Fascine Reprise

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mulga Bill:

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 ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr. Beazeley. You were banned from this forum. There is no need to answer your question at all.

[Slapdragon]

Instead, lets say this: Why doesn't this gang go back, read Mike Dorosh's discussion, and answer his questions, reply to his citations in a way that can really be discussed in an adult fashion.

[Simon Fox]

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

Instead, lets say this: Why doesn't this gang go back, read Mike Dorosh's discussion, and answer his questions, reply to his citations in a way that can really be discussed in an adult fashion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Instead, let's say this: Why doesn't Jacko go back and read "John Howards" post and explain how in any way it contradicts Dorosh's original treatise? Then perhaps Jacko might care to explain or excuse himself for assuming that it did.

[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>

Basically, this whole thread was killed by flames a long time ago. With banned Beazely / Mulga Hill side slipping BTS like a virtual gunny_bunny, and the premise talked into the ground and pretty much settled on its face there is no point. Which means nothing, since this whole thread closes in a few posts.

Basically people can curse like Brian above, poke fun instead of discuss, and wave flags, but it wont change the game one iota unless theoriess are better martialed and supported by facts. That is all I care about, is raising the bar for the quality of the discussion here above that of the Usenet at large, and indeed, this forum has many members who are excellent, and many discussion go 50 or 60 posts before the flames, like those above, burn down the thread. In addition, many things have been solved by people here through application of intellect.

Since a Bren on a tripod is just a slow Bren, I don't really care about it -- game is not changed one bit, but the historical issue is very important, especially when Bren on tripod is equated to an UBERweapon without any support.

[Slapdragon]

Sorry, learned a long time ago not to respond to Simon's posts stirring the pot. He is still funny though.

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

[JonS]

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

...

Since a Bren on a tripod is just a slow Bren, I don't really care about it -- game is not changed one bit, but the historical issue is very important, especially when Bren on tripod is equated to an UBERweapon without any support...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know how to break this to you gently Slapster, but no-one claimed the Bren on a tripod should be the equivalent of the MG42 on a tripod. Sorta like the Zook and the Shreck - apparently similar weapons, with very different capabilities (as they should have). Why you think BTS would suddenly drop a nut and give a Bren-on-a-tripod (or even a Bren LMG team)* the same firepower characteristics as a MG42-on-a-tripod (or a German LMG team) is beyond me - and not a little insulting to BTS IMHO.

JonS

* if they ever included it in the game that is (current or future versions. I'm aware CMBO is finished, and CMBB deals with a different front).

[Simon Fox]

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

Sorry, learned a long time ago not to respond to Simon's posts stirring the pot. He is still funny though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't worry Jacko, I caught it before you edited. So to answer your question he did state quite clearly that it didn't contradict it. I guess you must have missed that one, either that or it proved inconvenient for you. As for Dorosh I would think he was perfectly capable of speaking for himself so why don't you leave him to do so.

[Slapdragon]

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

I don't know how to break this to you gently Slapster, but no-one claimed the Bren on a tripod should be the equivalent of the MG42 on a tripod. Sorta like the Zook and the Shreck - apparently similar weapons, with very different capabilities (as they should have). Why you think BTS would suddenly drop a nut and give a Bren-on-a-tripod (or even a Bren LMG team)* the same firepower characteristics as a MG42-on-a-tripod (or a German LMG team) is beyond me - and not a little insulting to BTS IMHO.

JonS

* if they ever included it in the game that is (current or future versions. I'm aware CMBO is finished, and CMBB deals with a different front).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jon, I reread my post several times and did not find my reference to the Bren equating with a MG-42, can you help me out? A link to a post in this thread even would help.

I do remember when that was the direction of the conversation, but you would have to do a search for the long dead first Bren is an uber weapon thread now burried in the forum. I also remember that it was pretty thoroughly refuted, and no one to date has been able to quantify how a Bren on a tripod would be any more effective than a regular Bren, except it would drop the unit's speed down one notch.

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

[JonS]

OK, you refered to it being an UBERweapon, and the MG42 is the uber-est MG I know of (from WW2 anyway). Maybe you weren't thinking of the MG42 - who knows what you were thinking except you - and if I've misrepresented you on that particular point I apologise.

As for how it would be any better, well how about a more stable platform, improved accuracy, pre-registered covered arcs, AA fire - you know, all those things that people bother building tripods for in the first place. And since the MG mechanics are supposedly much improved in CMBB (and the versions thereafter) having the Bren available as it was used (admittedly not all the time) becomes more significant. IMHO.

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

[Slapdragon]

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

OK, you refered to it being an UBERweapon, and the MG42 is the uber-est MG I know of (from WW2 anyway). Maybe you weren't thinking of the MG42 - who knows what you were thinking except you - and if I've misrepresented you on that particular point I apologise.

As for how it would be any better, well how about a more stable platform, improved accuracy, pre-registered covered arcs, AA fire - you know, all those things that people bother building tripods for in the first place. And since the MG mechanics are supposedly much improved in CMBB (and the versions thereafter) having the Bren available as it was used (admittedly not all the time) becomes more significant. IMHO.

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

I was not really thinking about any weapon (but if I had, I would say the M2HB is THE uber machinegun. It slices, it dices, it reaches out and touches you from 1100 meters)

The problem with the tripod under the Bren is based on three well supported arguments. 1) The weapon was not used in this manner very often except as an AA weapon in the 1940 / desert campaign (per Dorosh and his long discussion on this subject, 2) The weapon does not have the sustained fire capability to make much use of the tripod for building a base of fire (one only has to compare its light barrel with other weapons to begin to see this, but there are other reasons this is so), and 3) The new mechanics wont likely effect the Bren all that much to change things because of 1 and 2, although as a SAW it may allow a section some limited covering capabilities using their organic Brens, assuming the engine can stretch it to cover sqauds with AR/SAWS in them.

[Michael Dorosh]

<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>

They were held on the platoon trucks themselves - the infantry platoons being part of F Ech, but were the trucks in A or B Ech?

Doesn't mean they ever got unloaded from the trucks. They were kept with the sleeping gear, etc., which was also not often used.

I did not, for the record, cite their use at Arnhem, either.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

They were held on the platoon trucks themselves - the infantry platoons being part of F Ech, but were the trucks in A or B Ech?

Doesn't mean they ever got unloaded from the trucks. They were kept with the sleeping gear, etc., which was also not often used.

I did not, for the record, cite their use at Arnhem, either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The trucks were where they were - it depended on the battalion orders.

Won't provide the answer for Mr SN Jackson - lets see if he can figure out the echelons and their roles in a BriCom arms unit ....

(Time running out Mr SN Jackson. Now you are having to research it rather than show some basic knowledge)

[Slapdragon]

Nope, I just choose not to answer someone with your attitude. I did however, e-mail Mike the answer in a friendly off sides discussion.

Grow up, history and simulation is not a play school game that you can say "did not x 1000" or "race you to the tree" to win. It is actually a career for people (Like Mr. Dorosh) who put years of study into it and publish from their research.

[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Mulga Bill]

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

Nope, I just choose not to answer someone with your attitude. I did however, e-mail Mike the answer in a friendly off sides discussion.

Grow up, history and simulation is not a play school game that you can say "did not x 1000" or "race you to the tree" to win. It is actually a career for people (Like Mr. Dorosh) who put years of study into it and publish from their research.

[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nor is it someplace where you can run away and hide in the corner, with your fingers in your ears and hands over your eyes, chanting, "Can't hear you! Can't see you!"

Mr.Slapdragon, I asked you to show us exactly how much you do know about Commonwealth military organisation by asking a very basic question. You've failed to answer it - either by choice or by ignorance.

Ignorance is not a crime, if admitted to, Mr.Slapdragon, nor will it diminish you in our eyes. It might actually enhance you.

Wilful ignorance does nothing for you.

[Mulga Bill]

Germanboy, I think your quote was more than adequately describing what history is described as. It failed though, and here I think Brian's caught on, to describe what history is constructed from - the experiences of individuals - be they high or low.

This is what annoys me and others about Mr.Slapdragon - he automatically assumes, because he cannot find evidence in his records which are at best incomplete and worst inaccurate, information that corroborates the experiences of those who have done something, so therefore, according to him, their experiences must be invalid.

This, BTW, is exactly the argument utilised by so-called "historians" like David Irving and we all know where that ended up, now don't we?

If Mr.Slapdragon had spent a little more time away from his library, in his "FNG", he'd have discovered that not every minute detail of every day is recorded. The usage of military equipment is one very large grey area.

The personal experiences of individuals are primary sources and if he was a real historian, he'd know that primary, not secondary ones, are the ones that make the best sources for historians.

[M Hofbauer]

<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>

I urge you to take a renewed closer look at the german field guns and the truck.

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mulga Bill: Nor is it someplace where you can run away and hide in the corner, with your fingers in your ears and hands over your eyes, chanting, "Can't hear you! Can't see you!"

Mr.Slapdragon, I asked you to show us exactly how much you do know about Commonwealth military organisation by asking a very basic question. You've failed to answer it - either by choice or by ignorance.

Ignorance is not a crime, if admitted to, Mr.Slapdragon, nor will it diminish you in our eyes.

It might actually enhance you.

Wilful ignorance does nothing for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFL. Mulga you're a hoot. Remember when you started this whole issue with you and Brian claiming that funnies were oh so much more numerous than the obscure, rare-as-rocking-horse**** Puppchen? Well I gave you the figures for the Puppchen and called you on your preposterous statement. You still owe me an answer, hundreds of posts, many threads and your n-th re-incarnation later.

Instead you give us that post above. Simply hilarious.

[M Hofbauer]

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

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>

both are far from infallible.

the veteran will say that he saw a Tiger, and he will even be convinced that it was a Tiger. that still doesn't make a Pz. IV a Tiger. (Slapdragon tried to say ssomething similar in essence yet far more complex and elaborate so I thought I would give it another shot by putting it in a nutshell).

therefore, a draw.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mulga Bill:

The personal experiences of individuals are primary sources and if he was a real historian, he'd know that primary, not secondary ones, are the ones that make the best sources for historians.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, he does not say that ever, nor did you read my comments on secondary versus primary source material, or you would realize that you have the idea completely mixed up.

Again Mr. Beazely, you are not adding anything to any conversations by coming back repeatedly when you were previously banned, it just makes you seem sad.

[Slapdragon]

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

both are far from infallible.

the veteran will say that he saw a Tiger, and he will even be convinced that it was a Tiger. that still doesn't make a Pz. IV a Tiger. (Slapdragon tried to say ssomething similar in essence yet far more complex and elaborate so I thought I would give it another shot by putting it in a nutshell).

therefore, a draw.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is one small part of what I said, and is essentially correct. I have done several hundred WW2 veteran interviews for oral histories as a primary source historian, and except for the more accurate aided oral history (when it is properly done) small facts, and sensibilities like time, space, and technical stuff like nomenclature gets fuzzy and unreliable.

[Spook]

Returning again, as the general subject of historical source credence is interesting.

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

That is one small part of what I said, and is essentially correct. I have done several hundred WW2 veteran interviews for oral histories as a primary source historian, and except for the more accurate aided oral history (when it is properly done) small facts, and sensibilities like time, space, and technical stuff like nomenclature gets fuzzy and unreliable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Out of curiosity, is there some compilation of these interviews, or a future planned compilation, available on the net? I think that more than a few wargamer grogs would be interested.

And to Mulga's comments below:

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

The personal experiences of individuals are primary sources and if he was a real historian, he'd know that primary, not secondary ones, are the ones that make the best sources for historians.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, is this saying that any veteran's recollection is above critique, and to be taken strictly on face value?

Let's try with another example, but not so hypothetical. During the WWII bombing campaign against Germany, bomber groups returning from a mission would often turn in claims of German figthers shot down that later were proven to be highly inflated. Sometimes by six or seven times the actual Luftwaffe losses of that day. How did this happen? Simple, really. Whenever one German plane did go down, gunners from several different bombers would each claim that is was he who shot down the enemy plane. It wasn't really due to other gunners wanting to be "claim-jumpers," rather that whenever that a German plane flew into a bomber "box," it would be crossfired, making it hard to tell whose bullets actually hit home.

So, in the debrief, all of the gunners' claims were often accepted. But do the claims make it true? If it did, then the Luftwaffe should've been completely annihilated by early-1944.

Let it be iterated. AGAIN. Veteran's accounts are valuable sources of information, but shouldn't always be accepted without question or without a critcal eye. As pointed out further by Slap & Hof, many US WWII ground vets asserted to had run into Tiger tanks than was actually the case. This is because at that time, a Tiger I/II, with its 88, had risen to infamous-legend status such that any sizable armored vehicle with a long-barreled gun looked like a Tiger to them.

[Michael Dorosh]

Not to mention that all indirect fire levlled at Allied troops came from "88s" - despite the relative rarity of that weapon, and its primary use as a direct fire Anti-Tank and Anti-Aircraft weapon. Yet all veterans will tell you about the time they were wounded by an 88, or their buddy was killed by one.

[Slapdragon]

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

Returning again, as the general subject of historical source credence is interesting.

snip

Out of curiosity, is there some compilation of these interviews, or a future planned compilation, available on the net? I think that more than a few wargamer grogs would be interested.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most were done for other historians and were not deeded to that use, but the next batch I start next spring will indeed be targeted at Internet and specifically war gaming.

I do have some properly deeded oral histories on the net, but they are all on historic mansions or the invention of e-mail and usenet / chat groups.

One thing I do like to do, and which is a possibility in the future, is to have people seek out oral history candidates, do the interviews professionally, then have a second person do the analysis. Splits the work up and assures a bit of detachment.

Here is something that we may want to do sometime. When I started doing oral history seriously, I wrote a series of academic articles and lectures on its uses and methods. I could post this stuff, and the members of this board could start doing there own oral histories. If I get the tapes and transcipts sent to me, I will turn them into a digital format and get them deeded to a research library, plus have them posted on the web. Great way to get everyone involved in collected primary source data.

[ 10-04-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Brian]

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

both are far from infallible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They may be fallible in the details but the experience is still valid.

In your example, the veteran knows he has knocked out a tank. As to what type, to him, in fear of his life at the time, is immaterial. It could still kill him just as dead if it was a Mk.IV or a Tiger. We know he had a much greater chance to kill it if it was a Mk.IV though.

A good example is that of one of the first Tiger I's knocked out in Tunisia. It was done with a 6 Pdr firing solid shot. Highly unlikely, impossible, most wargamers would say. Yet it happened. The only reason why we know about it is because it was very well documented. Yet, if no one else had been around to see it, if it had happened on a lonely road in the middle of no where, that gunner would be told by some around here that his experience counted for nothing - purely because it wasn't corroberated.

Basically what I'm saying is don't, as Slappy does, automatically discard what someone says, simply because they do not have a degree or a book in hand to back their views.

I was astounded at some of the responses to Kim Beazely's comments on the film he saw, "fake" "impossible", etc. Essentially telling him that he was mistaken in what he saw being enacted on the film.

Its no wonder he went ballistic. Its no wonder why I get pissed off IMO.

[Andreas]

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

[/qb]I was astounded at some of the responses to Kim Beazely's comments on the film he saw, "fake" "impossible", etc. Essentially telling him that he was mistaken in what he saw being enacted on the film.

Its no wonder he went ballistic. Its no wonder why I get pissed off IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bollocks, on both counts. People told him that this film was not necessarily a realistic portrayal of combat action. He then dug his heels in and insisted that it was. He never even bothered to find other proof, he left that to others, e.g. Simon Fox and me.

If you get pissed off because of his stupidity, maybe you should take a chill pill. Your attitude to historical research and people making valid criticsim is deplorable. Fortunately enough I know that amongst Aussies, you and whatshisname are a minority.