CMBB (or beyond) Artillery idea

[Spook]

Perhaps this shouldn't be dwelled on, but this comment rises to the surface for me:

<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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose this regards the "tripod Bren" and pictures of same posted to advocate inclusion into CM's future. One picture, IIRC, showed the tripod-Bren set up as apparently on a training exercise. Another showed a similar setup in combat conditions, but in a static trench position during the Korean War IIRC on that also.

There was no fault in posting these pictures, or using them to HELP make a case. What the fault was at the time was this line of thinking: "Here's one picture of a tripod-Bren setup. Here's another showing it set up in combat conditions. Thereby, they were commonly used in NW Europe in WWII, and MUST be included in a future rendition of CM." This, in effect, was a "leap of logic" to surmise that two pictures alone suffice to demonstrate "common" usage of the tripod-Bren. Perhaps their usage indeed was more than occasional in WWII NW Europe, but the prior topic threads never reached that stage of compelling proof.

That argument COULD reach a compelling level someday, after a sufficient array of first-hand accounts are researched to correlate to a trend in usage. After that, then it becomes a matter of how BTS regards that issue in its order of coding priorities.

[Ogadai]

Slapdragon, the only person guilty of "distortion" is yourself. I've noted your inability to undertake self-assesement of your messages. The mere fact that you appear unable to percieve just how patronising you are, is indicative of that, as well as your belief that if someone criticises you, they are "insulting" you, whereas I presume that if you criticise others, you believe they over-react when they view it as an insult?

My first two messages were critical. They weren't particularly insulting nor were they intended to be. I'm forced to wonder yet again if its a case of "don't do what I do but do what I say," with yourself Slapdragon.

Now, you've chosen to run off and not answer your critics. So be it, I'll have to consider you a troll.

As Spook has suggested, the problem with your picture is that it is merely that, a picture. It does not support your argument at all. Brian on the otherhand has utilised pictures to support or illustrate his points, as far as I can tell of the sample I've read.

What I would recommend Slapdragon is that before you post that you step out of your shoes and put on those of someone who is reading your messages for the first time. You might find it a revelation.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon, the only person guilty of "distortion" is yourself. I've noted your inability to undertake self-assesement of your messages. The mere fact that you appear unable to percieve just how patronising you are, is indicative of that, as well as your belief that if someone criticises you, they are "insulting" you, whereas I presume that if you criticise others, you believe they over-react when they view it as an insult?

My first two messages were critical. They weren't particularly insulting nor were they intended to be. I'm forced to wonder yet again if its a case of "don't do what I do but do what I say," with yourself Slapdragon.

Now, you've chosen to run off and not answer your critics. So be it, I'll have to consider you a troll.

As Spook has suggested, the problem with your picture is that it is merely that, a picture. It does not support your argument at all. Brian on the otherhand has utilised pictures to support or illustrate his points, as far as I can tell of the sample I've read.

What I would recommend Slapdragon is that before you post that you step out of your shoes and put on those of someone who is reading your messages for the first time. You might find it a revelation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ogadai, this is truly the most funny post I have read in a while. Spook is talking to Brian! Brian originally tried to base an entire argument in three pictures, much to the chagrin of the posting body with historical background.

Might I suggest that it is a little early in your posting carreer to me the defender of trolls on this forum.

I will, however, since you missed it, repost this for comment,

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

[Brian]

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

Perhaps this shouldn't be dwelled on, but this comment rises to the surface for me:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each to their own, Spook. However, I must take a certain degree of umbrage at your next comment, though:

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

I suppose this regards the "tripod Bren" and pictures of same posted to advocate inclusion into CM's future. One picture, IIRC, showed the tripod-Bren set up as apparently on a training exercise. Another showed a similar setup in combat conditions, but in a static trench position during the Korean War IIRC on that also.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the first was of a tripod being used as part of an instructional lesson for RAAF ADG's in the Northern Territory of Australia in 1943 and the second was of a tripod being used in training during the extremely hurried and rushed (fortnight's?) training undertaken by 3 RAR before its dispatch from Japan to Pusan, in 1950.

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

There was no fault in posting these pictures, or using them to HELP make a case. What the fault was at the time was this line of thinking: "Here's one picture of a tripod-Bren setup. Here's another showing it set up in combat conditions. Thereby, they were commonly used in NW Europe in WWII, and MUST be included in a future rendition of CM." This, in effect, was a "leap of logic" to surmise that two pictures alone suffice to demonstrate "common" usage of the tripod-Bren. Perhaps their usage indeed was more than occasional in WWII NW Europe, but the prior topic threads never reached that stage of compelling proof.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*SIGH*, Spook, I would ask you to find a quote from myself where I made that claim, because I cannot remember making it. What I did do was utilise those pictures to illustrate that the tripod was in fairly widespread use, across a longer period than even I myself had believed them to be.

I was derided for that, but as soon as Ben Hall posted his information, which was basically the same as both Michael Dorosh and I had posted, it appears that the critics went pretty much quiet, all of a sudden. Funny that, hey?

As I kept saying, I was arguing from the viewpoint that this piece of equipment existed. It was in fairly widespread use. That they were used in NW Europe was confirmed by Ben Hall, Michael Dorosh and the site which quoted extensively from the 1942 Bren training pam. I also believed they were used for a great deal longer than most people realised.

My argument was based upon the concept of {b}availability - in exactly the same way certain other pieces of equipment for other nationalities, no matter what its rarity, has been in the game.

I offered the photos, along with other pieces of evidence, as proof of that availability.

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

That argument COULD reach a compelling level someday, after a sufficient array of first-hand accounts are researched to correlate to a trend in usage. After that, then it becomes a matter of how BTS regards that issue in its order of coding priorities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would hope the matter will be considered in the new version of the game.

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Spook]

And for the record:

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

As Spook has suggested, the problem with your picture is that it is merely that, a picture. It does not support your argument at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ogadai, Slapdragon simply posted that picture to parodize the way that "photographic evidence" was used to make a case in a prior specific discussion thread.

I saw it right off that the coastal artillery gun photo had nothing to do with the subject of artillery fire control. So of course, it doesn't support Slap's arguments on this subject. But it wasn't intended to.

And yes, my response was to Brian. Again, I don't fault the usage of photographic evidence. In fact, if relevant to the subject at hand, photos can be quite helpful. The trick to understand is that photos can help support an argument, but are not necessarily the foundation of the argument (unless the photos are of Nessie, UFO's, and those odd occasional crop circle patterns ).

[Brian]

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

Ogadai, this is truly the most funny post I have read in a while. Spook is talking

to Brian! Brian originally tried to base an entire argument in three pictures, much to the chagrin of the posting body with historical background. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usual, Slappy, you get the wrong end of the stick. I didn't actually base my "entire argument in three pictures[sic]". However, as the entire argument passed over your head, I'm not surprised you've misunderstood it.

Now, who was it who attempted to claim that the Bren wasn't an LMG?

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Spook]

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

*SIGH*, Spook, I would ask you to find a quote from myself where I made that claim, because I cannot remember making it. What I did do was utilise those pictures to illustrate that the tripod was in fairly widespread use, across a longer period than even I myself had believed them to be.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed that you didn't specifically say what I had put in quotes. Rather, the statement, "Here's one picture of a tripod-Bren setup. Here's another showing it set up in combat conditions. Thereby, they were commonly used in NW Europe in WWII," was a "quote for effect" to summarize the earlier discussions.

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

I was derided for that, but as soon as Ben Hall posted his information, which was basically the same as both Michael Dorosh and I had posted, it appears that the critics went pretty much quiet, all of a sudden. Funny that, hey?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ben's comments were helpful, and actually helped the argument move along better than from the photos, because his father's recollections was one case of specific usage in NW Europe. Good example of a supportive 1st-person account. But is that enough to go on alone?

It can suck as to how much "legwork" research has to go into proving or disproving a historical issue, especially just trying to find enough supportive material in the first place. But for the matter at hand, that may be still a necessity. What was provided so far has helped IMO, but the central question remains: was it enough, to BTS?

Bottom line, Brian: if the case isn't made strong enough to BTS, then the tripod-Bren won't get into the CM II engine. And IMO, it still isn't strong enough. If BTS concurs, then what to do? More research before then, or sit back and burn acid later on over BTS's stance?

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

As I kept saying, I was arguing from the viewpoint that this piece of equipment existed. It was in fairly widespread use.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's that latter statement that asserts how I was using that earlier "quotation for effect." The "widespread use" in NW Europe wasn't demonstrated yet. Occasional use, yes. Potential availability (loaded on platoon trucks), yes. Widespread usage----not yet.

But by all means, Brian, keep at it if it's important to you. From my own end, I'm still dwelling on how to argue that standard infantry rifles (including the Enfield) could stand to be improved in mid-range effectiveness. (I've assembled a spreadsheet graphic to help for my argument to be "visualized" too.) The "aimed fire" issue is to be broached also as a possible CM mechanic.

The problem is, it's all "warm-fuzzy" for now. In a couple of weeks, I hope to have something together that can broach the subject, but even then, it won't be enough as to argue convincingly for a change in rifle firepower, rather than to stimulate discussion.

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[JonS]

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

... I have had a nice, off line discussion with three people ... 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>

Slap has presented some information on the setup of the US comms system. What he hasn't done is provide any comparitive evidence between the two systems - apart from his post to this thread three or four pages ago that appears to read "the US system in CM is faster than everyone elses, therefore the US system in real life must have been better". I still do not agree with his contention that the US artillery system was the greatest thing since sliced bread, while everyone else was still using unleavened rotis (to stretch a metaphor. Anyway, I quite like roti ).

Something to note about the Commonwealth in the 1930s and 1940s: This wasn't a cross between "Yes Minister" and "Fawlty Towers" - going into the war the Brits had the worlds fastest plane, train, the landspeed record, and held the Blue Riband. In science and technology they were well ahead of the curve. Sure, its easy to make jokes about the Empire, the class system, and the Royal Family (all of which tends to colour thinking about Britain in general) but during WWII they had many very smart cookies, most of whom were roped into the war effort.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slap has presented some information on the setup of the US comms system. What he hasn't done is provide any comparitive evidence between the two systems - apart from his post to this thread three or four pages ago that appears to read "the US system in CM is faster than everyone elses, therefore the US system in real life must have been better". I still do not agree with his contention that the US artillery system was the greatest thing since sliced bread, while everyone else was still using unleavened rotis (to stretch a metaphor. Anyway, I quite like roti ).

Something to note about the Commonwealth in the 1930s and 1940s: This wasn't a cross between "Yes Minister" and "Fawlty Towers" - going into the war the Brits had the worlds fastest plane, train, the landspeed record, and held the Blue Riband. In science and technology they were well ahead of the curve. Sure, its easy to make jokes about the Empire, the class system, and the Royal Family (all of which tends to colour thinking about Britain in general) but during WWII they had many very smart cookies, most of whom were roped into the war effort.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think there is any great conspiracy to make the Commonwealth seem like a bunch of bafoons: That is more of a red herring argument than anything else, just as there is no conspiracy to screw the Finns, Germans, or anyone else. Nor do I think that CM properly models artillery with regards to communications, who can and did call artillery, and the like, as I stated to you. I think BTS choose this one area to simulate other things in the US system which made it more useful to the platoon commander. Did they do right? Well - no one has yet offered a better way of doing things with any back up, so it is really an open issue.

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[JonS]

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

... Did they do right? Well - no one has yet offered a better way of doing things with any back up, so it is really an open issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, actually, they have. This is where this, and several other, thread started. Also pertinent are the rumours that the artillery system has changed quite a bit for CMBB.

[Slapdragon]

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

Well, actually, they have. This is where this, and several other, thread started. Also pertinent are the rumours that the artillery system has changed quite a bit for CMBB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will be interesting to see, especially since Russian artillery is much different than the other allies. However, simulating the allies artillery systems will take a significant engine change -- including the FDC, platoon level artillery calls etc. In fact, with the flack that the current system takes now, it will take 10 times the flack when the US system is accurately portrayed.

[Spook]

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

In science and technology they were well ahead of the curve. Sure, its easy to make jokes about the Empire, the class system, and the Royal Family (all of which tends to colour thinking about Britain in general) but during WWII they had many very smart cookies, most of whom were roped into the war effort.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. Some examples that jump out to me:

---UK/Commonwealth developments on radar, for land, air, and naval systems.

---Bletchley (sic?) Park & "Enigma" code-breaking efforts

---superb technology for piston engines, like the Rolls Royce Merlin; licensed version powered the later P-51 models

---provision of VHF radios for US aircraft operating in England

---the 17-lbr; superb as armor-piercing ordnance

---the "Funnies"

Just a few examples. And for some of these or others, US R&D could provide comparable alternates, like pacing naval radar development. But certainly, I've always rated the Commonwealth of WWII to be "front-line" in the "technical war."

[Ogadai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Ogadai, this is truly the most funny post I have read in a while. Spook was talking to Brian! Brian originally triad to base an entire argument in three pictures, much to the chagrin of the posting body with historical background.

<hr></blockquote>

Did he Slapdragon? He appears to believe and has stated otherwise. Whom is to be believed? A person such as yourself, with a notorious, if I may say it, track record of deliberately misrepresenting your opponent's argument or the person who made the original statements?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Might I suggest it is a little early in your posting carreer to me the defender of trolls on this forum.

I will, however, since you missed it, repost this for comment,

<hr></blockquote>

The first sentence doesn't make any sense and as for the comment, I read it the first time it was posted. I dismissed it then and I dismiss it again. It nothing more, it is an excellent example of of your condescending attitude, Slapdragon. The one which annoys the hell of me and it would appear most other posters from the antipodes.

BTW, if Brian's "first two posts were flames" then what were your's to the thread entitled "the flavour of history"? Looks again, once more like a case of the pot calling the kettle, black, Slapdragon. Remember the quote I provided from the Bible? I suggest you follow it in future, if you want to try and claim that moral high ground which you're fond of assuming you occupy.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai:

[/qb]

The first sentence doesn't make any sense and as for the comment, I read it the first time it was posted. I dismissed it then and I dismiss it again. It nothing more, it is an excellent example of of your condescending attitude, Slapdragon. The one which annoys the hell of me and it would appear most other posters from the antipodes.

<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, I did not realize you were trying to make this an Australia versus the rest of the uncaring and insensitive world. Well, since you dismiss what I am saying why are you bothering posting to this subject? Perhaps adding something to the discussion would be nice, or do you believe that this is something that gentlemen from the antipodes do not do.

I fail to understand why we have had so many bigots from Australia crop up. Look at the recently banned people -- 3 of 5 were from Australia and had taken up this idiotic everyone hates us, the antipodes rule routine. In fact, you words are the same, word for word, as the now banned Beazley (who truly was an idiot of monumental proportions, and was banned for dishonorable conduct). Again, you may want to particiapte in a few conversations before you choose to climb on a high horse defending a troll, and you may wish to poll some of the other people from the antipodes who I am happy to call my colleagues, such as Rune, Mace, Stuka, before you choose to talk for them about who and what they prefer and do not prefer.

Like I said, you may wish to comment on something, post a few facts, try to do something, before you become the public defender of the Troll gang. And you may wish to read other people's comments (Spook's) or even the discussion where the original issue of posting a few disjointed pictures as proof of quantity and commonality of use of an item was brought up. You look foolish by defending Brian here when 20 people spent 75 posts trying to teach him basic historiography just two weeks ago.

Brian in fact should be very careful about posting any flames at all, since he is under warning from Matt to tone down his language and to quite trolling, something which several of us have tried to get him to stop on and off line, but that is bewteen him and Matt.

So, make a few more posts that are nbot holier than thou defenses of Brian, participate in a few discussions, and don't fall into the same trap that trolls like Eumundi and Beazely did of playing attack anyone who makes any comment about the commonwealth and the community will accept you with open arms. You will be surprised about how close this community is once you shuck your nationalistic leanings and join in the real educational discussions. You may even make it into the Peng Pool or one of the other playing circles, or get invited to work with one of the off line groups like der Kessel. Aside from a few trolls, many of which are now banned or gone, this is a wonderful place.

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]</p>

[Slapdragon]

double post

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]</p>

[Madmatt]

Okay, when threads start to degrade to this level its time for everyone to just step back, get away from the keyboard and let it all drop.

I am closing this one down as I don't see much lately relevant to the original points.

Madmatt