Bren Gun Tripods

Slapdragon · October 11, 2001

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

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

Har har har. Of course, this is not the point. He was banned for dishonorable and child like behavior. He is acting more dishonorable and childlike by replicating new aliases and coming back under them. In addition, he is mostly flame baiting. If Mulga Hill / aka Kim Beazely / whatever his name is wants to regress in mental capacity and emotional state to being a spoiled 5 year old, well Australia is a free country. But this is a (mostly) adult forum whose participants don't enjoy the getting side tracked by mentally handicapped posters whose presence was already terminated by BTS for good reasons.

It is all a matter of signal to noise ratio. Mulga Hill / Beazely whatever represents a huge amount of noise, drowning out the signal of intellectual conversation.

Brian · October 11, 2001

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no problem with people questioning my views, Andreas. I keep answering your questions don't I?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the real difference is not who pays the bills, Andreas, I think its in what is meant to being achieved and how its achieved.

As at least one of the simulation systems I mentioned was indeed developed on a shoestring by the CAF, I think your assuming all defence forces have oodles of money to burn. They don't.

Andreas · October 11, 2001

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

I think the real difference is not who pays the bills, Andreas, I think its in what is meant to being achieved and how its achieved.

So the means are irrelevant? I can want to achieve a lot, but that does not mean that I have the means to achieve it. I am sure BTS would have loved to make the perfect game.

As at least one of the simulation systems I mentioned was indeed developed on a shoestring by the CAF, I think your assuming all defence forces have oodles of money to burn. They don't.

dalem · October 11, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Brian said:

German SP's perhaps. British ones? Rarely, if ever. Indeed, as Simon points out, this sort of usage runs very much counter to British artillery doctrine. You have evidence this was an more than a very occasional occurance forced by emergency?

I already mea culpad on my SPA comments above. But it still makes me laugh - here I am, a Yank, automatically assuming that surely someone must've needed to use a Sexton as an assault gun and done so regardless of doctrine, and here you are, a Commonwealth guy, automatically assuming that since it was contrary to doctrine no one would have dared do it. Fascinating to me that we each fell exactly into the slots alotted for each nation's WWII doctrinal archetype. Who'd've thought that such stereotypes and generalizations would still apply 55 years after the fact?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

-----------------------------

quote:

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.

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?

-----------------------------

I believe I'd have taken that problem into account by one of my later comments. By making the system more open, it would be possible to change data files around fairly easily without necessarily affecting the actual mechanics of the game engine itself, as such, IMO.

The result would have been that there would have been no "deadline" as such. Indeed, I find that a great many of your comments relate to the problems of deadlines and resources, which I've answered already. As for resources, thats always going to be a problem but by enlisting volunteer help, that can also be overcome to a certain extent.

No deadline? How would you intend to make money? And each piece of 'volunteer help' introduces another weirdness factor into an already strained business model. We know that two or three such individuals worked out superbly, but how many offered and were found wanting?

In my opinion resources are the issue: there are tens of thousands of volumes on WWII out there, and probably a dozen different ways to code a game program so it quacks like the duck you want. Given infinite resources (including time) you could of course attempt to simulate all of WWII down to the individual soldier level. When resources are not infinite, things start to get dropped, and everything that gets dropped is important to someone out there. You always have to prioritize. Always.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

----------------------------------

I'm not denying its an excellent product. However, from the viewpoint of someone who knows and understand the British/Commonwealth forces a great deal better than the American/German ones, I'm left wondering as whether its as well researched for that force as it is for the others. I mean, they haven't even got the ranks corrects!

Having been a wargamer for a very long time (over 20 years) my impression has been that all too often WWII gamers are more often than not interested usually in the Germans or the Americans and rarely in the British. The Germans 'cause they had the "cool" stuff and the uniforms and well, everybody likes to admire that Germanic thoroughness. The Americans on the otherhand, because they, afterall won the war, didn't they? The poor old British are looked very much upon as a bunch of losers who suffered not only at the hands of an incompetent command but a beaucracy which couldn't or wouldn't produce equipment as well or as good as the other nationalities.

And my impression is that the U.S. side always gets slighted because the Germans were sexier and the Commonwealth wrote more about it (at least in my native language). My impression is no more valid than anyone else's however. Leave your paranoia by the side of the road with my own and look at what was included - the Poles, for instance, and the Canadians! That's pretty cool. Someone already addressed the Rank issue, and that's no more important for game play than the fact that the complex shape of the German "coal scuttle" helmet is clearly modeled and yet the slight curve of the U.S. helmet is not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That might be your impression. In reality I'd suggest that perhaps I have a different appreciation of what is achievable and a different strategy to achieve it?

You certainly have a differnent appreciation of what is achievable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

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.)

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

-Sigh- Bestill your wounded heart. You offered the word "arrogant", I agreed. And as some of us have tried to point out through the course of this thread, it's not your goals that anyone's questioning, it's your attitude.

-dale

Spook · October 12, 2001

Well, given that most of us would concur that SPA shouldn't pop up often as a frontline weapon (occurring mainly from unique contingencies rather than a common practice), I'd like to "shake & stir" things a little again, by changing tack and returning to an earlier comment of Brian's.

Per his idyllic tactical game model:

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

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 organizations and rank structures. I'd have made sure I hadn't missed out certain weapons, either.

This is actually a useful "swinging door" comment that can be looked at in two directions.

Going in one direction, the question of perspective is, "What exactly is it in CM that is incorrect in its model of infantry warfare?" Not to imply that the CM infantry model is either all perfect, or all wrong, rather that it's good to get a balanced view of what seems to work, and doesn't work, in the present rendition.

Now, to Brian's statement of "getting infantry and their attributes correct - for all nationalities being portrayed", this is a loaded statement. It could infer that more differentiating features between nationalities should be added and hard-coded (a la tero) as to give standard nationality differences. Or it could mean simply that more features are desired for the scenario designer to "tailor" a force closer to a perceived nationality's "style." Or, perhaps more organizational options are desired (like for US Rangers, UK commandoes, etc.).

Straying a bit, but still linked to the subject of "infantry modeling," I sometimes reflect on how CM compares to an earlier wargame series held up as an infantry tactics paradigm---the "Squad Leader" (SL/ASL) series. Now, as SL is a boardgame system, one must take care in using direct comparisons. But basic comparison I see is that of the "design philosophy" to the SL infantry model as vs. the CM model. In the SL model, nationalities are sometimes differentiated by "hard-coded" choices in terms of a squad's firepower & morale. While various combat factors in a SL game could create parity situations between two sides in infantry effectiveness, the foundation was that of "standardized" nationality differences with all other things being equal. In the CM model, the philosophy is different. Instead of stock firepower values and morale levels for various nationalities, individual squad weapons in CM were given unique firepower values for various ranges, and these weapons served as the building blocks to basic squad firepower. As for "morale" or "experience," that was set at "true null" position where no preconceptions of nationality effect were enforced. (The one exception is that German units get better-averaged leader attributes for its infantry units in QB generation.) So it’s left completely to the scenario designer to devise how the nationalities can differ, in terms of unit experience and selecting leader attributes.

Another example is the morale "variation" between the two systems. In ASL, a unit was either in good order, pinned, or broken. In CM, a unit can be OK, or alerted, cautious, shaken, pinned, panicked, broken, or routed, with unique consequences to each state. It’s definitely a more evolved state of morale gradation in the latter game. And there are other examples. In SL, units didn’t have specific ammo supplies; in CM, they do. In SL, units didn’t have "facing," but they do in CM. In SL/ASL, leader effect on unit movement was little more than an arbitrary bonus for starting in the same hex with a leader. In CM, leader unit & subordinate unit quality (along with added leader command attributes) have a more varied effect on how soon a unit can get moving.

To say nothing of the overall effect to infantry modeling & combined arms provided by a WEGO turn system, vs. the UGO/IGO of SL.

This isn’t all just to rag on SL/ASL, because that game system is quite accomplished as far as boardgames can go in providing a tactical warfare model. It even allows a number of speciality details that CMBO presently can't. But the above examples serve as perspective on how CM has improved the ability to "get infantry & their attributes correct" when compared to the earlier SL model, or some other earlier computer tactical wargames.

Now, swinging the door in the other direction, there is, of course, room for improvement in CM infantry modeling. CMBB alone is to have some profound changes regarding assault movement, MG options, and added unit qualifiers like "fitness" through scenario design. From my end, I wouldn’t overly mind that squads be further refined in terms of "formation," where a squad "assault mass" would have different movement rate & target modifier than for a squad in line. Or that "squad dispersion intervals" could be also modeled as a target modifier, based on prior national training & experience. Or for an added giggle, have lower-experience squads break into half-squads if in a panicked state or worse, to give a more disorganized or "scattered" state for units of lower quality coming under fire.

So yes, there is more that could be done for CM infantry modeling, even beyond that for CMBB. But once in a while, we need to pause & reflect on how much CM’s infantry system provides so far, as a foundation to build on. SL didn’t cover everything in its first version, nor has CMBO for its attempted scope. But all said & done, CM is still designed to be a game, not a full-up combat simulator. This game can be further developed to provide more realism, but the start in CMBO was exemplary for its own time.

Triumvir · October 12, 2001

<sigh> So my cite has been swamped by the usual flame gang... Never mind!

Michael Dorosh, if you go to page 7 of this thread and look at my post, could you please tell me where you got your cite for the use of Bren gun tripods in the SF role? Because then we might actually drag this back on topic minus the usual kneejerks from Slappy/Brian.

Michael Dorosh · October 12, 2001

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

<sigh> So my cite has been swamped by the usual flame gang... Never mind!

Michael Dorosh, if you go to page 7 of this thread and look at my post, could you please tell me where you got your cite for the use of Bren gun tripods in the SF role? Because then we might actually drag this back on topic minus the usual kneejerks from Slappy/Brian.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The answer is simple. My ass.

My article was originally written for SL/ASL - based on the fact that the tripods existed. I have no proof that they were ever used.

I also have no proof that they were ever not used.

I simply introduced some rules for those that wanted to include them in SL/ASL.

Unfortunately, I threw in the part about the Arielli and the Nijmegen salient based on little or no info. I may have had a source for that at the time - I really don't recall and I wish I had kept some notes on my research, but unfortunately, I did not.

I may have read a passage in one of the many regimental histories I've gone through over the past 20 years or so - or not.

Which is why I have been paying attention to the conversations here so keenly.

Slapdragon · October 12, 2001

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

<sigh> So my cite has been swamped by the usual flame gang... Never mind!

Michael Dorosh, if you go to page 7 of this thread and look at my post, could you please tell me where you got your cite for the use of Bren gun tripods in the SF role? Because then we might actually drag this back on topic minus the usual kneejerks from Slappy/Brian.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Triumvir, I looked but did not find any flames in reply to your comment, nor any thing from the flame gang except for a single post from a banned member. No biggie, just adding your own gas onto troubled waters does not help.

Triumvir · October 12, 2001

Mmm. My post was not flamed, just ignored in preference to making flames.

But you know what -- you're right. Tu quoque arguments are as infantile as the behaviour you claim to see. So I'll happily refrain from making any future comments about you in any other posts because even though

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Non amo te, Slappy, nec possum dicere quare:

hoc tantum possum dicere: non amo te.

(apologies to Martial)

I should treat you with civility; the same civility you once extended to me and I churlishly disregarded.

In any case, Michael has replied, and I am satisfied. Though perhaps Michael should then update his site, so that someone else doesn't visit it and wonder where he got the cite from. The site, after all, is not the same as the SL/ASL article he wrote.

Slapdragon · October 12, 2001

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

Mmm. My post was not flamed, just ignored in preference to making flames.

But you know what -- you're right. Tu quoque arguments are as infantile as the behaviour you claim to see. So I'll happily refrain from making any future comments about you in any other posts because even though

I should treat you with civility; the same civility you once extended to me and I churlishly disregarded.

In any case, Michael has replied, and I am satisfied. Though perhaps Michael should then update his site, so that someone else doesn't visit it and wonder where he got the cite from. The site, after all, is not the same as the SL/ASL article he wrote.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Non est, crede mihi, sapientis dicere 'Vivam':

Sera nimis vita est crastina: vive hodie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simon Fox · October 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I already mea culpa d on my SPA comments above. But it still makes me laugh - here I am, a Yank, automatically assuming that surely someone must've needed to use a Sexton as an assault gun and done so regardless of doctrine, and here you are, a Commonwealth guy, automatically assuming that since it was contrary to doctrine no one would have dared do it. Fascinating to me that we each fell exactly into the slots alotted for each nation's WWII doctrinal archetype. Who'd've thought that such stereotypes and generalizations would still apply 55 years after the fact?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One should be wary of stereotypes and generalisations. Fascinating to me that you assumed that such WWII doctrinal archetypes existed especially in such a disparate grouping as the Commonwealth. You misinterpret Brian's comment. British doctrine may not necessarily say specifically that SP guns should not be used for direct fire. The doctrine was that artillery is most effective when it's firepower is employed en masse rather than dispersed. Therefore the use of SP artillery to directly support infantry is stupid and inefficient and only justifiable under extreme and desperate circumstances.

One could equally say that the inadequately educated US artillery officer was ignorant of the rationale behind his doctrine and more prone to misuse his weapons than the better informed Commonwealth artillery officer who understood his doctrine and it's rationale.

Or that US doctrine was flawed and failed to provide the weapons required for the task in hand leading to less than ideal expediency. In contrast Commonwealth doctrine provided suitable weapons.

Or that gungo US artillery arrogantly set up their batteries in locations where they might be overrun whereas the more cautious and sensible Commonwealth did not.

Or that the US frequently underestimated their opponents and often got caught with their 'pants down' and had to resort to desperate measures whereas the Commonwealth did not.

and so on....

See? I can stereotype with the best of them.

Brian is correct on the design of the 25pdr. AT application while not a primary role was always a consideration. Suitable ammunition was available and RA crews were trained in the AT role. The use of the 25pdr in this role in the desert was more an overuse than an ad hoc use.

An account of the history of it's development may also be found in:

"THE GUNNERS' FAVOURITE: The 25-pounder Gun: A Brief History"by Baldwin and Miller

and

'FIREPOWER: weapons and theories of war 1904 - 1945' by Bidwell and Graham

Michael Emrys · October 12, 2001

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

Gander did one back in the early 1970's, IIRC, a "Fact File" (part of an intended series which never really developed)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Odd. I have, I believe, something like eight or nine volumes in that series. It may well not be complete, but I wouldn't exactly describe it as undeveloped either.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that they were produced solely to test whether the turret and other structures of the tank would stand up to the recoil of the 17pdr. gun, which was the intended ultimate weapon for the vehicle. If that is indeed the case, it is no wonder that it was produced in small numbers. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Michael

Slapdragon · October 12, 2001

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

I believe that they were produced solely to test whether the turret and other structures of the tank would stand up to the recoil of the 17pdr. gun, which was the intended ultimate weapon for the vehicle. If that is indeed the case, it is no wonder that it was produced in small numbers. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct about the AC series. First a single and then a dual mount was produced, less that a half dozen test models all told including static test rigs, and it was merely to see if the sentinel frame would handle the stress of the 17lb.

Gyrene · October 12, 2001

Way back in this thread Michael Dorosh wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lucky you, in the USMC at least (I suspect the US Army as well) NBC defense is almost a cult, doesn't matter where you get deployed to, you can be sure of being issued and required to carry a gas mask under the penalty of being written up.

Add that to the yearly gas chamber requals and MOPP 4 (Full gear) days every 3-4 months: Trying to go on about your daily duties dressed like an astronaut.

We also had a good percentage of our people sent to higher level NBC training and sent back to the units to spread their new knowledge.

Gas masks even make it to the yearly rifle requals.

Gyrene

Michael Emrys · October 12, 2001

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

[/qb]Having been a wargamer for a very long time (over 20 years) my impression has been that all too often WWII gamers are more often than not interested usually in the Germans or the Americans and rarely in the British. The Germans 'cause they had the "cool" stuff and the uniforms and well, everybody likes to admire that Germanic thoroughness. The Americans on the otherhand, because they, afterall won the war, didn't they? The poor old British are looked very much upon as a bunch of losers who suffered not only at the hands of an incompetent command but a beaucracy which couldn't or wouldn't produce equipment as well or as good as the other nationalities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having been a wargamer for nearly 40 years (if we are to begin counting seniority), I would like to offer a different view. For most of that period, the WW II theater that got the most attention from wargamers and wargame designers was the East Front...by a comfortable margin.

The next most attended to usually involved British/Commonwealth/Empire forces, with the Western Desert battles forming the bulk (but not the entirety) of that.

American forces only came in third in that particular race. It's only been in recent years (after SPR and the sometimes inflated writings of Steven Ambrose) that interest in American forces in the European conflict has really heated up. I'd call that something of a corrective, though as usual, I suppose we have gone a bit overboard in compensation.

But the point is, if you go back just a bit in time, the B/C/E is very well represented indeed, especially in relation to the actual size of the forces they fielded.

Michael

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

Mulga Bill · October 12, 2001

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

Non est, crede mihi, sapientis dicere 'Vivam': Sera nimis vita est crastina: vive hodie.

Si hoc signum potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.

Mulga Bill · October 12, 2001

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

You are correct about the AC series. First a single and then a dual mount was produced, less that a half dozen test models all told including static test rigs, and it was merely to see if the sentinel frame would handle the stress of the 17lb.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Mr.Slapdragon, the AC3 was designed from the outset to mount the 25 Pdr, as it was the only weapon available which was considered powerful enough to be an adequate tank gun, after the obvious inadequacies of the 2 Pdr had been revealed (which armed the AC1). Then the Australian authorities became aware of the 17 Pdr and decided to mount it, instead in the AC4. However, in order to prove the concept and lacking a 17 Pdr, they decided to test an AC3 with twin 25 Pdrs installed. Brian is correct, in that only the Sentinel was ever designed to mount the 25 Pdr. No other British/Commonwealth tank ever did.

Interestingly, the success of the AC3 with twin 25 Pdrs eventually was used to prove that it was possible to mount a 17 Pdr in a turret ring of that diameter, which in turn resulted in the production of the Firefly.

Panzer76 · October 12, 2001

On the use of SP guns; I just read a book about Das Reich, and several times it was mention that they used SP guns (but not what type) on attack, this was in the early stages of the war on the Ostfront.

Well, not of much use I guess since we don't know what this SP gun was...

Michael Emrys · October 12, 2001

Most likely the Grille.

But another thought has occurred to me. Brian and...some others...have now agonized for some eight pages over the absence of the Bren tripod on the pretext that that demonstrates some anti-Commonwealth bias on the part of BTS. But aside from the already mentioned M16 I ask you now, where is our Calliope? The heart cries out at this injustice! Oh gods, oh mother earth! Behold us, we are wronged!

Michael

Andreas · October 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panzer76:

On the use of SP guns; I just read a book about Das Reich, and several times it was mention that they used SP guns (but not what type) on attack, this was in the early stages of the war on the Ostfront.

Well, not of much use I guess since we don't know what this SP gun was...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the Commonwealth almost any non-turreted AFV with a gun was called an SP gun, and some with turrets too. Examples include but are not restricted to:

M-10, Jagdpanther, Jagdpanzer IV, Sexton, Stug III, Archer, Bison, Grille. I have seen all of these referred to as SP guns.

Panzer76 · October 12, 2001

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

In the Commonwealth almost any non-turreted AFV with a gun was called an SP gun, and some with turrets too. Examples include but are not restricted to:

Yes, but this was several eye witness reports from German soldiers. Certainly the author MAY have replaced the type with just "SP gun" in the translation, but I think that is higly unlikly. These were quotes from diarys, interviews etc.

Anyway, in the examples they used them to fight Russian armour (unknown which) and fire at infantery.

Andreas · October 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Panzer76:

Yes, but this was several eye witness reports from German soldiers. Certainly the author MAY have replaced the type with just "SP gun" in the translation, but I think that is higly unlikly. These were quotes from diarys, interviews etc.

Anyway, in the examples they used them to fight Russian armour (unknown which) and fire at infantery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Welcome to the wonderful world of translation My assumption would be that they are talking about Stugs and maybe Marders, depending on when this took place. Who did the translation?

Slapdragon · October 12, 2001

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

Si hoc signum potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Mulga Hill -- Beazeley. As much as you whine, BTS banned you and your posting is only to your dishonor.

Enoch · October 12, 2001

I'd like to know where are the US M4 and other high speed tractors. These would prove very useful in the game for towing guns off road and many were armed with .50 MG's.

I realize most were used for towing artillery but I'd still like to have them available. Perhaps in CM3, which is the first chance for changes to US/Commonwealth forces.

Slapdragon · October 12, 2001

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

I'd like to know where are the US M4 and other high speed tractors. These would prove very useful in the game for towing guns off road and many were armed with .50 MG's.

I realize most were used for towing artillery but I'd still like to have them available. Perhaps in CM3, which is the first chance for changes to US/Commonwealth forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were rare near the front. You are more likely to see the M10 and M18 prime movers than the high speed tractors, since they were used by 76mm AT guns.

Bren Gun Tripods

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Vanir Ausf B

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements