Fascine Reprise

[Slapdragon]

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

No one has proven Bren tripods were common - certainly not with a couple of photos. Please.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know someone who lives by Loch Ness and has a picture of Nessie. Doesn't mean a dinosaur is living in that lake no matter what individual experience and a single picture says.

The problem Brian is that first you and the so called "Commonwealth Gang" (actually a small minority of posters from these countries) first comes up with what you want to believe, then fills in evidence in a very sketchy manner as proof. 3 pictures are not proof. a Training film is not proof.

If you get training in historical methods you will see that "proof" is much more complex than finding a single reference in a telegram, or a single picture. A picture of a Bren on a tripod is as good as the picture of the .45 on a tripod I posted. Does not mean they were used in that way commonly.

I cannot teach you now what your teachers failed to teach you (or did not teach you in school) about historiography. In fact, a little smattering of historiography and people think they have solved the world with a single newspaper article or off colored joke in a single letter.

Again, the grog's argument against you and Beazeley / Steve N. jackson / Mulga Hill / Banned by BTS / whatever other accounts he has is that you are completely unable to support a historical argument in an adult and educated way, and always either play dodge ball with issues, or pull a single obscure and extremely limited reference, such as your own undergraduate thesis, out to prove everything from the fact that the sky is green to the fact that the earth is flat.

In fact, yelling "The Earth is flat" and then showing us a picture of a field that has no obvious curvature is a common technique of people who do not understand historical or scientific method.

[Brian]

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

Checking out of this thread (tipping the bellhop along the way), I will add a point that stands to be iterated.

CM posters here with military experience, or also experience as a war veteran, can certainly be of value here in relating their views. Most of us here, and BTS, do know this. Where the military poster has his greatest value, however, is if he/she is experienced with the military subject on hand. By example of "combat engineering," Warren (The Capt) has had sufficient past experience to help in discussions for that subject.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. However, that can and should be extended to different nationalities as well.

I do not doubt that Slappy will characterise this as a "nationalistic slur" but it should be pointed out - overwhelmingly, the flavour of the board is American, with a small sprinkling from elsewhere. Yet, we have viewpoint from someone like Slappy that he, as an American who has never served in a Commonwealth Army can tell someone who has, how the Commonwealth did or does things. Is it surprising that he raises peoples' hackles?

I'd also suggest this is a problem with the game itself. Others have pointed out the various failings of the game to adequately model certain aspects of British/Commonwealth weapons and doctrine. Some of it is, I admit subtle, a "flavour" if you like, which only those who know it, would notice it by its absence. Some of it, is obviously because of some very American assumptions about how military forces do operate.

Other parts of it are more blatant IMO, and indicate to me, at least either a carelessness or an outright callousness on the part of the game designers - to whit, I am referring to the matter of the visual representation of the 25 Pdr Field Gun, yet loving time and detail has gone into the dipictions of American and German vehicles and guns.

To some, this doesn't matter. Indeed, I hadn't noticed until Kim Beazley brought it to my attention and even now, I'm not overly concerned by it, but it does bear mentioning.

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

The viewpoint of the combat veteran is also always of value, providing a unique perspective that postwar noncombat historians can never capture by themselves. But any one soldier's combat story likely needs to be taken in measure; not in isolation, but correlated by other stories of similar combat situations, as per Slap's point.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This however, effectively tells the veteran that his experience should not be counted as of as great a value as the information recorded elsewhere. In addition, it makes the assumption that it is possible to correlate personal experience - remember, not everything is recorded.

An excellent example is the film Kim mentioned a long time ago, in another galaxy. We can read all we like about how Fascines were carried, how they were meant to be used but unless we were there, we cannot relate to how they were actually used (or even meant to be used) by the people using them, themselves. Kim's film provides that missing link, but I'd be very surprised if what he related could be correlated from any other source - most written descriptions wouldn't remark on the speed with which a Fascine was employed - simply because those writing the account would either assume that was something which was already known or unimportant.

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

By example, a 6-lbr antitank gunner could relate a factual story, "I took out a Panther with a frontal shot, at 2000 meters, and using only one round!" Taking the story in isolation, however, might give the impression that this was a common occurence.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But at the same time, effectively you're saying, "Hey, Mr.Veteran, we can't find any records of that happening - therefore you must be mistaken!" Whereas the veteran knows what he did and that it did happen. Whose incorrect, the veteran or the written record, Spook?

Written records are important, don't get me wrong, but at the same time, we should recognise that they are not all ecompassing. Therefore, we should not discard quite so readily the experiences of those who have done something, merely because they cannot be correlated from what are in all likelihood, incomplete, hurried records.

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

So again, the input of many military posters here can be of great value, and I think enhances the overall knowledge base of the CM forum. But also again, some military issues require extensive correlation and cross-referencing to come to some resolution.

I'd still recommend that the first port of call should be the matter of personal experience, then the written record, Spook, rather than the otherway 'round as Slappy appears to favour.

[Brian]

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

No one has proven Bren tripods were common - certainly not with a couple of photos. Please.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not attempting to claim they were common merely that they were used. Something which even you pointed out.

[dalem]

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

Other parts of it are more blatant IMO, and indicate to me, at least either a carelessness or an outright callousness on the part of the game designers - to whit, I am referring to the matter of the visual representation of the 25 Pdr Field Gun, yet loving time and detail has gone into the dipictions of American and German vehicles and guns.

To some, this doesn't matter. Indeed, I hadn't noticed until Kim Beazley brought it to my attention and even now, I'm not overly concerned by it, but it does bear mentioning.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. I was going to stay out of this one because frankly, it's silly, but the fact that you mentioned the above pushed me over. So the 25lbr is represented by an incorrect image, and you think it's worthy of "mentioning" as part of some large theory of CM being skewed against the CW. Well, take a look at the U.S. TO&Es sometime and you'll notice the absence of the famed M16 quad .50 AA halftrack. Not uncommon as important ground support in the latter half of the war, and completely missing from the game. And where are all the fun U.S. force structures, like the Braves, the Rangers, or even a vanilla Armored Infantry platoon? Hell, I'm sure that even some German stuff was left out. You know why? It's because there are only 24 hours in a day, and a day came when the game had to be released instead of perfected. Crying about what did or didn't get included, or worse yet, seeing patterns of intent where there are none, is simply embarrasing.

Discussions about what history is or isn't or whether relying on one person's life experience is like reading a single book may be fun or agravating discussions, but don't make the mistake of seeing crap that isn't there to support your arguments.

It's a frikkin' game, not a historical document.

-dale

[Slapdragon]

First, discard all the nationalistic jibber jabber. When you go nationalistic in your arguments, it is again a sign of weakness in your position. Discard it and you are better off.

This is the problem Brian, your methodology goes like this:

How important is a data source:

1) My personal experience

2) The Experience of Other Veterans

3) Written Records

With 1 trumping 2 and 2 trumping 3.

However, when you learn historical methodology, you learn that this is a useless scale, talking about which type of record is better than the other.

First, a really good historian removes #1 all together. You miss that detachment since failure to factor out the personal makes for very slanted viewpoints. Read Mien Kampf for an example of a similar historical argument where he claims personal experience trumps all others, and note how it slants all of the historical attitudes in the book.

The historian can retain #1 a small amount only a providing a basis for following where the data leads. You don't want to use #1 to decide where it leads then find data to match.

Second, the rest of the personal experience versus documentary is a red herring, and an argument long ago put to bet by professional historians. A soldier's experience is the fox hole he is in. He can tell you a lot about that fox hole. He can tell you about his slice of taking a hill, about how much machineguns sucked, and about how much he hated 88s.

He cannot tell you that on June 14th 1944 he and three men fired a Piat and knocked out a Tiger from 800 yards, at least without documentation. First, his fates may be messed up, he may be under or over estimating the range many years later, he may get the tank wrong, and there may have been 2 men with him.

So documentation and oral evidence are just two parts of a three part tripod. Your arguments are weak because you present the tripod with only one leg, and usually short that leg by choosing outliers to support a preconceived notion.

All it takes is to listen to a few people recount the same event, such as I did for the Sioux City plane crash, or have done later, to understand that people get things wrong that they watch and experience. They can even do and work with things day in and day out and get them wrong. Part of being human.

Likewise I have a picture of 3 men standing on a hill with M16s, one with a belt of 7.62x51mm sticking out of it. Does this mean that this rifle fires belted 7.62x51mm? Those men are veterans, it is a real picture. But of course it has no validity.

I have a training film which says that Navy standard shark repellent is a good deterrant for shark attack. Post war tests show it is not so, and indeed, no one in the Navy really believed it at the time either. The film was propaganda.

The major point is that a historian is not gullible for every brand of snake oil sold, and is especially not careful about buying oil because it seems right, or makes sense from a nationalistic, racial, or political reason.

[Brian]

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

The problem Brian is that first you and the so called "Commonwealth Gang" (actually a small minority of posters from these countries) first comes up with what you want to believe, then fills in evidence in a very sketchy manner as proof. 3 pictures are not proof. a Training film is not proof.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, excuse me but I am about to say some very rude words, ****ing bull****, Slappy.

They are proof. They are proof that (a) the equipment existed; ( it was in fairly widespread use (two of the photos are at least 7 years apart in time and several thousand kilometres in distance).

They are proof. You refuse to see them as proof, that is all - because as I mentioned, the use of a Bren on a tripod attacks the nice neat little compartments that you like to divide weapons into.

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

If you get training in historical methods you will see that "proof" is much more complex than finding a single reference in a telegram, or a single picture. A picture of a Bren on a tripod is as good as the picture of the .45 on a tripod I posted. Does not mean they were used in that way commonly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slappy, you're still missing the point. You have produce one photo of a .45 on a tripod. I have produced two of many photos of Brens on tripods. Would you like to know how many photos I did find at the AWM? I chose the two clearest and the ones furthest apart in time.

We have from Michael, accounts of Brens being used on Tripods at Arnhem. We have pictures from other posters of them in museums. We have other posters talking about them.

Yet, to you this is not sufficient proof.

OK, Slappy, what would be sufficient proof?

The CES for the Bren? The establishment tables for say, a British infantry battalion? More accounts of their use in training and battle? Personal accounts? OOops, of course, sorry, those don't count in your lexicon, do they?

Or do you want to push your fingers deeper into the wounds? Taste the blood perhaps?

How about we arrange for you to trot off to these musuems, so you can see them for yourself. How about a range shoot? Check the photos personally? Talk to a few veterans perhaps - oops that right, their experiences don't count, now do they?

You are just bloody amazing, you realise that. You sit on your high horse, pontificating to all and sundry that you're the only person who can be correct and everybody else has to be bloody wrong.

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

I cannot teach you now what your teachers failed to teach you (or did not teach you in school) about historiography. In fact, a little smattering of historiography and people think they have solved the world with a single newspaper article or off colored joke in a single letter.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell you what, Slappy, why don't you toddle off down to the library and shove your head in a book? You appear to have completey lost the plot about what history IS.

Can you work out what it is, Slappy? I suspect not.

[Enoch]

And what is your point about the tripod mounted Bren again? Heck, I want my M16 Halftrack. What is BTS going to do about it?

Why don't you two air your disagreements over how to conduct historical research somewhere else. It grows tiresome.

[Andreas]

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

You appear to have completey lost the plot about what history IS.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, the same thing was said by Mulga Bill about three pages earlier...

Anyways, since it seems to be a particular Australian figure of speech, mind telling me what history is? I am intrigued.

Dictionary.com (Cambridge does not seem to work today) defines it thus:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>his·to·ry (hst-r)

n. pl. his·to·ries

2. a. A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events: a history of the Vikings.

b. A formal written account of related natural phenomena: a history of volcanoes.

c. A record of a patient's medical background.

d. An established record or pattern of behavior: an inmate with a history of substance abuse.

3. The branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events: “History has a long-range perspective” (Elizabeth Gurley Flynn). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Terence]

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

And what is your point about the tripod mounted Bren again? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ill second that one, at least.

What was the issue with the Bren guns on tripods?

Does it make that much different if they are on tripods or not?

Is the weapon demonstrably more effective if you put it on a tripod?

How would tripod mounted Bren guns be modeled in the game?

Penultimately, if they are not modeled, how does that affect the battle-worthiness of the commonwealth forces, who get bren guns of the non-tripod mounted variety.

And finally, what I really want to know is how the non-inclusion of bren guns, fascine carriers and so on is evidence that BTS is biased against the Commonwealth, when taken in a context where every army represented is missing vehicles and capabilites easily explained by programming difficulties and time shortages.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Terence ]

[Andreas]

The only reference I have ever seen to it being used was during the battle for Cassel, 1940, in an AA role. I have read my fair share of UK accounts.

FWIW.

[Slapdragon]

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

[/qb]

Oh, excuse me but I am about to say some very rude words, ****ing bull****, Slappy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please refrain from cursing on the forum. Our hosts have more than once said that sort of behavior is not appreciated.

If you want to discuss historical method in a rational manner then by all means, but if you want to flame go someplace where that sort of behavior is accepted.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Andreas]

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

[/qb]They are proof. They are proof that (a) the equipment existed; ( it was in fairly widespread use (two of the photos are at least 7 years apart in time and several thousand kilometres in distance).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean by 'use'?

[Slapdragon]

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

What do you mean by 'use'?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very similar in a way to the pictures of Johnson Rifles. Dozens of pictures, covering 1941 to 1946, showing their "use" by American Military Forces, which means that they were common, issued widely, and extremely effective.

The Bren issue, as Dorosh pointed out, is a dead letter. Tripod or no, it does not change the weapon. Rare use of a tripod does not make it an HMG. Long ago argued out and left for dead for lack of any compelling evidence by both the board and BTS.

[Spook]

Popping back in to address a question directed to me, regarding a case example I posed:

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

---------------------------------------------

By example, a 6-lbr antitank gunner could relate a factual story, "I took out a Panther with a frontal shot, at 2000 meters, and using only one round!" Taking the story in isolation, however, might give the impression that this was a common occurence.

---------------------------------------------

But at the same time, effectively you're saying, "Hey, Mr.Veteran, we can't find any records of that happening - therefore you must be mistaken!" Whereas the veteran knows what he did and that it did happen. Whose incorrect, the veteran or the written record, Spook?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The basis to my hypothetical case example, Brian, was that the veteran's account and written record concur with each other. It is accepted as documented fact.

But would this one factual case example suffice to establish a trend?

For example, what other conditions were in play so that this 6-lbr AT gun scored a long-range kill against a Panther, and through its frontal armor?

Was the armor plate poorly cast? Was the tank moving, or immobilized? Did the 6-lbr use a jury-rig field-mounted sight that improved long-range accuracy from the standard sight? Was the gun using APDS? Or did the shot fail to penetrate, but the tank merely panicked and bailed out?

So, the case example isn't thrown away, nor is the veteran's record discounted. Rather, it's all kept for reference, but measured against comparable AT combat situations to establish a trend.

[Terence]

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

Popping back in to address a question directed to me, regarding a case example I posed:

The basis to my hypothetical case example, Brian, was that the veteran's account and written record concur with each other. It is accepted as documented fact.

But would this one factual case example suffice to establish a trend?

For example, what other conditions were in play so that this 6-lbr AT gun scored a long-range kill against a Panther, and through its frontal armor?

Was the armor plate poorly cast? Was the tank moving, or immobilized? Did the 6-lbr use a jury-rig field-mounted sight that improved long-range accuracy from the standard sight? Was the gun using APDS? Or did the shot fail to penetrate, but the tank merely panicked and bailed out?

So, the case example isn't thrown away, nor is the veteran's record discounted. Rather, it's all kept for reference, but measured against comparable AT combat situations to establish a trend.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. Plus consider the possible conditions that the veteran was in when he made the report -- exhausted, injured, terrified, filthy, hungry and thirsty and possibly under fire or in danger of coming under fire.

Also this event we are all so glibly discussing happens at 2,000 meters from this guy and his comrades.

If they didn't get it exactly right, who can blame them?

So treating their account as potentially valuable but waiting to confirm it against other accounts and other records seems pretty reasonable. In fact, it seems so reasonble that I wonder why it has even come up.

But I recall that this has issue has arisen from the context of a nationalistically driven argument about troops characteristics.

So I supose that the best justification for making one nations force inherently better than another in the game doesn't come from a multitude of confirmed sources but rather from the opinions and preconceptions of certain people.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Terence ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Other parts of it are more blatant IMO, and indicate to me, at least either a carelessness or an outright callousness on the part of the game designers - to whit, I am referring to the matter of the visual representation of the 25 Pdr Field Gun, yet loving time and detail has gone into the dipictions of American and German vehicles and guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is going beyond ridiculous.

Look at the visual representation of the US M36B1 Jackson so we can start bitching about how callous and careless BTS is towards the American forces. And how about how US Hq units cannot call in arty, which is at odds with actual US practice. And don't even get me started on the absence of the M16.

And then we could go on to the Germans...

It seems to me some here have a preconcieved notion of anti-Commonwealth bias on the part of BTS and are trying very hard to find facts that fit their point of view, and trying very hard to ignore facts that disprove it.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Not attempting to claim they were common merely that they were used. Something which even you pointed out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Bren tripods were originally issued on a scale of one to every three weapons (ie one per Platoon) - source Skennerton Australian Service Machine Guns (ISBN 0 949749 125)

(Knew I had a copy but living between properties and other crises....)

As Australian practice mirrored that of the UK and other Commonwealth forces it would have been consistent across them all.

How they were employed:

Bren tripods were held as Company stores (ie were part of the company assets at the disposal of the Company OC) generally in the B Echelon (particularly as the war dragged on) though could be held in A or F Echelon as needed. They were on the equipment tables of Infantry Battalions at this level until at least very late in the war

Remember Brens were used also as AA weapons and provided the only organic AA capability to the Inf Bn - the tripod was designed to act as an AA mount.

Anyway - the argument is passe according to Mr SN Jackson.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

Actually Bren tripods were originally issued on a scale of one to every three weapons (ie one per Platoon) - source Skennerton Australian Service Machine Guns (ISBN 0 949749 125)

(Knew I had a copy but living between properties and other crises....)

As Australian practice mirrored that of the UK and other Commonwealth forces it would have been consistent across them all.

How they were employed:

Bren tripods were held as Company stores (ie were part of the company assets at the disposal of the Company OC) generally in the B Echelon (particularly as the war dragged on) though could be held in A or F Echelon as needed. They were on the equipment tables of Infantry Battalions at this level until at least very late in the war

Remember Brens were used also as AA weapons and provided the only organic AA capability to the Inf Bn - the tripod was designed to act as an AA mount.

Anyway - the argument is passe according to Mr SN Jackson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except you did not read Mr. Dorosh's long and scholarly discussion of the subject, they were rarely carried with leg platoons who left them in camp or in the trucks as an uneeded mass, nor did you respond to at least four threads questioning what, if anything, a tripod did that can be modelled in the game. Then you did not read and take into account the role Bren were used for by ground fighting courtesy of Germanboy.

In other words you have successfully advanced the debate back a month and 400 posts with a single flash of insightful brillance.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Except you did not read Mr. Dorosh's long and scholarly discussion of the subject, they were rarely carried with leg platoons who left them in camp or in the trucks as an uneeded mass, nor did you respond to at least four threads questioning what, if anything, a tripod did that can be modelled in the game. Then you did not read and take into account the role Bren were used for by ground fighting courtesy of Germanboy.

In other words you have successfully advanced the debate back a month and 400 posts with a single flash of insightful brillance.

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you know what the A, B and F Echelons are of an Infantry Battalion ?

Can you show where I have disagreed with Mr Dorosh ?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

Do you know what the A, B and F Echelons are of an Infantry Battalion ?

Can you show where I have disagreed with Mr Dorosh ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I will let Mr. Dorosh post it, since it is his argument you ignored.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

I think I will let Mr. Dorosh post it, since it is his argument you ignored.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK so you don't know.....

Argue on BritComm matters when you have some knowledge (unfortunately you have just displayed gross ignorance).

(In fact there is nothing inconsistent with waht Mr Dorosh has said. I have given the scale and method of holding of the equipment nothing more.)

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

OK so you don't know.....

Argue on BritComm matters when you have some knowledge (unfortunately you have just displayed gross ignorance).

(In fact there is nothing inconsistent with waht Mr Dorosh has said. I have given the scale and method of holding of the equipment nothing more.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did not say that, I am just not going to repeat verbatim 750 words of ignored text from Mr. Dorosh just to give you a quick lesson in combat echelons in the Commonwealth that you do not need.

[Slapdragon]

(You always have to watch for the trap of answering the "tell me abot x". In school yard debate, "tell me about x" us used to trip up historical discussion, because if I post a 5000 word treatise on commonwealth foprce structure some part will be left out, while if I post a 20 word quikie it wont be detailed enough. So, tell me about the Bren bolt carrier design, tell me about the barrel mass of the Bren and why it was lightened before the war, tell me why belt feeding was dropped from the progenitor weapon in 1924, Describe the linkage issues of the rubber Sherman track, ad naseum, and nothing is solved. Mike Dorosh discussed why the Bren tripod was not an issue for front line units in great detail, you chose to ignore his commentary. This is your lookout, not mine. If you want instructions on how the British used the Bren, may I advise you simply read the hundreds of posts made by Dorosh and Germanboy (I know that i could quote directly from the bible and get told I was lying about text) and simply accept them, or as a novel approach to this whole business, come up with a compelet argument addressing instead of dodging that entire issue.

[Simon Fox]

When Username (Lewis) was posting on this board then by and large I found a lot of what he had to say annoying, or at least the way he said it. However, I never once saw his name at the top of the post and immediately assumed that he what he had to say going to be a load of crap. Because on occasions I agreed with what he had to say. I certainly didn't immediately assume that that he was taking an opposite viewpoint to my own on every issue. I certainly didn't find it necessary to mentally characterise him into a convenient category like for example 'pain in the arse' or 'troll' so that I could automatically assume that any post he made fell into that category. That would have been presumptous of me wouldn't it?

[Mulga Bill]

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

Did not say that, I am just not going to repeat verbatim 750 words of ignored text from Mr. Dorosh just to give you a quick lesson in combat echelons in the Commonwealth that you do not need.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just answer Jonh Howard's question (which does not need 750 words).

B Echelon =

A Echelon =

F Echelon =

I think I (or anyone with any knowledge of the Commonwealth military) could do it in about one tenth that or even less.

How about a clue - LOB could be part of B Echelon.

Should we use the term for you that you used on Germanboy ?