CMBB (or beyond) Artillery idea

[Tero]

Originally posted by tss:

What he has said is that he considers the US system to be the best.

Nothing wrong with that. Except he jumps on people for expressing similar opinions which are not to his liking.

Now, whether this claim holds or not, I can't say. Most of my knowledge on the subject is about Finnish artillery, and I don't know enough of Western Allied practices to really comment on it on a direction or other.

That is why it would be ideal to form an opinion from both Slappys and your (or my) data. But Slappy does not feel like posting his data on the board, he want to use private channels instead.

BTW: check out Valeras BBS and this thread in particular:

http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=116312&messageid=1002874453

In general, Finnish artillery was very accurate and flexible,

Concur.

but was it more accurate and flexible than the US one? Beats me.

Me too. That is why Slappys data would be invaluable. If he would post it on the board for all to see.

In the battles of summer '44 it was quite common for a junior Finnish FO to call fire of up to 7 artillery batallions (84 guns) of different caliberes at the same target as a TOT barrage without any spotting rounds. [There was no technical upper limit for the number of firing batallions. However, in practice the fire was usually allocated in 5-7 batallion "fire groups"]. There was one nine-batallion barrage (118 guns) called in by an infantry major.

Concur

But there is one important aspect where the US artillery was clearly better than Finnish: radio communications. There was a chronic shortage of radios in Finnish army and far too often FO posts had to rely on field phones or even flare guns or messangers.

Concur on the communications. But how does the "fire at the sound of the fighting" practise figure in in all this, if at all ? I have read several accounts of batteries out of contact with the FO firing on targets based on the sound of the fighting. These fire missions were also directed on know friendly positions, yet friendly fire incidents were not too common to cause problems that would have made the authorities ban this practice.

Also, the artillery was used to direct in bombing missions against priority targets unspottable from the air. When the planes were on final approach the batteries would fire a salvo in the four corners of the target area and the bombers would target that area.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Brian]

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

This was your first post. It sets the tenor for the level you want to play on. I want to discuss and not play flame an fulminate.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noted, Slappy. I look forward to seeing you then live up to that claim. You've failed dismally, as far as I can tell thus far.

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

That is not negotiable. You have posted a half dozen taunting posts and I have responded each time that this subject needs to be discussed off line, and several people have taken me up on that (while maintaining that they do not agree with me). After that conversation is over, you may contact them to your hearts content to find out what I thought and why.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, it appears that you're not willing to put your claims to the test, in an open forum.

You appear very thin skinned, Slappy. You like to dish it out but when it comes to taking it, well, we've seen how well you perform.

You have no idea of how ironic my original post was and instead took it all so personally to heart. My advice to you is, lighten up son, 'cause you've got a long way to go in life.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Slapdragon]

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

I too would like to see Slappy justify that comment. One could almost believe he was putting forward a *GASP* "nationalist agenda" or even proclaiming an "uberAmerican" position.

Of course that can't be right. Afterall, he has proclaimed he has a "superior intellect" and is above "all that" sort of thing.

I suspect you'll find he's scurrying for his books, Simon. It will be interested how he goes up against Bidwell... :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You too have far to go in life if you can calm down a bit, breath the air in, and flame not young man.

The point is that all of this talk about dishing it out, taking it, and the rest means nothing. There is no reason to start flame wars to derail a subject no matter how you feel about it. It is not adult behavior. This entire desire to see people dish it out and take it rather odd. I would prefer to discuss intellectually.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Brian]

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

The point is that all of this talk about dishing it out, taking it, and the rest means nothing. There is no reason to start flame wars to derail a subject no matter how you feel about it. It is not adult behavior. This entire desire to see people dish it out and take it rather odd. I would prefer to discuss intellectually.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, the only person who has "derailed" anything is yourself. I made a pointed, ironic comment. Your thin hide took it to be an insult and you ran off in a huff.

You've been asked to justify your statement. You have refused. Therefore, it appears you cannot substantiate it. QED.

As to the topic, I don't particularly care one way or the 'tother which fire control system was "best" or "better". Indeed, I've been very careful to make the point that in reality, both produced the same result. They merely arrived at that result through different methods. Both worked.

You are the one who decided to try and claim that one nationality's system was "better" or "best" or "more efficient".

People have been trying to determine ever since, in your unwillingness to substantiate that claim, to figure out exactly what you meant.

You, however, have decided to turn it into your usual song-and-dance routine of how us 'orrible unwashed masses are trying to "flame" you or "hijack the debate".

Slappy, you've well and truly hoisted yourself on this one and its not onto your high horse, either. I find the whole matter incredibly amusing, as I'm sure does everybody else with a modicum of a sense of humour.

[Slapdragon]

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

Looks to me like you're the one whose made a nationalist boast, no one else in this discussion, Slappy. Even worse, your knowledge on this topic has been shown to be so shallow even an ameoba would be hard pressed to take a bath.

Now, run along while the rest of us get on with a serious discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Brian -- troll as you wish and I still wont post the discussion from off line. You will just have to wait for the large print edition. The people who wanted to discuss it seriously have it, those that did not or wanted a flame war do not, progress was made, and life is ok. You can "dish out" as much as you like, it wont bring it onto the forum or make your earlier posts any more adult.

However, just to make you happy, I will post proof that I am sure you will accept based on previous historical discussions.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Enoch]

Slapdragon,

either back up your assertion here that the "US system" was the best or just be quiet. If you only want to discuss this with people off the forum then stop posting to this thread. You have alredy made your point by making many many comments saying you will only discuss it off-forum. I'd like to see what you have to say but I don't feel like engaging in an email exchange.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon,

either back up your assertion here that the "US system" was the best or just be quiet. If you only want to discuss this with people off the forum then stop posting to this thread. You have alredy made your point by making many many comments saying you will only discuss it off-forum. I'd like to see what you have to say but I don't feel like engaging in an email exchange.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Enoch, when a comment is directly to me, even using my name, I answer it. I cannot help that others want to belabor it for their own reasons.

However, you are welcome to get the discussion to date by e-mail if you want it and you don't even have to join the discussion. Otherwise no problem.

I should note that Brian defeated me anyway despite my intentions. By taking this subject off line I wanted to reduce the amount of fuel for the trolls and get some information without national bias about the Commonwealth system, while at the same time presenting data on the US system and its advantages for discussion -- while leaving the forum free for a different subject. However 20 post later despite repeating my position and the solution available for the problem the trolls still are not fed.

However, I must say that bastables and JonS have some good points and I have learned a lot.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Brian]

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

Sorry Brian -- troll as you wish and I still wont post the discussion from off line.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, get this, I'll say it once and once only - I don't give a rat's arse about your off-line discussion. What matters in this forum, occures here. You have failed to back your claim, therefore your claim is hereby declared dead, null and voice. It will be treated with the (apparent) contempt you like to reserve for all "nationalistic" boasting.

BTW, interesting piccie. A "Long Tom", obviously employed, I'd guess on coast defence duties, by US soldiers (Marines perhap?), as evidenced by the circular track, just on the edge of the photo with the right trail locked to it. Panama or Hawaii?

Its relevence was?

Anyway, I'll raise your bid with this

By gum, we know how to organise artillery!

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Slapdragon]

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

[/qb]

Slappy, get this, I'll say it once and once only - I don't give a rat's arse about your off-line discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why have you posted 15 times about it and wont let it drop?

Besides, using your standards of proof I have shown my point -- I posted a picture, and will post two more. Thos pictures will be of American artillery from all over the world and time. Thus I will have proven my point to your standards. For higher standards, the discussion off line is where to find it.

[Ogadai]

Slapdragon, I think Brian's been posting about your unwillingness to defend your position publically, rather than about your backroom discussion. So have most other people. We don't want to know what you said or did to whom. We want you to come out into this open forum and justify your comment that you made here. You've wasted so much time on avoiding it, one is forced to conclude that you know its shonky.

I've noticed all too often that you appear to completely miss the point of other people's arguments and instead go haring off on what you believe they've said. Do you have an English comprehension problem? Its the only explanation I can come up with, for the consistent manner in which you invariably produce the completely wrong argument from what others are saying.

[Ogadai]

One other question slapdragon, what is your photo meant to prove? We all know the US Army had artillery, I thought the discussion was about artillery fire control systems. Brian's amusing picture at least shows that in action.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon, I think Brian's been posting about your unwillingness to defend your position publically, rather than about your backroom discussion. So have most other people. We don't want to know what you said or did to whom. We want you to come out into this open forum and justify your comment that you made here. You've wasted so much time on avoiding it, one is forced to conclude that you know its shonky.

I've noticed all too often that you appear to completely miss the point of other people's arguments and instead go haring off on what you believe they've said. Do you have an English comprehension problem? Its the only explanation I can come up with, for the consistent manner in which you invariably produce the completely wrong argument from what others are saying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not wasted any time, I have had a nice, off line discussion with three people on a subject that cannot be discussed in a rational manner here because of troll problems, learned quite a bit about Commonwealth artillery, possibly brought my point home on why I feel the way I feel, all in a heck of a lot fewer posts. The people who really wanted to understand my point of view do, and it costs them very little to understand it. They don't have to agree with me, and to varying degrees they do not, but they heard me out and pointed out where they felt I was wrong, and I was wrong with at least two things on the British side and am now corrected.

Anyway, BTS requested of all of us that at this stage we behave a little better, avoid the flame wars, and keep things above board. They banned this one moron Beazely / Mulga Hill / endless other accounts, and another moron Eumundi / and another named Gunny Bunny for being only interested in creating dissention to put a nice punctuation on their request to us to be civil.

Brian came onto a topic that was working and his first two posts were flames. Defend that all you want, but BTS has already warned him about his behavior here, and gave him one more chance. Obviously this issue was too loaded to have a public discussion on, but if people were really curious about my reasons behind what I thought, as opposed to just trying to get a cause celebre' for a slam Slapdragon / flame the board match, then they can have my data. If theye wree not all that interested, or they just wanted to cause trouble and thus didn't care what I said -- then they would not want to have an adult discussion.

The fact still remains that my proof is available for those who want it. They can get it or not. I am unsure why you and Brian want to belabor this point for so long, but I am willing to repeat these comments as oftenb as needed until they are read and understood. My intentions where to keep this from becoming another flame thread like Mulga Hill / Eumundi / and others turned the Bren thread, so I made sure that I did not contribute to it by taking data off line as soon as Brian started flaming the board. I was partly unsuccessful in that this discussion has gone on endlessly as I reexplain these same points.

You can have my data also if you want, and if you want to calm down and read it while responding seriously, but otherwise there is no point in just going around and around, I will just restate the same reasoning I gave for taking the discussion off line over and over as often as I am addressed, flamed, or otherwise referred to.

[Spook]

If not too much trouble, Slap, I'd like to be cc'ed on this e-mail artillery discussion of yours. I probably wouldn't add much to it, if at all, but would like to hear some of the others' commentaries as well as yours.

[Slapdragon]

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

If not too much trouble, Slap, I'd like to be cc'ed on this e-mail artillery discussion of yours. I probably wouldn't add much to it, if at all, but would like to hear some of the others' commentaries as well as yours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coming up Mr. Spook.

[Spook]

Thanks. I'll have to wait until getting home tonite to read it, though.

[Slapdragon]

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

Thanks. I'll have to wait until getting home tonite to read it, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My pleasure, I look forward to your comments.

[Brian]

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

I have not wasted any time, I have had a nice, off line discussion with three people on a subject that cannot be discussed in a rational manner here because of troll problems, learned quite a bit about Commonwealth artillery, possibly brought my point home on why I feel the way I feel, all in a heck of a lot fewer posts. The people who really wanted to understand my point of view do, and it costs them very little to understand it. They don't have to agree with me, and to varying degrees they do not, but they heard me out and pointed out where they felt I was wrong, and I was wrong with at least two things on the British side and am now corrected.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good for you, Slappy. So, this is an admission that you were wrong, I take it?

I suppose its the closest we'll come to such an admission but I suspect it will have to do for the moment.

I look forward though to reading how you'll justify your picture to Ogadai...

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Slapdragon]

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

[/qb]

Good for you, Slappy. So, this is an admission that you were wrong, I take it?

I suppose its the closest we'll come to such an admission but I suspect it will have to do for the moment.

I look forward though to reading how you'll justify your picture to Ogadai...

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I still feel I was correct.

My picture is only justification enough for you, most other scholars would find a picture or two not enough proof of anything.

[Brian]

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

No, I still feel I was correct.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds to me that its a value judgement, Slappy. Your unwillingness to expose it to real critical analysis appears to indicate that you're not sure of your certainity.

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

My picture is only justification enough for you, most other scholars would find a picture or two not enough proof of anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As they say, a picture is worth a ten thousand words, Slappy. However, in this forum, an explanation is usually required.

Your picture indicates that your military had a big gun. No one has disputed that. However, I'll also indicate that the British knew all about big guns well before you came along:

What we want to find though out, is how the fire of those big guns were directed. Was it like this?

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Slapdragon]

No value judgement. I presented my evidence to the people who wanted to see the evidence in a forum without trolling. It was discussed and the various parts of it broken down by several people. They in return replied about Commonwealth artillery, and that was dicsussed. No one flamed each other, there was no insulting, at points there was disagreement, but it was adult disagreement. As the average reader can see, trolling started on page one, so the material that the trolls could not handle was taken off line. BTS is saved from banning anyone, the forum is saved from trolling, the subject is still discussed by people who wished to discuss it, and that is it. Not so hard to understand.

I am happy though that you have come around to understanding that a picture or two, taken out of contect and posted as evidence, does not represent proof or disproof of an entire issue. This is of course a very basic historical lesson, that evidence must be broad in nature and approrpiate to the issue discussed.

[Brian]

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

No value judgement. I presented my evidence to the people who wanted to see the evidence in a forum without trolling. It was discussed and the various parts of it broken down by several people. They in return replied about Commonwealth artillery, and that was dicsussed. No one flamed each other, there was no insulting, at points there was disagreement, but it was adult disagreement. As the average reader can see, trolling started on page one, so the material that the trolls could not handle was taken off line. BTS is saved from banning anyone, the forum is saved from trolling, the subject is still discussed by people who wished to discuss it, and that is it. Not so hard to understand.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you assume that I care about what or how you discussed this matter with your cotorier, Slappy. I don't. I see you made a "nationalistic statement" and then, when pressed you ran away, screaming, "Mummy, mummy, the rude men are insulting me!" Despite there having been no insults offered.

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

I am happy though that you have come around to understanding that a picture or two, taken out of contect and posted as evidence, does not represent proof or disproof of an entire issue. This is of course a very basic historical lesson, that evidence must be broad in nature and approrpiate to the issue discussed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, your problem is that I have, when posting a serious picture, always offered an explanation to accompany the photo concerned and my line of reasoning as to why it did constitute evidence.

You however, believe it seems that merely offering a photo, achieves all. I'm not surprised that you cannot understand the difference. As others have noted, you appear to have a reading comprehension problem. It must make life interesting for your journalism students, when you fail completely to grasp what they are arguing in their essays.

And that is my last word on the topic. You can run along now, back to your intellectual topour which you've been roused from.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slappy, your problem is that I have, when posting a serious picture, always offered an explanation to accompany the photo concerned and my line of reasoning as to why it did constitute evidence.

You however, believe it seems that merely offering a photo, achieves all. I'm not surprised that you cannot understand the difference. As others have noted, you appear to have a reading comprehension problem. It must make life interesting for your journalism students, when you fail completely to grasp what they are arguing in their essays.

And that is my last word on the topic. You can run along now, back to your intellectual topour which you've been roused from.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again I offer that while satisfying, being a troll as deomonstrated by the previous statements, is not a useful means of conveying information.

The facts: A discussion was broached. Opinions with some evidence put forward. Trolls began to derail the conversation, so it was taken off forum where it could be seriously discussed. That was done.

With no new information presented in over 20 posts, except for me repeating the reasons why this subject cannot be discussed in this forum, it will soon be locked up. I want to note that I did present a small part of the discussion with citation previously, which you choose not to read and respond to, which is fine. So Brianb, quit the trolling and move on, or start a new thread that is plaining marked as a trolling thread.

On a better note -- Spook, when you return from work I am looking forward to your comments on the discussion. Also, E. Kelly -- did you want the entire discussion, along with the portions we went over?

[edward_n_kelly]

As an side - I note that in Fletcher's Mr Churchill's Tank 107RAC were trained as FO's and as this is not noted as remarkable can be taken as somewhat common in the RAC (extracts from unit diaries quoted in text).

[Ogadai]

Slapdragon, it appears that you continue to refuse to justify your original "nationalistic" comment. Further, it appears you're unwilling to explain the reasoning behind your picture. Therefore, I'm forced to conclude that you are very much a troll. You appear to delight in causing controversy and consternation. Such childish behavior on your part and you, a man who claims to be well-educated and knowledgeable too. I am disappointed.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon, it appears that you continue to refuse to justify your original "nationalistic" comment. Further, it appears you're unwilling to explain the reasoning behind your picture. Therefore, I'm forced to conclude that you are very much a troll. You appear to delight in causing controversy and consternation. Such childish behavior on your part and you, a man who claims to be well-educated and knowledgeable too. I am disappointed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Ogadai, since I have never spoken to you off line, although the offer was open if you wanted to see the data, then I cannot help that you somehow got a distorted feeling of my education, knowledge, or anything else. Far from delighting in causing problems, as soon as the trolls came out, I choose to take the arguments elsewhere and had an excellent discussion, one which you were invited to participate in and choose not to.

I might says that your first two posts to the forum where insults to me, and that 3/4 of your posts to this point contain some insult, so perhaps I am not that worried about what value judgements you maintain. In the past mnonth we have had many childish posters come on and flame out -- Eumundi, Beazley, God, and each choose to stir the pot rather than post to serious discussions, just as you have only once posted a serious comment in 8 posts.

However, the forum is a tool that means different things to different people. For you and Brian its use is fundementally different from what Andreas, JonS, Spook, and others. I just choose to use the tool to learn first of all, and to teach second of all, and am perfectly willing to leave the "dishing out" and "taking" and all the rest to the people with other agendas.

The fact that you do not get an "in joke" like the silliness of posting a few pictures and claiming that they are proof of a complex subject is I cannot help. My advice is never visit the Peng thread for there you will be eaten by sharks whose "in jokes" are two years old and incredibly complex.

So, welcome to the forum young poster! People here are very friendly, but the grogs get a bit testy when people dreck in their soup, and stay away from the Peng Challenge Thread lest your disapointment with other posters grow hugely.