CMBB (or beyond) Artillery idea

[Spook]

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

Slappy, you appear to be making heavy weather of it to make your assertion, as you have that merely because of numbers that makes the US system "the best". I believe in fact the case could be made that in reality this means the US system was merely bloated, not more efficient.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But here's your problem, Brian, and the problem of a few others, when describing relative effectivenesses of US & UK artillery.

Insofar, you haven't substantiated, or cited by references, as to how the WWII US artillery fire control system in specific was "bloated" or "inefficient." The claim might have some validity, but there's no follow-through.

One assertion within this thread is that many US FO's were typically "90-day wonders" who couldn't read a map to save their lives. I'm sure that extensive case-by-case studies would indeed reveal a few US FO's who were less than capable at effective artillery spotting or map-reading. But does that invalidate that many other US FO's could indeed do their job well, especially after some field experience?

Now, I don't know as to the extent of how many US officers capable of FO duty were available on a company or battalion basis. But references like Zaloga's "Lorraine 1944" noted that radio communications usually were available on down to US platoons, although the "walkie talkie" link probably could get only the company CP & local mortars. Per Slap's point, the extensive US communications net is a system of "redundancy" in which any given battlefront region was more likely to have someone with an FO ability; or several, allowing that a FO team would be a favorite target of snipers & other enemy fire if it was spotted. Perhaps a specific US FO was good at the job, perhaps bad, but the greater likelihood of being available is a factor nonetheless.

Furthermore, any notion that US WWII artillery couldn't "coordinate" for massed fire, similar to UK "Uncle" or "Victor" calls, is erroneous. The US Army, from Normandy onwards, had the capability for "Time on Target" or TOT, in which several batteries could be called together to deliver fire onto a target at the same time. Where or when it could be used was situation-dependent, but when used, the idea was to "stonk" a target with a large number of shells in a very short timeframe, instead of batteries just rotating their fire mission calls. UK abilities were comparable, but certainly not the Germans' on a typical basis.

In effect, I regard US & UK artillery control to be comparable overall. Perhaps I'd give the UK artillery a slight edge, but a razor-thin edge on the basis of my own past historical review. In reviewing a ream of small-unit actions in the Bulge battle, the recurrent theme is that US artillery firepower & control for that battle was extremely effective & timely in its application.

[Andreas]

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

One assertion within this thread is that many US FO's were typically "90-day wonders" who couldn't read a map to save their lives. I'm sure that extensive case-by-case studies would indeed reveal a few US FO's who were less than capable at effective artillery spotting or map-reading. But does that invalidate that many other US FO's could indeed do their job well, especially after some field experience?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since it was I who said it - this refers to the practice that everyone (not just FOs) could call fire. I have no idea how well-trained FOs in the US system were, and this quib did not refer to them at all. It referred to an infantry platoon commander with a radio and a map and very little training in doing his proper job, let alone artillery procedures.

[Brian]

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

But here's your problem, Brian, and the problem of a few others, when describing relative effectivenesses of US & UK artillery.

Insofar, you haven't substantiated, or cited by references, as to how the WWII US artillery fire control system in specific was "bloated" or "inefficient." The claim might have some validity, but there's no follow-through.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I haven't said it was. I've merely offered it as an alternative explanation to the numbers which Slappy claims made it so superior.

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

In effect, I regard US & UK artillery control to be comparable overall. Perhaps I'd give the UK artillery a slight edge, but a razor-thin edge on the basis of my own past historical review. In reviewing a ream of small-unit actions in the Bulge battle, the recurrent theme is that US artillery firepower & control for that battle was extremely effective & timely in its application.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And having just finished Blackburn's book, I can make the same statement about the Commonwealth armies as well, Spook.

You'll note, I've been careful not to claim necessarily that the UK system was superior, merely comparable. I have noted that it appears only the British had a system which allowed a single FOO to call an entire AGRA onto a single target.

If you can produce evidence that the US FO's could do the same, I'd be more than happy to accept it.

Slappy is the only one whose made the nationalistic claim that merely because of numbers present within the US chain of command, that then made the US Army's artillery the BEST, no ifs, buts or maybes.

We are still looking for him to justify that claim.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slappy is the only one whose made the nationalistic claim that merely because of numbers present within the US chain of command, that then made the US Army's artillery the BEST, no ifs, buts or maybes.

We are still looking for him to justify that claim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, I am discussing this off forum to keep the flame baiters and nationalists at bay. In fact, I have already replied to bastables and will be e-mailing him more grist for the discussion off line.

[Brian]

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

Brian, you are demonstrating my point that this subject is not possible for intelligent discussion in the current circumstances because of the flamers and the ubers piling on the rugby scrum.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, you enjoy handing out flames but it appears you can't take them in return. As the old adage goes - if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen...

Now, I and quite a few others have asked you to defend your assertion. The best you've come up with, thus far, is "the US army had more men". Yet the Commonwealth got away with fewer and achieved at least the same results.

This would tend to indicate that sheer numbers contributed nothing to efficiency within the organisation, Slappy. Therefore, if that is the only basis of your assertion, it can be seen to be rather sadly lacking in subtance and logic.

[snipped a great deal of irrelevant flaming]

[Brian]

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

As I said, I am discussing this off forum to keep the flame baiters and nationalists at bay. In fact, I have already replied to bastables and will be e-mailing him more grist for the discussion off line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, Slappy, whose being nationalistic?

I'm not. I am asking YOU to justify your own nationalistic comment.

I wonder, has anybody else detect the "contradictions" in Slappy's justifications for his refusals to answer the very reasonable question that I and others have put him?

[Slapdragon]

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

Slappy, Slappy, whose being nationalistic?

I'm not. I am asking YOU to justify your own nationalistic comment.

I wonder, has anybody else detect the "contradictions" in Slappy's justifications for his refusals to answer the very reasonable question that I and others have put him?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, I am not willing to get down in the mud with you Brian. Bastable e-mailed me offline, he is a known calm and rational poster, and I am following up with him in an alternate forum. If you had handled the discussion in an adult manner I would have been perfectly willing to answer with the same information that I am sending bastables. But your only purpose here is to devolve this discussion into a mud throwing contest and not to discuss historical fact and theory in a rational manner using recognized means of discourse, and thus not worth wasting time composing a three thousand word 50 cite attempt to qualify and quantify my statement -- which is what bast will be getting.

I wont duck out of this conversation just because a flamer is hijacking it, but I also wont waste the breath composing a complex discourse on a subject that said flamer will be unwilling to follow in an adult manner.

[Enoch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Scott B wrote:

While theoretically platoon leaders could

probably call for fire, in practice my impression is this was more likely

performed by the company/battery/troop commander or higher, in the event

the fire mission did not originate with a dedicated observer or target acquisition asset.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles MacDonald in "Company Commander" relates the instance where his company was on the Siegfried Line and was under attack. Teh platoon co's radioed him and he then radioed for artillery support. The platoon leaders spotted the rounds and he again relied corrections on back to the battery.

This is not any systematic evidence that company co's in the US were the ones calling for arty but it seems they would more likely have access to the battalion to request artillery.

[Brian]

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

As I said, I am not willing to get down in the mud with you Brian. Bastable e-mailed me offline, he is a known calm and rational poster, and I am following up with him in an alternate forum. If you had handled the discussion in an adult manner I would have been perfectly willing to answer with the same information that I am sending bastables. But your only purpose here is to devolve this discussion into a mud throwing contest and not to discuss historical fact and theory in a rational manner using recognized means of discourse, and thus not worth wasting time composing a three thousand word 50 cite attempt to qualify and quantify my statement -- which is what bast will be getting.

I wont duck out of this conversation just because a flamer is hijacking it, but I also wont waste the breath composing a complex discourse on a subject that said flamer will be unwilling to follow in an adult manner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, the only person who refuses to discuss the matter is yourself. Must be a bit painful up there on your own petard...

[Slapdragon]

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

Charles MacDonald in "Company Commander" relates the instance where his company was on the Siegfried Line and was under attack. Teh platoon co's radioed him and he then radioed for artillery support. The platoon leaders spotted the rounds and he again relied corrections on back to the battery.

This is not any systematic evidence that company co's in the US were the ones calling for arty but it seems they would more likely have access to the battalion to request artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

McDonald is one source, but there is more. "Platoon Leader's manual", an FM used by PLs for command duties, discusses artillery calling responsibilities and places them on the shoulders of the platoon leader if need be. Gantner in "Roll Me Over" calls in artillery as a platoon leader and a platoon sergeant a number of times. Audie Murphy in his book uses artillery at the platoon level quite often, and in interview after the war he relates setting up TOT barrages through central. John D. McKenzie in his book on the 82nd Airborne dedicates several pages to discussions of how well artillery could be called by the average joe, NCO or officer, in the trenches, while Gudmundsson in his book has a complete discussion of how the French system was transmutted into the American system with an eye of allowing any officer on the radio net to reach control any gun in range. Dastrup, in two articles and a major book on the subject discusses how US artillery was callable by an average lieutenant from a front line fox hole (he also mentions the use of FOs) while several reflecive histories from the Vietnam era forward discuss the ability of the average officer to access and control immense firepower as a major asset of the US system. There are many more cites, but these are a nice skimming of the discussions and clearly show that artillery was called by lieutenants in the field.

None of these books I have so far discussed talk about accuracy or effectiveness, but show the commonality of the practice and the fact that infantry officers where trained purposefully to be able to handle FO duties.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slappy, the only person who refuses to discuss the matter is yourself. Must be a bit painful up there on your own petard...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, I just have certian standards and I have seen where flame baiters take conversations. I am perfectly willing to discuss this subject, and indeed am discussing it off line, but I have learned that once the flamers get the bit in their mouth all intellectual discussion ends. You want a flame war, I say be my guest but include me out. That does not preclude me from discussing this subject on the side and other areas in this forum.

<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>

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. 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.

Enough said.

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Spook]

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

You'll note, I've been careful not to claim necessarily that the UK system was superior, merely comparable. I have noted that it appears only the British had a system which allowed a single FOO to call an entire AGRA onto a single target.

If you can produce evidence that the US FO's could do the same, I'd be more than happy to accept it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The best historical example that comes to me is the Elsenborn Ridge battles of 2/26th Rgt., 1st Inf. Div., 19-22 Dec '44. Daniels' infantry battalion, during some of the more fierce attacks by 12th SS Panzer (esp. on 21 Dec.), not only drew from the entire 1st Division artillery of four battalions (three of 105's & one of 155's), but also from all of the 2nd & 99nd Division's artillery and some 8-inch guns at higher corps or army level.

Daniels was one of the more aggressive battalion CO's of 1st Division, and probably had his CP pretty well up forward. As such, the FO for all this artillery support probably operated with him. Perhaps it was multiple FO's, but regardless, the "on-target concentration" effect was the same, and was decisive in allowing one infantry battalion to repulse the bulk of an SS panzer division. Only on 21 Dec. did the Germans unleash a bombardment of comparable strength on Daniels' men in turn, which did a good bit of damage, but his battalion still held on.

The TOT concept has been detailed in several references I've read in the past, but also in Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy" if you are interested in more recent examples.

Now on a follow-up edit, I recognize the point of Andreas that not just any US junior infantry officer, at platoon-level, was effective in calling & adjusting artillery. But Slap's recent post, that mentions various reference authors, gives a hint that some US junior infantry officers could indeed "link up" to some guns above battalion-level. I would surmise that platoon officers were expected more often to put their fire calls to the company/battalion mortars first, but if those mortars were already busy, or that the "threat" needed an added level of response, then the platoon officer could get lucky if he had the authorization and effective communication to the external batteries.

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Ogadai]

Slapdragon, this is pot calling, over!

Or as it says in the good book, "let he who is without sin..."

Having observed both you and Brian in action for some time I've come to the conclusion that you're as bad as he is. Your smug attitude is like a red rag to a bull for most people, Slagdragon. Tone down the air of superority and most people would be much more willing to accept what you have to say.

Brian, you appear unable to control your tongue (or should that be fingers?) when you read a Slapdragon post. Yes, he's a pretentious twonk but its obvious he's been living so isolated from the majority of humanity he can't help it. You should take pity on the afflicted.

From the evidence thus far presented and from what I know of both the Commonwealth and the American systems, it appears to me that the US system suffered from too many intervening links in the communication chain. While a platoon commander might have been able to call for fire, that call as far as I'm able to determine had to first go to the company commander and thence back to the battalion CP and then back to the artillery unit. The Commonwealth, on the otherhand, appears going by my reading to have utilised a dedicated net which was for the FOO's alone, and which allowed them to communicate directly with the artillery units when calling for fire. The FOO's were netted in, not only to the Arty net but also to the infantry net, whereas I believe an American Platoon commander would have carried only the one radio, which would have meant he was only on his company or at best, his battalion net. Am I correct?

[Lars]

All very nice, gentlemen. And nice flame war you have going. But what does this have to do with CMBB?

The current model is pretty accurate for German practice.

For the Russians, I don't know, but I think we will see some long delays before the shells arrive.

And as for the Finns, they had the whole area preregistered, so they will probably be quick off the mark.

What about the Russians around Leningrad? As I recall it was the old training ground of the Guards. Couldn't you model this pretty well by just giving them crack FO's in those situations?

[Ron]

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

Charles MacDonald in "Company Commander" relates the instance where his company was on the Siegfried Line and was under attack. Teh platoon co's radioed him and he then radioed for artillery support. The platoon leaders spotted the rounds and he again relied corrections on back to the battery.

This is not any systematic evidence that company co's in the US were the ones calling for arty but it seems they would more likely have access to the battalion to request artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember that, but I also recall later in his book where he is describing an attack against a couple anti-aircraft batteries and they had to *wait* until a FO was called up to lay down fire before proceeding with the attack. The first example may suggest the Coy CO's ability to call fire was related to their defensive posture and the laying of phone lines. I remember the author expressing the importance of quickly establishing that link and maintaining it whenever the line was cut. I don't have the book handy else I would look up the passage to confirm.

Ron

[WWB]

One fact about phone systems: they are switchable. Meaning that should the company or platoon commander be on a phone line and get authorization for arty, they would be talking directly to each other. So once they got connected, they were in good shape. But getting that connection could be a bear.

WWB

[Simon Fox]

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

Now, Simon and Brian are just trying to get the flames burning here and short circuit any intellectual discussion, but for Berl and Andreas and other who do want a to discuss this, here is the reason why the US system worked better.

People.

The US system devoted nearly twice the number of people to communications than the commonwealth system, one of the reasons why the US had a larger tail than other countries (the other was supply). This allowed relatively junior members of their force structure to call in artillery. In the CW system, no FO meant no arty generally (I know of exceptions though), while each platoon leader in the US system could call down a barrage with excellent accuracy, kind of useful when the battery FO is 5 km away and has never even seen or heard of your platoon.

It was not a disadvantage to have junior officers control artillery assets, but an advantage -- assuming you had the communications infrastucture and training to back that up.

In practical terms, since the above is not simulated in CM, the US and its oversized communication network made artillery direction and redirection faster.

Note that I can make this arguments without using insults Brian, perhaps you can attempt the same in your reply. And JonS, I really do want to hear what you have to say, just post it here and I will be happy to respond, I really did not get any e-mails from you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is hardly a convincing argument to support the idea that the "US system" was superior to that of all other countries. More specifically it does not support the idea that it should be "faster" than all other countries. The concept that the larger an organisation is the more rapidly and efficiently it operates runs somewhat contrary to my own experience Your points regarding US platoon leaders access to arty seems to be contradicted somewhat by what other people have said in this thread. Even so it has little to do with the speed with which the mission was fired, that is a different issue.

The CW system was designed so that the FO was never 5km away. Since the Battery commander was colocated with the infantry Bn commander fire requests could be routed in that way if the troop FOOs weren't available. The CW FO system was designed to minimise the possibility that infantry should call fire but did not exclude the possibility. The guiding principles were speed and massed firepower.

Thusfar you have fallen far short of the standards of proof to which you hold others, hopefully you can rectify this. I note that you have withdrawn your contention that my comments were "flame bait", a term which you seem all too fond of bandying about. I hardly think this:

<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> is flinging insults around. I took it as a wry comment on the irony of you of all people espousing nation specific modifiers. Considering that you frequently leap into threads and gleefully cast aspersions about uberthis, uberthat and "nationalistic bias" etc etc I am sure that the irony of the present situation is not lost upon everyone. I can't help wondering that your overreaction is governed more by whatever 'baggage' you are carrying around vis a vis Brian rather than what he had to say. hehe

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

As I said, I am not willing to get down in the mud with you Brian. Bastable e-mailed me offline, he is a known calm and rational poster, and I am following up with him in an alternate forum. If you had handled the discussion in an adult manner I would have been perfectly willing to answer with the same information that I am sending bastables. But your only purpose here is to devolve this discussion into a mud throwing contest and not to discuss historical fact and theory in a rational manner using recognized means of discourse, and thus not worth wasting time composing a three thousand word 50 cite attempt to qualify and quantify my statement -- which is what bast will be getting.

I wont duck out of this conversation just because a flamer is hijacking it, but I also wont waste the breath composing a complex discourse on a subject that said flamer will be unwilling to follow in an adult manner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, I do beleive that Brian isn't the only one in this discussion ScottB, argie, spook and others have all made pertinent comments. Since you made your original comment on a public forum and were questioned about it on a public forum then it seems appropriate that you defend it publically rather than skulking about in some backroom conversation with hand picked cronies like Bastardables and Jon. I completely disagree with your characterisation of Bastardables as a "known calm and rational poster". I mean really! Do you think we are all completely ingenuous?

Numbers, times, names, dates and places if you please Jacko. A thorough well referenced discourse and just to let you know in advance that pictures of a whole bunch of blokes on the phone won't cut it and neither will a bunch of first hand accounts extolling the virtues of US artillery.

[JonS]

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

... hand picked cronies like Bastardables and Jon ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oi, you silly Aussie git! The only emails Slap and I have exchanged have been a couple to clear up a lost email. Nothing about uberAmerican, envy-of-the-free-world, envy-of-the-unfree-world, couldn't-be-bettered-even-if-you-tried, not-to-be-discussed-on-an-open-forum, US artillery at all.

Bastables, on the other hand, is definte crony material I suspect he is going to be at rahter a severe disadvantage in the forthcoming backroom knitting circle due to the limited library in his current burg.

[ edited just to annoy The Anglophile ]

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

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon, this is pot calling, over!

Or as it says in the good book, "let he who is without sin..."

Having observed both you and Brian in action for some time I've come to the conclusion that you're as bad as he is. Your smug attitude is like a red rag to a bull for most people, Slagdragon. Tone down the air of superority and most people would be much more willing to accept what you have to say.

Brian, you appear unable to control your tongue (or should that be fingers?) when you read a Slapdragon post. Yes, he's a pretentious twonk but its obvious he's been living so isolated from the majority of humanity he can't help it. You should take pity on the afflicted.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off Ogadai, your only two posts as of now you have addressed me twice, this one to flame bait and insult, the first one to make a completely quizical comment about Americans using British terminology. Neither times you offer any facts to progress the conversation along, this time you at least comment on the subject (without offering support for your comments). So you join the illustrious ranks of "God", and "Eumundi" in that you chose to start your posting career with an insult rather than a fair comment. I offer this not in critique, but in comment -- note than in 3000 posts I have maybe a dozen insulting ones, and you have 2/2. Not a good foot to step off on.

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

From the evidence thus far presented and from what I know of both the Commonwealth and the American systems, it appears to me that the US system suffered from too many intervening links in the communication chain. While a platoon commander might have been able to call for fire, that call as far as I'm able to determine had to first go to the company commander and thence back to the battalion CP and then back to the artillery unit. The Commonwealth, on the otherhand, appears going by my reading to have utilised a dedicated net which was for the FOO's alone, and which allowed them to communicate directly with the artillery units when calling for fire. The FOO's were netted in, not only to the Arty net but also to the infantry net, whereas I believe an American Platoon commander would have carried only the one radio, which would have meant he was only on his company or at best, his battalion net. Am I correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately you are wrong.

Simon, I know you are just trying to stir the pot and get the arguments rolling again when they seem to be tappering off, but taking this off the list is a far better idea. You are welcome to join or not, as you see fit. You missed (unintentionally I am sure) where I invited adult participation in this off list discussion to anyone who wanted to get in on it.

I however did include JonS in my mailing just to annoy the poor bugger.

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

[Simon Fox]

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

Simon, I know you are just trying to stir the pot and get the arguments rolling again when they seem to be tappering off, but taking this off the list is a far better idea. You are welcome to join or not, as you see fit. You missed (unintentionally I am sure) where I invited adult participation in this off list discussion to anyone who wanted to get in on it.

I however did include JonS in my mailing just to annoy the poor bugger.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You don't seem to understand. I don't agree with this off forum concept of yours. There are probably plenty more that might follow the discussion and contribute when and if they feel they can do so without the need to indulge in a flurry of emails. Can't you see that the Forum Directing Centre (FDC) is a far more efficient method of communication. If you don't want to be "dragged into the mud" then don't. You're the one who constantly responds to these relatively innocuous "insults". I would suggest if we apply your own insult detection criteria (which has a very low threshold by the look of things) the numbers might be a wee bit more than a few dozen. I am not trying to the stir the pot. I am trying to get an answer out of you while still maintaining a sense of humour.

[Slapdragon]

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

I am not trying to the stir the pot. I am trying to get an answer out of you while still maintaining a sense of humour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense, but I saw you spend 5 posts goading Micheal Dorosh with no reason except to get a response from him and it was not right. I cannot help but feel this is the same thing since you have not started to add your own view of these subjects or started a critique of what is already posted. I may be wrong, but like I said, calming the discussion down by taking the flame causing material off line is best. People who want to hear what I have to say can that way, and it avoids poking the flamers with a stick, which is what Ogadai claims I am doing by posting to this forum.

Take that as you will, but I offered you that chance to see what I have to say in another, calmer venue.

There are several times conversations leave this forum, and rightly so. II have talked with several people off list about subjects that are to loaded for sensible conversation on line, such as Finland and Finnish history with Tommi. Since my goal here is to learn new things, and the static of the flame wars gets in the way of that goal, it is better to find another venue for that goal without abandoning the utility of the forum. I might add that I have already learned two new things about the commonwealth artillery system from JonS, and have sent back a few more comments that will hopefully get a little more information back.

[Simon Fox]

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

No offense, but I saw you spend 5 posts goading Micheal Dorosh with no reason except to get a response from him and it was not right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I don't recall precisely the instance to which you refer (though I have a fair inkling) and I certainly don't want to rake over ancient history. Anyway look at Dorosh now, he's coming along very nicely under my tutelage. The way he's dealt with this run off at the mouth use no punctuation bloke positively brings a tear to my eye.

Why should I be offering an opinion. You should be justifying yours. Then I can critique it.

[Ogadai]

Slapdragon, appear to have a very poor ability to make self-assesements, if you believe you've only made 2 insulting posts. I've countered about a dozen in the last fortnight alone since I started lurking here. You may be more subtle than Brian but you still have this tone of smug superiority which makes most people want to leap through their screens and strange you.

Now, as Simon has stated, you've made a statement in an open forum. To date, you've failed to substantiate it. You can run off and discuss it in your dark little back room with other members of your sewing circle or you can show some consistency and actually apply the same rules you apply it seems to everybody else, to yourself and substantiate your claim.

Now, you've claimed I had it wrong about the ability of the US junior officer to call artillery. OK, substantiate that, please. How many radios did the US platoon cammander carry? What nets were he a part of?

[Slapdragon]

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

Why should I be offering an opinion. You should be justifying yours. Then I can critique it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To some extent, very true, and as I have said, you are welcome to see my justification and form a critique to your hearts content. But I still offer that you have not seen fit to comment or critique what I have already presented, so what is your goal? Defending flamers from the rath of Slapdragon and Germanboy is a laudable goal, maybe not conductive to conversations, but I am sure fun in its own way. I don't know if you really want to read my justification, but it is there if you want.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon, appear to have a very poor ability to make self-assesements, if you believe you've only made 2 insulting posts. I've countered about a dozen in the last fortnight alone since I started lurking here. You may be more subtle than Brian but you still have this tone of smug superiority which makes most people want to leap through their screens and strange you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense, but I think you need to reread my comment. Your numbers are a bit off. Also note it is impossible to have a smug tone in writing. A smug tone is an internal value judgement that occurs from use intonation not word choice, and starts in the head of the listener. You are reading a smug tone into my writing.

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

Now, as Simon has stated, you've made a statement in an open forum. To date, you've failed to substantiate it. You can run off and discuss it in your dark little back room with other members of your sewing circle or you can show some consistency and actually apply the same rules you apply it seems to everybody else, to yourself and substantiate your claim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have substantiated what I said to the people who want calm conversation on that subject, or at least presented my case.

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

Now, you've claimed I had it wrong about the ability of the US junior officer to call artillery. OK, substantiate that, please. How many radios did the US platoon cammander carry? What nets were he a part of?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, I in my own way, have provided a lits of citations and a background for my claims. All I said is you are wrong. You can let that stand, or dig out a few cites yourself. Your commenst are not unsupportable, but they are right now unsupported and thus wrong on their face, not really needing to be brought into consideration. A better supported comment on the other hand would be an important entre into the discussion and would need more than a comment that you are wrong. For example, I can say Australia sucks. You can say I am wrong. To value statements with no support. If I say Australia is very nice, and by nice I mean x, and I can support x with these facts from these sources, then simply saying "you are wrong" is not enough.

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