Bren Gun Tripods

[Brian]

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

Oh how exciting - now we get treated to the Brian against the rest of the world routine. Yeah, it is a tough life, but I am sure you feel very Messianic about it. So that's alright then.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I find it amusing, Andreas.

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

Your photos - fine. Your reasoning based on them, very dodgy. An 'F', and a 'must try harder'.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As they are the only source which I have available to me at the moment, and they are online, I think they are adequate for the moment.

I am presently gathering more.

If it irks you, you can always cut and run.

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

I am normally not getting so upset at these things, but I have really had it with some people who come in here with the flimsiest of evidence making wild claims, and when challenged resort to intransigence instead of engaging with the arguments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andreas, what "wild claims" have I made?

I have merely pointed out that Bren gun tripods existed, they were used and their existence was widespread and sufficient to have pictures taken in widely different and divergent places over an extended period of time - indeed if you go back to my very first message on the subject in the other thread, I even pointed out that I had always understood their use had been largely discontinued after about 1940.

I have not made any claim beyond that.

You lot have been screaming and shouting about, first their non-existence, then their non-use and now, their non-availability. Slappy at one point even tried to claim I was trying to make the Bren the equivalent of the MG42! ROTFL!

I and others have produced different pieces of proof. Some pictures taken in museums. Micheal Dorosh even produced rules covering their use in ASL, John Howard, quoted a book. Others have quoted other sources, I've merely pointed out some pictorial evidence, thats all.

As I said, I appear to be the one though, who gets singled out, merely because I've put my arm up and made my points, perhaps more forcefully than the others.

I'm not worried by such attention, I'm used to it - being given to strong opinions and views which I tend to put forcefully. As Sir Johannes Bjelke Petersen was want to say, I'll just keep feedin' the chooks.

[Berlichtingen]

* Self, why are you still reading this?

Brian,

The point that you seem to be missing (how you can be missing it is beyond me), is that the photos in question are not valid proof of anything. Trot some numbers and facts out, and you might get listened to.

[Slapdragon]

In a ways, this demonstrates the issue Berli.

The whole ubercommonwealth cluster of subjects is predicated on the assumption that BTS has purposefully screwed these countries. To support this a cluster of "errors" have been created of which I eluded above.

In reality, the style of discourse has only been tangentally profressional. For example,

This faction equates "forcefullness" with evidence.

They create multiple accounts to make there arguments seem stronger.

They build huge arguments around a cluster of two or three pictures or a snip from a training film.

They make up their minds, then they search for evidence to support it to the exclusion of other evidence (witness the remark that they are still looking for evidence, they just grabbed the little they could find immediately.) This of course is unfortunate and backwards because although historians will use a theory to guide research, they are also capable of accepting the null and rejecting a theory,

They engage in unprofessional and dishonorable behavior (posting after banning, hijacking identity, etc.).

In all, they actually set their causes back much farther than if they used a more reasonable, professional tone and manner. You can see how few supporting pieces of evidence have been offered and how low of a quality they are, and these discussions are now 1400 posts or more along. In addition, the faction has had two people banned (Eumundi and Beazeley now posing as Mulga Hill) and another warned for banning (Brian). Not a pretty picture, nor an example of stellar scholarship.

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[DanE]

I have a couple of points from the peanut gallary:

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

I have merely pointed out that Bren gun tripods existed,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beleive everybody agrees on this point...

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

they were used

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also beleive everybody agrees that they were used. But how they were used and when is what is being questioned...

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

and their existence was widespread and sufficient to have pictures taken in widely different and divergent places over an extended period of time

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How widespread? How sufficient? The point being argued here is that we cannot jump to these conclusions based soley on these pictures. If that were the case, then certianly UFOs have to exist because we have lord knows how many pictures of them. The same for Loch Ness and Bigfoot.

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

- indeed if you go back to my very first message on the subject in the other thread, I even pointed out that I had always understood their use had been largely discontinued after about 1940.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Their use was largely discontinued after about 1940? Then what exactly is being argued here? If the use of the tripod was largely discontinued after about 1940, then is it a big surprise that the tripod is not modeled in CM:BO? The time frame in CM:BO is June 1944 and beyond.

[Berlichtingen]

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

Their use was largely discontinued after about 1940? Then what exactly is being argued here? If the use of the tripod was largely discontinued after about 1940, then is it a big surprise that the tripod is not modeled in CM:BO? The time frame in CM:BO is June 1944 and beyond.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here now! Let's not be using logic, it just clouds the issue

[Brian]

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

Oh, here is another one that I have. Obviously everyone else understood I have more sites to post except Mulga Bill, who reads into things that aren't there.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really, Rune? I thought he rather demolished your post by whit of demonstrating not only your selective quoting but also the logic behind your reasoning.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[QB}

Note for British Airborne, a crew of two, one with the gun and one with ammo. Umm...who is carrying the tripod?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QB]

Pulling rather a long bow there, I think, Rune. Might not tripods have been left behind because of weight considerations by Airborne troops?

No, of course not...

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

Here is one of the quotes from a veteran that I supposedly don't have.

The Battery moved to Antoing in Belgium where it carried out its secondary role protecting the 48th Division moving up, by Bren guns mounted on tripods being used against aircraft. We saw plenty of action during this period as enemy aircraft were over in large numbers every day. Whether the Bren gun was very effective as an A/A gun was very doubtful. I only saw one aircraft shot down and every gunner in the Battery was convinced his was the gun that scored the hit.

Altho this was early war at Dunkirk.

Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And of the use of the tripod in an anti-aircraft role. I note you don't provide a citation for it though...

Oh, and here is a quote by a veteran as well:

"As I walked up the track, I came across a machine position which had been established by some men. They had dug a hole and had placed in it, a Bren gun on its tripod, pointing further up the track towards the enemy."

Hocking, Philip, "The long carry : a history of the 2/1 Australian Machine Gun Battalion, 1939-46"

The passage BTW, relates to the period 1942-3 in New Guinea.

[Enoch]

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

I even pointed out that I had always understood their use had been largely

discontinued after about 1940. I have not made any claim beyond that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As DanE asks then what exactly is it that you want out of BTS? If the tripod mounted Bren largely wasn't used after 1940 what is you point?

Please, Brian, could you repeat it for me? I ask this seriously because I am not sure what the point of all this argument is anymore.

[Brian]

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

I have a couple of points from the peanut gallary:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The peanut gallery are always welcome to comment.

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

Their use was largely discontinued after about 1940? Then what exactly is being argued here? If the use of the tripod was largely discontinued after about 1940, then is it a big surprise that the tripod is not modeled in CM:BO? The time frame in CM:BO is June 1944 and beyond.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you have to read my comment in the context of the original thread, which was Michael Dorosh (I think, I could be mistaken) bringing the matter of the use of Bren tripods up, in reference to CMBO.

I mentioned that I understood their use had been discontinued after about 1940. Since then, new evidence from various sources, not just myself has shown that they were utilised a great deal more than I, at least, believed.

I was pointing that, by returning to my original comment than I am not some cavalier zealot - rather I have become increasingly convinced with each piece of research that has come to light and been posted, either by myself or others, that the use of the tripod was more widespread and for a much longer period than I, again, at least, had understood.

[rune]

Brian,

A dose of reality may help. He demolished my arguement? All I state is that in CMBO terms, it would have rare usage. That two, count them, two pictures is not common usage. Especially where one of the photos is from the Korean war. More proof is needed. Umm...how was that defeated? Selective use? RARE it was used. Rare, seldom, I never said it wasn't used. You and banned boy read into that. Try reading what I post and not into it.

I also found a veteran's account where the tripod WAS used at Arnhem. However, since I find this entire thread a waste of time, I won't bother with it anymore.

Bottom line: Two pictures and one account does not make for common usage. Again, come up with support as everyone has stated.

Oh yeah, if I was purposely trying to misquote or make a false point, why would I post the link?

Rune

PS, I notice YOU didn't post a link. How does a weapon in New Guinea impact Europe anyway?

Here is the site i quoted from: http://www.mgb-stuff.org.uk/harrytext2.htm

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: rune ]

[dalem]

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

Andreas, what "wild claims" have I made?

I have merely pointed out that Bren gun tripods existed, they were used and their existence was widespread and sufficient to have pictures taken in widely different and divergent places over an extended period of time ....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh. My. God. Read carefully, child:

A. Handful. Of. Photos. Proves. Nothing. About. Extent. Of. Use.

Do you agree or disagree with this point? Because you keep posting as if you disagree.

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

As I said, I appear to be the one though, who gets singled out, merely because I've put my arm up and made my points, perhaps more forcefully than the others.

I'm not worried by such attention, I'm used to it - being given to strong opinions and views which I tend to put forcefully. As Sir Johannes Bjelke Petersen was want to say, I'll just keep feedin' the chooks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah, you're the brave oppressed messenger, that's better than being a clear thinker. You get 'singled out', sir, because you have firmly based your entire argument on the concept that 2+2=5. We are trying to help you understand that your reasoning is flawed, not your theory. Frikkin' Bren guns might have in fact been issued frikkin' tripods on a one for one basis, and the frikkin' Australians gunners might have used them that way from 1939 to 1955 with nary an exception.

But you can't 'prove' it using your methods. Ever.

-dale

[Maastrictian]

I will attempt to clarify and condense the arguements so far. Yes, I realize I will fail

There seem to be three issues at hand here.

1) An issue of how to conduct historical research. What consititutes suficient evidence to show that something is true. Brian: Do you belive that a small number of photographs and one or two accounts are sufficient to draw larger conclusions from?

2) An issue of how much the Bren tripod was used durring world war two. Brian (and everyone): Please clarify for us what exactally you belive.

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

I was pointing that, by returning to my original comment than I am not some cavalier zealot - rather I have become increasingly convinced with each piece of research that has come to light and been posted, either by myself or others, that the use of the tripod was more widespread and for a much longer period than I, again, at least, had understood.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what do you now, currently, belive? You state that the Bren was used infrequently after 1940. So, to clarify, what exactally are you saying?

Do you belive that in the following years and regions the Bren Tripod was used with the following frequencies:

North West Europe

1940 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1941 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1942 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1943 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1944 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1945 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

Southern Europe

1940 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1941 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1942 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1943 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1944 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1945 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

Pacific Theater

1940 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1941 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1942 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1943 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1944 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

1945 rare uncommon common vcommon frequent

I define my frequencies as follows:

rare -- Isolated incidents and units. No consistant use at any organizational level.

uncommon -- 1 tripod per battalion.

common -- 1 tripod per company.

v[ery]common -- 1 tripod per platoon.

frequent -- 1 tripod per section.

Feel free to give a range of values or even to not answer certain time periods if you don't know. There is great honesty in admiting you don't know.

I belive that the central arguement against your posts (please correct me if I'm wrong) has been that Bren tripod use was "rare" (a I define it) in North West Europe in 1944 and 1945. If others belive that they can characterize Bren tripod use for other times and regions please do.

3) (remeber, I did say three issues way up there) An issue of what level of rarity makes inclusion in CM manditory. This issue has mostly not been dealt with in this thread, but it was central to other threads on this subject, so it is included for completeness.

--Chris

[Kingfish]

bren

More on bren

[Slapdragon]

Although there is no cite to back it up, the #2 website confirms Micheal Dorosh on the rarity of the tripod and its being left in trucks most of the time.

[Madmatt]

Gentlemen,

I would advise that everyone just back off the throttles a teensy weensy bit. We all want the same thing here and with the game.

Just be prepared to defend any data you bring up and don't take scrutiny of presented material personaly.

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but no one ever says how good those words may be.

Madmatt

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Although there is no cite to back it up, the #2 website confirms Micheal Dorosh on the rarity of the tripod and its being left in trucks most of the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS MY WEBSITE HE IS QUOTING! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Kingfish]

LOL!!!!

That's a classic

I had no idea it was your site. I just thought it would help the discussion.

BTW, nice site.

[Michael Emrys]

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

...in order for two pictures to exist, one taken in 1942-3 and the other in 1950, of the same piece of equipment, in two very different locations, the piece of equipment must have been in fairly widespread and continious service.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unwarranted assumption. I have photographs of the M1917 water cooled .30 caliber machine gun in use in both the Pacific and in Italy. That does not prove that its use was either widespread or continuous. Simply that it was used somewhere sometime.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

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

Now, I don't know about other armies but I suspect they, like the Australian Army do not train soldiers on equipment which they do not actually use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My! What a tender declaration of faith!

Pardon my sarcasm, but in light of the many descriptions of army (and air force and navy) training around the world, it was not only possible, but standard for troops to train on equipment not actually used in combat. This is particularly true in the case of the many hastily raised armies of WW II.

Let us be careful to note that this is not to say, Brian, that this is proof that your assertion of tripod use is conclusively false, just that there are more points that have to be considered in evaluating your claim. This is the part that you seem to have difficulty getting.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, can you really with a straight face tell me that such evidence has absolutely no value?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, and I don't believe that anyone has seriously tried to claim that. But you fail to distinguish between evidence and proof. They are not the same thing. You and what's-his-name have offered single bits of evidence, which may or may not be of value pending an evaluation as to their validity and applicability to the question at hand. But even if they prove to be grade A 24 karat real mccoy, they do not in and of themselves constitute proof. They might well constitute an element of proof, but as others have spelled out for you above, more is needed.

Michael

[ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Michael Dorosh]

More examples of equipment trained with but not used extensively in combat:

Canadian D-Day assault troops trained on bicycles. See the book Bloody Buron - the Highland Light Infantry trained on them extensively, and there are photos of them being lugged ashore on D-Day. They were not used after 6 June.

The MacAdam Shovel. In World War One, a shovel was designed and purchased by the thousand - it had a hole in the blade so that soldiers could use them as shields, and fire the rifle by using the hole in the shovel as a loophole. There is at least one photo of the shovel being used in training (see Military Artifact). They were never used in combat.

Canadian troops trained extensively on Lewis Guns (many marked DP (Drill Purposes) only) early in the war. They were never used in action, neither were the Ross, P17, or Springfield '03 rifles that were trained with throughout the war.

The comment about stuff being pulled out of mothballs for Korea is apt. Canada had prepared to make the move to American weapons in 1950, when the Korean War interrupted the scheme. Old war stocks of British-style equipment were pulled out and issued. This may indeed have included Bren tripods, I really don't know. But again, there is little evidence that they were used. On the other hand, I should ask my Korean War veteran friend about that - they used Vickers and Browning MGs extensively.

As a matter of fact, I think I will put it to him to see what he says.

[Ben Hall]

I am I admit a newbie here but I may have some personal information of value. I've been reading this thread with some interest as my father was Bren Gunner during WWII in the British Army, serving in France, Belgium and Holland before being wounded. I asked him about the use of the tripod. He said they had them but rarely had a chance to deploy them because of the pace of operations. They were usually issued one or two per platoon and carried in unit vehicles.

One place he does mention where he used one was when they went over to the defensive during the winter of 1944 while they waited for the yanks to sort themselves out over the German attack in the Ardennes. They set up stop lines and dug in, using the Brens to fire on fixed lines. He said it was the first time he had a real chance to use one at really long range. He remembers hitting targets they tested on at over a thousand yards or more, which was basically impossible with a Bren on only a bipod normally.

Hope that information is of some value to you.

[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?

[Michael Dorosh]

Ben, awesome info. I did indeed mention in another thread that they were not useful on the attack, but were used on static fronts. Which unit did your father serve in, if you don't mind me asking (division/regiment)?

[Brian]

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

My! What a tender declaration of faith!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why thank you, Michael. It is not based upon faith, it is in fact based upon experience. Militaries do not waste time training their soldiers on equipment which they do not intend to use.

As to whether or not they end up using it in action is a completely different matter, I agree. You appear to be concentrating purely upon equipment used "in action" - whereas I made no such distinction.

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

Let us be careful to note that this is not to say, Brian, that this is proof that

your assertion of tripod use is conclusively false, just that there are more points

that have to be considered in evaluating your claim. This is the part that you seem to have difficulty getting.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not my claim, at all. Michael Dorosh brought the matter up, for the first time, as I keep pointing out. I have merely pointed people to pictures of their use, by a Commonwealth Army, nothing more.

It is others, I would suggest who have decided to attack me for daring to suggest that these pictures indicate that the issue, training and employment of this piece equipment was far more widespread than I, at least, had initially believed.

You simply cannot claim IMO that the pictures of infantrymen in the Western Desert, Palestine, Australia and the SW Pacific, along with ADG's in Australia and Infantrymen in Korea, quite a bit later, either using or being trained to utilised the same piece of equipment, that it was not widespread, Michael.

It would be like saying that just 'cause there are pictures showing widespread use of the .303 SMLE No.3 doesn't mean it was in widespread use!

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

No, and I don't believe that anyone has seriously tried to claim that. But you fail to distinguish between evidence and proof. They are not the same thing. You and what's-his-name have offered single bits of evidence, which may or may not be of value pending an evaluation as to their validity and applicability to the question at hand. But even if they prove to be grade A 24 karat real mccoy, they do not in and of themselves constitute proof. They might well constitute an element of proof, but as others have spelled out for you above, more is needed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have evidence now, from the following sources:

Michael Dorosh;

John Howard;

myself;

Viceroy;

Kingfish;

Ben Hall.

In particular, the last two, are very interesting. Kingfish provided the URL to the Bren gun site, which in turn quotes from the 1942 British Army training Pam on the Bren:

"(i) The tripod.

Originally each gun had its own tripod on which it could be used against either ground targets or aircraft.

Recently, however, it has been decided that one tripod for every three guns is all that is necessary since the occasions on which it is desirable to use the gun as though it were a medium M.G. are considered to be becoming rarer and rarer."

This, above all else, IMO confirms that the tripod continued to be issued and used after 1940. How often? Well, Ben has confirmed what Michael Dorosh pointed out - occasionally they were used.

So, recapping the main points that have been made:

The tripod existed. It was issued, initially approximately one per weapon and then reduced to one per platoon. Its use was widespread amongst at least one and most likely all Commonwealth armies (ie it was not limited to just one Theatre). Its actual use in combat was, for the most part in NW Europe, limited because of the pace of operations.

So, what are the gripes about from the anti-crowd?

I have no idea but they are rather contumacious about defending them, it would seem.

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

[Brian]

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

I will attempt to clarify and condense the arguements so far. Yes, I realize I will fail

[QB]

Not necessarily, you appear to have made at least a valient attempt.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

[ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]