An answer to Simon Fox

[Username]

PS question to those that actually fired BREN. Since the weapon had to be cocked, how would you know when the last round was fired from a magazine? Is it entirely possible that a gunner could fire a burst and not know that he was out?

(h) Stoppages and immediate action.

1. A well cared for gun with the gas regulator set at the correct hole (normally No. 2) will rarely stop except on account of an empty or a badly filled magazine.

2. In all cases of a stoppage the Immediate Action is:

(i) Pull back cocking-handle.

(ii) Remove the magazine.

(iii) Press the trigger.

(iv) Examine magazine; if empty or badly filled change it.

(v) Put magazine on and cock gun.

(vi) Continue firing.

Note. Possible causes: empty magazine, badly filled magazine, missfire, bad ejection, hard extraction.

from the link I posted..Any BREN gunners here?

I repost this because it seems there isnt a difference between stoppages. In a belt fed weapon, it is quite clear whether you have ammo or a jam.

I also posted that blurb above from Steve at BTS. He is saying that there are MGs, such as the ones in platoon HQ and the like, that arent really modeled in the game. Jusst because they were present, doesnt mean they are modeled is the point. Similar to what Andrew is saying to JonS.

I dont even think that the BREN team has been properly spelled out for what it consists of. Is it tripod mounted? Have 2000 rounds of ammo? 3 man minimum?

Lewis

[ASL Veteran]

As much as I have resisted being sucked into this discussion, I guess I can resist no longer. I am simply going to discuss the issue of the classification of the Bren as an Automatic Rifle rather than as a Machine Gun, and as that is my objective, this is directed more toward Slapdragon and David. I am not going to speak to any of the various side issues and irrelevant comments that have been put forth by Lewis. Apparently, the issue of classification revolves around the feed mechanism – at least that’s what I am interpreting from reading Slapdragon’s posts.

I would like to put before you Exibit A: 13.2mm Mitrailleuse Hotchkiss d 13mm 2 Mle 1930. This is a 13.2mm weapon commonly referred to as a Heavy Machine Gun. Method of feed? 30 round box magazine (overhead) or 15 or 20 round strips. If we are saying that a weapon with a 30 round overhead box magazine is classified as an Automatic Rifle then this model of Hotchkiss would be classified as an Automatic Rifle. Note that not only does this ‘Automatic Rifle’ use an overhead box magazine but it is a gas operated design (like most smaller ‘man portable’ weapons). Note that this ‘Automatic Rifle’ weighs a paltry 87 lbs (37.5 kg) and was mounted on carriage as well as an AA mounting similar to an 88’s but with two of these guns side by side (the Japanese used this arrangement as well)

Exhibit B: Mitragliace Breda modello 37. This is commonly referred to as the ‘standard’ Italian HMG in WW2. Method of feed? 20 round strips. Yep, here is another weapon that Slapdragon would have us believe is an Automatic Rifle. This weapon also used a gas operated mechanism. This ‘Automatic Rifle’ weighs a paltry 84.3 lbs (38kg) and could be used on a variety of mountings.

Exhibit C: 6.5mm Heavy Machine Gun Type 3. This is commonly referred to as the ‘standard’ Japanese HMG in WW2. Method of feed? 30 round metal strips. Yes, another weapon Slapdragon would have us believe is an ‘Automatic Rifle’. This ‘Automatic Rifle’ weighs in at 122lbs (55.3kg)

Okay, so either you accept that anything with a magazine or strip feed is an Automatic Rifle or you have to decide that the feed method doesn’t have anything to do with the classification of a weapon. For the sake of argument, let’s just assume that we are going to classify everything that doesn’t have a belt feed as an Automatic Rifle. Let us then examine every nation’s weapon that was used in the LMG role.

Exhibit D:

ZB vz/26

Method of feed: 20 or 30 round overhead box

Main users: China, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Japan.

ZB vz/30

Method of feed: 30 round overhead box

Main users: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Iran, Spain, Rumania, Turkey

Madsen MG

Method of feed: 20, 25, 30, or 40 round overhead box

Main users: Bulgaria, China, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Holland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Norway.

Automaattikivaari Lahti-Saloranta Malli 26

Method of feed: 20 round box or 75 round drum

Main users: Finland

Hotchkiss LMG

Method of feed: 25 round metal strips

Main users: France, Greece

Chauchat

Method of feed: 20 round curved magazine bottom feed

Main users: Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Rumania

Chatellerault

Method of feed: 25 round overhead box

Main users: France

Fucile Mitriagliatori Breda modello 30

Method of feed: fixed magazine taking 20 round charger

Main users: Italy

7.7mm Machine Gun Type 99

Method of feed: 30 round overhead box magazine

Main users: Japan

For space purposes I will leave out the other two Japanese LMGs – suffice to say they are overhead feed box on one and overhead hopper on the other.

Bren

Method of feed: 30 round overhead box

Main users: UK

Lewis Gun

Method of feed: 47 or 97 round drum

Main users: Estonia, Holland, Japan, Latvia, Portugal, US, UK

Pulemet Degtyareva Pekhotnii (DP)

Method of feed: 47 round drum

Main users: USSR

Okay, I have left off the BAR and the MG 34 for the moment. Examining this list we see that there isn’t a single nation between the period of time from 39 to 45 that had an LMG – they are all categorized as ‘Automatic Rifles’. In other words, the gun classification of Light Machine Gun doesn’t exist. What would be the point of having a weapon classification that no weapon meets? There would be no point would there?

Ah, but the MG 34 was used in the LMG role! Yes, well the MG 34 is a whole different classification of weapon – the General Purpose Machine Gun. Even so, let’s take the logic of classifying the Bren as an Automatic Rifle because of what it was developed from and apply that to the MG 34. The MG 34 was developed from the Solothurn MG29. Type of feed: 25 round box. Therefore, if the MG 34 was developed from a weapon with a 25 round box feed it can only be classified as an ‘Automatic Rifle’.

Moving on to the BAR we see that the US classifies this weapon as an Automatic Rifle. However, I think it is probably more appropriate to refer to the BAR as a weak LMG. Other than the BAR there are no Self Loading rifles that fire full automatic. The MP 44 and its kin are referred to as ‘Assault Rifles’ – a whole new classification of weapon. You see, the BAR is the oddball of the whole gun world – an automatic rifle that performs like an LMG (without a barrel change). Perhaps it could be referred to as the first ‘Assault Rifle’ – although it uses full sized rounds and Assault Rifles use short rounds. There should be no confusion in classifying the Bren – it is the BAR that is difficult to classify.

[Username]

"Ah, but the MG 34 was used in the LMG role! The MG 34 was developed from the Solothurn MG29. Type of feed: 25 round box. Therefore, if the MG 34 was developed from a weapon with a 25 round box feed it can only be classified as an ‘Automatic Rifle’."

Logic like this means that since I evolved from a line of hairy apes so ergo I can only be classified as a hairy ape?

BS aside. People are getting hung up on names and analogys. The fact is the game looks at performance levels and things like belt feed is a quantum leap in firepower output. A green/regular unit with a belt feed MG might only be approached by elite units with magazine fed weapons. The game is going to make green/regular the norm.

You dont have to reply to me ASL. But feel free to respond to issues. Its called a discussion.

Lewis

[ASL Veteran]

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

"Ah, but the MG 34 was used in the LMG role! The MG 34 was developed from the Solothurn MG29. Type of feed: 25 round box. Therefore, if the MG 34 was developed from a weapon with a 25 round box feed it can only be classified as an ‘Automatic Rifle’."

Logic like this means that since I evolved from a line of hairy apes so ergo I can only be classified as a hairy ape?

BS aside. People are getting hung up on names and analogys. The fact is the game looks at performance levels and things like belt feed is a quantum leap in firepower output. A green/regular unit with a belt feed MG might only be approached by elite units with magazine fed weapons. The game is going to make green/regular the norm.

You dont have to reply to me ASL. But feel free to respond to issues. Its called a discussion.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That analogy was used because that is the same analogy that Slapdragon used when describing the history of the Bren. It is certainly not an analogy that I would consider valid. It was an analogy that was used within the context of its earlier use in this thread (by Slapdragon). Weapon classification is what this thread is about. Weapon classification is what I addressed. If you would like to make a contribution to the discussion of how the Bren should be classified, then please tell me what that classification would be and why.

[Username]

The BREN is a squad automatic. Its main purpose is to support the squad in its fire and movement. It (the BREN team) fires and the rest of the squad moves. Its heavier than other squad automatics and lends itself then to leapfrog tactics. Its at one end of the 'squad automatic slider'. The BAR would be at another end of this 'slider'.

Both these weapons fire full powered rounds from magazines. The BAR evolved into a lighter weapon function and many troops took off the bipod to lighten up. The US troops, who had good moving fire, relied less on the squads own automatic. They could rely on belted MMG as well as their own internal distributed firepower. The BAR then became a more mobile single man weapon than the BREN. It fired less (due to lack of barrel change) and moved more. It relied less on other squad members as far as operation and only for distributed ammunition portage (like the BREN also).

The BREN was not a GPMG. It could not fire belted ammunition. This is a major firepower demarcation point. Putting the BREN on a MMG tripod does not make it a MMG. The subtle part of belted ammunition is battlefield resupply. The game abstracts this out but wouldnt the BREN team have to reload its own magazines? They were not discardable I would venture. The belted ammunition (even though it might be belted at a factory or at a ammunition point further back) is brought to the GPMGs and HMGs in belts. The crews of these weapons save the water-tight boxes for these belts.

The BREN at 25 lbs had some weight but no wiggle room to be a multifunction weapon. It was not a GPMG. The BAR got lighter, some sources state 16 pounds (without bipod), and this is really a big difference. Movement being easier and firing much like a shouldered weapon being previously mentioned advantages. So, as much as I am putting them together, they each had their advantages/disadvantages.

The GPMG class that is defined by belted ammunition feed, quick change barrel, bipod/tripod mounts belongs to the germans. The british did not have one and niether did the US with the bipod 30 cal (which had a light barrel btw that could not be changed).

The US M1919 tripod with the 'fixed-heavy' air-cooled barrel was not a GPMG either. It can be seen as what the BREN could not be. It was stuck in its cubby-hole. It can best be described as a crew served MMG. A minimum of 3 men would be needed to move out; the gun, the tripod and the ammo. It could not match the HMG42 in firepower and only justified itself to complement the water cooled M1917 and cover the US squads in attack (because of the previously stated BAR limitations).

The GPMG in the light role gave an offensive and defensive advantage in the long-burst capability that these weapons demonstrate. The suppresion of defenses and the defensive killing zones that can repel attacks changed infantry tactics. The ability to maove to alternate positions and not be located easily helps the defense.

If the BREN could fire belted ammo (and its barrels could be changed quickly) then I would upgrade it to a GPMG 'slider' rating of entry-level.

Lewis

[ASL Veteran]

A well thought out and reasonable response. Any comments about this from David or Slapdragon - or anyone else for that matter?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

A well thought out and reasonable response. Any comments about this from David or Slapdragon - or anyone else for that matter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I was waiting for you to reeread my definitions, since you picked up on magazine capacity and ignored the rest. Magazine versus belt fed means nothing to the LMG / AR argument, since I could snip a belt and claim a 20 rd feed device. The argument does included feed device only in so far as it effects how the functions. The Bren has a rather light barrel, but it can change, and thus a change in feed devices would bump it into the LMG range, but that is incidental.

Basically, an automatic rifle is a man portable weapon capable of automatic fire from a limited capacity magazine that can be carried by a single person at the same speed a squad moves.So, in order to create a situation of reducto ad absurdum (a useful argument, and well presented by you except for your logic fatal flaw) you would have to remove part of the definition of an automatic rifle, ingore it completely, and essectially throw out the issue of mass all together.

If you read my earlier discussion, feed mechanism does not matter, nor does ammunition caliber (as long as you do not peak into the cannon class) but ability to lay down fire, keep up with an infantry unit, and be carried / operated by one person.

Also note that weapons evolve. The Bren was designed as, and could have been, and LMG, but end users specifically requested that it be modified very early in its career to be "like the BAR, a man portable squad level automatic supplement to the bolt action rifle" (this from Ezell in Weapons of the World). Belt feed was removed from the design in 1924, also mentioned was the desire to have the weapon capable of being operated by "a single soldier" inferring that the belt fed feature would stand in the way of this. Thus belt feeding was an important part of the veolution of the Bren from LMG to AR (and its change in function -- this system of designation is a functional and not a political or decedental system. This is why a change in design can lead to a change in how a historian/gamer/scholar looks at the weapon.)

And note that all of the weapons you mentioned have barrels that are three or more times heavier than the Bren, some with radial cooling fins or even the abiliuty to add water jackets (in some models). Barell weight / supplementary cooling / ability to perform sustained fire is an issue of turning a weapon into an LMG / MMG / HMG.

So, you need to rethink your argument and prove that the three highlighted weapons were fired, carried, and operated by a singler person, that they were commonly used with lighter barrels reducing their ability to sustain an engagement, and that they shared the other characteristics of an AR.

Again, I can call a .45 an HMG, but that does not make it an HMG. Just because its bullet is nearly as wide as a .50 cal, and I can for 1 second trip off as many rounds as an M2HB from it, does not make it an HMG. It needs to meet all the requirements, or else I need to find a better category for it. The Bren by far does not meet the requirments for LMG status, no matter what people call it (The VW my firend calls an ORV because he drove it across some mud but which the insurance company considers a standard vehicle).

[ASL Veteran]

Alright Slapdragon ... you got me. Not only did I list the three heavy machine guns, I also listed every weapon used by any nation during WW2 that is commonly categorized in the LMG class in exhibit D (include the BAR which was used by Poland BTW). Using your definition of an LMG, name a single weapon used during WW2 that fits that definition. Don't bother trying to find out which nations used which weapons - I have listed them all for you in my post. Every single one. Go ahead and name one, then explain why that one is an LMG and the others are not - or why they all are and the Bren is not (makes no difference to me). Remember that the MG34 is a GPMG and is not a choice.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ASL Veteran wrote:

Any comments about this from David or Slapdragon<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure why I'd have anything to say in response to Lewis's post, because I didn't notice him addressing any points of contention. I'm not saying he should have, but you ask me for a response when I have nothing to respond to.

Slapdragon has just repeated what he has said earlier in the discussion and I have replied to in detail. I disagree with what he has said – and think some of it is nonsense – and my thoughts can be found a couple of pages back.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Alright Slapdragon ... you got me. Not only did I list the three heavy machine guns, I also listed every weapon used by any nation during WW2 that is commonly categorized in the LMG class in exhibit D (include the BAR which was used by Poland BTW). Using your definition of an LMG, name a single weapon used during WW2 that fits that definition. Don't bother trying to find out which nations used which weapons - I have listed them all for you in my post. Every single one. Go ahead and name one, then explain why that one is an LMG and the others are not - or why they all are and the Bren is not (makes no difference to me). Remember that the MG34 is a GPMG and is not a choice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a better idea -- using my discussion earlier, it allows any students of firearm technology to place the weapons into their proper classes. Rather than spending 24 hours with a book, I will leave it to you to decide if the weapon fits the clear AR category. By the way, I have about 20 others you missed, but since this is a "gotcha" exercise, I will just leave them out and let you assign by taxonomy.

[ 08-26-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Slapdragon]

Much of the problem is that people want the Bren to be what it was not. Its survival into the era of GPMGs as a magazine fed sectional automatic weapon should be clue enough for people that it was not what propaganda and wishful thinking lead many to believe. Again I have to repeat because my earlier statements were not really read -- it does not matter than many armies called it an LMG, for the purposes of modern discussions, we have to look at the weapon by its fighting characteristics. After all, the M26 -- a medium akin to the Panther, was called a heavy for morale purposes, It reverted to being a medium after the war.

This also comes at a bad time when people want a change in how the Bren is perceived -- if it is modelled as it was used historically as a support weapon then the British loose out on an LMG support weapon, but if it is given some ahistorical leeway in its employment then the British can pull the Bren from sections as a LMG and pool firepower better without splitting squads.

Basically I should just say -- read my previous posts and then you can place weapons into any category you like, without trotting 40 automatic weapons whose weights and rates of fire I do not know waiting to catch me in a single mistake so you can say, "SEE, the Lithuainian Aardvark MG was actually a pistol you dummy, everything you say is wrong."

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Weapon classification is what I addressed. If you would like to make a contribution to the discussion of how the Bren should be classified, then please tell me what that classification would be and why.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I responded to. I believe the game closely agrees with me in its present form. Weapon classification according to semantics is making me think of fuzzy logic. Examples like A pig is a low fit for the catagoy known as horses. They sometimes run real fast so thats the reason. Its 'fit' (fuzzy digit) would be low on the scale.

I am actually leaning now towards the elimination of the LMG from support weapon status. The GPMG in its LMG form should stay within the unit structure of squads/half squads and not be a support weapon.

Lewis

[ 08-26-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[ASL Veteran]

Actually you misinterpret the thrust of my question. The question was "name one weapon used in WW2 that fits your definition of an LMG" You say there were 20 that I missed. That either implies that there are 20 weapons that fit your definition, or that I already listed many that fit your definition and that there are an additional 20 that you would like to add to that. The reason that I am asking the question is that I am trying to ascertain what a weapon that fits your definition is. If you say there are 20, then you certainly can name one of them can't you? I'm really not asking for much am I? I will not dispute your weapon of choice, merely examine it's characteristics vs the Bren.

The reality is that you can't name a single one. Therefore, what you are arguing is that the LMG as a weapon class did not exist in WW2. If you would like to show my assumptions about your position to be false, then name one weapon in WW2 that fits your definition of an LMG - or admit that there are none. Quite simple really. Once we have established a baseline, we can then move the discussion forward.

[Username]

One of the things that I forgot to mention is that the BREN was a selective fire weapon. It could fire semi and full auto. The BAR, while not, select fire, could squeeze off single rounds in its low rpm mode.

The german GPMG in its LMG form could origionally do this. The MG34 had a rocker trigger that allowed single shots and full auto. The germans eliminated this feature in later weapons. They were deliberately getting away from the squad automatic and moving more to the MG mentality. They wanted the base of fire built around the full auto machine gun. The MGs were to do the suppression and the killing.

I personally think a 3 shot option would have been a nice touch for the MG42.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Actually you misinterpret the thrust of my question. The question was "name one weapon used in WW2 that fits your definition of an LMG" You say there were 20 that I missed. That either implies that there are 20 weapons that fit your definition, or that I already listed many that fit your definition and that there are an additional 20 that you would like to add to that. The reason that I am asking the question is that I am trying to ascertain what a weapon that fits your definition is. If you say there are 20, then you certainly can name one of them can't you? I'm really not asking for much am I? I will not dispute your weapon of choice, merely examine it's characteristics vs the Bren.

The reality is that you can't name a single one. Therefore, what you are arguing is that the LMG as a weapon class did not exist in WW2. If you would like to show my assumptions about your position to be false, then name one weapon in WW2 that fits your definition of an LMG - or admit that there are none. Quite simple really. Once we have established a baseline, we can then move the discussion forward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the exact opposite in fact. Clearly the DP fits, the Lahti is a good fit (if it is the heavy barrel support weapon I am thinking about), and the Lewis fits also. The ZB26 and 30 are tricks, they are the same as the Bren. The other weapons require research that I will leave to you.

Like I stated earlier -- there is a difference of opinion in how to classify weapons. I choose to use a taxonomic functionalist classification, you choose a political - structuralist classification system. The system I and many weapons authors use asks the question: what was the weapon capable of doing, and qualified this by a series of categories related to what the weapon could do in combat. Your system is political and is based on, "what was tthe weapon called / what would be best for us in game terms / what do we wish the weapon could do" so the Bren gets LMG status under those rules.

The placement of objects into groups must have a reason behind it or it is worthless, and your reason is about as useful as dividing dogs by fur color with regards to training working dogs. Suree, that dog is red, so what. Everyone calls it red? Again so what. That dog weights 25kg, can track by smell, is capable of running x yards, takes commands x well, ok -- that is a taxonomy I can use to place it somewhere.

So, our choices are taxonomy by function and taxonomy by politics, I will leave to you which one is more useful in designing games and discussing weapons.

So, put this way, your discussion of "no such thing as an LMG" disapeers in a puff of virtual smoke. There were LMGs, I have named several, I have presented taxonomy based upon useful functionalist lines, and no one has chosed to attack the functional taxonomy, only to come back with a political taxonomy or attempts at trick questions. The whol list from ASL was smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that 1/3 of the list were subdesigns of two weapons, and that two of the weapons (the Hotchkiss and the Japanese LMG) actually could be an MMG since the strip / drop in open bin was actually a very fast method of keeping up sustained fire when a crew is added.

[Username]

Slappys good. I thought you had him on the ropes. He's like slithering in 3 dimensional space on the fly.

I think that BTS agrees with the functionality of weapons arguments. They are changing MG effectiveness, and squad automatics and GPMG (in whatever incarnation) will be upgraded. Luckily, there will be a testing ground in the form of CMBB before any new lines are drawn.

BTS has also said that after CMBB ammo will be tracked individually in the squad. This might or might not help the social upward mobility of Mr BREN.

Time will tell. BTS aint talking.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

One thing that is telling is that no one else has tried to explian there own taxonomy. ASL's taxonomy is based upon what the Army in question called an LMG and not based on function or capability. It is also was not enumerated - witness the addition and subtration of several candidate weapons to the pile.

I would like to see another taxonomy, especially the hoops that will have to be jumped to make a Bren into an MG42.

[ASL Veteran]

Okay, let's look at the DP then. You say that is an LMG, but that the Bren is not. What are the primary differences between the Bren and the DP? You have already ruled out the difference in feed - you had to because of the HMGs that I listed earlier. So, what differentiates the Bren and the DP - other than the feed?

Originally posted by Slapdragon

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you read my earlier discussion, feed mechanism does not matter, nor does ammunition caliber (as long as you do not peak into the cannon class) but ability to lay down fire, keep up with an infantry unit, and be carried / operated by one person. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ASL Veteran]

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

I would like to see another taxonomy, especially the hoops that will have to be jumped to make a Bren into an MG42.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seeing as how the MG42 and the Bren are in a different weapon class, there is no way to make a Bren into an MG42. A Bren is an LMG while the MG42 is a GPMG. Even Lewis can see that

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Okay, let's look at the DP then. You say that is an LMG, but that the Bren is not. What are the primary differences between the Bren and the DP? You have already ruled out the difference in feed - you had to because of the HMGs that I listed earlier. So, what differentiates the Bren and the DP - other than the feed?

Originally posted by Slapdragon

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, before we go into a gotcha round (which is ok, I can get my Ezell and Janes down any time) lets discuss your classification system. What exactly is it? I assume it is political since the range of weapons you list have very few common characteristics but I would like to see in inumerated. Then we can get back to my own system and run through as many gotchas as you like.

[David Aitken]

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

This also comes at a bad time when people want a change in how the Bren is perceived<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I have already said (and I have no intention of continuing to repeat myself, so if you wish to conduct the discussion in Lewis fashion by ignoring anything that doesn't support your argument, feel free), this discussion has nothing to do with the Bren-in-CM thread. Lewis is solely responsible for bringing elements of that discussion in here, and also for cross-referencing my posts in order to find out-of-context quotes in one which appear to contradict my comments in another. He may congratulate himself in making it very difficult for myself and others to conduct these discussions in a mature and sensible manner.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Basically, an automatic rifle is a man portable weapon capable of automatic fire from a limited capacity magazine that can be carried by a single person at the same speed a squad moves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is totally arbitrary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have presented taxonomy based upon useful functionalist lines, and no one has chosed to attack the functional taxonomy, only to come back with a political taxonomy or attempts at trick questions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your logic is arbitrary. The barrel isn't heavy enough, or the magazine isn't big enough. This is totally subjective, and if you desired, you could turn the argument around, and use the same logic with a different arbitrary cut-off as proof that the Bren is indeed a LMG.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One thing that is telling is that no one else has tried to explian there own taxonomy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then either I don't exist, or you haven't been reading my posts. I think my feature-based argument is far more logical than your arbitrary degree-based argument. I argue that the Bren has all the features of a LMG, and is therefore a LMG. You argue that while the Bren has all the features, the physical implementation is not quite to the degree that you dictate as the cut-off for a LMG. Therefore you can argue for whichever side takes your fancy – your logic is relative, and that's why my question regarding the Sterling SMG was important to establish your way of thinking. It is also why your comments regarding fast-firing .45s and Beetles used as ORVs are absurd, and really nothing more than soundbites which bear no relation to your argument, and succeed only in throwing its credibility into question.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Then either I don't exist, or you haven't been reading my posts. I think my feature-based argument is far more logical than your arbitrary degree-based argument. I argue that the Bren has all the features of a LMG, and is therefore a LMG. You argue that while the Bren has all the features, the physical implementation is not quite to the degree that you dictate as the cut-off for a LMG. Therefore you can argue for whichever side takes your fancy – your logic is relative, and that's why my question regarding the Sterling SMG was important to establish your way of thinking. It is also why your comments regarding fast-firing .45s and Beetles used as ORVs are absurd, and really nothing more than soundbites which bear no relation to your argument, and succeed only in throwing its credibility into question.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly why your arguments here have been suspect -- because you fail to understand why the ORV example or firing a .45 ifast is relevant, and because you choose to say "that is irreleveant" rather than discuss the issue of the system I presented which asks the question, "what can this weapon do?" If you think barrel weight is not a factor, and that an extra 3-4 pounds of metal along with cooling protrusions are meaningless to a weapons combat effectiveness, and if you do not consider the factors which change its ability to fire longer -- then what you are saying is that you don't know much about how weapons work. Well -- that is fine.

Again, present your own taxonomy (other than trying to sneak the Bren into the LMG category you have not done this) or really discuss the functionalism of the weapon.

The issue of the Bren from the other list, after a reading of it, appears to matter here because what gets people's panties in a bunch so much is that, since my taxonomy is functional, it calls into question the usefulness of a Bren in some ahistoric roles that people whould like to see them available in the game. In this case I fully expect people to get all tweeked over the taxonomy I present since it shoots big holes in the whole Bren thing.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Seeing as how the MG42 and the Bren are in a different weapon class, there is no way to make a Bren into an MG42. A Bren is an LMG while the MG42 is a GPMG. Even Lewis can see that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well not quite. The BREN is not a MG42 but a MG42 is a BREN and then some.

I would give a BREN a 8 as a squad automatic but only a 3 as a LMG. It is a 0 as an antitank rifle and a 0 as an intercontinental ballistic missile.

David is right. What he says doesnt matter. Nor I or anyone else. Its BTS listening to these arguments that matters.

I think Slappy is getting the feeling that bushwackers are revealing themselves. I saw their stripes a mile away.

Lewis

[David Aitken]

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

This is exactly why your arguments here have been suspect -- because you fail to understand why the ORV example or firing a .45 ifast is relevant<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have explained exactly why I think those examples are irrelevant, if you had cared to read my comments. I am compelled to reiterate, mainly because that is the only way I am able to continue with this discussion, as those I am speaking to apparently need much encouragement to listen.

No-one is arguing that the Bren is able to put out a certain volume of fire for a certain length of time and should therefore be regarded as a LMG. This is exactly what your .45 analogy suggests, and it is just a silly analogy. On one hand, it in part compromises your own argument, because your argument is based on functionality, and you have succeeded in suggesting that a pistol can, under specific circumstances, parallel the functionality of a machinegun. On the other hand, I am arguing that a Bren is a LMG on the basis of its design, whereas your analogy uses a weapon which is obviously not designed as a machinegun.

You comment that a car which can go off-road does not automatically become an ORV. In response, I pointed out that a GPV which I call and use as a car does not automatically become a car. Your analogy at best suggests that your case may be credible, but utterly fails to back it up, because it works both ways. You might claim that the Bren is an AR which some would like to see employed as a LMG, whereas I can argue that the Bren is a LMG which you regard as an AR simply because it was partly used in a role which you believe to be that of an AR. The analogy is cute but irrelevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and because you choose to say "that is irreleveant" rather than discuss the issue of the system I presented which asks the question, "what can this weapon do?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have presented my argument for the Bren as a LMG. My argument that some aspects of your case are irrelevant is separate from that. I have also indeed responded to the relevant aspects of your case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you think barrel weight is not a factor, and that an extra 3-4 pounds of metal along with cooling protrusions are meaningless to a weapons combat effectiveness, and if you do not consider the factors which change its ability to fire longer -- then what you are saying is that you don't know much about how weapons work. Well -- that is fine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not disagree with these comments. I do, however, disagree with your arbitrary definition of what level of performance is enough to qualify a weapon as a LMG.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>since my taxonomy is functional, it calls into question the usefulness of a Bren in some ahistoric roles that people whould like to see them available in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The roles in question are no more ahistoric than those of the LMG42 which is modelled in CM, for reaons which I have explained more than once.

[ASL Veteran]

What is my definition?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The final solution took on a fairly common form; a gas operated weapon firing from a bipod, controlled by one man, using a magazine holding thirty or so rounds, and usually with a barrel that could be rapidly changed for a spare so that it could be allowed to cool down before the wear problem became serious.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ian Hogg, "The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War 2"

All the weapons I listed meet this criteria (other than the BAR - which is an oddity anyway). You still have not explained what the difference between the Bren and the DP are. Very simple question. Can you provide the answer - or would you rather flop around and avoid the question because you have no answer?