Bren Gun Tripods

[Michael Dorosh]

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.

I took my oath so long ago, I can't remember. I am pretty sure I swore on the Bible, though. I think I had the option to make an affirmation instead of using the bible. By definition, I thought an "oath" had to be sworn on the Good Book, vice an affirmation where you just really, really promise to be good.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

You do have a case that rare vehicles are used in CMBO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTS has never been shy to admit that they do include some things mainly for their "coolness" factor. CM2 may have IS-3s for that reason. Jagdtigers and Jumbos were very rare, but if BTS had left them out they would have had a small revolt on their hands.

Like Jadgtigers, Bren tripods were a rare sight on ETO battlefields. Unlike Jagdtigers, Bren tripods are not very cool. Admitedly, this is entirely subjective, but I think it's telling that CM was out for over a year before someone took exception to the absense of Bren tripods. So, knowing they couldn't put every last military object present in the ETO in CM, they chose the Jadgtiger over the Bren tripod.

I don't have a problem with this, but I know some of the hardcore grogs scoff at the coolness factor. They would be perfectly happy with CM if it were a 2-D game with CGA color just as long as the shatter gap for US 76mm APBC vs. Tiger front mantlet is properly modeled. But they are the minority and BTS has families to feed too, so the Jadgtiger is in and the Bren tripod is not. Them's the breaks.

I personally would not object if the Bren tripod were in CM. But I don't consider it's absense to be any great tragedy.

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Michael Emrys]

Couldn't have put it much better, Mr. B.

Michael

[Brian]

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

meeeep - wrong again. the candidate has no points so far.

the MG42 can be put onto the tripod and taken off just like that. there *is* no HMG42, just a regular MG42 put onto tripod in an HMG role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Methinks (not unusually) you missed the point. In the game, the "HMG42" is only ever a "HMG42" - you can never abandon the tripod.

[Brian]

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

Working with tanks, mortars, & artillery (with a dash of CAS for select occasions) in combined-arms fashion is fully in the realm of WWII tactical warfare, more so in the last two years. Pick up a copy of Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy" to read a compelling case as to how so.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not what I was referring to.

I'll leave it to you to reread what I said to figure it out but take my word for it, I wasn't referring to "combined arms doctrine", per se.

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

Further, Brian, you may opt to do so, but choosing to dismiss the "Dragonfox" guidelines in arguing for a CM revision is not going to get you much traction.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, the mere fact the game is historically innaccurate carries no weight in the argument then, in your view, Spook?

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

This guideline set isn't "law" due simply to Slap's & Simon's summarization; it is instead that, a summation of the game designers' rationales in responding to revision requests. Provide a case to each of the guideline points in a compelling way, and then you'll gain some traction.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is seeking a revision? I'm merely asking that the tripod be included in the next version of the game. I have come to accept that there will be no futher revisions and indeed, I suspect it might be better from what I am increasingly percieving as the problems with the present engine, to merely ask for its inclusion in the game whilst they are rewriting it.

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

But I will be so bold, and venture to guess the core matter as to why something as seemingly marginal as the Bren-tripod is pursued as a revision request.

It is because of the direct firepower of Commonwealth platoons appearing to be lower in comparison to other nationalities in CMBO. The UK rifle squad actually compares closely to the German '44 rifle squad, but the Germans have more infantry TO&E options that can provide higher-firepower squads like panzergrenadiers, sturmkompanies, FJ, etc., some which nearly double the small-arms firepower of the equivalent UK rifle unit.

Now, I could be cavalier and say, "Sorry, Brian, but them's the breaks." Because in historical terms in NW Europe, it was indeed the case that the Germans could commonly outgun the US/UK at the firefight level (though not always). And the Bren tripod alone is not going to rectify this.

But do take note that I highlighted the word "appear" earlier. That is because in grand-tactical & operational terms, the Allies ultimately trumped the supposed German infantry tactical edge. US/UK artillery support was usually more reliable, more flexible in response, and usually with more tubes able to add fire than the German artillery could in NW Europe. And after proper tank/infantry coordination was learned, the Allies were usually more likely to have tank support on hand for their infantry.

Even if the German Army of 1944 could had been completely re-equipped with the MP44 before D-Day, the end result would've still been the same. And probably with little change to the timeline of events.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, wholeheartedly, Spook.

However, you appear to believe, like Slappy that I think the UK has been short-changed, in game terms. I don't. As I've stated before, I merely wish to make the choice available to a game player closer to that which was available to the real commander.

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

For the last month, I have been actually toying with the concept of "aimed fire" and how it might be implemented in CM's future. It is only just a theory for peer review, but when I hash it out a little better, along with some attached graphics files, I desire to broach the subject later if someone here can link in the pictures from their website. (I can't link pictures from Bravenet anymore.)

[QB]

Why not simply set up a geocities site? Alternatively if that is too much hard work, I have a site you can place the files on. Simply email them to me and I'll put them up.

[Brian]

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

Two more hints, Brian. (Yeah, I know, I'm being too generous.) It's available in all of the CMBO monthly periods, and it packs a high-power gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firefly IIC - Conversion based on the M4a1.

As the M4a1 was rare beastie itself, in British service in the UK (I believe quite a few were present in the Middle-East), having them converted to Firefly was to be even rarer. I'd be surprised if they made it to the continent.

[Brian]

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

Michael,

great, so you even admit you are not interested in realistic portrayal in CM, but exclusively on the portrayal of british forces in CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shrug. You'll believe what you want to believe. I limit myself to those areas which I have some knowledge of. As I've said in the past, American forces don't interest me. Therefore why should I attempt to fight a battle which I know little or nothing about?

Of course I'm sure you'll jump in and suggest that is the normal state of affairs...

Brian,

on said british armor item in CM - the vehicle is so obviously mysterious in itself (leaving aside the portrayal in CM) that one does not need a timeframe to single it out as such. Just take a glance at the vehicles available. It will strike you as odd. If you are unfamiliar with british armor then simply check each of them. You will quickly find out which one we are referring to.

And you would definitely attain legendary status on this board, regardless even of your poor performance so far, if you would indeed manage to achieve the feat to produce a definitive, conclusive, convincing pictorial evidence on it.[/QB]

[Brian]

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

By way of example, the M16 gets a 1.3 rarity in NWE in ASL. Sorry to use this as my reference - they are the only ones I know of that have attempted to define rarity for such a wide variety of weapons and vehicles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but you'll have to explain to me what the value of 1.3, etc. means and is in reference to. Remember, I've never played ASL (thankfully IMO).

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

BTS has never been shy to admit that they do include some things mainly for their "coolness" factor. CM2 may have IS-3s for that reason.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Despite increasing evidence that they arrived too late to see any combat. Indeed, there could be a greater case for the inclusion of the T44 over the IS3.

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

Jagdtigers and Jumbos were very rare, but if BTS had left them out they would have had a small revolt on their hands.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Means that there is a larger American and German lobby amongst wargamers than there is a pro-Commonwealth one.

[Brian]

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

I took my oath so long ago, I can't remember. I am pretty sure I swore on the Bible, though. I think I had the option to make an affirmation instead of using the bible. By definition, I thought an "oath" had to be sworn on the Good Book, vice an affirmation where you just really, really promise to be good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, an "oath" must be sworn on a book of holy scripture which the swearer professes belief in - be it the Bible, Torah or Q'ran - depending upon faith.

An "affirmation" is merely the swearing of an oath on the honor of the swearer due to an unbelief in god.

I always used to swear an affirmation, primarily because no one knew how to take one and it used to amuse me to make the OC and the Orderly Room staff scurry around trying to figure out how to do it, whenever my re-enlistment came up.

[Maastrictian]

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

You appear to be mistaking frequency of use with availability.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whether I am or not, you seem to be:

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

Tripods existed. They were issued. The scale of issue reduced as the war advanced. *They were in widespread use, across multiple theatres of war*. They were not considered an oddity - the pictures showing training on them indicate that IMO. As the war progressed they were used less often, because the pace of operations precluded their use.

[snip]

*I have no idea how often they were used* but I can point out that Michael and Ben have both indicated they were available for use. The pictures I've provided indicate that they were widespread.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(emphasis added)

The question at hand, as many have pointed out, is one of use, not of avalibility. Your photos go some way towards proving avalibility, but not towards proving use.

--Chris

[Andreas]

Okay, I promised to myself I would stay away, but this thread is like a bad traffic accident.

First things first - Brian still does not understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof', unless Australians have a totally different concept for these terms.

Also, in the spirit of admonishing people who dare to use US terminolody when talking about Commonwealth equipment, can I please insist that anyone wanting to talk about German stuff has to use the correct German terminology in the future. Otherwise I take that as evidence that they are not worth talking to

Now, regarding giving the Commonwealth commander in the future the choice of using the Bren tripod. Why? Nobody here has proven that they were regularly used (or used at all for that matter) - we have one snippet (thanks for that Ben, very useful) of their employment as part of a defensie position that for all we know may never have been attacked. Which brings the number of documented combat uses to what? Oh, 0 ('zero' for the hard of reading). So - if you give the Commonwealth commander the choice of using these weapons, what would you achieve in a game which should go towards more and not less realism? Nothing, it would even be counterproductive on current evidence.

As for 'the Commonwealth got shafted' - that is just ridiculous nonsense, and I am mincing my words here. Which nation in the game has no airburst capacity? Which not entirely rare US vehicle did not get included, despite documented combat use? Which German gun that was not uncommon to be used in in indirect fire role does not have that capacity in CMBO? Which nation is most affected by the absence of trenches in the game? I said that a long time ago, but it needs saying again: there are things missing in CMBO that affect all nations. There is so much griping going on about this from all sorts of people that I think the balance was struck right, based on just reading this board.

Comparing the Bren tripod to e.g. the Puma is nonsense, since the Puma was used in combat, and for the Bren tripod, well see above.

Graphical representation of the 25pdr as an example - German trucks, German quad 20mm gun are all off to some degree. I am sure there are other things from e.g. the US that are not 100% accurate - so what?

Brian, I still suggest you pick up a book on qualitative research, you may learn something. If you want to get the Bren tripod included, so far I bet BTS is not even prepared to look at any further arguments from you, since you are just rehashing same-old same-old.

Now changing tack to the 'Commonwealth got shafted - boohoo' track is getting old too.

[Slapdragon]

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

Brian, I still suggest you pick up a book on qualitative research, you may learn something. If you want to get the Bren tripod included, so far I bet BTS is not even prepared to look at any further arguments from you, since you are just rehashing same-old same-old.

Now changing tack to the 'Commonwealth got shafted - boohoo' track is getting old too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree with both of these assessments. The commonwealth gets shafted is the harbor for a weak argument, and we have heard the same from each "uber" group to hit the board.

As for qualittative and even quantitatuve research, even a basic understanding of the concepts would help your Brian, and in fact all of us could do with a refresher on how evidence leads to support (or "proof").

Finally, some further thoughts as to using US nomenclature. Here it just depends on mental flexibility. When someone types a comment about a German military unit and uses German references with it, I just look up those references unless I know them already. Very very simple. Only the mentally challenged will have trouble translating terms of art from different countries. When someone says troop, I know what they are talking about, even if they are talking about a US unit (because some US formations use the term troop but also because I can look it up).

Only in cases where the nomenclature is needed for exact taxonomy is it really important to be precise.

[Spook]

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

So, the mere fact the game is historically innaccurate carries no weight in the argument then, in your view, Spook?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure it does. But how much relative "weight" does this particular issue carry, compared to all others in the present CM system (CMBO) that are similarly argued as "historically inaccurate" at some level or another?

CM is a work in progress. In a future iteration, heck, maybe the tripod-Bren could be provided. It's ultimately BTS's call. But this one particular issue just doesn't rise up as a game-killer to me.

Now, on the note of ultimate "realism" & "accuracy," how shall we better qualify BTS's stance? Wait....I know....let's try a little of RTFM (read the f---ing manual). Pg. 166, App. D.

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

There has never been, or will ever be, a wargame that is 100% accurate representation of 100% of the elements that contribute to warfare 100% of the time. Since no wargame will ever model all aspects of warfare perfectly, then CM by definition must have some elements that have been approximated or omitted in some way. To claim otherwise would be a lie, so we make no such claim to you the wargamer.

....More often than not, design decisions that depart from 100% accuracy were made, consciously, to work within the constraints of hardware limitations. However, it is our conviction that none of the approximations found in CM fundamentally affect the overall accuracy of its simulation of squad level warfare.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There it is, Brian. When striving for future CM changes, one has to show how a requested revision FUNDAMENTALLY affects the OVERALL accuracy of WWII tactical squad-level combat, in the chosen scale of CM. Revisions pursued only to abide to some trivial historical minutiae won't make the cut.

But per your suggestion, I will check up on geocities.com on my separate side issue, thank you.

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Spook]

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

Also, in the spirit of admonishing people who dare to use US terminolody when talking about Commonwealth equipment, can I please insist that anyone wanting to talk about German stuff has to use the correct German terminology in the future. Otherwise I take that as evidence that they are not worth talking to

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, then, I'm screwed. The missus & I are taking a conversational German class now (going to Germany for Christmas), but I'm way behind the curve in getting German military terminology correct.

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

Now changing tack to the 'Commonwealth got shafted - boohoo' track is getting old too.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell, it's ancient; all the more so in that the pursued argument of intentional bias never reached a convincing level.

[Chupacabra]

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

Hell, it's ancient; all the more so in that the pursued argument of intentional bias never reached a convincing level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, Remedial German 101 -

Ein Bier bitte - Arrrrgh! I'm thirsty!

Darf ich bezhalen bitte? - I can't possibly drink any more.

Wo sind die Toilleten? - I've had too much to drink.

Gibt es ein Bahnhof in der Nähe? - I need to make a quick escape.

That should help.

[Michael Dorosh]

Willst du schläfen mit mir is supposed to work too, but perhaps Germanboy can correct my spelling/grammar on that one.

[Spook]

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

Okay, Remedial German 101 -

Wo sind die Toilleten? - I've had too much to drink.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Must be an updated translation. My teacher declares that "fraulein" isn't overly common now in Germany either.

Cool---how to mangle German language in another "dutzen" way. There's use for this thread after all. In our class, we're trying to stick to "siezen" style.

[Brian Rock]

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

First things first - Brian still does not understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof', unless Australians have a totally different concept for these terms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. "Evidence" is the stuff you bring to the argument, "proof" is the stuff on my side.

But then I work in advertising, and we have our own unique way of looking at the world, irrespective of where we are from.

(The other Brian, who refuse to take this debate at all seriously.)

[WineCape]

Allow me one quote here among some interesting notes by Germanboy, Slapdragon, Michael, Rune as well as Dale (I like you analogy sir!) and whomever has brought some interesting notes/evidence, but not necessarily proof regarding the Bren Gun Tripod and its usage.

ahem...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Think of an existence in which you don't do anything to earn somebody's

acceptance. All of a sudden, all the pressure is off. No more pretence, no

more games, no more trying to win somebody's affection. Just be what you

are. That's wine for you!

-- Frank Bianco, "Voices of Silence: Life Among the Trappists" (1992)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Otherwise, those that have done the effort to bring some evidence to their discussion here, i thank you. I find this thread to be very informative regarding the Bren Gun, though the reasoning based upon these evidence "could be a little suspect" in some cases.

Regards,

Charl Theron

[dalem]

Hey Michael-

Being an ASL geek I'm curious about your thoughts on my second point about the ASL stats - increasing range and ROF but not FP.

-dale

[Brian]

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

There it is, Brian. When striving for future CM changes, one has to show how a requested revision FUNDAMENTALLY affects the OVERALL accuracy of WWII tactical squad-level combat, in the chosen scale of CM. Revisions pursued only to abide to some trivial historical minutiae won't make the cut.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

But per your suggestion, I will check up on geocities.com on my separate side issue, thank you.

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anytime. I am here to help...

I look forward to reading your website when its up.

[Brian]

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

First things first - Brian still does not understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof', unless Australians have a totally different concept for these terms.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps the difference is that I'm willing to accept a standard of proof that you're not?

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

Also, in the spirit of admonishing people who dare to use US terminolody when talking about Commonwealth equipment, can I please insist that anyone wanting to talk about German stuff has to use the correct German terminology in the future. Otherwise I take that as evidence that they are not worth talking to

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. My military German wasn't much chop so I'm quite willing to accept coaching, Andreas. Are you willing to provide it?

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

Now, regarding giving the Commonwealth commander in the future the choice of using the Bren tripod. Why? Nobody here has proven that they were regularly used (or used at all for that matter) - we have one snippet (thanks for that Ben, very useful) of their employment as part of a defensie position that for all we know may never have been attacked. Which brings the number of documented combat uses to what? Oh, 0 ('zero' for the hard of reading). So - if you give the Commonwealth commander the choice of using these weapons, what would you achieve in a game which should go towards more and not less realism? Nothing, it would even be counterproductive on current evidence.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IYO. I beg to differ. Denying to a commander an option that was historically available is less realistic, Andreas. Tell you what, what if someone was going to say, "Oh, I'm going to promote a game about WWII and the Germans won't have any Jagdtigers 'cause I don't think they were significant enough to have an impact on the war."

Would you consider that both fair and realistic?

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

As for 'the Commonwealth got shafted' - that is just ridiculous nonsense, and I am mincing my words here. Which nation in the game has no airburst capacity? Which not entirely rare US vehicle did not get included, despite documented combat use? Which German gun that was not uncommon to be used in in indirect fire role does not have that capacity in CMBO? Which nation is most affected by the absence of trenches in the game? I said that a long time ago, but it needs saying again: there are things missing in CMBO that affect all nations. There is so much griping going on about this from all sorts of people that I think the balance was struck right, based on just reading this board.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each to their own. You appear to believe I am suggesting that the absence of the tripod means the Commonwealth got "shafted" - I'm not. What I am suggesting is that this is symptomatic of something, which indicates that the Commonwealth doesn't have the same powerful lobby group as either the Americans or the pro-Germans in American wargaming circles.

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

Comparing the Bren tripod to e.g. the Puma is nonsense, since the Puma was used in combat, and for the Bren tripod, well see above.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you define "combat", Andreas? Is it use in a "war zone" or is it something else, such as "shooting at the bad guys"?

Ben has provided information on the former and hinted at the latter. Does the fact the "bad guys" failed to turn up mean it wasn't "combat"?

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

Graphical representation of the 25pdr as an example - German trucks, German quad 20mm gun are all off to some degree. I am sure there are other things from e.g. the US that are not 100% accurate - so what?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, then you won't get upset when the new game I mentioned comes out using say, M47's to represent Panthers? Afterall, worked for so many Hollywood movies so they must have got it right, right?

There is a world of difference between getting it "slightly wrong" and not even bothering to try and get it right.

In reality, you, like everybody else would be screaming the rafters down. Yet, when someone suggests the Commonwealth has been shotchanged, ah, then of course we don't have to listen to them, they're only the pro-Commonwealth mob - bunch of tossers, hankering after days of Empire, right?

It might sound old hat to you, Andreas but its a lament you'll continue to hear for some time to come, as each new pro-Commonwealth player finds the game and starts to dig a little deeper into it.

I'm looking forward to the release of CMBB. I'll be waiting to see you say the same thing to the pro-Russian people, Andreas...

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[dalem]

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

[/qb]

There is a world of difference between getting it "slightly wrong" and not even bothering to try and get it right.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct. Having the wrong graphical representation for one gun that hardly ever saw service in the front lines during the time period modelled in this game is exactly the same as not having it included in the game at all. How silly of me to not realize this.

I'm not going to waste my time pointing out all the similar shortcuts that BTS took that affected all nations represented in the game; they obviously don't mean anything to you. Instead, let me ask this one question:

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

-dale

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Andreas]

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

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

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

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

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

You really need to get out of this 'if you're not with me you're against me' mindset.