Bren Gun Tripods

[dalem]

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

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.

See? I can stereotype with the best of them.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhh, Simon, I was about as self-effacing with my post as I know how to be. My point was that sometimes you have to attack the enemy with a potato peeler because that's what you have at hand. My stereotyped impression is that, presented with that situation in WWII, U.S. commanders would generally attack with the potato peeler and that British commanders would generally wait until they had something better than the potato peeler. This is an impression I have gathered through my readings which I believe to be true. I have never tried to analyze it or quantify it so I don't know if it actually is true. I also believe this a common interpretation. Therefore I was expressing my interest in finding myself and Brian each fitting neatly into that stereotyped model, as it appears to me.

-dale

[Enoch]

I'll take the M35 Prime mover in lieu of the M4 high speed tractor. Either way I think that the US was shafted by the exclusion of these vehicles.

Was the M4 high speed tractor rarer than the Jagdtiger? Was it more rare than the Bren Tripod? I dunno and actually don't care that much. They might be cool and useful but probably wouldn't make much of a difference in the game.

[Slapdragon]

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

I'll take the M35 Prime mover in lieu of the M4 high speed tractor. Either way I think that the US was shafted by the exclusion of these vehicles.

Was the M4 high speed tractor rarer than the Jagdtiger? Was it more rare than the Bren Tripod? I dunno and actually don't care that much. They might be cool and useful but probably wouldn't make much of a difference in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not how rare they were, they were quite common, it was that they do not show up in front line combat. That is the reason why the M35 might make it because it towed 3 inch AT assets that did indeed fight near the front commonly.

[Brian]

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

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't the Calliope an indirect weapon (although why it was mounted on a tank has always intrigued me, I must admit)?

Sounds to me like you'll have to make your own case. Perhaps you might care to ask BTS where "Mattress" is, while you're at it?

[Enoch]

Don't get me wrong I realize that the M4 tractor was quite common and that it was never meant to be near the front. I'd be surprised if was ever involved in combat except in extreme circumstances. The M35 was likely very close to the front much more often.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Wasn't the Calliope an indirect weapon...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose that with sufficient jiggery-pokery it could be made to fire indirectly, but its primary use was as direct fire intense bombardment of visible targets. It was actually a fairly elegant solution to the problem of providing such fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...(although why it was mounted on a tank has always intrigued me, I must admit)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not? They wanted to put it on an armored vehicle, since it was a direct fire weapon that would thus be exposed to counter fires, and there were lots of Shermans around. Alternatively, you can see it as a way of providing abundant rapid response saturation HE to fast moving tank formations to use while the artillery is unlimbering behind the lines. Makes a lot of sense to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps you might care to ask BTS where "Mattress" is, while you're at it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be glad to. But wasn't that primarily an indirect fire weapon?

Michael

[Brian]

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

Uhh, Simon, I was about as self-effacing with my post as I know how to be. My point was that sometimes you have to attack the enemy with a potato peeler because that's what you have at hand. My stereotyped impression is that, presented with that situation in WWII, U.S. commanders would generally attack with the potato peeler and that British commanders would generally wait until they had something better than the potato peeler. This is an impression I have gathered through my readings which I believe to be true. I have never tried to analyze it or quantify it so I don't know if it actually is true. I also believe this a common interpretation. Therefore I was expressing my interest in finding myself and Brian each fitting neatly into that stereotyped model, as it appears to me.

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simon basically got it right. I suggest you go back and reread my point, I said "German SP's perhaps. British ones? Rarely, if ever."

"Rarely" does not preclude it happening, Dale, it merely points out that it was not the preferred use for that piece of equipment - because it wasn't suited to the task and was more valuable being reserved for others.

The British had already suffered the problems of allowing their artillery to be diluted and utilised for inappropriate tasks - in the Western Desert and the "Jock Columns". Yes, the circumstance pushed them into an unusual response to an unusual situation but they'd also learnt that allowing that unusual situation to continue resulted in the unacceptable losses of valuable men and equipment which if concentrated and utilised properly, according to their doctine, won battles for them. They therefore stress and restressed to their commanders, that this was how you employed artillery.

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Panzer76]

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

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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I only borrowed the book, and have now returned it after finishing it, so I can't tell right now.

[Brian]

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

dd. 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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not referring to the popular "WWII Fact Files" but rather to another one. I might be mistaken as to the title. I'll have to check as its in my brother's possession at the moment.

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

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>

I believe Mulga Bill has answered that one. The AC3 (I stand corrected on the designation) was in fact intended to mount the 25 Pdr from the outset. Both this site and this [url=http://www.webone.com.au/~myszka/Aust/Research/Sentinel/sentinel13.htm have images of the AC3. You're thinking of the special AC3 "Thunderbolt" which mounted twin 25 Pdr's as a proof of concept vehicle for the AC4 which was intended to mount the 17 Pdr.

[Brian]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the US perhaps. In Australia and from my limited experience of the UK end of the scale, what I said holds true. You should also realise when I refer to "wargaming" I'm referring almost exclusively to figure gaming (and primarily 1/76 scale figure gaming as well). Yes, that might appear to limit the matter but that was the sort of wargaming I was involved with.

Boardgames were looked upon primarily as a curiosity for the most part. Eastern Front hardly got a look in - primarily because of lack of models available. Western Desert and NW Europe were big focii.

[Brian]

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

Do you know the size of the budget? I would be interested what constitutes a 'shoe-string'. Also, is it a simulation that would sell to a wider audience?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it wouldn't sell to a "wider audience" being designed primarily as an aide to running TEWT's and requiring considerable "interpretation" of its results by an umpire who was working to a brief. It was purely text based.

As its budget, I was always told it was about $CAN150,000 or thereabouts. I used it a couple of times to run a few tactical figure games and it worked. Best part about it was that its data files were simply text files which I could edit by hand to add the attributes that I wanted (changing it from a NATA/WARPACT scenario to an Australia/Musurian one).

[Brian]

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

Be glad to. But wasn't that primarily an indirect fire weapon?

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed it was and a very rare one indeed, going by my understanding. As to Calliope, you see how little I know about American equipment? I'm willing to admit my ignorance, unlike our repillian friend about Australian tanks.

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Michael Emrys]

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

Indeed it was and a very rare one indeed, going by my understanding. As to Calliope, you see how little I know about American equipment? I'm willing to admit my ignorance, unlike our repillian friend about Australian tanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fairly spoke...almost. In return, I will mention that the Brits also experimented with placing rockets on tanks. I can't quote chapter and verse on them as my copy of British and American Tanks is packed away somewhere still, but ISTR that they used the same rockets that the RAF did, and mounted either two or four on the turret sides. More later if I ever manage to get my library straightened out.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

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

[/qb]

In the US perhaps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that's exactly my point, Brian: There has been no significant bias against the UK in American wargaming circles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Australia and from my limited experience of the UK end of the scale, what I said holds true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you can hardly hold us to blame for that. [sniff]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You should also realise when I refer to "wargaming" I'm referring almost exclusively to figure gaming (and primarily 1/76 scale figure gaming as well). Yes, that might appear to limit the matter but that was the sort of wargaming I was involved with.

Boardgames were looked upon primarily as a curiosity for the most part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if one is going to be a snob, there's no limit to what one will never know. Relative to WW II miniatures, boardgaming in this country was huge. It was also a hotbed of exciting innovation, especially during the '70s and '80s.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eastern Front hardly got a look in - primarily because of lack of models available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. I know that during the early '80s (my own brief fling with miniatures) there was a fairly abundant selection of vehicles, including Soviet. Did you ever consider Microarmor (1/285th.)? I think there was more to choose from there.

Michael

[Brian]

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

Fairly spoke...almost. In return, I will mention that the Brits also experimented with placing rockets on tanks. I can't quote chapter and verse on them as my copy of British and American Tanks is packed away somewhere still, but ISTR that they used the same rockets that the RAF did, and mounted either two or four on the turret sides. More later if I ever manage to get my library straightened out.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guards Armoured Division utilised such a modification, mounting two 3 in aircraft rockets (wither the 30 or 60 lb warheads) one either side of the turret of a Sherman. It wasn't approved for widespread adoption basically 'cause it was wildly inaccurate and only had one set elevation (1100 years IIRC).

It was said to have an interesting moral effect upon both firer and target though...

[Brian]

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

Hmm. I know that during the early '80s (my own brief fling with miniatures) there was a fairly abundant selection of vehicles, including Soviet. Did you ever consider Microarmor (1/285th.)? I think there was more to choose from there.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1/300 and 1/285 never really caught on that much amongst the groups I wargamed with. I tried to interest others in it but most of the people I knew were moving to either 15mm or 1/200 scale, which I felt didn't really have the same visual appeal and still retained the problem of ground scales being fairly artificial.

My understanding of the American wargaming scene was that it was quite insular - mainly individuals or groups of friends getting together and playing boardgames, much more than miniatures. Here, downunder, big, well organised groups existed, particularly in the state I hailed from. At its height, the premier wargames club there had clubrooms boasting a bar, fees of over $150 pa and airconditioned accomodation in the middle of the city. It had about 200+ members.

As for "bias" its a word I decreasingly favour. I'm searching for one to describe exactly what I mean still as the "pro-" has also failed to describe it. Perhaps just plain "proponent" would be better?

I still think its a matter of "flavour" - the Americans just can't seem to get it right for the British for some reason IMO.

[dalem]

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

Simon basically got it right. I suggest you go back and reread my point, I said "German SP's perhaps. British ones? Rarely, if ever."

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read your post, and Simon's, several times Brian. I assume my point about stereotyping was poorly made, and I'll drop it.

As to the wargaming focus issues, sounds to me like Australia was a bit of an outlier market and didn't ride the tide of hexboard and miniataure and PC games, with all the big names pushing East Front and Desert Warfare to the exclusion of most other theaters, and every garage publisher following suit both with expansions to the main releases and their own sets. That could explain some of your issues.

-dale

[Michael Emrys]

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

1/300 and 1/285 never really caught on that much amongst the groups I wargamed with. I tried to interest others in it but most of the people I knew were moving to either 15mm or 1/200 scale, which I felt didn't really have the same visual appeal and still retained the problem of ground scales being fairly artificial.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pity.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My understanding of the American wargaming scene was that it was quite insular - mainly individuals or groups of friends getting together and playing boardgames, much more than miniatures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mostly true. There were (and to some extent still are) large annual conventions where hundreds of wargamers get together to play for a weekend. The national conventions are huge but the regional conventions are well attended as well. Both boardgamer and miniatures do this, sometimes together. Both aspects of the hobby have had a number of magazines (both professional and amateur) devoted to them, albeit they tend to come and go.

BTW, at least one boardgame, the Europa series from GR/D, has had its own regional and national conventions. But that game is so excellent and all-encompassing that it almost comprises a world unto itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here, downunder, big, well organised groups existed, particularly in the state I hailed from. At its height, the premier wargames club there had clubrooms boasting a bar, fees of over $150 pa and airconditioned accomodation in the middle of the city. It had about 200+ members.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the British style alright, and to some extent I envy it. The Brits tend to have clubs for everything and feel right at home having membership in multiple organisations. That way of doing things has never really quite caught on the same way over here, for better or worse.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for "bias" its a word I decreasingly favour. I'm searching for one to describe exactly what I mean still as the "pro-" has also failed to describe it. Perhaps just plain "proponent" would be better?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds right to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I still think its a matter of "flavour" - the Americans just can't seem to get it right for the British for some reason IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not too surprising! In the interest of continued amity, I will leave off for the present my opinion for why that is! LOL!

But seriously, there have been some respectable board wargames to come not only from the UK, but Canada and Australia as well. And then SSG used to produce some interesting computer games (until they ceased developing for the Mac, the chicken**** bastards!). I really think you should produce the kind of game you are looking for. And be sure to put up a discussion board so we can all come over and pick it to pieces and complain about the "Aussie bias". LOL!

Michael

[Mace]

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

[/qb]

In the US perhaps. In Australia and from my limited experience of the UK end of the scale, what I said holds true. You should also realise when I refer to "wargaming" I'm referring almost exclusively to figure gaming (and primarily 1/76 scale figure gaming as well). Yes, that might appear to limit the matter but that was the sort of wargaming I was involved with.

Boardgames were looked upon primarily as a curiosity for the most part. Eastern Front hardly got a look in - primarily because of lack of models available. Western Desert and NW Europe were big focii.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Shepparton Wargames club I was a member of played more Eastern Front miniatures than NW Europe, and using the Soviet vehicles available in 1/72 (eg Fujimi's KV1 and KV2, Airfix's T34/85), we could modify these to produce the SUs and a fair representation of the ISU series that weren't readily available in the late 70s

I also remember dropping into the Victorian Wargame association just before they went belly up (very early 80s?). They were holding an Eastern Front miniatures session on the day, and according to the guy I spoke to, there was a strong representation of keen Eastern Front gamers.

Mace

[Brian]

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

The Shepparton Wargames club I was a member of played more Eastern Front miniatures than NW Europe, and using the Soviet vehicles available in 1/72 (eg Fujimi's KV1 and KV2, Airfix's T34/85), we could modify these to produce the SUs and a fair representation of the ISU series that weren't readily available in the late 70s

I also remember dropping into the Victorian Wargame association just before they went belly up (very early 80s?). They were holding an Eastern Front miniatures session on the day, and according to the guy I spoke to, there was a strong representation of keen Eastern Front gamers.

Mace<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Might well have been a regional focus. We had people who were strongly interested in the Western Desert and NW Europe. Eastern Front a much lesser extent.

I've heard the SAHWS has gone through one of its periodic big-bang cycles and largely disappeared.

BTW, you owe me a turn.

[Brian]

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

Not too surprising! In the interest of continued amity, I will leave off for the present my opinion for why that is! LOL!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be too frightened to share your thoughts, Michael. We're all, well, nearly all, grown ups here. I'd be interested in reading what you have to say.

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

But seriously, there have been some respectable board wargames to come not only from the UK, but Canada and Australia as well. And then SSG used to produce some interesting computer games (until they ceased developing for the Mac, the chicken**** bastards!). I really think you should produce the kind of game you are looking for. And be sure to put up a discussion board so we can all come over and pick it to pieces and complain about the "Aussie bias". LOL!

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny you should mention that. I've toyed with the idea semi-seriously several times. I've found some programmers, perhaps I should consider finding some backers.

However, I must admit I was aiming more at the online, strategic or operational level market. Then I got addicte to CMBO.

[Brian Rock]

Another Aussie war-story:

When I was in High School in the mid 70s (another survivor of Shepparton High) I mainly played boardgames. I was a serious SPI junkie, and S&T magazine's monthly game exposed me to a periods of warfare I never would have considered otherwise. We also had a few marathon Third Reich sessions at Mace's house, and various East Front games (the old Jedko game whose title I forget).

One big attractions to boardgames was that there were no models to buy and paint. When I did play tactical boardgames they were (in order of playing time) Panzerblitz (east front), the AH game in the Western Desert (forget the name, but remember the hundred of die rolls), and the SPI series of WWII to modern tank games (name?).

Generally most with tactical or operational games most of us had an east front focus. It was largely through this group that I think I developed my interest in the east.

At uni the Monash University Wargame club was mainly boardgames, with primarily split fairly evenly between WWII and Napoleonics. The miniatures guys tended to be Napoleonics players, and the WWII boardgamers liked operational games. GDW's "Europa" was huge, especially "Drang Nach Osten", a divisional level game in the east. I never understood the appeal of a game that took longer to play than the war it was simulating.

Interestingly I go to an annual wargame convention in Canberra each year, and there's been a clear swing to miniatures. There might be a few tables of boardgamers, but dozens of Warhammer players, quite a few ancient's tables, some Napoleonics, a smattering of Science Fiction (Stargrunt) and modern skirmish gaming, and maybe two or three tables of WWII armor (can't recall which theatre).

Then in the next hall are about 200 PCs playing Counterstrike, but that's another story...

[Michael Emrys]

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

...S&T magazine's monthly game...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bimonthly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>various East Front games (the old Jedko game whose title I forget).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Might that be The Russian Campaign? The one that AH bought and did handsomely with?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One big attractions to boardgames was that there were no models to buy and paint.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some might see that as a deficit. But I think I know what you mean. My big gripe about miniatures was how much space it took to play them. But then Europa...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the AH game in the Western Desert (forget the name, but remember the hundred of die rolls)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tobruk. Loved it but never played it all that much. Biggest drawback for me was not the die rolls, but the map that didn't look like a map of anyplace on earth. Big PR mistake.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...and the SPI series of WWII to modern tank games (name?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a single game called Tank that you could plug in values for any era. Somehow I doubt that that's what you mean. There was Panzer '44 and an earlier version of the same system for 1940 but whose name I forget just now. Ring any bells?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>GDW's "Europa" was huge, especially "Drang Nach Osten", a divisional level game in the east. I never understood the appeal of a game that took longer to play than the war it was simulating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That did present interesting problems. I always enjoyed the smaller games in the series though. Narvik has to be an all-time super classic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Interestingly I go to an annual wargame convention in Canberra each year, and there's been a clear swing to miniatures. There might be a few tables of boardgamers, but dozens of Warhammer players, quite a few ancient's tables, some Napoleonics, a smattering of Science Fiction (Stargrunt) and modern skirmish gaming, and maybe two or three tables of WWII armor (can't recall which theatre).

Then in the next hall are about 200 PCs playing Counterstrike, but that's another story...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like the US scene these days (I speak from hearsay). I think fantasy gaming has ruined everything. (How's that for setting the cat among the pigeons? )

Michael

[Mace]

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

When I was in High School in the mid 70s (another survivor of Shepparton High)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, it was an extremely tough school with a large mortality rate!

Mace

[Mace]

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

There was Panzer '44 and an earlier version of the same system for 1940 but whose name I forget just now. Ring any bells?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panzer'44 was one of the games. The other game you're thinking of is Kampfpanzer which covered Armored combat for the periods 1937 to 1940.

Perhaps the most frequently boardgames I can recall playing with Brian was SPI's Sniper and Patrol.

Mace