An answer to Simon Fox

[Slapdragon]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I reread your arguments and still find no taxonomy, just your commentary that the Bren is indeed an LMG. Thus, it is probably worthless to continue along these lines. Even Tero came up with a taxonomy of sorts (by dictionary definition).

By the way, AT units has individual MG42 teams to provide security, which is very different from the MG42 tossed into a platoon HQ (and used as a spare) or the Brens used as a spare in the same manner.

[Username]

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

I reread your arguments and still find no taxonomy, just your commentary that the Bren is indeed an LMG. Thus, it is probably worthless to continue along these lines. Even Tero came up with a taxonomy of sorts (by dictionary definition).

By the way, AT units has individual MG42 teams to provide security, which is very different from the MG42 tossed into a platoon HQ (and used as a spare) or the Brens used as a spare in the same manner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes read Panzerjaeger.

[Username]

I would also give a MG34 a 8 as a LMG and only a 7 to the MG42 as a LMG. The MG42 gets a 8 as a HMG and the MG34 gets a 7.

So, what gets a 9 as a LMG? I leave that to more modern weapons that reduce the caliber size. They dont get high HMG marks though.

What do I give a US M1919 air cooled tripod weapon for an LMG? Believe or not, a 4! It only gets a 4 as a HMG though. It gets a 1 as a squad automatic (tripod or bipod).

Believe it or not, the game (says) it uses fuzzy logic. What I am doing here is giving fuzzy responses. That does not mean vague. It means fuzzy. If everyone who ever fired a weapon did the same, you would get a very good representation of capabilities.

Reading (and chuckling) at responses from David convinces me that he is of a certain mindset. Thats fine. I accept it.

But the game is built on principles. Not stale catagories.

I hope you open your minds.

Lewis

[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Spook]

Man, this topic has evolved into one of the most EPIC parsing of terms I have ever seen in the CM forums.

All said & done, however, the rationale to all of this remains as to whether or not the squad-inherent Bren should be allowed to form its own team within CM.

If so allowed, however, then it should extend to both the BAR and to the German squad-level MG42. Arguments about tripod-mounts or belt/clip feed are actually extraneous to this issue IMO; the weapon's reference "fire value" and ROF within CM could make the proper allowances.

What is more relevant, however, is how such split-offs of squad base-of-fire (BOF) weapons would translate into CM gameplay on a typical basis. From my view, it could be very problematic if players would try to "hoard" these BOF weapons into select regions for local fire supremacy, regardless of distance from organic squads that the BOF weapons came from. Would we also allow that a squad that gets separated far enough from its BOF weapon could take a morale hit?

The present squad-splitting method is a recognized abstraction, but preferable to the possible Pandora's Box of letting too many squad BOF weapons running around loose. Perhaps in CM II, a little more latitude can be given on how to split a squad. As for Universal carriers and security guard forces, I could see some special Bren teams formed.

[Tero]

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

Even Tero came up with a taxonomy of sorts (by dictionary definition). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The dictionaries define the words with some sort of precision. They provide the common ground. If there are different definitions found then the debate about the meaning of the words should be done separately at the appropriate, purely technical level instead of mixing the deployment with the tehnical definition of the term.

Also, since I am not a native speaker I needed to get the definitions down precisely. Since it seemed that even the native speakers had some conseptions about the terms that were not logical I needed to set the terms straight for myself. (I was also actually looking for some info wether or not the type of laoding/feeding had anything to do with the definition and differentiation between the LMG and the automatic rifle.)

My "handicap" is in the Finnish military parlance which clearly separates both semi and full automatic rifles (I think the term should actually be carbine when talking about autoloading rifles like SVS/SVT/M1 Garand/G41/M1 and M2 carbines etc) from automatic weapons (being referred to in this debate as automatic rifles) which are used as SAW's and platoon automatic weapons (PAW ? ). The term rapid fire rifle is most commonly translated as LMG because that term corresponds the employment and deployment aspect of the weapon better than the term automatic rifle does. The term MG is reserved to crew served (this meaning dedicated gun chief, gunner, 2nd gunner and ammo bearers. This is getting convoluted The Finnish infantry platoon had 2 rifle squads and 2 RFR squads so the RFR's were also crew served as they had a gunner and a 2nd gunner while the rest of the RFR platoon members carried extra ammo while they doubled as regular infantrymen. The SMG acted initially as the SAW in the two other squads but that changed), belt fed, mounted Maxims and Vickers MG's. The actual Finnish deployment of RFR/AR/LMG corresponds with the British/Commonwealth practice. And it is a historical fact the Finnish commanders detached automatics to special assignments which included attack, counter attack, support and various defensive actions.

BTW: this debate seems to revole around a classical case of force specific tactics and doctrines (AKA national bias) and how they can or can not be incorporated into the CM family.

What I see here now is (predominantly) American POV that the Bren was an automatic rifle vs the British/Commonwealth POV that it was a LMG. The American POV is based on the US military definition and deployment of the type of weapon. The British/Commonwealth POV is based on (I presume) period British/Commonwealth terminology and actual deployment.

The Bren is also being compared to the German MG34/42 when it come to the deployment. I think both the American POV and the comparison to MG34/42 are incorrect and based on assumptions that the US military definition or the US/German deployment of comparable weapons have anything to do with the Bren in British/Commonwealth service.

IMO the "correct" deciding factor is how the Bren was actually classified and used by the British/Commonwealth armies.

Can anybody provide actual British/Commonwealth TOE that would show if the Bren was indeed deployed both as a SAW and in a support role during WWII ? Or not as the case might be.

[Username]

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

Can anybody provide actual British/Commonwealth TOE that would show if the Bren was indeed deployed both as a SAW and in a support role during WWII ? Or not as the case might be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theres a whole thread going on about this right now. Unfortunately, you might as well just go to the last page of that thread and ask the same question.

It has just been said as being fact. Facts being what people want them to be.

The game has abstractions , of course, and there has been no BTS input so its all a big muck fest.

Lewis

Lewis

[Tero]

Originally posted by Username:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the game is built on principles. Not stale catagories. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could these principles be as stale as the categories ?

Whose principles is the game built on ? Is the set of principles used allencompassing and universally true ?

Contrary to common beliefs different armies had their own sets of principles. Some of them coincided with the rest of the sets, some of them differed from the rest.

When you bow one way you moon the other way.

[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

More fuel from the lexicons, dictionaries and manuals and sites:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=11500&tocid=0&query=automatic%20rifle

rifle that utilizes either its recoil or a portion of the gas propelling the projectile to remove the spent cartridge case, load a new cartridge, and cock the weapon to fire again. Automatic rifles (and pistols) are called autoloaders and are actually semiautomatic, since they customarily fire only one shot at each pull of the trigger. Full automatic fire—that is, firing repeatedly as long as the trigger is held down until the magazine is exhausted—is achieved by the assault rifle and the submachine gun (qq.v.). In the assault rifle, fully automatic fire can be substituted for oneshot fire simply by flicking a switch on the weapon. Likewise, a semiautomatic rifle needs only an adjustment (a simple procedure, for a gunsmith) to convert it to full automatic functioning. Most modern infantry rifles are assault rifles and have full automatic-fire capabilities.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=50949&tocid=0&query=machine%20gun

automatic weapon of small calibre that is capable of rapid, sustained fire. The machine gun was developed in the late 19th century and has profoundly altered the character of modern warfare. Modern machine guns are classified into three groups. The light machine gun, also called the squad automatic weapon, is equipped with a bipod and is operated by one soldier; it usually has a box-type magazine and is chambered for the small-calibre, intermediate-power ammunition fired by the assault rifles of its military unit. The medium machine gun, or general-purpose machine gun, is belt-fed, mounted on a bipod or tripod, and fires full-power rifle ammunition. Through World War II the term “heavy machine gun” designated a water-cooled machine gun that was belt-fed, handled by a special squad of several soldiers, and mounted on a tripod. Since 1945 the term has designated an automatic weapon firing ammunition larger than that used in ordinary combat rifles; the most widely used calibre is .50 inch or 12.7 mm, although a Soviet heavy machine gun fires a 14.5-millimetre round.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=16581&tocid=0&query=machine%20gun

British adaptation of a Czech light machine gun. Its name originated as an acronym from Brno, where the Czech gun was made, and Enfield, where the British adaptation was made. Gas-operated and air-cooled, the Bren was first produced in 1937 and became one of the most widely used weapons of its type. It was produced in .303 calibre for British use and was manufactured as a 7.92-millimetre weapon for Chinese Nationalist troops.

Acclaimed as one of the best light machine guns of World War II, the Bren appeared in four models that varied principally in barrel length and total weight. The Mark 4 model had an overall length of 42.9 inches (109 cm), with a 22.25-inch (56.5-centimetre) barrel. It had a cyclic rate of fire of 520 rounds per minute, weighed 19 pounds (9 kg), and had an effective range of about 2,000 feet (600 m). Easy to load, clean, and operate, it had variable-length bipods and a curved magazine. Its barrel could be changed quickly; because machine gun barrels lose accuracy when overheated, they must be changed often in sustained-fire situations. The Bren is no longer in first-line service in the British Army, but it is still used by the armies of many countries.

http://www.classicfirearms.org/

The primary use of the Bren was a one-man machine gun, intended to be fired from a bipod or from the hip while advancing. British military doctrine sanctioned firing bursts of four to five rounds, which will empty the Bren's magazine in about one minute. In sustained fire, a well-practiced operator can put out 150 rounds—five magazines—in a minute. Under most circumstances, it was recommended that the operator fire one shot for each pull of trigger, thus conserving ammunition and keeping the enemy from realizing, until it was too late, that a machine gun was being used against them.

http://www-acala1.ria.army.mil/LC/cs/csi/sahist.htm#Machine

Machine Gun, Cal. .30, M1941, Johnson (1941). The Johnson model 1941 was a light machine gun used to a limited degree by U.S. troops during World War II. It was the only new design machine gun introduced during the war. It had a front blade sight and a rear folding aperture sight. The model 1941 used .30 cal. cartridges in 20-round magazines. It had a rate of fire of 400-450 spm.

The following is a modern one but is relevant when it comes to terminoloy and how it evolves and devolves through time.

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/23-14/fm2314.htm

FM 23-14

M249 LIGHT MACHINE GUN IN THE AUTOMATIC RIFLE ROLE

PREFACE

This manual provides technical information, training techniques, and guidance on the M249 light machine gun in the automatic rifle role, which was formerly known as the squad automatic weapon (SAW). Since this manual addresses the M249's use in the automatic rifle role as opposed to the light machine gun role, it is referred to in this manual as the M249 AR. Unit leaders and the designated automatic riflemen will find this information invaluable in their efforts to successfully integrate this automatic weapon into their combat operations.

The tactical positions shown in this manual may not be tactically correct, but they were drawn to enhance the reader's understanding of related subject material.

Unless this publication states otherwise, masculine nouns and pronouns do not refer exclusively to men.

Personal note: YE GODS !!!! How PC can you get ?!?

E-1. OFFENSE

In the offense, the automatic rifle contributes primarily to the maneuver element. That is, it gives the squad leader the fires of "ten soldiers" for the close-quarter fight. Depending on the tactical situation, it may also be used in the base-of-fire element.

E-2. DEFENSE

The dismounted infantry defense centers around the platoon's machine guns. The platoon leader sites the rifle squad to protect the machine guns against the dismounted assault of an enemy formation. The automatic rifle provides the requisite range and volume of fire to cover across the squad front in the defense. The squad leader sites each of his automatic rifles to cover the entire squad sector or cover an overlapping sector with the other automatic rifle. Automatic rifles can augment platoon and company machine gun fire out to the maximum ranges. The engagement range of a squad leader's weapon may extend from the last 300 meters where the enemy began his assault to point-blank range. Automatic rifle targets include enemy automatic weapons and command and control elements.

[Spook]

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

BTW: this debate seems to revole around a classical case of force specific tactics and doctrines (AKA national bias) and how they can or can not be incorporated into the CM family.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Need it stop with the squad BOF weapon? If we're truly striving for "force-specific" squad tactics based on nationalities' training, shouldn't we also consider squad formational options or squad dispersion? With variations allowed for squad experience?

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

What I see here now is (predominantly) American POV that the Bren was an automatic rifle vs the British/Commonwealth POV that it was a LMG. The American POV is based on the US military definition and deployment of the type of weapon. The British/Commonwealth POV is based on (I presume) period British/Commonwealth terminology and actual deployment.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps it's so that allowing a Bren team to form separately from the squad might allow recreation of actual UK experience. But if greater detail is pursued on this one issue, while other linked squad-level issues remain more abstract in treatment, then the potential exists for inconsistent behavior in the CM representation.

Bren teams formed by stripping the Bren from a Carrier, or available as "security details" by special purchase, are reasonable to consider. But in forming Bren teams (or even BAR/MG42 teams) out from squads, the CM translation might not be so good unless a number of other squad-specific tactical issues are also expanded in detail.

Hmmm, all this sounds to be steering down that "1:1" representation path again. Perhaps instead, one could lobby on Eric Young, with his GI Combat development effort, to consider the issues on hand?

[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Spook:

Need it stop with the squad BOF weapon? If we're truly striving for "force-specific" squad tactics based on nationalities' training, shouldn't we also consider squad formational options or squad dispersion? With variations allowed for squad experience?

Hmmmmmm.......

According to BTS and the majority of folks frequenting this board such differences did not exist. And if they did they are not quantifiable and programmable.

I do admit force specific differences are a hobby horse of mine. I am gathering intel on the subject and treads like this provide proof of quantifiable and programmable aspects. These mechanical vs doctrinal debates are especially useful as they provide arguments in the form of facts about using similar (or similarly classed) weapons in dissimilar manner.

Perhaps it's so that allowing a Bren team to form separately from the squad might allow recreation of actual UK experience.

If that is in line with the historical facts then I can only concur.

But if greater detail is pursued on this one issue, while other linked squad-level issues remain more abstract in treatment, then the potential exists for inconsistent behavior in the CM representation.

Flood gates open, pandemonium ensues, the sheep will sleep with the wolves....

I fully understand BTS's stand on this from the programming POV. You have to draw the line somewhere. BUT if greater historical accuracy is the objective then these kinds of issues need to be dealt with. Without any passionate biases of course.

Bren teams formed by stripping the Bren from a Carrier, or available as "security details" by special purchase, are reasonable to consider. But in forming Bren teams (or even BAR/MG42 teams) out from squads, the CM translation might not be so good unless a number of other squad-specific tactical issues are also expanded in detail.

Agreed. In all fairness the 50/50 split does favour the US squads in a split because of their inherent, built in FP (which is the original beef in this tread). If the split was done according to historically accurate rules the outcome might not be so favourable to the US.

Hmmm, all this sounds to be steering down that "1:1" representation path again.

I will cease and desist (again ) until such time I have found enough quantifiable and programmable facts on the issue that I can go to bat with it and not be thrown out for lack of evidence.

Perhaps instead, one could lobby on Eric Young, with his GI Combat development effort, to consider the issues on hand?

Perhaps. Then again being named "GI Combat" it is doubtful it would be the GI who gets shafted when design decisions are made pertaining these issues.

[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Spook]

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

Flood gates open, pandemonium ensues, the sheep will sleep with the wolves.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what do we name the offspring? a "sholf" or "wheep"?

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

I fully understand BTS's stand on this from the programming POV. You have to draw the line somewhere. BUT if greater historical accuracy is the objective then these kinds of issues need to be dealt with. Without any passionate biases of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Striving for greater historical accuracy is a desirable goal. But when trying to translate a historical feature into a wargame, the higher criteria is that historical CONSISTENCY is not undermined when trying to make one feature more "accurate" relative to other linked elements at that game scale.

Would allowing the creation of squad BOF weapons as separate teams be inconsistent within the CM model? Not necessarily. But in my generalized view, I think it a possibility to weigh against.

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

Agreed. In all fairness the 50/50 split does favour the US squads in a split because of their inherent, built in FP (which is the original beef in this tread). If the split was done according to historically accurate rules the outcome might not be so favourable to the US.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "might" is the working term here. Given that US rifle squads are 12-man by default, arguments could stem that greater allowance be given on how the split is done, such that the BAR-carrying half-squad be given more or less men by player choice. Or for US '45 rifle squads, the two BAR's get bundled together in one half-squad as a support-fire element?

These aren't specifically equivalent to breaking off squad BOF weapons into seperate teams. But the cases above are equivalent in scope. And I could readily see some CM players asking for such features someday, if squad BOF weapons are being considered to get added "detail" options.

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

"Perhaps instead, one could lobby on Eric Young, with his GI Combat development effort, to consider the issues on hand?"

Perhaps. Then again being named "GI Combat" it is doubtful it would be the GI who gets shafted when design decisions are made pertaining these issues.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Suggest for Eric an add-on module then: "GI Shafted."

[Username]

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

Originally posted by Username:

Could these principles be as stale as the categories ?

Whose principles is the game built on ? Is the set of principles used all encompassing and universally true ?

Contrary to common beliefs different armies had their own sets of principles. Some of them coincided with the rest of the sets, some of them differed from the rest.

When you bow one way you moon the other way.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The principles are made by the principals. They are an expression of the design team.

The design team must assess the various weapons from different military cultures (regardless what they are called) and model them IN THE SAME WAY.

So fleets of different cars from different nations are going to race ON THE SAME RACETRACK.

Is it all encompassing and universally true? Cmon. Your rhetoric is so thin and non-constructive. Do you ever read what you write? So, uh No. It wont model infantry warfare between Finninsh troops and armed exoskeleton type creatures from another planet.

You seem to miss the point. It doesnt matter what its called. The weapons are not words in the dictionary.

When you bend over backwards to try to please everyone in the universe, you usually get kicked in the ass anyway, so dont bother. The game (again) uses abstractions. Games like CM and CC and others represent discrete weapons and infantry units at certain levels. People will always feel that they are slighted when weapons appeared to be cutoff.

To me the cutoff level is belted MG firepower. Right now, CMBO, agrees with that.

The game is not stale but rather in a state of change. The change people (lets take off the gloves, the BREN-Nazis) want is two iterations down the road. The next iteration will showcase many changes to the face of the infantry battle.

So, what you call something now, will be in a different light in the future. Thats not stale, thats evolution.

Lewis

[Username]

"The "might" is the working term here. Given that US rifle squads are 12-man by default, arguments could stem that greater allowance be given on how the split is done, such that the BAR-carrying half-squad be given more or less men by player choice. Or for US '45 rifle squads, the two BAR's get bundled together in one half-squad as a support-fire element?

These aren't specifically equivalent to breaking off squad BOF weapons into seperate teams. But the cases above are equivalent in scope. And I could readily see some CM players asking for such features someday, if squad BOF weapons are being considered to get added "detail" options."

This was mentioned in the other thread (BREN: Separate) also. Its largely ignored there because of the rioters who are willing to settle for nothing but separate LMG support weapon status for the BREN.

BTS moderation here would certainly move the issue forward. They are, after all, the principals that would be making the change. I am not speaking for them when I say belted weapons are the cutoff. I am just looking at the present design form and it appears to agree with me. Who knows what the future will be? Perhaps LMG altogether will be dissolved as a support weapon. In instances where there were LMG or SAW (fill in your own name if you dont like those), half squads will represent those weapons.

But the BRENNERS have dug in their heels and its support weapons or nothing. They dismiss observations such as JAMMING of support weapons and MOVEMENT penalties, etc.

Its not a very productive discussion without BTS and as far as I am concerned, Slappy, started a thread with good intentions, moderated it himself, acted like a gentleman and was kicked in the ass for his troubles.

Lewis

[Username]

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

I reread your arguments and still find no taxonomy, just your commentary that the Bren is indeed an LMG. Thus, it is probably worthless to continue along these lines. Even Tero came up with a taxonomy of sorts (by dictionary definition).

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the games own taxonomy calls the BREN a LMG. Thats right, as a squad automatic or a SAW or whatever name you want to give it, its a LMG in the game! look for yourselves.

But is that the point? You have it then. Its a LMG according to BTS.

Lewis

[Richard Morgan]

I have just returned from a bank holiday and have caught up with this thread again... A couple of points from reading Lewis's posts that need clarification. Firstly, the original 303 Bren differs from the 7.62 LMG in a couple of important respects. With the 303 Bren, the working parts stay to the rear when the mag is empty. On the 7.62 model, they are not locked to the rear but come forward after the last round has been fired. (We had a couple of Mk 1's (303) as DP (drill purpose) weapons, so I know this first hand. Secondly, although (granted) the 303 Bren mag should only be loaded with 28 rounds, the 7.62LMG mag will hold and work reliably with 30 - this is because the curvature of the mag is far less pronounced.

Where on earth did Lewis come up with his I.A.? If he hasn't served in any Commonwealth army, I most certainly have. Let me now give full chapter and verse, instead of the abbreviated version in my last post.

Ist I.A.

Weapon fires, weapon stops. Cock the weapon, Mag off, look in. No rounds in mag, chamber clear: new mag on, carry on firing. This also clears any obstruction in the weapon and cures stoppages caused by damaged magazines. DON'T release the action Lewis, it stops you looking in for a start and you would also have to re-cock the weapon in order to continue firing it, which slows everything up: besides which this certainly wasn't in any drill book or pamphlet that I ever saw :confused:

2nd IA

Weapon fires, weapon stops: Cock weapon, mag off - on looking in, rounds in mag, chamber clear: mag back on, carry on firing.

Weapon fires one or two more rounds and stops again. Cock weapon, mag off - again, rounds in mag, chamber clear. Mag back on, apply safety catch. Go down side of weapon, release barrel and move forward until lug clears gas regulator. Using the tip of a round, rotate gas regulator (which is hot - no fingers!!) anti-clockwise to next biggest hole. Lock barrel back on, release safety catch, go on firing. I once had an LMG run away - ie continue firing after my finger had left the trigger, but the 2nd IA cured that - exciting though The S.P.W. (spare parts wallet) also holds a clearance plug, a gadget which will extract from the chamber an empty case from which the rim has sheared - although I never saw or had this happen.

Sorry to be boring guys, but a couple of points should be made here. This all came from my head, not some glossy magazine. I have considerable experience with this particular weapon. I (and certainly one or two others on this forum) can speak with authority on it as well. If you have no experience (with this or/and any other weapon) and regurgitate stuff you have read from Guns & Ammo magazine and other publications without qualifying your remarks, people like me will see straight through you and mentally file you under T for tosser. There is nothing wrong with inexperience or not knowing, just don't make out that you are something that you are not :mad: I was only ever a lance-jack, one step up from pond life on the evolutionary scale: I do not pretend to be anything else. I left through injury, but look back on my time in uniform with considerable pride.

Cheers,

Richard :cool:

[Username]

http://www.brengun.org.uk/manual.html

It came from here.

I repeat, how would a BREN gunner know he was out? Its not that hard a concept. He fires a burst and could it be possible that he had fired his last round and not known it? Would it be possible that he would know it by pulling the trigger?

Maybe you might visit the other BREN thread and grace us with some more of your wisdom?

Lewis

[Richard Morgan]

How does a BREN/LMG gunner realise he is out of ammo? In the words of the drills:The weapon fires, THE WEAPON STOPS!!!

Let me try and make that a bit clearer... the trigger is depressed, and nothing is happening, there are no banging noises, no kick, no ejected cases, ziltch in fact. Oh, dearie me, what has happened?!!!!! I know, if I carry out the first IA, I might just find out A)whether the gun is out of ammo, or whether the gun has had a stoppage... Am I missing something here :confused:

Richard.

[Richard Morgan]

I have just inspected Lewis's Bren manual site, very interesting, but I should add that the 303 Bren and the 7.62 LMG have significant differences. (see earlier post) I did my training in the late 70's, Lewis's (internet) manual is from the 40's - manuals and pamphlets change - if you have ever had to put the amemdments in, (in the British Army) you will know exactly what I mean. Could Lewis please tell us all when he did his basic training and with whom? We are all dying to know!

Regards,

Richard.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

You disagree? Maybe the Canadians didn't operate under the same scrounging philosophy as the Aussies, Kiwis and Brits? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did the Australians encounter the MG42 ?

When/how did they supplement their firepower with this method ?

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

How does a BREN/LMG gunner realise he is out of ammo? In the words of the drills:The weapon fires, THE WEAPON STOPS!!!

Let me try and make that a bit clearer... the trigger is depressed, and nothing is happening, there are no banging noises, no kick, no ejected cases, ziltch in fact. Oh, dearie me, what has happened?!!!!! I know, if I carry out the first IA, I might just find out A)whether the gun is out of ammo, or whether the gun has had a stoppage... Am I missing something here :confused:

Richard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

The weapon is fired in bursts. Some say 3-5 or whatever.

What I am asking is, is it possible, that a BREN gun can be fired and it will fire a burst (using up the last round lets say at the end of the burst) and the gunner does not realize he is out till he attempts to fire again?

Its a subtle point I am trying to make so as to compare the belt fed weapon to it. A belt fed weaapon allows the visual indication of ammo being at the ready.

Lewis

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Yes.

The weapon is fired in bursts. Some say 3-5 or whatever.

What I am asking is, is it possible, that a BREN gun can be fired and it will fire a burst (using up the last round lets say at the end of the burst) and the gunner does not realize he is out till he attempts to fire again?

Its a subtle point I am trying to make so as to compare the belt fed weapon to it. A belt fed weaapon allows the visual indication of ammo being at the ready.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bren - until it stops or the firier can "count" his rounds in action - there is no indication that the weapon is out of ammunition until the first IA (now jst called the IA - Immedate Action) is carried out.

Belt fed weapon. The last 3-5 rounds ar not visible to the firer as they disappear into the feed mechanism so the same condition can apply.

During my time "in" with M60 and MAG58 it was practice on patrol and/or advance for the gunner to only have a short belt of around 30 rounds "loaded" - this was to prevent ingestion of dirt into the mechanism and/or catching of belts on foliage.

On contact, the first action by No2 on the gun was to slap another belt onto the tail of the belt thus preventing a stoppage and was contiue to do so for the enagagement. His role was to keep the gun working - secondary to his other role protection of the weapon. Control of the gun group was the responsibility of the section 2ic.

In the defence, full belts could be used.

One lesson I was taught and passed onto to all I taught -

[Richard Morgan]

Lewis, in answer to your question, yes, in theory, that could happen, but in practice it wouldn't/didn't happen very often, and if it did you'd carry out the IA immediately. With a belt fed weapon (the GPMG is the only one I am trained in) the No 2 would either re-load with a new belt, or before the old one was finished, would clip another onto the end,although this was frowned on in some quarters - some reckoned doing that risked buckling a link which WOULD cause a jam. In answer to your question, for the No 2 at anyrate, a belt would give some kind of visual indication that a mag would not. The No 1's eyes, of course, would be glued to the sights, and so he wouldn't get any visual indication on either gun.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Spook:

So what do we name the offspring? a "sholf" or "wheep"?

The males would be sholf and the females wheep ?

But when trying to translate a historical feature into a wargame, the higher criteria is that historical CONSISTENCY is not undermined when trying to make one feature more "accurate" relative to other linked elements at that game scale.

How do you define historical consistency ? Gameplay consistency I understand but historical consistency sounds a lot like an arbitrary set of factors drawn from a biased set of facts.

Would allowing the creation of squad BOF weapons as separate teams be inconsistent within the CM model? Not necessarily.

I agree. However if the game engine was written and all the parameters lined up along a set of factors that do not take into accound such deployment then the "resistance" falls into perspective. If the game engine was built around (say ) the US tactics and doctrine any and all deviations from it produce results in demands to tweak other factors in related areas. That would become a cascading effect that would demand an entirely new design approach.

But in my generalized view, I think it a possibility to weigh against.

Most certainly.

The "might" is the working term here. Given that US rifle squads are 12-man by default, arguments could stem that greater allowance be given on how the split is done, such that the BAR-carrying half-squad be given more or less men by player choice. Or for US '45 rifle squads, the two BAR's get bundled together in one half-squad as a support-fire element?

These aren't specifically equivalent to breaking off squad BOF weapons into seperate

teams. But the cases above are equivalent in scope. And I could readily see some CM players asking for such features someday, if squad BOF weapons are being considered to get added "detail" options.

Yes. However, I can already hear cries of sholf if the split could be done to automatics/the rest. How gamey would the use of squads with 50% SMG's become then ?

Suggest for Eric an add-on module then: "GI Shafted."

I think it would sell better if it was called "GI Jane gets shafted"

[Tero]

Originally posted by Username:

The principles are made by the principals. They are an expression of the design team.

That much is obvious. Did they devolp the principles themselves or did they rely on a ready set, say drawn by the US military ?

The design team must assess the various weapons from different military cultures (regardless what they are called) and model them IN THE SAME WAY.

In the purely technical level, yes. However despite all their technical similarities different armies used these technically similar weapons in dissimilar manners, according to their respective tactics and doctrine.

Tanks are modelled the same, yet it has been an established fact that early in the war the Germans used theirs in a very differet manner compared to the rest of the western armies.

How is it entirely inconsieveable that the armies used technically similar small arms in dissimilar manners ?

So fleets of different cars from different nations are going to race ON THE SAME RACETRACK.

Good analogy. And yet it is not entirely appropriate.

It assumes that the racetrack is always the same and the cars are stock. No regard is given to the drivers training, only how often the driver has driven around it.

You seem to miss the point. It doesnt matter what its called. The weapons are not words in the dictionary.

It very much matters what it is called. And even more so by whom. Whithout a clear definition it would be impossible, as you yourself said: model them IN THE SAME WAY.. How can you define something without being able to classify it ? The definition is based on subjective set of givens. This tread is spinning around itself because there is a manifest lack of common terminology. This debate (and the separate Bren tread) are about classification of assets.

No matter how much you may dislike playing word games they must be played out to get clear sidelines and landmarks.

The game (again) uses abstractions. Games like CM and CC and others represent discrete weapons and infantry units at certain levels. People will always feel that they are slighted when weapons appeared to be cutoff.

That is the nature of the beast.

To me the cutoff level is belted MG firepower. Right now, CMBO, agrees with that.

That does however disregard quantifiable and programmable differences between the US and British/Commonwealth tactics and doctrine.

The next iteration will showcase many changes to the face of the infantry battle.

I personally deplore the ahistorical emasculation of the SMG in the next iteration because of some hazy and arbitrary arguments that ran contrary to historical facts caught the attention of the design team.

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Spook]

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

How do you define historical consistency ? Gameplay consistency I understand but historical consistency sounds a lot like an arbitrary set of factors drawn from a biased set of facts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in due respect, this is a BIG misunderstanding to what I mean about consistency. And "biased set of facts" does not enter into it by my own definition. Because I don't believe in applying national biases.

Let me put it by example of how vehicles and infantry COULD be treated in a tactical CM-scale game. Assume for the moment that, like CM, vehicle combat is treated with a high level of detail; armor sloping & quality, shell velocity, ground pressure, etc. Now further assume that in this game, infantry units are not discerned by headcount nor by available weapons, and have only basic attack and defense values. Further, assume that infantry anti-armor combat would be resolved only by vehicles getting within a certain range of an infantry unit, and thus attacked by some arbitrary factor assigned to the infantry unit.

This is what I mean. Not "gameplay consistency" but rather game model consistency. If one "historical" element of the game is given hyper-detail, while another fundamental element is given arbitrary treatment at best, then the game model is inconsistent. And historical consistency (& accuracy) is almost certain to also suffer.

And rest assured, I've seen this played out in wargame designs for over 25 years. Many has been the wargame that was ultimately undermined by inconsistent elements, and even the hyper-detailed ASL series suffers a bit of this too.

Abstractions are unavoidable in wargames, even in CM. But if the abstractions are properly balanced against the game scale, then the game model can maintain consistency and thus a relatively good "historical accuracy."

"Accuracy through detail" is something you can take many levels beyond historical consistency, depending on how detailed you want the game model to get. But if you don't first have consistency, you're almost certain to never achieve historical accuracy, no matter how much detail is jammed into the model overall.

Keep the game model focused, and keep it consistent. The pursuit of greater "accuracy" through increased detail must take care not to violate those rules in the process.

[ 08-28-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]