calling, over! Or as it says in the good book, "let he who is without sin..." Having observed both you and Brian in action for some time I've come to the conclusion that you're as bad as he is. Your smug attitude is like a red rag to a bull for most people, Slagdragon. Tone down the air of superority and most people would be much more willing to accept what you have to say. Brian, you appear unable to control your tongue (or should that be fingers?) when you read a Slapdragon post. Yes, he's a pretentious twonk but its obvious he's been living so isolated from the majority of humanity he can't help it. You should take pity on the afflicted. From the evidence thus far presented and from what I know of both the Commonwealth and the American systems, it appears to me that the US system suffered from too many intervening links in the communication chain. While a platoon commander might have been able to call for fire, that call as far as I'm able to determine had to first go to the company commander and thence back to the battalion CP and then back to the artillery unit. The Commonwealth, on the otherhand, appears going by my reading to have utilised a dedicated net which was for the FOO's alone, and which allowed them to communicate directly with the artillery units when calling for fire. The FOO's were netted in, not only to the Arty net but also to the infantry net, whereas I believe an American Platoon commander would have carried only the one radio, which would have meant he was only on his company or at best, his battalion net. Am I correct?