Bren Gun Tripods

[Michael Dorosh]

Still trying to figure out what the point of the bren Tripod discussion is. It may interest some of the SL players that I devised a set of rules for the Bren Tripod for use with ASL

STABILISED FIRE - from the online magazine VIEW FROM THE TRENCHES

Basically, no one has proven one way or another how often they were used; I am reasonably certain (as Germanboy has added) that their AA use was quite rare, and I know for a fact that the ability to use them at all while on the attack was virtually nil.

It has been pointed out by John Howard (?) that they were issued 1 per platoon - but no one has presented any evidence that they were ever used.

Would be interested in feedback on my ASL rules, and on how you think the weapon would be treated in CM.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Still trying to figure out what the point of the bren Tripod discussion is. It may interest some of the SL players that I devised a set of rules for the Bren Tripod for use with ASL

STABILISED FIRE - from the online magazine VIEW FROM THE TRENCHES

Basically, no one has proven one way or another how often they were used; I am reasonably certain (as Germanboy has added) that their AA use was quite rare, and I know for a fact that the ability to use them at all while on the attack was virtually nil.

It has been pointed out by John Howard (?) that they were issued 1 per platoon - but no one has presented any evidence that they were ever used.

Would be interested in feedback on my ASL rules, and on how you think the weapon would be treated in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr Dorosh - on the site you cite one tripod per gun and then a reduction to one per three.

Skennerton only ever mentions one per three weapons. Where did the one per weapon idea come from ?

As to their use - I have seen numerous photos via the AWM site showing it was use and trained on quite extensively - at least in Australian Service.

As to the storage on the platoon 15cwt - are you describing Infantry or motoised Infantry units ?

The difference in vehicles on the equipment table determines where the vehicles were normally stationed (which echelon).

[Slapdragon]

I have numerous pictures of the Loch Ness Monster. Better evidence, well correlated, and cited, is what this topic really needs.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

As to their use - I have seen numerous photos via the AWM site showing it was use and trained on quite extensively - at least in Australian Service.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, next time you drag the AWM into this, could you also mention that a search on 'bren tripod' turns up a wooping 13 out of 200,000 pictures, with all of the captions on WW2 mentioning their use as AA guns, and the only mention of a ground role being an exercise in Japan and then Korea? In the spirit of being a bit more honest with your evidence? Would help to take you more serious too.

[Andreas]

To make a more general point, since some people here seem to believe that some pictures or a single account/training film whatever constitutes all the evidence needed.

First - if you want to be taken serious as a participant in a discussion, how about giving other participants all the facts? Sweeping the parts of the evidence that contradict your opinion under the carpet (as the guy masquerading as the Aussie PM has done) makes you look ridiculous if someone calls your bluff.

Second - qualitative research theory (which is what this comes down to) acknowledges that you can never know The Truth. What you can do is collate as much evidence from multiple sources as possible, so that you can feel confident about your conclusion. At some point of your choosing you say - this is enough, I am confident. That is when you go to expose it to peer review, which in our case would be the board, in academia it is a conference, a seminar, or a journal article in a peer-reviewed journal.

This comment is aimed at the Australian who asks about what history is. His opinion is wrong. History is not the experience of multiple individuals, it is much more than that. Historical study is the analysis of these experiences, and other evidence. In qualitative research, relying on a single source (be it a few pictures, a training film/manual, a vet's account) is the short-cut to failure. All you then have is a strong opinion. If you want to arrive at something that is believable, you have to collate all the pieces of evidence, see how they stack up against each other, and analyse them as a whole.

Now whether you like that or not, or whether you think I am arrogant or whether some Australians or anyone claim a dispensation from this approach, the hard fact for those of you with strong opinions and not a lot of evidence is that this is the way things are done by serious people - so if you want to be taken serious, you conform to it. If you want to be seen as a clown, you don't.

At the moment, the guy masquerading as the Aussie PM is a clown.

FWIW.

[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

At the moment, the guy masquerading as the Aussie PM is a clown.

[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, but at least he's OUR clown!

Regards

Jim R.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Maybe, but at least he's OUR clown!

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My condolences.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Yes, next time you drag the AWM into this, could you also mention that a search on 'bren tripod' turns up a wooping 13 out of 200,000 pictures, with all of the captions on WW2 mentioning their use as AA guns, and the only mention of a ground role being an exercise in Japan and then Korea? In the spirit of being a bit more honest with your evidence? Would help to take you more serious too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to broaden your search critaria, Germanboy. The AWM is like many such organisations, highly dependent upon how good the original cataloguers and captioners were. If you do a search just under Bren and then browse the photos, you'll find a large number of them are actually, of Brens on Tripods, as well as Bipods.

When I posted those photos, I did a search under several critaria and found the two clearest. You appear to have not realised that in order for two pictures to exist, one taken in 1942-3 and the other in 1950, of the same piece of equipment, in two very different locations, the piece of equipment must have been in fairly widespread and continious service.

The AWM though, is an incredible resource for the military researcher, being one of the few military museums which has been willing to put a lot of its information online.

[rune]

Bull...

I can show you a photo of an T28 in Europe, and show you another 5 years later in the US. According to what you say, that means there were lots of them and used commonly.

There were in fact 2 T28s [American] and neither was used.

I have 15 pictures of KV-1s in German Markings, wide spread use? Nope. About 60 all told.

The photos could have been taken DUE to the rarity of the equipment.

Just photos proves nothing. Come up with numbers, usage reports, amounts made, common practice etc, then argue your case.

I got things added into CMBB using PROOF, not obscure photos that mean nothing.

Rune

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

I think you need to broaden your search critaria, Germanboy. The AWM is like many such organisations, highly dependent upon how good the original cataloguers and captioners were. If you do a search just under Bren and then browse the photos, you'll find a large number of them are actually, of Brens on Tripods, as well as Bipods.

When I posted those photos, I did a search under several critaria and found the two clearest. You appear to have not realised that in order for two pictures to exist, one taken in 1942-3 and the other in 1950, of the same piece of equipment, in two very different locations, the piece of equipment must have been in fairly widespread and continious service.

The AWM though, is an incredible resource for the military researcher, being one of the few military museums which has been willing to put a lot of its information online.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, it is to late to try and teach you good solid historical research methods, although Andreas is trying. Instead realize this: If you were to try and publish an article based on the flimsy evidence you are presenting here in a genuine peer reviewed publication, it would get bounced. The reason is simple: A sample of 2 photographs not drawn purposely does not in any way prove anything in professional history study. #1 you have no history of the photograph to tell why it was taken. #2 you have not compared your draw of two in any way with other sources that confirm use, and indeed when Mr. Dorosh presents a chain of evidence concerning deployment of the tripod you do not respond, #3 If you are presented us a qualitative analysis you do not explain how methodologically speaking a two or three photograph draw can be extrapolated to cover 10 years of field use of the weapon, #4 for being all into "personal accounts are primas" you are interesting enough ignoring oral historical evidence on this one, at least you have not presented a good line of data to support your reasoning. This is sloppy history and is why people who go along with your assertions. There are 5 more points that need not be crought up here, but even an undergraduate in history knows more than to base an entire argument on a very thin evidence chain and spurious logic, at least if he is going to pass a course in a reputable undergraduate institution.

At this point, use of Bren Tripods is: unsupported. Also, the effect of Bren Tripods when used is: unsupported.

Now there is a need to reply to Andreas's "other Australian". This is Mulga Hill, formerly "Kim Beazeley" prior to his banning and now returned. He says that Brian thinks that primary source history is better than secondary source, but this is not what Brian is doing. Brian is using personal experience and linear or single source support to prop up prest notions. It is a flaw that people new to history often make, and it usually gets stomped out in the first paper review.

Primary source is using documents or peopel, or even buildings and vehicles that survive, plus modern scientific tests. Secondary source is relying on people who have come ahead of you. If they have done there job right, then they save you a lot of time.

When I have a theory, and I use primary source historical methods to test it, I need to find documentary evidence of several varieties, if it is recent events I do oral interviews, and I correlate these into a landcsape that indicates what truth may be, then I present my theory as "support" or "not supported". Others than read my theory and support, and make judgements based on the quality of my sources, and the quality of my use of those sources. This is the much hated peer review.

Simple system, but it works well.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

I think you need to broaden your search critaria, Germanboy. The AWM is like many such organisations, highly dependent upon how good the original cataloguers and captioners were. If you do a search just under Bren and then browse the photos, you'll find a large number of them are actually, of Brens on Tripods, as well as Bipods.

When I posted those photos, I did a search under several critaria and found the two clearest. You appear to have not realised that in order for two pictures to exist, one taken in 1942-3 and the other in 1950, of the same piece of equipment, in two very different locations, the piece of equipment must have been in fairly widespread and continious service.

The AWM though, is an incredible resource for the military researcher, being one of the few military museums which has been willing to put a lot of its information online.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While your opinion about the AWM appears to be correct, the rest of your post is just what Rune said. Bollocks.

I just did a search for 'bren'. Returns 911 hits. I scanned the first 310 of them. This is conclusive proof that:

a) there were tripod mounted brens in the Australian army

these were used in the AA role, and in the desert with the fluid situation the dugouts would be adapted for dual purpose, without changing the primary mission of the gun.

That is all they prove. Come up with something better than harping on about this old chestnut. Otherwise, join the clowns.

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

My condolences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL.

[Michael Dorosh]

I have to side with rune, Germanboy and Slapdragon on this one.

Guys, I wanted to discuss the portrayal of this weapon in CM. Let's assume it was actually used once or twice - how would you portray it?

And was my portrayal of the weapon in ASL anything like logical or accurate?

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

Skennerton only ever mentions one per three weapons. Where did the one per weapon idea come from ?

...As to the storage on the platoon 15cwt - are you describing Infantry or motoised Infantry units ?

The difference in vehicles on the equipment table determines where the vehicles were normally stationed (which echelon).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will need to track down that source - possibly Ian Hogg's and Mike Chappel's article in Military Illustrated.

The 15cwt refers to infantry (rifle) battalions. Did motor rifle battalions have 15cwt trucks for the platoons by 1944? I thought all the sections were mounted in carriers and halftracks, but come to think of it, I have no idea where platoon stores were carried.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune:

Bull...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are entitled to your opinion, Rune. However, I am as well. I would suggest you are wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I can show you a photo of an T28 in Europe, and show you another 5 years later in the US. According to what you say, that means there were lots of them and used commonly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, it does not. What it proves is that there were two of them, as you point out.

However, in the case of the two photos that I posted, along with the others at the AWM, it is obvious that this is a piece of equipment that soldiers (and in several cases, ADG's as well) were widely trained on. Indeed, one of the photos, showing members of 3 RAR in Japan, undertaking predeployment training before going to Korea, indicates that it was a piece of equipment that was still in use a considerable period long after most commentators suggest it had been abandoned.

Now, I don't know about other armies but I suspect they, like the Australian Army do not train soldiers on equipment which they do not actually use. In the case of 3 RAR, its predeployment training was rushed, because of the urgency of the situation in and around Pusan. Again, units in such situations, do not waste valuable training time on equipment they do not intend to utilise in combat.

Your example of the T28 is flawed also because we know from other evidence that it was an experimental AFV and that only two were manufactured. I can produce photos showing tripod mounted Brens being utilised in ALL of the theatres of war and afterwards, that Australian troops were employed - Western Desert, Palestine, Syria, SW Pacific and of course the Korean war one.

Now, can you really with a straight face tell me that such evidence has absolutely no value?

I would dearly love to be able to, produce at the drop of a hat, other supporting, corroborating evidence, however I cannot. I presently live in the most isolated state capital in Australia (and some claim the world). I am over 3,000 kilometres from a decent library. Even so, I am presently attempting to find that corroberative evidence through several different methods.

So, you'll have to wait.

Even so, I find it interesting that you are denying such obvious and IMO clear cut evidence as presented by those photos. I suggest you read the captions. You'll find they are not describing the unusual - rather the mundane. Another clue, which of course, you would dismiss out of hand, it would appear.

[Enoch]

And what exactly does the deployment of tripod mounted Brens in either the Australian Army or in Korea have to do with CMBO? It might be relevant to the CM3 or CM: Beyond Pusan.

[Andreas]

Tripod mounted AABrens, even. I look forward to Brian addressing that point.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

You appear to have not realised that in order for two pictures to exist, one taken in 1942-3 and the other in 1950, of the same piece of equipment, in two very different locations, the piece of equipment must have been in fairly widespread and continious service.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. That's one heck of a statement. May I ask where you learned this 'axiom'?

-dale

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch:

And what exactly does the deployment of tripod mounted Brens in either the Australian Army or in Korea have to do with CMBO? It might be relevant to the CM3 or CM: Beyond Pusan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps because they show that they were more widespread amongst Commonwealth armies than you realise?

The significance of the Korea war picture is that it shows the piece of equipment had a much great longivity than was realised. I for one had always assumed, as I had read, that the use of Tripods was basically discontinued after the early war years. Appears I was wrong.

And Germanboy, perhaps you'd care to tell us the difference between a Bren AA tripod and a Bren ground tripod?

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

And was my portrayal of the weapon in ASL anything like logical or accurate?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have played a LOT of SL/ASL.

1. Was the "takedown" time such that it could be done reasonably in a 2 minute ASL turn?

2. Since there are no extra barrels or extra ammo present (or did I misread) then perhaps the presence of stable platform should just increase the ROF and range of the standard Bren and not the FP? I mean really, in a sense an increase in ROF is and increase in FP over time. I think a higher ROF is more valuable in game terms, in fact.

-Those are my ASL opinions, without knowing anything about the gun itself.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

You don't know the diff between an AA and a ground mount? It is the same tripod, but configured differently.

Brian, you really are embarrassing yourself here. Armies train on equipment they don't actually use all the time.

Ever do a gas mask drill?

So did WW II soldiers of all armies. They never actually used them - but there are tons of pics of troops in respirators.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:

I have played a LOT of SL/ASL.

1. Was the "takedown" time such that it could be done reasonably in a 2 minute ASL turn?-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'll see in one of the notes, I compare it to the German tripod. I based the takedown time on the German one in ASL, as I've been hands on with both types of tripod and the takedown times would be about the same.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

And Germanboy, perhaps you'd care to tell us the difference between a Bren AA tripod and a Bren ground tripod?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, stop arsing about. You know as well as I do that the pictures of tripods shown are almost all (if not all) showing the gun in an AA role. I don't know whether that is a different tripod, but my guess would be that it is not, there was only one tripod, which was used for the Bren in an AA role. In the ground role pre-Korea, there are no pictures of the tripod being in use amongst the 310 I scanned through. But you know that. All the training pictures bar one - AA training (and that one is indifferent).

You are still a clown Brian. A 3rd rate clown at that. Bring some more evidence. So far you have proved to me that the tripod existed. Now go and prove that it was used in a ground role. Hint - the picture gallery won't be enough. Alternatively, get yourself a funny car, a few cakes, really big shoes and a bugle. That would be more amusing.

Grow up already.

[Andreas]

Quite frankly Brian, you have nothing to add to this thread. You have made your point about the pictures, obviously you failed. You should gracefully accept the failure, curse us morons who don't believe in 'The World according to Brian', and move on. Maybe go and prove somewhere that the Valentine was the greatest tank of WW2. Or better yet, pick up a book on qualitative research methods and read it.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

However, in the case of the two photos that I posted, along with the others at the AWM, it is obvious that this is a piece of equipment that soldiers (and in several cases, ADG's as well) were widely trained on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed? What makes it 'obvious'? Is it explicitly stated in the caption? Maybe we're just having a semantic derailment here - perhaps you mean 'it is possible and therefore of interest to me', and not 'it is obvious'?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Indeed, one of the photos, showing members of 3 RAR in Japan, undertaking predeployment training before going to Korea, indicates that it was a piece of equipment that was still in use a considerable period long after most commentators suggest it had been abandoned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know anything about the Australian contribution to the Korean War, but I do know that among the first U.S. forces that were sent were garrison troops from Japan. I have read that they had to break old equipment out of storage. Is it possible that your Korea picture shows something similar: troops being called up and mated with equipment (and doctrine) that hadn't seen the light of day in seven years?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Now, I don't know about other armies but I suspect they, like the Australian Army do not train soldiers on equipment which they do not actually use. In the case of 3 RAR, its predeployment training was rushed, because of the urgency of the situation in and around Pusan. Again, units in such situations, do not waste valuable training time on equipment they do not intend to utilise in combat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmm, see above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Even so, I find it interesting that you are denying such obvious and IMO clear cut evidence as presented by those photos. I suggest you read the captions. You'll find they are not describing the unusual - rather the mundane. Another clue, which of course, you would dismiss out of hand, it would appear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooo, there's that 'o' word again. Photos are....seductive, but only really useful in context. I was in the desert once and came home with two breathtaking landscape photos - a wonderful double rainbow and an exquisite 'sunset on creek' shot. Amazing stuff. From those two photos, one could assume that I was some Ansel Adams in training. But of course, the truth was that I was just your average dork with a point-n-shoot and slopped through 7 rolls of film and got lucky.

The closest analogy I can use from personal experience is my training in the field of paleontology. You have essentially found two fossils of the same type in two different rock strata, one 100 million years old, another 20 million years old. This allows you to confidently state "this animal lived 100 million years ago, and it lived 20 million years ago". You can then confidently infer that, the mechanics of evolution and fossilization being understood as they are, that the animal existed continuously throughout that 80 million year period. You can look at the types of rock strata each sample was found in and begin to make some general statements about the place where fossilization occurred (river/shallow shore/swamp) and therefore develop a theory of where it might have lived. If the fossils are nicely preserved you can study the physical details of the creatures themselves.

But then you're done. Anything more is what we called 'storytelling'. You can't claim to know (or even find out) what color it was, its diversity, whether it nested, schooled, was common or rare, or anything else of that nature. Not based on two simple fossils. No way.

-dale