Bren Gun Tripods

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

I agree, in my opinion the Sexton has no place in CM <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd go so far as to say this is an accurate statement. Then again, Brian probably has pictures of them firing over open sights in the Korean War, so let's watch what we say.

wow, how unfunny was that?!?

Seriously, though, you can say the same about on-map 25 pounders after 1943, though they were used in the Western Desert as anti-tank guns (their circular gun platform made them particularly good for this ad hoc usage). For CM3 or whatever, they would be a natural, but as far as CMBO goes, makes you wonder why they were included - unless to use in some convoy type scenario?

[Roborat]

Actually, I would be interested in hearing about the use of the Sexton as an infantry support weapon also. I had read of the Priest being used that way, so I had assumed that the sexton was also used in this role. I use it in CM for this role fairly often, as it seems to work fairly well, as long as it is protected. But if it is established that is wasn't, or only rarely used in this role, I will stop using it (unless given in a scenario or QB computer pick ). I just figured that was why it was included in the game, as it obviously cannot be used in the indirect fire mode, otherwise why bother to model it?

[dalem]

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

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mike-

I have equated Sextons with Priests when it seems I should not have. Since they shared the SPA role I assumed they would also share uncommon ad hoc roles as well. I hereby divorce myself from my assumption, my statement of it, and any offspring it may spawn. My knowledge of Commonwealth equipment is mediocre at best. I know there were lots of rivets involved.

Seriously though, I would be shocked to find that the Sextons were never (or close to never) pressed into direct fire support. Is this true?

-dale

[Triumvir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Whether or not they used them is precisely the point. We know the Crocodile was used extensively - read Wilson. Still trying to figure out the tripod thing. Like I said - every man had a respirator. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Michael, on your webpage at Bren Homepage, off of the main Canuck page, you quote the following:

Two items of Bren Gun equipment not commonly seen include the drum magazine, and the tripod. The tripod could be configured for antiaircraft work, as at right, or as a ground mount to fire on fixed lines. When set up as a ground mount, arcs of fire could be set with stoppers on the tripod. In static positions, such as the I Canadian Corps front in Italy in early 1944, this was actually done. The tripod could be man-packed, but was usually stored by infantry sections on their platoon vehicle. For anti-aircraft work, two additional tubes (stored inside the hollow body tubes of the tripod) could be added, elevating the gun and giving it a 360 degree sweep. The ground mount pictured above has had two rifle slings added in order to carry it.

Do you have a cite for that usage? If so, then it would be a useful datapoint in this discussion.

[Simon Fox]

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

Seriously though, I would be shocked to find that the Sextons were never (or close to never) pressed into direct fire support. Is this true?

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep, any Brit arty commander who allowed his SP 25pdr or 105mm to be employed in such a way would be in a lot of trouble. The only way it could have happened was in desperate circumstances. Operationally it would be a dumb thing to do anyway and dead against British artillery doctrine. Typically it was the field artillery regiments supporting armoured units (armoured divisions or independent brigades) which were equipped with SP guns. Therefore these units had plenty of tanks for direct fire support.

The Brits had other stuff like AVREs, Crocs and Fireflies for busting bunkers and fortifications so SP guns were not required.

[Mulga Bill]

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

Michael, on your webpage at Bren Homepage, off of the main Canuck page, you quote the following:

Two items of Bren Gun equipment not commonly seen include the drum magazine, and the tripod. The tripod could be configured for antiaircraft work, as at right, or as a ground mount to fire on fixed lines. When set up as a ground mount, arcs of fire could be set with stoppers on the tripod. In static positions, such as the I Canadian Corps front in Italy in early 1944, this was actually done. The tripod could be man-packed, but was usually stored by infantry sections on their platoon vehicle. For anti-aircraft work, two additional tubes (stored inside the hollow body tubes of the tripod) could be added, elevating the gun and giving it a 360 degree sweep. The ground mount pictured above has had two rifle slings added in order to carry it.

Do you have a cite for that usage? If so, then it would be a useful datapoint in this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oooh, Triumvir, be careful, you're trying to keep the discussion ontopic!

And Ben, isn't it amazing how some people can run around expending so much energy trying to deny what your father experienced? To them, personal experience is valueless. Unless they can read it in a book, it never happened. So, I'd suggest your daddy get writing, if you want this mob to believe you!

Brian, follow the advice of Gough! Just remember the to watch out for the flat head! :eek:

[Mulga Bill]

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

I'd go so far as to say this is an accurate statement. Then again, Brian probably has pictures of them firing over open sights in the Korean War, so let's watch what we say.

wow, how unfunny was that?!?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very. George Blackburn has one episode when his troop of 25 Pdrs could have fired over open sites but didn't. He also mentions when his new CO during the initial landings took one of that officer's Regiment's Priests and used it as an Assault Gun. He does though, note that was most unusual.

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

Seriously, though, you can say the same about on-map 25 pounders after 1943, though they were used in the Western Desert as anti-tank guns (their circular gun platform made them particularly good for this ad hoc usage). For CM3 or whatever, they would be a natural, but as far as CMBO goes, makes you wonder why they were included - unless to use in some convoy type scenario?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What "circular gun platform"? I can't see one on the graphic representation of the 25 Pdr in the game. Funny, it looks remarkably like the M101 105mm gun to me...

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mulga Bill:

And Ben, isn't it amazing how some people can run around expending so much energy trying to deny what your father experienced? To them, personal experience is valueless. Unless they can read it in a book, it never happened. So, I'd suggest your daddy get writing, if you want this mob to believe you!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My grandfather has a picture of a downed IL-2 Shturmovik (sp?). On the back it says 'Downed Rata'. Why? Because to him any plane shooting at him and his comrades was a Rata. According to your logic and standards of evidence, the plane is indeed a Rata. According to the standards of evidence of serious people, my grandfather's first-hand statement (from the time, no less) is wrong, and the plane is an IL-2. Which it is.

[Andreas]

Regarding the Sexton/25-pdr in DF mode - I can off the top of my head remember one case in NWE where this happened. That was after the rout of 7th AD following Villers-Bocage. I think it is the same one Simon mentioned. A field gun and its crew are far too valuable to be used as assault guns, and especially the crew is irreplacable. It would be a foolish commander who squanders his most important asset in that way.

Normally, when you got the enemy's guns, you knew you had routed him. During the Marne battle 1914, the German general staff knew they had a problem because they did not capture enough guns, indicating to them that the French were conducting an orderly (sort of) withdrawal, and were not as beaten as the field commanders thought they were. (based on Tuchman, from memory)

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mulga Bill:

What "circular gun platform"? I can't see one on the graphic representation of the 25 Pdr in the game. Funny, it looks remarkably like the M101 105mm gun to me...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shh - let me tell you something. It is a game. No really. The real gun had a circular gun platform. Honest.

[Simon Fox]

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

My grandfather has a picture of a downed IL-2 Shturmovik (sp?). On the back it says 'Downed Rata'. Why? Because to him any plane shooting at him and his comrades was a Rata. According to your logic and standards of evidence, the plane is indeed a Rata. According to the standards of evidence of serious people, my grandfather's first-hand statement (from the time, no less) is wrong, and the plane is an IL-2. Which it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your example might have some relevance if he was:

1) Russian

2) An IL-2 Pilot

3) Still misidentified the plane.

Since I know that he wasn't then it isn't. I also note with interest that you have previously raised as evidence for various things your conversations with your own grandfather in his area of expertise .

Healthy scepticism of first hand accounts should include some consideration of the context and the source. Not all information is of equal value or weight and one can hardly equate the views of a panzerjager veteran on the russian airforce with those of a Bren gunner on Bren gun usage. Can one?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Your example might have some relevance if he was:

1) Russian

2) An IL-2 Pilot

3) Still misidentified the plane.

Since I know that he wasn't then it isn't. I also note with interest that you have previously raised as evidence for various things your conversations with your own grandfather in his area of expertise .

Healthy scepticism of first hand accounts should include some consideration of the context and the source. Not all information is of equal value or weight and one can hardly equate the views of a panzerjager veteran on the russian airforce with those of a Bren gunner on Bren gun usage. Can one?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. You are totally right of course. The problem with Mulga whatsits is that he is going around the forum proclaiming that some people don't believe any vet account. While all a lot of people here say is that vet accounts by themselves are not really the bee's knees and just part of the evidence. Even more so when it is not the vet's area of expertise.

In the case of me bringing my grandfather's experiences, I have always stated the source, to enable others to judge whether they give it credit or not.

Vet accounts are an important and extremely valuable source of information. Having been trained as a qualitative researcher, I do know however how easy it is to cock things up in interviewing, and how high the standards for an oral account to become scientific evidence are.

That is why the info from Ben's father is so important, and Mulga's trolling with regard to it so inappropriate. Clearly Ben's father knows what he was talking about, did that job himself, and could place it into context. Great stuff, and exactly what someone like Mulga will never be able to provide.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mulga Bill:

[QB]

Oooh, Triumvir, be careful, you're trying to keep the discussion ontopic!

/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When they banned you I thought that was an unsubtle hint as to the need for your trolling in this forum. Perhaps you should heed BTS and just go away.

[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Yep, any Brit arty commander who allowed his SP 25pdr or 105mm to be employed in such a way would be in a lot of trouble. The only way it could have happened was in desperate circumstances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Serious question.

In the documented instances when the Germans used their Wespes or Hummels for direct fire support, were the circumstances always one of their rear areas being overrun and therefore these valuable arty assets were utilised as a last ditch defence? Or did the Germans have a more agressive doctrine with their self propelled arrtillery and allow then to be used from time to time in the direct fire support role?

Regards

Jim R.

[Andreas]

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

Serious question.

In the documented instances when the Germans used their Wespes or Hummels for direct fire support, were the circumstances always one of their rear areas being overrun and therefore these valuable arty assets were utilised as a last ditch defence? Or did the Germans have a more agressive doctrine with their self propelled arrtillery and allow then to be used from time to time in the direct fire support role?

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I don't know of documented cases (note - this is really all outside the desert), but I don't know much about the German doctrine either. I would be surprised if this was not frowned upon - certainly for the Flakartillerie there was an explicit statement against the use of heavy Flak (8,8cm) in the assault artillery role. Also, the only divisions with armoured SPA would be the panzer divisions. They would have an organic compliment of assault guns, which are better protected.

The German TO&E included fully armoured SP 10,5cm (StuH42), partly armoured SP 15cm (Bison, Grille), so what would be the point of risking the Howitzers that were intended to be used as indirect artillery?

How many examples are there?

[Brian]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anytime. I look forward to replying in turn…

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

quote:

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.

[Brian]

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

Seriously, though, you can say the same about on-map 25 pounders after 1943, though they were used in the Western Desert as anti-tank guns (their circular gun platform made them particularly good for this ad hoc usage). For CM3 or whatever, they would be a natural, but as far as CMBO goes, makes you wonder why they were included - unless to use in some convoy type scenario?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Ad hoc"? I thought by definition a field gun was designed to be able to rapidly engage tanks, like an anti-tank gun. Furthermore, the 25 Pdr was designed expressly to do exactly that. One of the reasons why the firing platform and box trail was adopted over a conventional split-trail. While the RA always deployed seeing their field guns end up being used as AT tanks, they were designed to take on that role from the outset and the gunners were trained to do it.

Interestingly, most western artillery copied the idea post-war - both the 105mm M102 and the L118 Light Gun have it, as do several others.

[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Slapdragon]

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

[/qb]

Well, you did ask my opinion. Should I have instead gone down on bended knee, praised the lord, averted my eyes and declared I worship the ground on which these people walk?

I've acknowledged they have done a good job, does that mean I cannot suggest they could not do a better job, particularly with the help supplied by myself and others?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difficulty is that in order to truly help them, you would need to learn and follow basic historical research methods. They have thousands of people asking for uber this or uber than with no or extremely slim evidence, dozens of people accusing them of being bias against every force in the matrix, and and lots of hot air expended trying to force them to "make the game right" but very few people like Rune or Andreas who have actually built and supported arguments that made changes to the game.

Of course the main reason why you have lots of people who blow hot air and few people who really change the game is because historical research is difficult, historical research combined with simulation is very difficult. The skills are hard to come by, and often people just do not have the time or inner strength to learn and apply them.

So, if your true intention is to make the game more historically accurate, then you can learn from all this and pay close attention to how you craft your arguments. Step outside of your ubercommonwealth role, get away from the advocacy, and dig into the historical side of the issue using the methods that myself, rune, Andreas, Spook, dalem, and others have tried to show you. Then you not only have a chance at changing the game, but you will be able to apply these same methods to other areas of commentary.

[Andreas]

Well, I see with interest that you are convinced you can do a better job than BTS. Since that is so, why not develop the business plan, go to a bank, get yourself some funding, and do it? After all, that is what they did. You can always use the success of CMBO as an argument.

I would certainly buy the game you describe, if it is well-researched, and even features a correctly modeled 25-pdr. Until you publish a working demo however, I am prepared to take BTS' approach of how to do things more serious than yours, simply on the back of them having brought out a product.

As for ranks - the German ranks are also incorrect. This is because the game supports only one set of ranks, assuming that they are not that important for combat resolution.

[Michael Dorosh]

I thought Mulga Bill was banned? I see no point wasting time talking to him.

Brian - re: the 25 pounder being a purpose built anti-tank gun. This is news to me, what reference are you referring to? I must confess I am ignorant as to the development of the 25 pounder gun. My dad was actually a gunner on them in the late 1950s, but his experiences would be largely irrelevant to the discussion. I would have thought that the 2 pounder AT gun would have been thought sufficient for AT protection and that 25 pounders would be intended for use far to the rear. Am interested in hearing more.

[Brian]

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

I thought Mulga Bill was banned? I see no point wasting time talking to him.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't have to talk to him, just read him. I note he raised some good points about Blackburn's book.

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

Brian - re: the 25 pounder being a purpose built anti-tank gun. This is news to me, what reference are you referring to? I must confess I am ignorant as to the development of the 25 pounder gun. My dad was actually a gunner on them in the late 1950s, but his experiences would be largely irrelevant to the discussion. I would have thought that the 2 pounder AT gun would have been thought sufficient for AT protection and that 25 pounders would be intended for use far to the rear. Am interested in hearing more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm surprised. There have been several good books published on the 25 Pdr. Gander did one back in the early 1970's, IIRC, a "Fact File" (part of an intended series which never really developed), Hogg talks about it fairly extensively in "British and American Artillery of WWII" and Mike Cecil has published his excellent little monograph, on Australian field artillery in his "Australian Military Profiles" series, available here.

The 25 Pdr's secondary role was always intended to be AT. It became almost its primary role in 1941-42 in the Western Desert when the 2 Pdr was rendered fairly useless by the improved armour on the Mk.III and IV.

The Canadians even went so far as developing the MARC (? I think that was the designation), which was a 25 Pdr mounted in an armoured casement, mounted on wheels which allowed all 'round traverse. However it was abandoned after its need had decreased.

Interestingly only the Sentinel AC.II ever mounted the 25 Pdr as the main armament on a tank and very few of them were ever produced.

[Brian]

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

Well, I see with interest that you are convinced you can do a better job than BTS.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I say that, Andreas?

I have suggested that there are perhaps more than one way to skin a cat, thats all.

BTS has demonstrated one way, thats all.

[Andreas]

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

[/qb]

Where did I say that, Andreas?

I have suggested that there are perhaps more than one way to skin a cat, thats all.

BTS has demonstrated one way, thats all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that is not what you meant, what is the point of outlining all the 'I would have this, I would have that' on the previous page? To me it is obvious that you assume that this would result in an improved game, i.e. would be a better approach than the one they took. Which is what you seem to say too, when you go on about CMBO being an 'advanced beta'. I also don't believe your approach is practical and would ever have resulted in any game, but I am sure you will disagree on that.

The proof of this particular pudding is in the eating though. You may well believe that there are more ways to skin a cat than one - fact is that so far we have only seen one. BTS'. To me that suggests that maybe there are not as many ways to skin this particular cat as you may believe. From a project management point, I am certain your way as outlined on the previous page would never result in a finished product.

[Brian]

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

If that is not what you meant, what is the point of outlining all the 'I would have this, I would have that' on the previous page?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps because I was asked?

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

To me it is obvious that you assume that this would result in an improved game, i.e. would be a better approach than the one they took. Which is what you seem to say too, when you go on about CMBO being an 'advanced beta'. I also don't believe your approach is practical and would ever have resulted in any game, but I am sure you will disagree on that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, seems to have worked for the big boys who use these sorts of things in the real world, Andreas. I have several different simulation packages from various military training systems and they all take the open system approach. Admittedly, they are trying to simulate something a little bit different to CMBO but its a methodology I've seen that works.

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

The proof of this particular pudding is in the eating though. You may well believe that there are more ways to skin a cat than one - fact is that so far we have only seen one. BTS'. To me that suggests that maybe there are not as many ways to skin this particular cat as you may believe. From a project management point, I am certain your way as outlined on the previous page would never result in a finished product.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*SIGH*, each to their own, Andreas. I was asked for an opinion, I provided it, based on what I believed would be an alternative approach and methodology which I do know has worked.

I was right though, I provided the cue and you jumped straight in...

[Andreas]

Brian, what's the matter, can't handle someone questioning your opinions? I have not called your opinion arrogant, I have simply offered a bit of a different perspective. But you seem to have real problems with people questioning your views.

Be that as it may. You do realise that funding availability is ever so slightly different for a company developing a product under contract with the military and two man in a garage? And that this may have a slight impact on the kind of project they can realistically undertake? And that maybe, just maybe, you are comparing Apples and Oranges? Just checking.