Private Bluebottle

It is also easier, in some ways to carry. In addition, because it is quite possible to link belts, to essentially have an endless supply (as long as the logistics bods can keep pushing it forward) of ammunition for each weapon. HOWEVER! There are downsides! Belt-fed weapons are much more prone to stoppages - primarily because of rubbish ingested into the feed mechanism by the belt(indeed, anybody who does a "Rambo" and festoons themselves with belts of link is a fool for that very reason). Further, link must, because of its very nature, be supplied as a seperate line item, whereas a magazine fed weapon can make use of either loose or clipped rounds as can the rifles of the section (although, as a caveat, it must be pointed out, with link you merely open the container, with loose or clip you must load the magazine). Finally, perhaps the one thing against a full powered rifle chambered belt fed MG is the weight of the ammunition. While 100 rds of link is lighter than 100 rounds of magazine, carrying 100 rds on the gun is bloody heavy, whereas on the magazine fed weapon, the load is more evenly distributed around the person and then around the section. Which is why you'll generally see belt-fed MGs on the advance only carrying ~25 rds in a short helt or a snail drum/bag. Which in the end means there isn't all that much difference - on the advance between the two weapons. On the defensive however, the difference is obvious (do you need it spelt out Wartgamer? ).

And the MG34/42 is what then? That the Bren was used at multiple levels is essentially meaningless. It was and remains primarily an LMG. An excellent one. Arguebly perhaps the best of the WWII period IMHO. Damn good weapon to fire too, from my experience.

Doesn't it also limit the effectiveness of the CW Vickers platoons/companies? I'm not a big CW WWII guy so the concept still boggles my simple mind, but weren't the Vickers platoons more likely to be using some form of long ranged indirect fire than not? -dale </font>

Standard Jeep trailer was a quarter ton capacity.

The bren most likely wasn't 'mounted' in the carrier, rather it would have been carried. IIRC most support weapons carriers were of the Windsor type - i.e., unarmed. </font>

Gee Wiz you undermine my faith in the War Department. A War Department that, I might add, had every German document West of the Elbe, and a few million German POW's. I find, in general, that its is not a bad rough guide to German TOE's for '44. </font>

Wrong. "Did not" might be more correct. The MG Corps was disbanded in 1920 IIRC. After that, MGs were definitly part of and treated as Infantry. Except by 1918, each section had a Lewis. I'd recommend reading Paddy Griffiths, "Battle Tactics of the Western Front". The British had by 1917 evolved very similar tactics that the much vaunted "Stormtroopers" are usually credited with. MMGs were indeed centralised and that made sense, as they were considered a technical art, requiring considerable training to make work properly and keep working. That logic began to fall apart with the introduction of the Lewis. However, other facets of centralisation such as close co-ordination of fire, ammunition resupply and so on continued to have a bearing on how they were employed. Personally, I see nothing wrong with such centralisation, as it ensures that the weapons are used most effectively, compared to penny-packetism.

You're right, doh! I forgot about that Frog's were used in Borneo by 2/1 Armoured Brigade! Make that two pieces of "circus" equipment.

http://worldatwar.net/article/australiantank/tankpacific.html so its basically a short range heavy mortar. I guess you wouldnt want to be too close if they fired all those off at once! </font>

The turret ring was substantially enlarged between that used on ACI and the ACIII, from 54in to 64in (admittedly, that was only on the experimental twin 25 Pdr vehicle but more than likely would have been adopted for the ACIV with its 17 Pdr). What was significant was that the tests with twin 25 Pdr were noted and applied to the Firefly.

I was under the impression that 81mm Mortars remained the main battalion weapon, whether in their shortened form or their normal lengthed tube.

I am glad that you included your disclaimer. Wartgamer did not.

Really? Rum as I said was still on the Ration Tables for the British and Australian Armies as of at least 10 years ago. It is an excellent "pick me up" for cold weather, when used in moderation and thats the point, it is issued at the rate of one "tot" (about 50 ml) per man, per day. Perhaps you'd care to provide a quote or a reference to support your claim? Nope. None. Again, care to provide a quote or a reference to back your assertion. Funny, one of the thing always noted by Allied veterans was that the Germans always had excellent and plentiful supplies of artillery rounds. Perhaps not on the lavish scale they themselves enjoyed but enough to be noticeable.

Weather and circumstance would explain that. Rum was issued as a cold weather supplement (indeed, still is and is available in the ration tables as such, I speak from experience on that one, as I was a Rats clerk for 5 years). The Reichswald battle was rather cold and wet, exactly the time when rum would have been issued.

Actually, it was intended to provide an even greater hinderance to the enemy's ability to move troops, either forwards or rearwards. The MGs would have blanketed the area with a continous rain of rounds, falling nearly vertically. Any position without overhead cover, which had been missed by the heavier weapons would have provided little shelter from such an MG barrage. It was a tactic well developed during the Great War.

heh, good point I saw that one as a morale thing - forcing the guys to get out of their vehicles for a substantial part of each day so they get used to the idea of being able to function without 2 inches of steel between them and the enemy. One of the NZ Armd Regts followed the infantry into Cassino town in Feb/Mar 44, and were unable to withdraw at nights, and very close to the enemy. As a result the crews spent several days in their vehicles, and started exhibiting some odd behviours. You know where to find the NZ OHs if you want to check it out. Jon </font>

Belt-fed MGs were and are often fired from the hip and shoulder. Indeed one of the Australian Army's firing details for the GPMG is from the shoulder and the hip. Your assumptions are, I would suggest, based more upon ignorance than reality.

They are Standing Orders. It is how a unit commander expects his soldiers to behave. They are like SOPs but carry more force and you can be court-martialled if it can be proved you disobeyed them. Its not stated when they were issued. They may well have been before the invasion of Europe and when action had been engaged for the first time. It might also be simply how the unit commander wanted his soldiers to behave and he wanted to communicate the gravity of his intent by making them Standing Orders rather than a SOP.

From what I recall from the one time I actually got to fire a Bren while in army cadets, the thing used to pull forward after recoil and drift slightly to the left, even from a prone position. So I think it'd be a bit of bugger to hip fire. </font>

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not but I'd like to be able to introduce a pause for units, both at the start and partway through their moves. In otherwords, I'd like to say, "unit x moves after y seconds." and "unit x moves y metres, pauses z seconds, move w metres". It would make co-ordinating action much, much easier. At the present moment it is nearly impossible to advance a unit behind a creeping barrage, or into a smokescreen.

I wonder what Movement Control thought of that? Convoy speed is more about controlling movement of units, in an orderly and disciplined fashion, rather than necessarily getting from point A to point B in the fastest time. Its usually governed by not only the conditions that the unit is moving through but also when the unit commander and his superiors want his unit to arrive or depart a given location. Its about avoiding congestion as well. I've seen incredibly detailed convoy movements ordered to move brigades and I've heard extremely brief convoy orders issued to move platoons and companies (ie "You know the drill, you know the route, you've done it often enough, lets get there toute sweete, I'll be bringing up the rear. I intend to be doing 80 mph!" - and they did, with fully loaded trucks which were supposedly speed limited to 45 mph. )

Right, thanks for the information. JonS, you mention that the 2 Pdr's bearings would seize from overheating on long marchs. Thats the first I've heard of that. Any references? If the 37mm M3 was prone to "bounce" due to stiff/non-existent suspension, that would have limited towing speed, even on smooth roads. Having driven Plant which had no suspension as such (relying on tyres alone to provide "bounce"), I know that once you hit about 25 km/h, you're lucky to hang on, as even the mildest bump sets you bouncing. I also wonder about the "handiness" of the 2 Pdr, versus the 37mm. According to one reference I've found, one of the main criticisms of the 37mm in the 1941 Louisana Maneaouvres was that it was found difficult to engage "fleeting targets" because it had to be pulled around to face them, whereas the 2 Pdr's turntable mount was always able to traverse quickly to engage new threats easily. Does anybody know therefore the into and out of battery times for each type of weapon?

I agree. Being able to select between sustained and rapid fire would be useful. I've probably mentioned weapon heating in this thread already, so I won't go over that again, other than to say it's a good idea </font>

There may be other factors involved such as the springing (suspension) of the wheels and whether or not they had bearing races for the axles. The first will determine how fast you can tow over rough terrain, the latter how fast you can tow on smooth roads. Then you have the sturdiness of the mount's construction. The little French 25mm, while an adequate AT gun literally shook itself to pieces if towed at high speeds, which wasn't a disadvantage to the French who largely relied upon horses still for towing in 1940 but the British whom the guns were given to, used motorised vehicles so they had to find an alternative method of towing the weapon. So, I take it no one has anything constructive to say?

I'm particularly interested in discoving the maximum towing speed for the US 37mm AT Gun and the Commonwealth 2 Pdr AT Gun. Anybody go any idea?