Bren Gun Tripods

[Brian]

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

Because it wasn't used operationally, or if it was, such use wasn't widespread enough to merit recognition in CM. Just like gas masks, bicycles, Lee Enfield rifle grenades, yellow air recognition panels, or other ephemera.

[ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, the Jagdtiger was widespread, was it, Michael?

So, the Jumbo was widespread, was it, Michael?

There are numerous other examples.

So, should we be discussing availabilityorusage?

I'd hardly call, BTW, the Bren Tripod a piece of "ephemera" if the numbers you calculated in the earlier thread are correct.

[ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Michael Dorosh]

From my Korean War vet friend:

"The Bren my favourite weapon. I am not aware of tripods being used by the Canadian Army in Korea. I vaguely recall seeing a demonstration when I was a cadet during WW II with a Bren on a tripod for fixed lines. The tripod could then be converted for AA use."

Seems consistent to me - the Vickers was so widely used (by Korea, they were out of Machine Gun battalions and into heavy weapons platoons at the battalion level) along with Browning MGs that one would be suspicious about Bren tripod use in Korea. I don't suppose there was much need for AA stuff either.

Of course the Bren tripod was ephemera - just like the respirator. They stayed on the platoon trucks (or got cast into the nearest ditch) quite frequently.

We have SF kits for our C6 machine guns today that rarely get used, either. Then again, we also don't carry respirators on exercise. I don't think I've even worn a gasmask since basic training 14 years ago.

[Spook]

Tell you all what.....let's try a different tack altogether, and consider indeed the premise of including the Bren tripod for a future version of CM.

What is beyond debate here is that the tripod existed, and that it did seem to see usage at some level in the Commonwealth armies at select occasions or circumstances. Thereby, the "realism" viewpoint pursued by Brian et al is that because it existed, and because it was used, it should be included in CM.

Alright then. For the moment, let's again all assume that a tripod-Bren is available in CM. So what can be anticipated in modeling this?

The first issue in my mind is firepower rating. Would the tripod improve this? My estimated view is "yes & no." Using a tripod wouldn't mean that the Bren would have increased firing rate, as it would still be a clip-fed weapon, and still probably couldn't sustain-fire as long as an MG42 before barrel-changes. So, closer-range firepower probably wouldn't improve too much, and still be less than for an MG42. But from the comments of Ben Hall's father in his veteran experiences, a valid argument exists that long-range firepower, and maximum effective range, would stand to be more increased in proportion.

The next issue is "deployment." How would a tripod-Bren be represented? (Do take note, also, that BTS usually strives for historical TO&E arrangements for platoon & company organizations.) Would it be its own team? Presuming that a squad inherently keeping hold of a tripod-Bren, and still being able to "fast-move," is not a safe presumption, further given that even bipod-LMG42 teams can't fast-move.

So the options would be this: the tripod-Bren would have to be its own team. Or a squad with a tripod-Bren would have to be a "slow" squad that can't fast-move, and probably have less firepower in "assault move."

Of course, this can be mollified some by a "split-squad" command, allowing the half-squad without the tripod-Bren to maintain fast movement. However, all of this differentiation in squad/half-squad movement capability, due to a tripod-Bren, would have to be flagged in the CM program code. Certainly possible, but not likely simple.

Therefore, the more likely case is that the tripod-Bren team would be a unique unit, and not within any squad, and thus similar in function & limits to a LMG42 team. But again, if this team is sought to be applied within a platoon or company TO&E, where would it fit? If the case of a 1-per-platoon ratio, the answer is that one of the platoon squads would have to give up its Bren and some personnel.

Or, a separate tripod-Bren team could be purchased in the "support units" list. But if rarity factor is applied to weapons as well as vehicles in CM's future, then a special tripod-Bren, not within a normal TO&E, may be regarded as very rare, and therefore of poor purchase value.

So what does all of this translate into for a Commonwealth infantry platoon with an inherent tripod-Bren? It translates into a platoon with some marginal improvement in overall firepower, but with less flexibility, as one of its inherent base-of-fire (BOF) weapons now has retarded movement ability. This could be an acceptable trade in a defensive stance, if the platoon is intended to maintain a relatively static position. But a tripod-Bren wouldn't likely keep up in an attack or a quick withdrawl.

The preference of each CM player would also be an issue, so Commonwealth purchase lists would likely require platoon/company TO&E's with & without the tripod-Bren. From my own view, I want my squad BOF weapons to keep up with my squads, and the marginal increase in platoon-level firepower isn't worth losing this. If I want added firepower, I look to Vickers MG teams, tank support, on/off-board mortars, and artillery.

So there it is, folks. A speculative viewpoint on what tripod-Bren would be like in CM.

The tripod-Bren (either in AA or ground mode) existed, and found usage in some place or another, under some given circumstance. The open question is to what ultimate value is seen by including the tripod-Bren in CM. Others can differ, but I am uncertain that the tripod-Bren responds very well to meeting the "Dragonfox" guidelines, which helps indicate if the CM-scope "return-on-investment" for its inclusion is worth the BTS effort.

[ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Spook - that's exactly what I was looking for with my original post. Thanks.

I think the problems of portability would preclude it from CM, unless a squad so equipped set up permanently as two half-squads.

[Brian]

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

Tell you all what.....let's try a different tack altogether, and consider indeed the premise of including the Bren tripod for a future version of CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough although, I will perhaps point out you've made a mistake in one part of your reasoning.

[Slapdragon]

Brian's post is so full of fallacies that it is probably very important that it be corrected, at least in terms of the general discussion.

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

[/qb]

As I am overly uninterested in whether or not the weapon/equipment meets the "Dragonfox" guideless, I don't particularly care. I'm more interested in creating the correct balance and choice for the player as to what was available to his real life counterpart. We've seen considerable time and effort expended by BTS to model rare, exotic and unusual weapons for the other combatants but it appears the Commonwealth has to be short-changed. However, I've made my views clear on that matter in the past and won't repeat them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This of course is incorrect. The usage of the Bren Tripod may be, so far with data on hand, placed into the "very rare" category and thus in full reaslism, will be much much more expensive for QB battles. The fact that it is that so far digging by some very good historical people, Germanboy, Rune, Dorosh, and others, has only incredibly sporadic use. In addition, there is, as of yet, not a real model for its inclusion: ie. if it does not change fp numbers enough, it is just a slow bren.

In general BTS did not model exotic weapons for any side unless they previously had models already for similar items. Brian of course misses this ( despite it being written about 16 million times -- selective retention of memory is wonderful).

As for the Dragonfox questions. Brian can care or not, but they are like the laws of gravity, immutable. BTS has already said they have their own versions of that list and did not object to that summation, so it is a good working document. So if he wants to see a real change in the paradigm he can look at them and take them into account, or esle he is just ramdomly trolling.

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

[/qb]

The mere fact that some of the less Matahir-like posters have moved from outright denial to acceptance of its existence and use, tends to indicate that some people aren't so driven by ideology or antipathy as some others are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of those nonsense statements that clutter up arguments. The arguments were not against Bren tripods, they were against poor historical research methods followed by people putting them forward. No one has even doubted they existed except as part of the scientific method, and no one has proven they were anything more than extremely rare.

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

[/qb]

BTW "TO&E" is an American acronym, just as squad, in this context is also an American term. Don't you think you should be at least making an effort to use the correct terminology?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TO&E is a term of art accepted in the gaming community since Tactic II used it in its manual. To borrow a phrase, "thems the breaks". If wargaming had first come about in Australia, then maybe a different term would be in use. If Linneaus had not studied Latin, scientific naming would be different.

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

[/qb]

I'd also suggest that if you're going to apply late 20th century tactical doctrine to the matter, you're losing sight of what the game is meant to be doing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is not. He is applying modern understandings of combat to historical wargaming, which is how firepower figures, tank penetration, and other factors are arrived at in the game. Fact is, there has been a great deal more research into the tactical battle since WW2, and only a loon would fail to take that research into account when gaining an understanding of the WW2 battlefield and building a simulation for it.

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

[/qb]

I've noticed that the mythical "HMG42" cannot convert to an LMG.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is because you have a poor understanding of the MG42 tactical uses, and what all is in an HMG team.

Overall, the most important issue is the issue of historical reasoning and the accusations that BTS are biased against commonwealth, not teh Bren tripod with its extremely minor usage, limited advantage, etc.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

We've seen considerable time and effort expended by BTS to model rare, exotic and unusual weapons for the other combatants but it appears the Commonwealth has to be short-changed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Short changed in the rare and exotic department, eh? Interesting. Tell you what. Open up CM and go the the British armor purchase screen and you will find what may be the most rare and exotic weapon in the game. As you are a military historian I'm sure you'll spot it right away.

I'll be far more sympathetic to calls for rarely used stuff to be put in after all the common stuff is put in. The absence of Bren tripods pales in comparison to the absence of the M16.

[M Hofbauer]

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

[QB]Militaries do not waste time training their soldiers on equipment which they do not intend to use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

reality check. you are very wrong there, my friend. *epecially* in WW II the armies didn't train their soldiers on the new frontline equipment, but on the obsolete, second/third line equipment, because the top-notch equipment would go to the front, not to training. this applies to all branches, bomber pilots / bombardierstraining on older planes, tank crews given their basic training on old types, and riflemen doing their boot-camp with old stuff. to a degree this still holds true todayx but it especially holds true for WW II, where the newest vehicles and equipment were needed at the front; maybe today the modern armies try hard to do the basic training on the front-equipment (but still een today in many units the boot camp and basic miliotary training is done with the G-3 in the german army, while the real infantry then uses the G-36, an altogether different weapon; wghy? because for training purposes it suffices to use the old, readily available and therefore cheap, 40-year old G-3). but in ww2 the armies didn't have the luxury< to train their huge armies on the same equipment they would later encounter in their service units: to quote yourself: I'd also suggest that if you're going to apply late 20th century tactical doctrine to the matter, you're losing sight of what the game is meant to be doing.

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

[QB]I'd say it reverts back to its normal firepower - remember, the Bren can still be utilised as an LMG, unlike MMG's. Indeed, I'd also suggest that if the unit chooses to abandon its tripod and leave its assigned pit, perhaps to take part in a counter-attack or advance to contact, it would merely revert to being a normal rifle section and that is a key point - the Bren can abandon its tripod. I've noticed that the mythical "HMG42" cannot convert to an LMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

meeeep - wrong again. the candidate has no points so far.

the MG42 can be put onto the tripod and taken off just like that. there *is* no HMG42, just a regular MG42 put onto tripod in an HMG role.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Short changed in the rare and exotic department, eh? Interesting. Tell you what. Open up CM and go the the British armor purchase screen and you will find what may be the most rare and exotic weapon in the game. As you are a military historian I'm sure you'll spot it right away.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would it happen to be a certain earlier series of a tank made by the USA and "hotted up" by the UK? I gotta tell you, though, the pictorial evidence pursuit here in the CM forum was pretty intense at the time.

(That's all the hint that Brian gets, if I guessed right.)

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I gotta tell you, though, the pictorial evidence pursuit here in the CM forum was pretty intense at the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember. Babra is gone now, but maybe Brian can put his rare pic finding abilities to work for a different cause...

[...If we could turn him, he would make a powerful ally.

Yes. Yes... ]

:cool:

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Short changed in the rare and exotic department, eh? Interesting. Tell you what. Open up CM and go the the British armor purchase screen and you will find what may be the most rare and exotic weapon in the game. As you are a military historian I'm sure you'll spot it right away.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'll have to be a little more specific as to which period (month) in the game, as the availability of vehicles changes.

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

I'll be far more sympathetic to calls for rarely used stuff to be put in after all the common stuff is put in. The absence of Bren tripods pales in comparison to the absence of the M16.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As to the absence of the M16, thats a problem for the American proponents. I'll let you wage that battle yourself. I am more interested in getting an accurate portrayal of the British/Commonwealth forces - the Americans are well represented IMO - like the Germans, far better than the British.

[Spook]

So where did Babra head off to, Vanir?

Pressing on, here is a revealing comment:

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

I'd also suggest that if you're going to apply late 20th century tactical doctrine to the matter, you're losing sight of what the game is meant to be doing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Working with tanks, mortars, & artillery (with a dash of CAS for select occasions) in combined-arms fashion is fully in the realm of WWII tactical warfare, more so in the last two years. Pick up a copy of Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy" to read a compelling case as to how so.

Doubler also notes further that combined-arms doesn't simply come off due to to separate arms, like tanks & infantry, being located together on the same battlefield. Regrettably, in the US Army prior to D-Day, tank/infantry coordination techniques were very poor or even nonexistent (except in the veteran divisions), and this coordination had to be learned the hard way in the Normandy bocage. But in due time, it was.

Further, Brian, you may opt to do so, but choosing to dismiss the "Dragonfox" guidelines in arguing for a CM revision is not going to get you much traction. This guideline set isn't "law" due simply to Slap's & Simon's summarization; it is instead that, a summation of the game designers' rationales in responding to revision requests. Provide a case to each of the guideline points in a compelling way, and then you'll gain some traction.

But I will be so bold, and venture to guess the core matter as to why something as seemingly marginal as the Bren-tripod is pursued as a revision request.

It is because of the direct firepower of Commonwealth platoons appearing to be lower in comparison to other nationalities in CMBO. The UK rifle squad actually compares closely to the German '44 rifle squad, but the Germans have more infantry TO&E options that can provide higher-firepower squads like panzergrenadiers, sturmkompanies, FJ, etc., some which nearly double the small-arms firepower of the equivalent UK rifle unit.

Now, I could be cavalier and say, "Sorry, Brian, but them's the breaks." Because in historical terms in NW Europe, it was indeed the case that the Germans could commonly outgun the US/UK at the firefight level (though not always). And the Bren tripod alone is not going to rectify this.

But do take note that I highlighted the word "appear" earlier. That is because in grand-tactical & operational terms, the Allies ultimately trumped the supposed German infantry tactical edge. US/UK artillery support was usually more reliable, more flexible in response, and usually with more tubes able to add fire than the German artillery could in NW Europe. And after proper tank/infantry coordination was learned, the Allies were usually more likely to have tank support on hand for their infantry.

Even if the German Army of 1944 could had been completely re-equipped with the MP44 before D-Day, the end result would've still been the same. And probably with little change to the timeline of events.

However...........

For the last month, I have been actually toying with the concept of "aimed fire" and how it might be implemented in CM's future. It is only just a theory for peer review, but when I hash it out a little better, along with some attached graphics files, I desire to broach the subject later if someone here can link in the pictures from their website. (I can't link pictures from Bravenet anymore.)

After all, isn't that really the core issue in pursuing a Bren-tripod revision? More options for "firepower"?

[Michael Dorosh]

The correct British term for TO & E is "War Establishment" but I am willing to bet that few people here would recognize it. Yet years of playing SL has me, at least, very familiar with TO & E. I think it's a term everyone here understands.

I don't see how anyone can justify the statement that the British in CM were shortchanged. The Crocodile (of which only 50 were built) is readily available for purchase. If the 25 pounder comes short, well, all artillery was abstracted and treated the same (thought the time to call in such fire, especially when properly simulted with TRPs, is quite low compared to German artillery - and rightly so).

I keep promising myself I will stop reading this thread - but it is nice to see Spook and Markus now contributing as well. I like the point about training on second and third line equipment - something I mentioned in specific terms earlier, but of course Markus is correct in the wider example - and there are many other specific illustrations of that, from tank drivers learning on Pz IIIs rather than Tigers, etc.

[Spook]

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

You'll have to be a little more specific as to which period (month) in the game, as the availability of vehicles changes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two more hints, Brian. (Yeah, I know, I'm being too generous.) It's available in all of the CMBO monthly periods, and it packs a high-power gun.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

As to the absence of the M16, thats a problem for the American proponents. I'll let you wage that battle yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That "battle" was waged long ago, and I really have no interest in going through it again. It's really quite pointless as BTS isn't going to be adding any units to CMBO anyway.

Besides which I am not an American proponent or a proponent of any other nationality. I think of it as a problem for whoever owns the game. But then, I will gladly play any nationality in CM as I have no real world issues or agendas with regard to any of the nationalities represented. I guess I'm weird like that.

The only reason I brought it up was to make the point that every nationality had plenty of stuff left out for various reasons, so there is no justification for singling out the Brits as being unusually picked on.

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

The Crocodile (of which only 50 were built) is readily available for purchase.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDIT: Dorosh led me astray. It's all his fault, I swear!

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

So where did Babra head off to, Vanir?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Moved back to Israel from what I hear. Went to live on one of those Jewish farm comunities (Kibbuts? or something like that).

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[JonS]

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

...The Crocodile (of which only 50 were built) is readily available for purchase...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Only 50? Chamberlain and Ellis give a figure of 800 built by May '45 (with 250 going to the Far East). The Petard AVRE numbered 750 by about the same time.

[M Hofbauer]

Michael,

of course you had already stated the same (training equipment not equalling frontline service equipment), even before Brian nonetheless clamored on in is original notion that they would always use what they had during training. I thought I had referred to that post but apparently forgot. Maybe he will get it this time around (doubtful).

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

As to the absence of the M16, thats a problem for the American proponents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

great, so you even admit you are not interested in realistic portrayal in CM, but exclusively on the portrayal of british forces in CM.

Brian,

on said british armor item in CM - the vehicle is so obviously mysterious in itself (leaving aside the portrayal in CM) that one does not need a timeframe to single it out as such. Just take a glance at the vehicles available. It will strike you as odd. If you are unfamiliar with british armor then simply check each of them. You will quickly find out which one we are referring to.

And you would definitely attain legendary status on this board, regardless even of your poor performance so far, if you would indeed manage to achieve the feat to produce a definitive, conclusive, convincing pictorial evidence on it.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Really? Only 50? Chamberlain and Ellis give a figure of 800 built by May '45 (with 250 going to the Far East). The Petard AVRE numbered 750 by about the same time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake - 800 were produced, but not all were used operationally.

Big mistake on my part - I just rechecked my reference. Did seem a bit odd. However, how many did the 79th Armoured use at any one time, and who else had them? 51 RTR used them in Italy, apparently.

In any event, it makes the case for excluding the Bren tripod that much more concrete.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

...great, so you even admit you are not interested in realistic portrayal in CM, but exclusively on the portrayal of british forces in CM...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hof, IMHO this is unfair of you. That Brian chooses to focus on the Commonwealth could be interpreted that he is only commenting on that which he knows, rather than just rambling on about everything under the sun.

I try to keep my comments limited to those subjects, or those aspects of subjects, to which I feel I can add. The armed forces of the US, Germany, etc, are outside my scope. For the Commonwealth in particular and artillery in general, on the otherhand, I have a certain amount of knowledge.

Commenting on those subjects doesn't mean I'm disinterested in the portrayal of other aspects of the game, just that I'm not prepared to comment on them.

My reading of his comment is that Brian feels the same way.

Regards

JonS

[JonS]

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

...In any event, it makes the case for excluding the Bren tripod that much more concrete.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that you were out in your estimate of a specialised AFV by a factor of 16 makes the exclusion of the ground-mount for an MG more concrete? Wow Mike, that's some interesting logic. Have you been smoking those maple-leaves again

[Michael Dorosh]

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

The fact that you were out in your estimate of a specialised AFV by a factor of 16 makes the exclusion of the ground-mount for an MG more concrete? Wow Mike, that's some interesting logic. Have you been smoking those maple-leaves again <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple logic. We are talking about commonly used equipment being used in CMBO.

The Crocodile was, despite what I said, fairly common (ASL gives it a 1.1 rarity factor). So you can't say the tripod should be in because the Crocodile is. Croc wasn't all that rare, apparently.

The only thing we use maple leaves for is flags, and toilet paper. I did swear an oath to HM The Queen, don't you know.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Hof, IMHO this is unfair of you. That Brian chooses to focus on the Commonwealth could be interpreted that he is only commenting on that which he knows, rather than just rambling on about everything under the sun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian has stated that he will not play CM as the Americans. Therefore, I think it more likely that he simply does not care if they are "short changed" in any way.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Brian has stated that he will not play CM as the Americans. Therefore, I think it more likely that he simply does not care if they are "short changed" in any way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By way of example, the M16 gets a 1.3 rarity in NWE in ASL. Sorry to use this as my reference - they are the only ones I know of that have attempted to define rarity for such a wide variety of weapons and vehicles.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

So, the Jagdtiger was widespread, was it, Michael?

So, the Jumbo was widespread, was it, Michael?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 75 mm Sherman Jumbo gets a 1.5 (and the 76 mm version a 1.6)

Jagdtiger gets a 1.6 also.

You do have a case that rare vehicles are used in CMBO.

But this still doesn't prove or disprove the point about Bren tripods - especially given the earlier discussion of how to model them.

[JonS]

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

... So you can't say the tripod should be in because the Crocodile is. Croc wasn't all that rare, apparently...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But then neither was the tripod - we have heard that there was one in every platoon. So in a company sized engagment a Commonwealth commander/player in theory had access to four of them.

Whether they were used is a seperate thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... I did swear an oath to HM The Queen, don't you know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if the words are the same everywhere. Did you get the option to swear on the bible?

JonS