Bren Gun Tripods

[rune]

Lets see what the experts say. From the:

http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/weapons/bren/bren.htm

States fired from the hip or the bipod., How about this one: http://www.wwiitechpubs.com/barrack/inf-uk/inf-uk-lmg-bren/inf-uk-lmg-bren-br.html

I quote:The Bren’s curved box magazine can hold 30 rounds, but usually packed only 28 in order to avoid straining the magazine spring. One version used a 100-round drum magazine for anti-aircraft purposes.

Bren operators usually fired from the hip or rested the gun on the built-in bipod, and only rarely set up the tripod. British soldiers were cautioned to fire only single rounds at first contact, to hide the machine gun’s presence from the enemy and to conserve ammo. They also learned to loose bursts of four or five rounds. Expert operators could coax five box magazines a minute from the weapon.

Or how about this one: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/6498/t2000ww2britishsmallarms.html

I have more where the people who USED them state they seldom used the tripod.

Rune

[Slapdragon]

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

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You cannot also call the animal "common" from the start to the end of its career on earth, you cannot say that it had a "wide range" through out its career, you cannot say that it was a food animal for another animal, that it was the deadliest animal in the jungle, or that it survived because of its unique bone plates in its head. Your sample of two creatures 100 million years apart gives you no data on range (like 20 creatures spread across 10,000 square kilometers of land would) population density (like a find of 6000 skeletons with 60 of the paticular dino in it would) or why it survived. In fact, there is even pit falls to consider -- for example maybe it was a rare creature but its habit of falling into tar pits means lots more bones are recovered.

With the Bren, maybe RE troops, having the pods in their trucks, just like to set up Brens with them when the photo guys come by. Also maybe your own searching for gold has made you miss the granite that makes the gold so rare.

[Brian]

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the difference. I suspect Andreas did not until he read your comment.

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would suggest that they trained against the possibility of needing them, Michael.

So, tell me, do you do all the IA's on your weapons for no purpose as well?

We used to have one on the SMG we used to use - the SMG F1, which was in case the weapon had a - get this, a leaf or other foreign object, egress into the body of the weapon.

I'd have personally said it was highly unlikely to happen but we still learnt it, most religiously. Obviously, someone, somewhere thought it would be a good idea in case it happened.

I would suggest that I am merely making a point, based upon the evidence which is available, at the present moment.

I find it interesting that whereas you have not presented any "evidence" merely opinion, as far as I can tell, your not attacked for it. Whereas I present evidence - in the form of visual evidence and produce a line of reasoning to support my argument, I am attacked for it.

Such is the vagaries of being brave enough to put one's hand up, I suppose.

BTW, I apologise for suggesting you'd mentioned the use of the tripod at Arnhem. I'm sure someone has but if it wasn't you, I apologise for suggesting it was you.

Anyway, off to bed. I will log in again tomorrow evening and I'm sure I'll see the same usual array of insults, attacks and idiocies from some.

[dalem]

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

You cannot also call the animal "common" from the start to the end of its career on earth, you cannot say that it had a "wide range" through out its career, you cannot say that it was a food animal for another animal, that it was the deadliest animal in the jungle, or that it survived because of its unique bone plates in its head. Your sample of two creatures 100 million years apart gives you no data on range (like 20 creatures spread across 10,000 square kilometers of land would) population density (like a find of 6000 skeletons with 60 of the paticular dino in it would) or why it survived. In fact, there is even pit falls to consider -- for example maybe it was a rare creature but its habit of falling into tar pits means lots more bones are recovered.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent work! My old advisor (damn his dark heart) would approve.

-dale

[Andreas]

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

Such is the vagaries of being brave enough to put one's hand up, I suppose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh how exciting - now we get treated to the Brian against the rest of the world routine. Yeah, it is a tough life, but I am sure you feel very Messianic about it. So that's alright then.

Your photos - fine. Your reasoning based on them, very dodgy. An 'F', and a 'must try harder'.

I am normally not getting so upset at these things, but I have really had it with some people who come in here with the flimsiest of evidence making wild claims, and when challenged resort to intransigence instead of engaging with the arguments.

[Michael Dorosh]

rune, if you weren't so ugly I would kiss you

[Slapdragon]

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

Anyway, off to bed. I will log in again tomorrow evening and I'm sure I'll see the same usual array of insults, attacks and idiocies from some.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is one point you have missed in your flaming. It is not up to anyone to disprove your opinion, only to look at your methodology and determine if it passes muster as being supported or not supported. It is up to you to properly support your evidence, not throw a temper tantrum when it is refuted or questions, and if you want to be listened to, make a strong case.

Let me repeat, since this is basic science 101 here. It is up to you to show the paradigm needs changing. The paradigm need not even defend itself if an attempt to change it is not well supported.

Now, some people like Micheal Dorosh, Germanboy, and Rune have tried to present basic data going just a bit further to show there is no problem with the current modelling, but they did not have to. They merely have to look your idea over critically to determine how muchg the facts support it.

[Maastrictian]

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

The closest analogy I can use from personal experience is my training in the field of paleontology.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's another paleontologist on the formums?? What's your interest? I'm into dinosaurs myself, mostly K-T boundary stuff.

--Chris

(sorry for the off topic post, at least its not a flame )

[dalem]

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

There's another paleontologist on the formums?? What's your interest? I'm into dinosaurs myself, mostly K-T boundary stuff.

--Chris

(sorry for the off topic post, at least its not a flame )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Chris, I never finished my Master's Degree due to personality conflicts with my advisor (he's a poopoohead) but I've maintained it as a side interest. I was aiming for Marine Reptiles and bioevolution and the like. Now I'm just a poor internet dialup geek. I miss it though. Did I get my fossil junk correct?

-dale

[Viceroy]

Dorosh,

I'm no sure if this is helpful but Terry Gander in his book on Allied WW2 Infantry Weapons says, " tripods convertible into AA mountings" were available in 1939 but "gradually disappeared" during the war, rarely being used, "apart from a few special applications." Some tripods were retained until the '70's.

He has a picture of twin Brens for AA use with twin 100 round drum magazines. No shots of any tripods though. AFAIK he is a well respected author on military weapons.

[Enoch]

So, I guess we have 3 references that say the tripod mounted Bren was rare. One even says that most of the tripods were left in France after Dunkirk. On the other side we have some pictures of tripod mounted Bren's that say they exsisted.

I say we let this topic die until further evidence is provided that says 1) tripod mounted Brens were actually issued and used 2) they need to be modeled as they add something to the game that isn't there already 3) they actaully apply to CM.

Australians may well have used the tripod mounted bren but it does not matter for CMBO.

Unless you can show the Brits or Canadians using them after D-day, then to quote my favorite Australian Rick Springfield, the point is probably moot. Australian usage will only matter to CM in terms of the Mediterranean.

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

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

Can I have it pointed out to me where I have "...Sweeping the parts of the evidence that contradict your opinion under the carpet..." ?

[Mulga Bill]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can I have it pointed out to me where I have "...Sweeping the parts of the evidence that contradict your opinion under the carpet..." ?

Ditto, please for myself and others.

[Mulga Bill]

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

Lets see what the experts say. From the:

http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/weapons/bren/bren.htm

States fired from the hip or the bipod.,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tsk, tsk, selective quoting Rune? Now, that is sloppy research. In fact, what it states is:

"It was mostly fired from the ground, mounted on the bipod that formed part of the weapon, but it could also be fired from the hip. On the bipod, the Bren had an effective range of just under 550 metres, but mounted on a tripod it could deliver fire out to almost one and a half kilometres."

How does that statement contradict what has been stated by Brian, John or others?

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

How about this one: http://www.wwiitechpubs.com/barrack/inf-uk/inf-uk-lmg-bren/inf-uk-lmg-bren-br.html

I quote:...

Bren operators usually fired from the hip or rested the gun on the built-in bipod, and only rarely set up the tripod.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the meaning of the word "usually", Rune? Does it mean there is a complete preclusion against other methods being utilised?

BTW, I have problems with an article written by someone calling themselves, "Justin "LooseCannon" Riggir".

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

Or how about this one: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/6498/t2000ww2britishsmallarms.html

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It actually states:

"The BREN was developed from a Czech light machine gun the ZB vz/30, the name was derived from Brno the Czech company that designed it and Enfield where it was built. It was a popular weapon which gained a reputaion for durability and reliability, in modified forms it remained in service with the British military into the 1990's. The Bren first entered production in 1937 but the main production version was the Mk 2 which entered service in 1941. The Mk 1 and Mk 2 are nearly identical and most of the changes were minor modifications to speed production. A tripod was made for the BREN but it was rarely used, most were left in France after Dunkirk. The BREN was commonly used as an anti-aircraft weapon on vehicle mounts."

What is the meaning of the word "rarely"? Does it preclude its use "sometimes", Rune?

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

I have more where the people who USED them state they seldom used the tripod.

Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, you have [b}two quotes which states they were "rarely used". You have a third which mentions their being used and even provides some information as to their advantages/performance.

I'm forced to ask again, though, how does this contradict what has been said?

I've seen no one claiming they were "common" or that they were "used all the time". Rather I've seen people suggest that they existed and they were utilised and used for an extended period of service (well beyond 1940 in France, as well). They were also in use across a wide gamut of theatres of operations - at least for the Australians.

How this has come to be equated in your mind to some sort of mention of frequency of use, I have no idea.

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Mulga Bill ]

[Andreas]

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

[/qb]Can I have it pointed out to me where I have "...Sweeping the parts of the evidence that contradict your opinion under the carpet..." ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thingy, you dragged the AWM as support for your thesis about the tripod, and conveniently 'forgot' to mention that all it proves is use of the tripod mounted Bren in the AA role. Which makes it irrelevant. As I set out before, but since you obviously have problems understanding my English, I just reiterate.

Mulga Bill, grow up.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Thingy, you dragged the AWM as support for your thesis about the tripod, and conveniently 'forgot' to mention that all it proves is use of the tripod mounted Bren in the AA role. Which makes it irrelevant. As I set out before, but since you obviously have problems understanding my English, I just reiterate.

Mulga Bill, grow up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I was the one calling for the quote not Mulga. I am not he and he is not me (thankfully - never could abide push-bikes).

Still did not provide the quote. Cannot find any perchance ?

Anyway, at least two of the photos that were published were of the tripod used for ground fire (one in Korea, one in training in Australia)- how does this prove your case and/or dispprove the original poster ?

[Andreas]

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

Actually I was the one calling for the quote not Mulga. I am not he and he is not me (thankfully - never could abide push-bikes).

Still did not provide the quote. Cannot find any perchance ?

Anyway, at least two of the photos that were published were of the tripod used for ground fire (one in Korea, one in training in Australia)- how does this prove your case and/or dispprove the original poster ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at your own posts here, hard to quote you on something you did not say. Yes, one in Korea (actually two I could find). So? What is the relevance to WW2? You also conveniently 'forgot' to mention that it was Korea. The second picture you mention is actually not clearly in the ground role, but general weapon training by the looks of it. Even if it were - what is the relevance of training in Australia to the discussion here?

Mulga Bill also asked for clarification of something. Unless you two are a split personality (and really, I find it hard to believe that Australia can not only produce the amount of denseness I witnessed here recently, but also that all of you frequent this place - what has happened? Shipment of PCs with modems to the hillbillies of Australia?), I wonder what he means.

Face it, you are firmly in the clown camp, together with Brian, the unlamented poster known as Kim, and your buddy Mulga will have a way to go before even attaining clown status. Get some evidence beyond the AWM pictures wheeled in, and we'll talk.

I am out of here.

[rune]

And I have a problem with someone who has to hide behind other names while being banned.

In your feeble mind, you say I am against the tripod, NO where did I say that. I only stated two pictures is not proof.

I also stated I have other documentation from veterans, which I will post later. They all say the same thing, they were rarely used. I never said they were never used, again, something YOU read into it.

I want more proof for common use. Numbers, frequency of use, standards of use, etc.

Use in Korea or Pacific proves NOTHING for the time period covered in CMBO.

rune

[rune]

Oh, here is another one that I have. Obviously everyone else understood I have more sites to post except Mulga Bill, who reads into things that aren't there.

http://www.britishairborne.org/infantry.html

Note for British Airborne, a crew of two, one with the gun and one with ammo. Umm...who is carrying the tripod?

Here is one of the quotes from a veteran that I supposedly don't have.

The Battery moved to Antoing in Belgium where it carried out its secondary role protecting the 48th Division moving up, by Bren guns mounted on tripods being used against aircraft. We saw plenty of action during this period as enemy aircraft were over in large numbers every day. Whether the Bren gun was very effective as an A/A gun was very doubtful. I only saw one aircraft shot down and every gunner in the Battery was convinced his was the gun that scored the hit.

Altho this was early war at Dunkirk.

Rune

[Slapdragon]

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

And I have a problem with someone who has to hide behind other names while being banned.

In your feeble mind, you say I am against the tripod, NO where did I say that. I only stated two pictures is not proof.

I also stated I have other documentation from veterans, which I will post later. They all say the same thing, they were rarely used. I never said they were never used, again, something YOU read into it.

I want more proof for common use. Numbers, frequency of use, standards of use, etc.

Use in Korea or Pacific proves NOTHING for the time period covered in CMBO.

rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just for clarification Rune and Germanboy. Mulga Hill = Kim Beazely banned by BTS last week and returned by unpopular demand. John Howard is not Mulga Hill is probably not Kim Beazeley, although the identity this is pretty hard to work out. With so many multiple personalities it can be hard figuring things out as 4 posters hailing from Australia completely familiar with the subject at hand pour onto the board.

[Berlichtingen]

Ok, I'm a bit confused. What have tripod mounted brens have to do with the Russian Front? Nothing? Then BTS ain't gonna be adding it anyway

[Kurtz]

As rune pointed out earlier, photos are generally taken of unusual stuff, a picture of a knocked out tank would be more interesting than a pic of a knocked out truck.

If one only used the frequency of certain equipment in a set of photos, one can easily come to the conclusion that the German army was almost entirely mechanized, especially in the 1939-40 campaigns.

Furthermore, photos in wartime are often taken for propagandistic purposes which can lead to false conclusions when trying to use them as evidence. There is also the possibility, especially during wartime, that a censor has decided to only allow some of the photos to be published, thus creating a biased view of the subject.

[Slapdragon]

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

Ok, I'm a bit confused. What have tripod mounted brens have to do with the Russian Front? Nothing? Then BTS ain't gonna be adding it anyway<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The argument stems from an ancient (4 weeks) thread started by god knows who that forwards the theory that the Commonwealth has been screwed by anti-commonwealth feeling in the BTS design team, leading to the provision of tripods for the MG-42 but the ignoring of tripods on the Bren (with the argument further being continued to state that the Commonwealth are being screwed because they could shoot their bolt-action rifles with more deadly effect that the autoloaders of the amis due to training, funnies were left out as a plot against the commonwealth, etc.).

An attachment to this is the repeated statement (John Howard and Eumundi) that the customer is always right, therefore BTS should make the Commonwealth XXXX.

The poster(s) originally demanded that BTS quit kicking the commonwealth and fix CM:BO, but now are more aiming for on coming CM products.

The counter argument has been in all cases except perhaps one (fascines) there is not enough evidence being presented to make the assumtions thay make (either that BTS is screwing the commonwealth, or that XXX Commonwealth item was uber or avaialble, or whatever).

[Slapdragon]

There is one way to use photographs, but it takes much more careful work and more historical knowledge that has been shown with the latest round of "I found a picture" talk.

If you take a large mass of pictures, and identify where they each came from, discarding posed or propaganda pictures, then did a survey of the remaining picture by some criteria, you may be able to tell something. What you can tell depends on your survey.

I was curious about oral history accounts on the use of the M1 Carbine in the front lines of US forces to counter the growing number of automatic weapons in German hands, especially since it is not supported in documentation, so I did a NARA search through the barely indexed endless pictures taken by the U.S. signal corps in World War Two. Breaking them out to get just the ETO, and then further discarding any rear echelon types and support troops carryong the weapons, I ended up with around 6000 or so combat photos of front line infantry.

Then I dated the pictures and placed the unit they were assigned to into an army. Then I simply took the picture by month and counted carbines to other weapons on men who were working infantry jobs.

Low and behold, there was a marginal but significant increase in the number of carbine weilding joes from June 1944 to the end. It seems that some units were getting some extra carbines. With thousands of pictures I also found out that the 30 rd magazine was rare, and that carbines tended to show up in towns, and that if the increase was really supported, it was small (an extra carbine or two in a squad in some divisions / armies).

Is my work proof? Of a sorts, but it will not and could not stand on its own because it was not a true random sample, photgraphs are not often taken of the mundane but of the unusual, and enough pictures were mismarked to keep anyone wary of putting to much faith in this methodology.

The only reason you do it is to look for one more link in a chain of reasoning, and building a huge mountain of supposition off of even my 6000 image pseudo-survey is not all that great of a system.

[Berlichtingen]

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

The argument stems from an ancient (4 weeks) thread started by god knows who that forwards the theory that the Commonwealth has been screwed by anti-commonwealth feeling in the BTS design team...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah! that clears it up. I only made it through about 3 posts of that thread before I said to myself, "self, read no further... it will raise your blood pressure"

[bloody evil UBB]

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Berlichtingen ]