Bren Gun Tripods

[Spook]

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

Each to their own, Spook. I feel its symptomatic of a problem encountered all too often in today's world. I know I'm swimming against the incoming tide but I refuse to go with the flow.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Swimming against a current is fine; invigorating, for that matter. But whenever I do so, I like to get upstream once in a while rather than just dash myself against the rocks.

(I kinda sound like a nature film for salmon spawning here.....)

[Andreas]

Standards of proof, and arguments with BTS:

1. Argument that worked:

"Dear BTS, you have not given the Poles the Cromwell for their recce rgt, but the Stuart. This is historically incorrect, as this website shows (insert website here, can't be bothered). I also here have a shot of the GOC 1st Polish AD in his command Cromwell, and some more of the Cromwells. Would you mind fixing that?" Got fixed.

2. Argument that worked:

"BTS, you have taken away the capacity of the Commonwealth to put a squad in an HT. Here are the floor drawings, accounts, and other stuff that shows you are wrong. Please fix it." Got fixed.

3. Argument that did not work:

"My Panther got killed by a Stuart. I have never heard of that, I infer it did never happen. You are anti-german." Nothing to fix, nothing happened.

4. Argument that did not work:

"The Allies had a lot of SMGs. I here have the total production run. From this I infer that there should be four per squad, not one. The Germans are advantaged by this, you are pro-German. Please fix." Nothing happened.

5. Argument that won't work:

"I have two pictures of a Bren tripod used as ground weapon in Korea. I have lots of pictures of Bren tripods in the AA role and in training. From this I infer it was used in a ground role. You are disadvantaging the Commonwealth. Fix it." Nothing will happen.

The problem is not my or your standard of when evidence becomes proof. Your problem is that your standard of evidence is not sufficient for 9/10ths of the people on this board who are being taken serious by BTS, and also your attitude, that equates questioning of your logic with being anti-Commonwealth.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Swimming against a current is fine; invigorating, for that matter. But whenever I do so, I like to get upstream once in a while rather than just dash myself against the rocks.

(I kinda sound like a nature film for salmon spawning here.....)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OT but I can't resist: Cartoon of two weary salmon facing yet another cascade; caption: "Why don't we just stay here and masturbate?"

Michael

[Brian]

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

Given a limited budget, limited man hours, and a deadline, how would you have done it differently?

-dale

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An interesting question. I think I wouldn't have bothered with graphically representing artillery - as they were, as you point out, rarely seen at the front. I wouldn't have bothered with the Priest/Sexton either - all too often they end up being surrogate assault guns which they weren't and any commander who used them as such would more than likely have been sacked when they were brewed up.

So, once the scope of the game had been defined, I'd have concentrated primarily on getting infantry and their attributes correct - for all nationalities being portrayed. I'd have made sure I had the correct organisations and rank structures. I'd have made sure I hadn't missed out certain weapons, either.

I wouldn't have assumed either that say, for example, the Germans were all armed with the best and brightest and have included a lot of the captured equipment which they did utilise in 1944.

For the Armour I'd have concentrated on getting, again the attributes correct, including organisations and weapons. I wonder how many are aware that many British tanks were equipped with not only smoke dischargers but also smoke emitters?

I'd have consulted widely, drawing upon the large resource amongst the wargaming community, as well as utilising conventional resources.

I'd more than likely (not knowing how the it was done) have appointed a person to co-ordinate the research for each nationality and then have their results fed into the project and then have them review the results of the programmers to make sure they got it right. Going by remarks from other posters, its very obvious that there was a lot of pro-American and pro-German input but not necessarily all that much pro-British/Commonwealth input in the early days of its development.

I'd also have designed the system to be a great deal more open than it presently is, so that different weapons and other things could be slotted in at a later date. I'd also have gotten away from the points purchasing system I think and moved more towards one orientated around OrBats.

Don't get me wrong, I think they've done a good job already but I suspect there could well be ways to improve it. If, as Spook has suggested, this should be viewed as a work in progress, I'd suggest then that CMBO should be viewed as a very advanced Beta or even just version 1.0 of the application. Hopefully CMBB will represent say, 1.5, while CM2 will literally be version 2.0.

Those are just my off-the-cuff remarks, nothing more. I don't doubt some will characterise them as being outrageously arrogant (cue Andreas, Slappy, etc.)

[Michael Emrys]

CMBB is CM2.

Otherwise, I find your remarks mostly sensible (for a welcome change). I hope to see a game emerge from Down Under incorporating all these lovely promises. I might even buy it, provided of course that it will run on my Mac!

Michael

[Brian]

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

Couple of points - first, I don't subscribe to your 'if you are not pro-Commonwealth, you are pro-something else' logic. I seem to have put into the drawer of being pro-German. I suggest you look at my posting history, that should disabuse you of that notion.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmm, perhaps the term "pro-[insert nationality]" is a bad one. I am using it more to describe those who are proponents/proposers/etc of things, rather than those who unfairly favour them, Andreas.

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

Second - game without the Jagdtiger? Fine. No Sturmtiger? Even better. No Maus? Hooray! No IS-3? Brilliant. These are all things I don't care about, and that will be taken care of through the rarity system, and if I were playing QBs, you could bet your behind that I would only play with that function on.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot find that function in my Quick Battle screen, Andreas, perhaps you'd care to explain to me where it could be found?

However, as others have pointed out, these rare beasts are included in the game so therefore one has to figure out exactly why other things were were not. As someone suggested, there is a coolness factor.

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

Panthers and 25-pdrs and their graphical representation? Apples and oranges. The Panther is an on-board weapon. The 25-pdr as on-board weapon is a rare exception. As it should be. How many cases do you know of 25-pdrs working in DF mode during the campaign? Ask me again what I think of the graphical mis-representation of the quad 20mm, because then we compare apples with apples. And the answer is: I don't care.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each to their own. I just wonder at the hours of time lavishly applied to making sure all the American and German weapons look a least as good as they could.

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

How do I define combat? As in 'fired at the bad guys at some point'. I can not detect a hint of combat use in Ben's post, but you read in it what you like.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He does mention, at least, test firing, Andreas. They obviously felt they were sufficiently close to the action to qualify for their gongs.

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

Historically available? Maybe. Historically used? No, not on current evidence. So, by your standard the Maus or the IS-3 should probably be in CMBB? I absolutely object to either of them.

You really need to get out of this 'if you're not with me you're against me' mindset.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have that mindset, Andreas. You're the one who is attacking me, not the other way 'round. You have upon several occasions taken this to quite a personal level, you realise that?

[Brian]

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

Swimming against a current is fine; invigorating, for that matter. But whenever I do so, I like to get upstream once in a while rather than just dash myself against the rocks.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whose dashing oneself against the rocks?

I prefer to see myself as a real free thinker...

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

(I kinda sound like a nature film for salmon spawning here.....)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got a long way to go before you can replace David Attenborough, Spook.

[Brian]

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

CMBB is CM2.

Otherwise, I find your remarks mostly sensible (for a welcome change).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each to their own, Michael. I'd suggest that all my remarks are sensible.

As to what is or isn't CM2, I have no idea, nor do I really care that overly much.

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

I hope to see a game emerge from Down Under incorporating all these lovely promises. I might even buy it, provided of course that it will run on my Mac!

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps. Personally, I'd rather see it run under Linux (and not resorting to any emulation software either).

Now, when I win the lottery, this could well become a reality. First of course, I'd have to purchase a ticket but as a friend whose a stastician likes to point out, "you chances of winning are only marginally improved if you purchase a ticket."

I suppose I could always try and interest the boss but he prefers to see everybody write code for "sensible" applications rather than games...

[Ben Hall]

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

Ben,

your information is no doubt interesting and useful, thanks!

To clarify: they were being set up because the british forces during that time became static for a considerable amount of time; the tripod-brens were not *used* (=in combat) but were set up would have been used if the british would have been subjected to a german attack. Correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically, yes. I think you have to also consider that his was only one experience amongst many. Perhaps other units used them differently? I asked him a few more questions since I put that last message up and he said basically that. There was no, whats it called, "SOP"? for their use, it was pretty much up to the battalion commander. He knew of other units which did use them more often, sometimes everytime they were stopped for a few days in the one spot, which occurred more and more after they got to Holland.

Hope thats of more help.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Oh, oh. Ben Hall's most recent post will set the cat amongst the pigeons!

Regards

Jim R.

[Andreas]

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

Oh, oh. Ben Hall's most recent post will set the cat amongst the pigeons!

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? That is exactly the sort of info that is needed.

Ben, thanks a lot for digging.

[Spook]

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

Oh, oh. Ben Hall's most recent post will set the cat amongst the pigeons!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. Ben Hall is relating one veteran's recollection (his father's), which as a primary source, could be of some given value. It's just as much value, IMO, as the oft-noted photos of earlier, if not more, because it relates specific NW Europe experiences.

Of course, there is the given issue that Ben's father is but one source. Further correlation by BTS may be desired. But here's a novel concept to try: consider the ability to "reach" people with net newsgroups. Well, in a relevant WWII historical newsgroup, might not one just post a query on the Bren, asking for veterans' accounts, and survey the results? Confirmation might be needed to some degree, but this could still be a way to further "connect" to the right veterans in the know.

[Spook]

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

Whose dashing oneself against the rocks?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Ben has just offered, I consider to be an good example of "swimming upstream," even if only a little. Sorry, but you've been more the "dashing on rocks" type in the methods you've used to pursue logic arguments here, posed to fellow forum members here that just happen to be the scrutinous type.

It ultimately comes down to your intentions for posting here: are you posting to seek a CM revision, or posting just to stir things up as a "free thinker" with no concern for the end results? What do you really want? Well, if you seek the former, then insofar you've been "dashing on the rocks." Because if this present argument was pursued only by you, with your chosen methods, it would presently gain zero ground with BTS.

Now, if you really want to gain ground, why not consider adapting your argumentative methods? This is nothing to do with "free thinking" or "going with the flow," and quite frankly, I think labeling others like Slap, Andreas, Vanir, myself, etc. as going-with-the-flow bootlickers of BTS is off the mark. If there's an issue we feel strongly about, we pursue it by arguing with BTS here, or even by e-mail. We just happen to know to pursue the effective argument. If you don't believe so, then review this whole forum for the posts of the last year-and-a-half to see proof otherwise. Hell, I was among those who helped to get the "half-squad in halftrack" issue resolved, doing a little CM bug-catching along the way too.

Adaption to succeed, Brian. That's the essence of WWII's historical progression. And that's the essence here to "swim upstream."

[Slapdragon]

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

What Ben has just offered, I consider to be an good example of "swimming upstream," even if only a little. Sorry, but you've been more the "dashing on rocks" type in the methods you've used to pursue logic arguments here, posed to fellow forum members here that just happen to be the scrutinous type.

It ultimately comes down to your intentions for posting here: are you posting to seek a CM revision, or posting just to stir things up as a "free thinker" with no concern for the end results? What do you really want? Well, if you seek the former, then insofar you've been "dashing on the rocks." Because if this present argument was pursued only by you, with your chosen methods, it would presently gain zero ground with BTS.

Now, if you really want to gain ground, why not consider adapting your argumentative methods? This is nothing to do with "free thinking" or "going with the flow," and quite frankly, I think labeling others like Slap, Andreas, Vanir, myself, etc. as going-with-the-flow bootlickers of BTS is off the mark. If there's an issue we feel strongly about, we pursue it by arguing with BTS here, or even by e-mail. We just happen to know to pursue the effective argument. If you don't believe so, then review this whole forum for the posts of the last year-and-a-half to see proof otherwise. Hell, I was among those who helped to get the "half-squad in halftrack" issue resolved, doing a little CM bug-catching along the way too.

Adaption to succeed, Brian. That's the essence of WWII's historical progression. And that's the essence here to "swim upstream."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find that often people who label themselves "free thinkers" are actually weak thinkers who substitute low standards of intellectual discourse for hard qualitative and quantitative thinking.

In reality, the problem you are running up against here is that on the regular Usenet where you are no doubt more used to arguing, opinion and fact are one and the same. You can say there that, "Gun conrtol is bad for Australia because I say so" and no one is much bothered unless they hold an opposite viewpoint, no hard evidence is needed to support your position, and the person who yells the loudest is the winner.

Here, there is a much more strict and accurate standard of thinking with regards to the historical and simulation issues of the game. The burden of proof for any change rests with the person who desires the change, not BTS, and people will peer review your ideas for flaws in your thinking.

And, as a bonus, this is a great place for the inexperienced to learn critical thinking skills and historical methods for free without leaving their day jobs. The methods presented here are the same as those used by scholars, historians, and simulations engineers to develop, defend, and propose extensions to our understanding of the past, be it the battle of Hastings or the Boer war, or the Canudos uprising.

So it may be useful to discard Usenet learned skills of issue dodging, invective, spurious logic, and use of unreliable data to support previously taken arguments and adopt a more disciplined way of thinking about history and simulation.

[dalem]

Brian-

First of all, thank you for answering my question, that helps me understand things from your point of view a great deal more. I'll embed my replies, as annoying as that can be.

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

An interesting question. I think I wouldn't have bothered with graphically representing artillery - as they were, as you point out, rarely seen at the front. I wouldn't have bothered with the Priest/Sexton either - all too often they end up being surrogate assault guns which they weren't and any commander who used them as such would more than likely have been sacked when they were brewed up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Priests and Sextons (and Hummels and Wespes) were used as assault guns, maybe more often than the field pieces were used as infantry guns.

2) BUT that is a valid answer to my question: How would you have handled accurate representation of certain types of WWII engagements and equipment? You would have left them completely out of the game. Fair answer.

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

So, once the scope of the game had been defined, I'd have concentrated primarily on getting infantry and their attributes correct - for all nationalities being portrayed. I'd have made sure I had the correct organisations and rank structures. I'd have made sure I hadn't missed out certain weapons, either.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3) Great plan. What do you do when you have achieved, say, 85% of your goals in the above paragraph and you are at your final final drop-dead date for finishing coding the game?

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

I wouldn't have assumed either that say, for example, the Germans were all armed with the best and brightest and have included a lot of the captured equipment which they did utilise in 1944.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

4) Which captured equipment in use by the Germans on the Western Front from 6/44 through 5/45 is excluded? How many of what types of weapons.

5) If smallarms, are any in wide use and with significantly-different characteristics than already-modeled smallarms?

6) If tanks or other weapons systems, again the question of use and behavior must be considered.

And remember, you run out of time, as always happens in the real world.

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

For the Armour I'd have concentrated on getting, again the attributes correct, including organisations and weapons. I wonder how many are aware that many British tanks were equipped with not only smoke dischargers but also smoke emitters?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

7) Leaving the 'attributes' question aside as moot, seeing as BTS consistantly updated their gun/armor/horsepower/seating capacity numbers when good evidence was presented, let's concentrate on organization. As stated by others previously, organizational changes have been incorporated by BTS.

More importantly, all nationalities got something left out organizationally. If favor was shown it was toward getting all the ridiculous German small unit TO&Es down, but that is sort of the way you have to go. For decades gamers have really gotten off on the flavor of the German variety - if you're going to sell your game, you have to aim toward your market. (For an example of graphical 'screwing' of the Americans, for instance, keep in mind that every U.S. tank had a pintle-mounted .50 cal - Stuarts had a .30 cal - that I don't see on screen. The effects are there, just not the MG graphic.)

Then again, maybe you just -gasp- run out of time. In that case, what do you do?

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

I'd have consulted widely, drawing upon the large resource amongst the wargaming community, as well as utilising conventional resources.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

8) Makes sense. This was done.

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

I'd more than likely (not knowing how the it was done) have appointed a person to co-ordinate the research for each nationality and then have their results fed into the project and then have them review the results of the programmers to make sure they got it right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

9) A fine plan. What if you are only two people? One guy wearing the main Research hat and one guy wearing the Programmer hat? How do you accomplish your point above? And what do you do when you hit that drop-dead date?

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

Going by remarks from other posters, its very obvious that there was a lot of pro-American and pro-German input but not necessarily all that much pro-British/Commonwealth input in the early days of its development.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

10) I have to disagree with this statement. You are inferring from third-party sources what a team of people did. Also, your choice of words "...pro-American and pro-German..." implies an assumption of guilt from the outset. You must understand that successful modeling does not require an approving attitude. I could write a program/game simulating Japanese-American internment camps or Nazi concentration camps and it could be a 100% accurate model. Doesn't mean I am 'pro-camp', right? Likewise I could get one right and one less-right, doesn't mean I favored one over the other.

Besides, suppose your team of two people in fact does have better German and American sources at the starting line, but still needs to gather info for Commonwealth. Do you delay their start? What do you do?

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

I'd also have designed the system to be a great deal more open than it presently is, so that different weapons and other things could be slotted in at a later date. I'd also have gotten away from the points purchasing system I think and moved more towards one orientated around OrBats.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

11) A fair answer. Personal choice.

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

Don't get me wrong, I think they've done a good job already but I suspect there could well be ways to improve it. If, as Spook has suggested, this should be viewed as a work in progress, I'd suggest then that CMBO should be viewed as a very advanced Beta or even just version 1.0 of the application. Hopefully CMBB will represent say, 1.5, while CM2 will literally be version 2.0.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

12) If you said the above about my game I'd be very insulted. "...very advanced Beta..." indeed. In my opinion, if you had a better understanding of how the Real World works (are you a student or pure academic by any chance?), you'd understand that CM:BO was an outstanding finished product by version 1.0. Indeed in its current version 1.12 it is a much-improved finished product, but v1.0 is just as much fun and is head and shoulders above the rest.

Overall, I'd say that you appear to be confusing the pursuit of perfection (laudable) with the achievement of perfection (impossible).

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

Those are just my off-the-cuff remarks, nothing more. I don't doubt some will characterise them as being outrageously arrogant (cue Andreas, Slappy, etc.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe not "outrageously" so, but still, yeah, pretty arrogant.

-dale

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]

[M Hofbauer]

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

As to what is or isn't CM2, I have no idea, nor do I really care that overly much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

then pray tell what is it you are looking for? why are you here?

as to your personal choice of focussing on infantry - that is exactly not what BTS tried to do. such an emphasis on correct portrayal of infantry combat would foremost have required individual soldiers and non-abstracted small arms fire. which it was BTS' explicit intention not to do. among others their main reason was CPU power required to display that at the game level (battalion) the game was placed at.

at the scope level where CM was placed to be played at, one bren more or less does not make a lot of difference, whether it's on tripod or not. a single tank however is a small element that does have a fair role in such a game.

[Slapdragon]

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

Now, when I win the lottery, this could well become a reality. First of course, I'd have to purchase a ticket but as a friend whose a stastician likes to point out, "you chances of winning are only marginally improved if you purchase a ticket."

I suppose I could always try and interest the boss but he prefers to see everybody write code for "sensible" applications rather than games...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, there is a long history of people proclaiming they could do it better if only they had the chance. I am thinking now of Lewis who was going to code a game that had none of CM's major flaws.

Of course the game never came about, and the other games much lauded for taking on CM by adding much requested features (real time, etc.) in fact are much less historically accurate at first glance, with hugely limited options for equipment.

[Chupacabra]

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

So it may be useful to discard Usenet learned skills of issue dodging, invective, spurious logic, and use of unreliable data to support previously taken arguments and adopt a more disciplined way of thinking about history and simulation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO!!!! yuo = lAmORZZ! me = r337 hAXX0r hISTRoRy GOD!!! ChUpAcABrA 0wn2 j00!!!!

[Spook]

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

NO!!!! yuo = lAmORZZ! me = r337 hAXX0r hISTRoRy GOD!!! ChUpAcABrA 0wn2 j00!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, Chup, you know the drill. It's the current Peng thread that you should visit after using a cattle prod on yourself.

[Michael Emrys]

I thought maybe he was shooting adrenochrome again. I was sure the mouth foaming bit was a dead giveaway.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Dalem - Priests and Sextons were NOT assault guns, they were used as indirect artillery. Can you name me one instance in which they were used, in British or Canadian service, to fire directly on enemy positions?

[Spook]

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

Dalem - Priests and Sextons were NOT assault guns, they were used as indirect artillery. Can you name me one instance in which they were used, in British or Canadian service, to fire directly on enemy positions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't say for the Commonwealth forces, Michael, but regarding US forces, the M7 Priest did find itself in combat in expediency situations like in the Ardennes. Similarly, the SP155 was used as a "building buster" in Aachen, as well as smashing small pillboxes by direct fire along the West Wall in early '45.

Of course, such usage was very uncommon, given that the prime role for these vehicles was indirect fire support. So using SP artillery guns in CM should definitely be tempered by rarity factor in the future.

[dalem]

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

Dalem - Priests and Sextons were NOT assault guns, they were used as indirect artillery. Can you name me one instance in which they were used, in British or Canadian service, to fire directly on enemy positions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Michael-

I typed that they were used "...as assault guns..." emphasis on the "as". And no, unfortunately I just moved and most of my personal source material is boxed up. And I don't mean to imply that it happened often, but I do remember reading that it did happen, at least for Priests (and one super-rare usage of the M12 SP 155 in Aachen I believe).

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Michael-

I typed that they were used "...as assault guns..." emphasis on the "as". And no, unfortunately I just moved and most of my personal source material is boxed up. And I don't mean to imply that it happened often, but I do remember reading that it did happen, at least for Priests (and one super-rare usage of the M12 SP 155 in Aachen I believe).

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spook and dalem - cool. You specifically said Sexton, which is a Commonwealth only SP gun. I would be quite interested in reading of an instance in which a Sexton faced down an enemy AFV, by the way. I do understand that US Priests were sometimes used this way, just never heard of the Sexton ever coming close to the front lines.

Always eager to learn something new - - Mike

[Simon Fox]

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

Dalem - Priests and Sextons were NOT assault guns, they were used as indirect artillery. Can you name me one instance in which they were used, in British or Canadian service, to fire directly on enemy positions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, in my opinion the Sexton has no place in CM . Though I do recall one single instance of direct fire use very early on in Normandy (can't recall the book though it might be one of Delaforces unit histories).

The Priest in US hands is another matter.