John D Salt

The trouble is, there are more differences between different kinds of G than there are between an F2 and an early G, or a late G and an H. In practical CM terms, the difference between an F2 and a G might be 30mm of armour and an L/48 instead of an L/43 gun, or it might be nothing at all. Chamberlain, Doyle & Jentz have this to say (some of the syntax goes a bit wobbly in the middle, I think it means all Gs had extra armour from Dec 42): "From late March 1943, the 7.5cm KwK40 L/48 was installed instead of the L/43, with a total of 1,275 Ausf G receiving the L/43. Delivery of the Ausf G with additional armour bolted or welded to the front of the hull and superstructure began on 20 June 1942. Starting at 18 per month from July to November 1942, half of the Ausf G production were to be fitted with additional armour, from December 1942, resulting in approximately 700 Ausf G having the extra protection. Specific features: The early Ausf G was identical with the F2. This gradually changed throughout the production run as improvements were introduced. The first change entailed vision ports being eliminated from the turret sides and in the loader's side of the turret front. Other changes, in the summer of 1942, included a new style muzzle brake, installing a system which allowed the transfer of coolant to another Pz Kpfw to aid cold-weather starting, and smoke-dischargers mounted on the turret side instead of the hull rear. In January 1943, the driver's episcope (KFF2) was eliminated. In March 1943, a new cupola with thicker armour and a single-piece hatch was introduced together with "Schürzen", which were thin steel plates attached to the sides of the hull and which surrounded the turret sides and rear. The very late models of the Ausf G received a new type of drive sprocket, and the radio antenna was moved to the left hull rear, making it almost impossible to distinguish a late Ausf G from an early Ausf H." If you want to know the difference between a late G and an early H, it's the new transmission. All the best, John.

Not at all. I am saying it is impractical to train a single Human to be all things in all situations. This is why we have engineers and factory workers, firemen and policemen, accountants and sales people, politicians and crooks (OK, there is a lot of overlap there ). </font>

The great advantage of the RPG-7 is that the warhead diameter and overall size and shape are not limited by the characteristics of the launcher. This has meant improvement over the years in the armour-piercing abilities of available rounds, and a variety of other warhead natures becoming available. It would normally be a safe bet to predict that a weapon is reaching the end of its useful life when it is has been in service for 40 years, but for the RPG-7 that was five years ago. I see no reason why the weapon shouldn't go on almost forever; there will always be a need for infantrymen to project some kind of anti-tank, anti-personnel or anti-material munition a top a range of a few hundred metres, and as long as suitable warheads are available, the launcher need not change. Well make your mind up, you were comparing it to a pointy stick a paragraph ago. What shoulder-launched weapon does better, do tell? The TBG-7 rocket for RPG-7 works on exactly the same principle as the warheads of the RShG-1 and RShG-2. All the best, John.

Oooh, what a good question. I have no idea what underlying model BFC use for visual target acquisition, but the Night Vision Lab's ACQUIRE model is in the public domain and easy enough to code up (although it doesn't deal with target movement, nor how spotters direct their visual attention and hold things in memory). The good news is, if BFC use something like ACQUIRE (or for that matter any model based on the apparent contrast of the target with its background), then it can be used in much the same form for modelling acquitsition using thermal sensors -- on merely uses thermal contrast insytead of optical contrast. The bad news, as often happens, is that getting the data to feed the model is far from easy. All the best, John.

So that we collect the set, let's also mention OBUA (Operations in Built-Up Areas). MOBA and MOUT are American, FIBUA and OBUA are British, MOBA and FIBUA are old-fashioned, MOUT and OBUA are new. The abbreviation I prefer, though, is FISH (Fighting In Someone's House). All the best, John. </font>

So that we collect the set, let's also mention OBUA (Operations in Built-Up Areas). MOBA and MOUT are American, FIBUA and OBUA are British, MOBA and FIBUA are old-fashioned, MOUT and OBUA are new. The abbreviation I prefer, though, is FISH (Fighting In Someone's House). All the best, John.

A very good question. A few years ago, Sydney Jary wrote a piece for the British Army Review called "Bring Back my Carrier", in which he proposed a low-profile, all-terrain, remote-controlled vehicle to act as a sort of high-tech infanteer's barrow. The point of R&D into Buck Rogers wonder-junk is not to reduce the danger of combat, it is to make money for defence contractors. When you propose a remote-control infantry load-carrier to the defence procurement people, they go to sleep; when you propose devices that give you magical X-Ray vision, they say "Oooh, SHINY!" and order some. All the best, John.

"Much more better"? What part of Cornwall are you from, me 'andsome? All the best, John.

See, the main reason they give people security clearances is so that they can make sure they don't reveal the secret that there aren't a whole lot of newfangled gizmos whose capabilities you are completely unaware of. That, and to conceal gross incompetence in various agencies of the defence ministry. All the best, John.

Scorpion's long gone -- at least, the turrets are, the hulls have been combined with Fox turrets to make Sabre. The rest of the CVR(T) family soldier on, re-engined and waiting for the current spasm of studies to be completed on a replacement recce vehicle. Depending on how you count, we are now on the fifth or sixth go at replacing CVR(T). It's lucky aluminium doesn't rust, isn't it? All the best, John.

But the American army has historically had the apparent luxury of choosing the job it wants to do -- high-intensity continental warfare -- because two oceans and the USN ensured that any wars it went to would be on somebody else's turf, and the USMC was always around to tidy up unexpected difficulties in its limited number of overseas possessions. The British Army, on the other hand, has always preferred the attitude "We'll do it. What is it?", and have worked at various times as firemen and bin-men and not thought it beneath their dignity in that curious way American soldiers seem to show whenever the possibility is raised of their perhaps doing or training for anything other than sweeping armoured thrusts through the Ukraine. Either you can claim that it is a bad idea for soldiers to be trusted to decide who needs killing and who doesn't, or you can deny that the American reputation for "shooting first and asking questions later" is undeserved, but it seems to me that you cannot do both without being inconsistent. While I'm offering free advice (worth almost as much as you paid for it) on matters of US national defence policy, it's also past time for the US Army and DoD to get over its obsession with re-structuring. What is needed is not a change of structure to meet every new purpose the Army is given, but an Army with a general-purpose structure. The same goes for the British Army, but even more so, as it can afford the buggering about still less. All the best, John.

Yeah, nothing apart from the locals but the Iranian border to worry about, what an absolute doddle that must be. It may be absolutely false, but it is certainly not completely false, as video evidence of some dramatically fifth-rate VCP drills has shown. I invite you to consider how many civilian dead there would have been if an American unit had been involved in such an incident. Anyone with a nodding acquaintance with 20th century history will know that in each of those countries the real trouble started after the Brits left. Cynics might even suggest that the same applies there. Errh, name one. Palestine. And withdrew in accordance with the UN mandate and partition plan. What else do you suggest should have been done? "Numerous screw-ups" is just a different way of saying "more experience". As I've pointed out elsewhere, since 1945 the British Army has deployed on more of this kind of operation than the US Army has, with the USMC somewhere in the middle, so it's no surprise that the ability of each force to undertake this kind of thing should be in proportion to their experience. What, Eastenders not appropriately grateful for American assistance during the Blitz? How terrible! All the best, John.

So we get the French included as well? Cool! By which I mean totally sweet. All the best, John.

For continental armies, yes, but the designers at Chertsey never gave up the idea of heavy armour; and it was, of course, they who eventually came up with the technical solution in the form of Chobham armour. All the best, John.

Mr. Picky notes that they've put "APDS" where they mean "APCR". Also, why does the turn rate appear to be given in grades per second? Nobody in real life actually uses grades, do they? All the best, John.

Dunno how's things with completely fictional guys like "Tom of Finland" or "Sergei of Finland", but we are not completely unaware about electricity here. Granted, I'm not so sure about those far northern locations, but at least on the southern coast, where most of the Finns live, we have heard about the secret of electricity. </font>

Even Finland??? </font>

In fairness, this was not a uniquely British approach; the French and American armies did exactly the same, and the Russians used an even more elaborate division of tank types. Hard to think of it as a particularly Anglo-Saxon error when one looks at the generation of MBTs that saw service in Western Europe in the 1960s -- Chieftain, AMX-30 and Leopard. All the best, John.

True, although in small points-value actions the fact that the points come from different budgets may sometimes make a difference. There is, however, something very satisfactory about not merely knocking out an opponent's Tiger with an RPG thrown by a team hiding in an isolated hut, but also cutting down the Tiger's crew with SMGs when they abandon their vehicle and run for cover to that same hut. All the best, John.

It's certainly true that artillery does the lion's share of the killing in "big people's war"; it's also certainly true that "Suppression is the key infantry task". However, I disagree with the conclusion you apparently draw from this, namely that the infantry's job is to fix the enemy so that arty can strike him. It's the other way round; for all the casualties it inflicts, the main task of artillery is, like that of the infantry, suppression. It is the infantry's job to go in for the final kill. It's not for nothing that the fixed callsign for infantry in the British Army used to be "Foxhound". To obtain this final decision, the other significant task of the infantry is to close with the enemy. When I was in the TA the mission of the infantry was stated as "To close with the enemy, observe him, and destroy him"; now we have come over all maneouvrist, this has been re-cast to read "To close with the enemy, observe him, and act in such a way as to bring about his defeat" (and I have seen the disgruntled addendum "Provided that's OK with everybody and no-one gets hurt"). But "acting in such a way as to bring about his defeat" can still, even in this age of lightweight mobile 'phones and one-calorie soft drinks, mean a screaming-Jesus bayonet charge. The qualities that need distinguishing here are destructiveness and decisiveness. Artillery is far more destructive than infantry, and has been since Napoleon's time. It is, however, practically incapable of producing a decision on its own. A decision is only reached when a friendly infantryman can "winkle the other bastard out of his hole and make him sign the peace-treaty". The bayonet is fairly rarely used, and much more rarely does it inflict casualties, but while vastly less destructive than artillery, it is much more decisive. Once the battle has got to knife-fighting range, it is going to be decided pretty soon, one way or the other. You'll have heard the old saw "Tanks can overrun things, artillery can destroy things, but only infantry can hold ground". What "holding ground" means is that your infantry can walk over the ground, and his can't. You may have any number of billions of dollars' worth of Buck Rogers wonder-junk surveilling and monitoring and bombarding a piece of ground, but until your infantry can walk over it, you don't control it. Guilio Douhet doesn't believe me, of course, but he's hugely and colossally wrong. All the best, John.

The original intent of the Hague IV ruling was to outlaw weapons "calculated to cause unnecessary suffering". No mention of untreatable wounds, as Tarquelene seems to think, nor of deadliness, as you seem to. Poisoned projectiles are outlawed, but otherwise the intent is simply to prevent gratuitous nastiness which has no military necessity. As for the US being bound by "dumb ideas other people make up", the Hague peace conference of 1907 which produced Hague IV was convened at the suggestion of the President of the United States. As for "people who will never have to experience the real-life effect of their policies", recall that the President in question was Teddy Roosevelt, who I believe was no stranger to combat. All the best, John.

Yes please. Especially if it will enable me to work out how to build my Matchbox 1/76th Panthers without further enriching Messrs. Jentz and Spielberger by purchasing their mighty tomes. All the best, John.

When the glorious day dawns and I seize power, there will be an armed Logic Police with broad powers whose daily task it will be to protect the citizens of Great Britain from this kind of irrational and illiberal twaddle. Until then, I suppose I shall have to content myself merely with pointing out some of the more egregious departures from fact and logic... Not so; gun control began in the UK in the 1920s, largely the result of government fear of the International Communist Conspiracy murdering us all in our beds. While there were knee-jerk responses by government to the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, very many classes of weapons had been sharply restricted long before either. Any logic in such bans can be searched for in vain, as the most deadly class of close-range weapon, the shotgun, remains the least closely regulated. The least dangerous, the handgun, is entirely banned. This is a breathtaking piece of nonsense. If the reduction of gun crime was not the reason given for firearms regulation, what is the government doing it for? Just because it hates firearms enthusiasts? The reason shooting enthusiasts do not like the government's silly rules on firearms ownership is that it deprives them of their sport. However, it is surely fair enough for them to point out the uncomfortable fact that handgun crime has increased steadily since handguns were banned, so the legislation has failed in its intended purpose. And the handgun ban in the UK has clearly failed to do this; handgun crime continues to increase. The error committed by the muddle-headed legislators, and if one can judge from your illustrations wholeheartedly endorsed by you, was that of failing to perceive the distinction between FAC holders (one of the most punctiliously law-abiding sectors of society) and the criminals who perpetrate gun crime. Possibly if some way had been found of taking steps against those committing the crime, instead of against those who weren't, the measures would have been more effective. Nonsense. This sort of bleating about "public safety" has always been the pretext tyrants have used for their misrule; often they set up committees to look after it. In the case oif hanguns, the government set up a commission to report on the matter, and then, true to the British tradition of arrogant cluelessness by dim-witted rulers, proceeded to ignore the commision's recommendations for no discernible reason. Punishing the innocent (practically all FAC holders) by confiscating their weapons and banning their sport was a disgracefully illiberal thing to do, and the fact that a large number of muttonheads would have agreed to such a thing had they had a chance to vote on it does not make it "democratic" as the term is understood now (in ancient Greece, maybe). The fact that it was also completely ineffective in the terms imagined by the framers of the legislation, and produced a colossal and expensive waste of police time, are just the icing on the cake. Still, I suppose that as long as we citizens of the UK continue to permit ourselves to be treated as spineless cattle, we shouldn't be too surprised at this sort of thing. All the best, John.

What's silly about it? When I was shown something similar with a single 7.62 round from an LMG, it was pointed out that the water-filled drum is about the same mass and density as a human target. If nothing else, it demolishes the silly argument I've seen someone make that people only fall over when shot because they are conditioned to by what they see on TV. All the best, John.

That would have been about the same time as I was having fun with one at weekends with the TA, having finally decided that it really was preferable to the dear old L4 LMG. A 1958 design, I believe, which makes me think that one could kit out a present-day infantry company with small arms and MGs pretty well if one restricted oneself to weapons no less than forty years old. AK-M, PK-M and RPG-7 if you fancy a Russian flavour, FN-FAL, FN-MAG and Charlie G if you fancy something more Scando-Belgian (as the British Army did); or G3, MG-3 and PF-44 Lanze for something German. The 40-year limit would just get you an early AR-15, too, and with IMR powder in the cartridges, before the Ordnance Board changed it to ball propellant and screwed up the weapon. For an HMG, Dushka and Ma Deuce still seem to be pretty much the only choices. I've never fired an M-60, but AIUI from Ian Hogg and Jane's Book of Infantry Weapons, it was designed in a deeply cunning fashion to remove the main advantages of gas operation. Instead of having the gas act on the head of a piston, like any normal gas-operated weapon, the gas bleed fed into a hollow piston by means of ports in the piston side. This meant that once the piston started to move back, the ports went out of alignment with the bleed from the barrel, and no more oof would be imparted to the piston. This "constant-energy" gas regulator was a sealed unit, not maintainable by the user and offerring no means of adjustment. If the constant energy wasn't enough to cycle the gun, as for example in conditions of heavy fouling, then tough luck. The way it is done in the Bren and the FN-MAG seems clearly preferable. Also, the bipod was attached to the barrel, and an asbestos glove was required to perform barrel changes. All the best, John.