An answer to Simon Fox

[Spook]

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

Its time for another 'auto-analogy'. Two vehicles have spare tires. Mine, has a full sized spare on the rear of the vehicle ready to be taken down (I own a 4x4). Yours, is a donut sub-sized barely inflated factory dry-rotted orb, buried under tools and boxes and a cheap floor board inside your trunk. Who can change faster?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not an answer you'd expect, Lewis, but mine would be, "It depends on how easily you can get the lug nuts off that hold on the tire to be changed."

A few weeks ago, a couple teenage girls pulled their car into my driveway with a flat tire as night was falling. They called their dad on their cell phone that they needed him to come by, as they didn't know how to change a flat. Knowing how much fun it is to find someone's place at night, I told them that I'd take care of it instead.

I spent about a half-hour getting those f@$&ing lugs off, because they were "frozen" (rusted) stuck. Even with my using WD-40. But the spare was as you posed as one example, Lewis; a "dime-size" emergency spare, in the wheel well, with a pile of junk on top in the trunk. Probably about five minutes just to get the tire out.

[Username]

I keep a length of pipe that slips pver the factory supplied lug wrench. this allows a greater moment arm and the ability to put ones body into it.

I cant beleive the deathtraps people drive around in. If you rotate the tires, the chance of frozen nuts is zip. with the price of gas, tire maintenance can easily pay for itself.

Anyway, any Bren gunners here? I think I read that a MG42 could get the old barrel out in seconds without getting up. Literally from the side of the weapon it will come out.

Lewis

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Slapdragon]

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

I keep a length of pipe that slips pver the factory supplied lug wrench. this allows a greater moment arm and the ability to put ones body into it.

I cant beleive the deathtraps people drive around in. If you rotate the tires, the chance of frozen nuts is zip. with the price of gas, tire maintenance can easily pay for itself.

Anyway, any Bren gunners here? I think I read that a MG42 could get the old barrel out in seconds without getting up. Literally from the side of the weapon it will come out.

Lewis

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Username ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have taken an MG42 apart, and it was very fast to get the barrel out, just as you said. I have seen a Bren taken apart, but although it seemed fast, I cannot really speak to how fast it really was as I did not do it myself.

Somewhere I have pictures of both these being taken apart, and if I can find them I will scan them and post them.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Andrew H.]

I've followed this thread and the other Bren thread and don't believe that any of the proponents of the Bren-should-be-closer-to-the-MG42 theory have made this case. The MG42 is belt fed, the Bren is not, and this is a huge difference.

However, it is not all bad that the Bren is not MG42-like. The absence of the heavier barrel and belt feed makes the Bren lighter, handier, and permits it to be used by one person. This would be of particular advantage at short range. These advantages appear to be reflected in CM as the following table demonstrates.

Notice that at short range, the Bren has more than twice the firepower of the MG42, and is significantly more effective than the BAR as well. Presumably, this is the result of the relative handiness of the weapon; certainly the MG42 is not ideal for close combat with the 250 belt being held be assistant gunner as the gunner tries to move and find targets. Even though the MG42 had the 50-round magazine things, they were difficult to reload, as they were really just containers for a 50 round belt, and reloading meant threading the next belt through the action. The fact that the MG42 has a longer barrel, is heavier, and is not well-balanced (okay, those are three facts) would also hinder the MG42 at close ranges.

Even at 100 meters, the Bren isn't bad at all, falling about halfway between the BAR and the MG42. It's only at longer ranges that the MG42 really pulls significantly ahead of the Bren. But for ranges of 100 meters or less, the Bren is not simply good, it's better than anything else in the game.

And of course ranges of 100 meters or less are not uncommon on CM battlefields; if they were, people would not always be whining about SMG squads.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

I've followed this thread and the other Bren thread and don't believe that any of the proponents of the Bren-should-be-closer-to-the-MG42 theory have made this case. The MG42 is belt fed, the Bren is not, and this is a huge difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never believed than, technically the Bren should be like a BAR or an MG34/42 (or indeed any other weapons that get lumped together into the AR/LMG/GPMG clas(es))

Each weapon is a solution to the tactical needs of the forces employing it (except perhaps the BAR - I have difficulty rationalising that weapon at all past WWI).

Each weapon was purchased/designed/modified to suit the tactical methods and theories of the countries concerned. In their own eyes none were ever wrong, just circumstances changed (different conditions/enemies than anticipated).

Remember each war is faught of the basis of the last one - rightly or wrongly.

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

However, it is not all bad that the Bren is not MG42-like. The absence of the heavier barrel and belt feed makes the Bren lighter, handier, and permits it to be used by one person. This would be of particular advantage at short range. These advantages appear to be reflected in CM as the following table demonstrates.

Notice that at short range, the Bren has more than twice the firepower of the MG42, and is significantly more effective than the BAR as well. Presumably, this is the result of the relative handiness of the weapon; certainly the MG42 is not ideal for close combat with the 250 belt being held be assistant gunner as the gunner tries to move and find targets. Even though the MG42 had the 50-round magazine things, they were difficult to reload, as they were really just containers for a 50 round belt, and reloading meant threading the next belt through the action. The fact that the MG42 has a longer barrel, is heavier, and is not well-balanced (okay, those are three facts) would also hinder the MG42 at close ranges.

Even at 100 meters, the Bren isn't bad at all, falling about halfway between the BAR and the MG42. It's only at longer ranges that the MG42 really pulls significantly ahead of the Bren. But for ranges of 100 meters or less, the Bren is not simply good, it's better than anything else in the game.

And of course ranges of 100 meters or less are not uncommon on CM battlefields; if they were, people would not always be whining about SMG squads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is an interesting concept.

This must reflect the ability to "put bullets down range" rather than the ability to hit anything aimed at. The Bren is/was renowed for its accuracy (one of those tactical/technical requirements for the British - ammunition conservation) while the MG34/42 was designed to get them "in the area and possibily hit but ceratinly keep their heads down" (German theory - sod the ammunition!)

Now then - who is to say which theory was absolutly right and for what reason(s) ?

[ASL Veteran]

I'm not sure that anyone is trying to put the Bren in the same weapon 'class' as the MG42. The Bren is an LMG. The MG42 is a GPMG. Two different class of weapon. I see now that Slapdragon is essentially saying that the MG42 is an LMG and the Bren is not because it is not like the MG42. This would obviously make someone conclude that the LMG in WW2 was a class of two - the only weapons being an LMG would be the MG42 and the MG34. No other weapon could be classed as an LMG because no other squad automatic weapon is like the MG42 therefore they are all Automatic Rifles.

This ignores the fact that the MG42 is classed as a GPMG because it can fulfill the roles of both LMG and MMG / HMG. I feel that this is poor 'taxonomy'. To class an MG42 as an LMG completely ignores it's role and use as an MMG. I think it is fairly widely acknowledged that the MG42 is a GPMG and is a class above LMG only type weapons. Slapdragon is comparing a GPMG to an LMG and concluding that the LMG is an AR because the GPMG fits the role of LMG better. It may fit 'modern' classifications, but it doesn't fit WW2 classifications. I think the regular use of the modern GPMG in the role of LMG has colored Slapdragon's opinion of the characteristics of WW2 LMGs. Of course, this ignores the fact that the GPMG role of the MG42 was revolutionary at the time.

Incidentally, the higher rate of fire of the MG42 requires a heavier barrel than lower rate of fire weapons since the MG42 would heat up faster.

[Slapdragon]

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

I'm not sure that anyone is trying to put the Bren in the same weapon 'class' as the MG42. The Bren is an LMG. The MG42 is a GPMG. Two different class of weapon. I see now that Slapdragon is essentially saying that the MG42 is an LMG and the Bren is not because it is not like the MG42. This would obviously make someone conclude that the LMG in WW2 was a class of two - the only weapons being an LMG would be the MG42 and the MG34. No other weapon could be classed as an LMG because no other squad automatic weapon is like the MG42 therefore they are all Automatic Rifles.

This ignores the fact that the MG42 is classed as a GPMG because it can fulfill the roles of both LMG and MMG / HMG. I feel that this is poor 'taxonomy'. To class an MG42 as an LMG completely ignores it's role and use as an MMG. I think it is fairly widely acknowledged that the MG42 is a GPMG and is a class above LMG only type weapons. Slapdragon is comparing a GPMG to an LMG and concluding that the LMG is an AR because the GPMG fits the role of LMG better. It may fit 'modern' classifications, but it doesn't fit WW2 classifications. I think the regular use of the modern GPMG in the role of LMG has colored Slapdragon's opinion of the characteristics of WW2 LMGs. Of course, this ignores the fact that the GPMG role of the MG42 was revolutionary at the time.

Incidentally, the higher rate of fire of the MG42 requires a heavier barrel than lower rate of fire weapons since the MG42 would heat up faster.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or, it could be that by promoting the Bren to LMG, you must promote the weapons that were close to it in capability up (the BAR) and voila, no more concept of a squad automatic rifle.

Again, this is political rather than taxonomy. The Bren and BAR are much closer in capability than the MG-42 and Bren are. Taxonomy by functional characteristics should result be repeated in use on the ground. In other words, use should reflect the taxonomy on a broad scale (except of course the alien uses).

So we have had arguments that the Bren was an LMG because it was called an LMG (pop culture argument), the Bren is an LMG because it is good / better than the LMG it faced in the war (the MG42), or the Bren was an LMG because it deserves status as a support weapon in the game (political). The middle is a functional argument and is clearly wrong.

Now we attempt to promote the MG42 to a functional class of weapon that did not exist in the 1940s, the GPMG, thus freeing up the Bren to become the LMG.

Here I would have to say OK -- lets just call the BAR and LMG, and any other autoloading rifle with automatic capability, and accpt that none of these weapons were support weapons (technically wrong but politically correct) and create a new class of one weapon: the MG-42, as the only weapon which can be a light support weapon.

This comes back to the original question I asked earlier. Everyone can sight individual differences in weapons, but no one has yet provided a clear defintion of taxonomy along functional lines that enables the Bren to sit next to the MG-42, but keeps the BAR out, and still is useful for game design (IE -- any weapon can have the same principals looked at and its useful position deduced.)

[Brian]

Slappy, you haven't grasped what has been said at all. You have fixated in your mind that as Brens were used like this -

They were never used like this -

(Interestingly this dates from Korea so the practiced lasted at least until then)

or the Commonwealth armies weren't trained to use their Brens like that, either -

I'd also suggest that as you appear to believe that as I've said nothing about the mechanical operation of how the MG42 operates, I have no knowledge of it. What would you like to discuss? Roller-locked breech? Delayed-blowback operation? I've at least handled, stripped and assembled an MG3 (the modern version of the MG42) - have you?

When you realise that we are discussing tactical doctrine and employment of a weapon, not in comparison with other weapons but in absolute terms, you might start to realise what I and others are saying.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]

[Brian]

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

I again ask the question to Bren users:

How long does it take to change the barrel? How many barrels would a 'Heavy' Bren team carry?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It takes about the same amount of time to change a barrel on an MG42 as it does a Bren, Lewis. All that is required is cocking the weapon, releasing the Barrel Locking Catch and then withdrawing the barrel from the reciever and replacing it with another and then relocking the catch and releasing the working parts forward.

In fact, I'd suggest that its slightly quicker (by fractions of a second) on the Bren than the MG42 - simply because you don't need to maneauvre the Bren's barrel in and out of a cooling jacket.

As to how many barrels were carried - two per weapon.

[Slapdragon]

Brian, first the use of the Bren in the functions you assign them was limited, and it makes your own Bren experience questionable. More -- your admition to handling an MG-3 (which I did handle at the Hesterly Armory during a foriegn weapons class) but failure to realize how heat sink etc. affects rate of fire, and how the MG-42 has much more metal up front, plus your misidentification of the heavy forward section as a barrel shroud makes me how useful your military experience was. There is a saying, 20 years of experience could mean 1 year of experience repeated 20 times.

So, we elevate the BAR and Bren to LMG status. Heck -- we elevate the M1 up there too, and maybe since once a guy fired a .45 real fast it gets elevated also. I suggest a new Brian method of nomenclature where all weapons are called LMGs. I even have a picture of a .45 in a tripod mount, so its LMG status is automatic. And since the M1 was used as a firepower support weapon when no BAR was near, it as I said is one also.

Your unwillingness to define LMG compared to MMG compared to HMG compared to AR in a functional taxonomy, instead presenting your political desires as the sole measure of a weapon is now the issue. Note that i dno not care about how you wish the Bren was used, that was shot down on another thread, we are talking about how the design allowed it to function and how it was used in real life. Taxonomy allows a game designer to decide how the weapon will function, and that can be checked against the historical record.

[Michael Dorosh]

A good Bren team could change barrels in under ten seconds. See Ian Hogg and Mike Chappell's article "Bren Gunners in Northwest Europe" in a back issue of Military Illustrated. Excellent article.

My friend owns a Mk II Bren; barrel changes are very simple, exactly as described by Brian.

Tripod usage was relatively rare; as I mentioned twenty pages ago. Static fronts mostly - Korea counts for that too. Hard to use on the advance, but they were definitely used at night to fire on fixed lines.

[ASL Veteran]

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

Now we attempt to promote the MG42 to a functional class of weapon that did not exist in the 1940s, the GPMG, thus freeing up the Bren to become the LMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a real reach. Now you are saying that the MG42 is not a GPMG? The MG42 was the first GPMG - it defined the class. Just like the Dreadnought defined the battleship, the MG42 defined the GPMG. You can't really be serious here can you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here I would have to say OK -- lets just call the BAR and LMG, and any other autoloading rifle with automatic capability .. snip<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are no autoloading rifles with automatic capabilities. The automatic rifle is also known as the self loading rifle. The automatic rifle does not mean that the weapon can fire full automatic. It means that the new round is loaded automatically - without the soldier manually turning the bolt. This is also why they are referred to as 'Self Loading Rifles'. Even a smart guy like you should know that Slappy. The weapons in this class would be the Garand, SVT 38 and 40, AVS 36, GEW 43, and weapons of their ilk. I'm curious - do you feel that the Garand is in the same class as the Bren? If so, can you justify it in some way? If the Garand is in a different class than the Bren - what class would that be?

I begin to weary of this nonsense. Slappy, you are amazing. BTW, I couldn't give a rat's butt about having separate Bren teams or not. My only concern is the wild propaganda being spouted about making the Bren into an automatic rifle in order to fight against separate Bren teams in CMBO. Why concern for such a thing? I haven't got a clue. To me, calling a Bren an automatic rifle is like calling an apple an orange.

[Slapdragon]

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

There are no autoloading rifles with automatic capabilities. The automatic rifle is also known as the self loading rifle. The automatic rifle does not mean that the weapon can fire full automatic. It means that the new round is loaded automatically - without the soldier manually turning the bolt. This is also why they are referred to as 'Self Loading Rifles'. Even a smart guy like you should know that Slappy. The weapons in this class would be the Garand, SVT 38 and 40, AVS 36, GEW 43, and weapons of their ilk. I'm curious - do you feel that the Garand is in the same class as the Bren? If so, can you justify it in some way? If the Garand is in a different class than the Bren - what class would that be?

I begin to weary of this nonsense. Slappy, you are amazing. BTW, I couldn't give a rat's butt about having separate Bren teams or not. My only concern is the wild propaganda being spouted about making the Bren into an automatic rifle in order to fight against separate Bren teams in CMBO. Why concern for such a thing? I haven't got a clue. To me, calling a Bren an automatic rifle is like calling an apple an orange.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that is teh problem --- I never cared about it being a seperate team, it was people who wanted it strenfrgened, and people who wanted it allowed to be an individual team who freaked first.

You missed my point about having to screw with weapon designations in a true taxonomy if we try to make the Bren an MG-42 or if we begin political promotions of weapons to satisfy a small group. Since you are weary, I understand missing this/ My advice -- reread my posted discussion of the theory of taxonomy and how you classify in order to make useful game placements of weapons.

So -- you want the Bren an LMG -- lets throw the BAR and SVT in as LMGs also since they are close in firepower to the Bren. That way everything is a LMG and everyone is happy. We may wish to just make everything an autocannon for political reaons -- no one wants to create a true taxonomy so we might want to just do it randomly. Roll a couple of dice and assign that way. They all make as much sense as assigning without taxonomy, or for "just because", or for political reasons. KIt also makes it easier to for Brian and crew to get support weapon status because all those tricky facts can now be ignored in that whole pissing match.

Reread the taxonomy and comment on that and yoy may be less weary. Ignore it and put on the blinders and ignore why a taxonomy needs to be and why one is created, and nothing will change since your stance wont change the game or future games either.

[Slapdragon]

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

There are no autoloading rifles with automatic capabilities. The automatic rifle is also known as the self loading rifle. The automatic rifle does not mean that the weapon can fire full automatic. It means that the new round is loaded automatically - without the soldier manually turning the bolt. This is also why they are referred to as 'Self Loading Rifles'. Even a smart guy like you should know that Slappy. The weapons in this class would be the Garand, SVT 38 and 40, AVS 36, GEW 43, and weapons of their ilk. I'm curious - do you feel that the Garand is in the same class as the Bren? If so, can you justify it in some way? If the Garand is in a different class than the Bren - what class would that be?

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sorry, I tried resisting, but you were just too snippy. There is indeed autoloading rifles with automatic capability that are not automatic rifles. The 1916 Mexican Dragon. The Mitcher attachment to the Enflied that allowed automatic fire. The AVT version of the SVT. Generally speaking they are rifles that were once autoloading semi-automatic and were modifed to fire automatically without major changes to the feed device, changes to barrel weight, or the like.

[Username]

Its obvious people are not going to get over names.

I dont care if its called a SAW, LMG, MMG, HMG or a Light, medium and heavy machinegun or a squad, platoon, company , battalion weapon, yadda yadda.

It aint what you call it, its what it can do.

I believe BTS feels this way also. They also claim that they look at things from a scientific (actually from an engineering) standpoint.

Brian, you seem to have fired the Bren weapon in real combat against armed human beings, tell us what kind of LMGs you went up against.

Lewis

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[ASL Veteran]

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

So -- you want the Bren an LMG -- lets throw the BAR and SVT in as LMGs also since they are close in firepower to the Bren.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is preposterous. The SVT is a semi automatic weapon and the Bren is a fully automatic weapon. You say they are close in firepower? The BAR - sure - it can be classed as a weak LMG without a quick change barrel. That wouldn't be a stretch. But to put the SVT in the same class as the Bren is fanciful.

[Slapdragon]

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

This is preposterous. The SVT is a semi automatic weapon and the Bren is a fully automatic weapon. You say they are close in firepower? The BAR - sure - it can be classed as a weak LMG without a quick change barrel. That wouldn't be a stretch. But to put the SVT in the same class as the Bren is fanciful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AVT -- I think it is fanciful, and stupid in fact, but so is putting the Bren into the class of the MG-42.

[ASL Veteran]

The reason there is a class of weapons referred to as 'LMG' is that it is too difficult for an average rifleman to control a weapon that fires a full sized rifle round in a fully automatic mode without support from a bipod. This is the entire reason for the creation of the class of weapon known as the LMG. Give the squad a weapon that fires a full sized rifle round in full automatic mode accurately and reliably. There is no specification of an LMG being belt fed. There is no magical cut off point where 47 round drums become LMGs while 30 round magazines are not.

This is also why the creation of the assault rifle was so revolutionary (and why it created a new class of weapon) - it used the short rifle round instead of the full sized rifle round and allowed the rifleman to have a full automatic capability in a weapon that can be managed. This is also why no weapon firing a full sized rifle round without a bipod could be reliably used in any but a semi automatic way.

edited out comparison of Garand as Slapdragon recanted on that point

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

[Brian]

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

Brian, first the use of the Bren in the functions you assign them was limited, and it makes your own Bren experience questionable. More -- your admition to handling an MG-3 (which I did handle at the Hesterly Armory during a foriegn weapons class) but failure to realize how heat sink etc. affects rate of fire, and how the MG-42 has much more metal up front, plus your misidentification of the heavy forward section as a barrel shroud makes me how useful your military experience was. There is a saying, 20 years of experience could mean 1 year of experience repeated 20 times.

*SIGH*, you are still not getting it, are you Slappy? I seem to remember the key is banging the rocks together.

We are not discussing rates of fire, heat sinks, mechanical operation of machine guns or anything at all like that. We are discussing tactical doctrine and employment of a class of weapons .

Understand? If Nation A says Weapon X is an LMG and uses it as an LMG, then it must be considered that it was an LMG - in their view. If Nation B says Weapon Y is an LMG and uses it as an LMG, then must be considered that it was an LMG - in their view.

You've decided arbitrarily that Weapon A does not qualify as an LMG because it does not fit the critaria that YOU have laid down. That critaria is not reflected in any military terminology.

[sarcasm deleted]

[ASL Veteran]

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

AVT -- I think it is fanciful, and stupid in fact, but so is putting the Bren into the class of the MG-42.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't say I disagree with a single part of what you just said there.

[Brian]

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

Its obvious people are not going to get over names.

I dont care if its called a SAW, LMG, MMG, HMG or a Light, medium and heavy machinegun or a squad, platoon, company , battalion weapon, yadda yadda.

It aint what you call it, its what it can do.

It is also I would suggest how it was used, Lewis.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

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

Brian, first the use of the Bren in the functions you assign them was limited, and it makes your own Bren experience questionable. More -- your admition to handling an MG-3 (which I did handle at the Hesterly Armory during a foriegn weapons class) but failure to realize how heat sink etc. affects rate of fire, and how the MG-42 has much more metal up front, plus your misidentification of the heavy forward section as a barrel shroud makes me how useful your military experience was. There is a saying, 20 years of experience could mean 1 year of experience repeated 20 times.

OK so I have handled the Bren in .303 in and 7.62mm, MAG58 (in its original Belgian made and L7 format), M242 and Minimi, Vickers MMG, 30 cal (vehicle mounts only), .50cal M2 and M60, MG3....

I too can brag.

Anyway - one drawback not noted in the barrel change debate. There is handle to handle the hot barrel for a Bren. What does the number 2 have to do with the MG34/42/3 barrel ??

So, we elevate the BAR and Bren to LMG status. Heck -- we elevate the M1 up there too, and maybe since once a guy fired a .45 real fast it gets elevated also. I suggest a new Brian method of nomenclature where all weapons are called LMGs. I even have a picture of a .45 in a tripod mount, so its LMG status is automatic. And since the M1 was used as a firepower support weapon when no BAR was near, it as I said is one also.

Heck I have seen someone fire a L1A1 down range faster than an L2A1 - doesn't make either an LMG.

I have used Rifle .303in SMLE No 1 Mk III, *,**,*** in a "quadrapod" ! (A rifle rest)

Your unwillingness to define LMG compared to MMG compared to HMG compared to AR in a functional taxonomy, instead presenting your political desires as the sole measure of a weapon is now the issue.

I think the operative word here is "functional". All parties have attempted a classification of weapons both by example and by definition but generally related to their technical charateristics.

Why should be so ? Are we not attempting to recreate conditions as they were (even though we may translate them to unreal locations/scenarios)?

Should we not look at how they employed ?

LMG provided firpower with a section/squad

MMG provided firepower to the Coy/Bn commander

HMG were rarely employed outside mountings on vehicles.

The first two are rifle calibre (none exceeded 8mm rifle or 9mm pistol), the last started at 12.7mm.

Some weapons were used in either of the first two roles BUT required accessories for them to fulfill it - tripod, extra barrels, ammunition (heaps).

Relitively, the ability to put more "rounds down range" should be an advantage for the German weapons but counterbalancing this is the need for ammunition (see another thread on this) compared to the magazine fed weapons even though a magazine weighs more !

They can then be given names associated with their roles, charcteristics based on their technical features AND employment and then you can argue which ever way you want.

Note that i dno not care about how you wish the Bren was used, that was shot down on another thread, we are talking about how the design allowed it to function and how it was used in real life.

As an LMG - providing the firepower of the section - how else was it used ?

Taxonomy allows a game designer to decide how the weapon will function, and that can be checked against the historical record.

To date many have claimed that the Bren does not perform to the historical record - therfore is its classification wrong ? Or is it that the classification system is inadequate ?

[Tero]

Tero, you are the only one assigning bias as a qualifier to "consistency."

Actually I am conteding that historical consistency can be drawn from facts which are presented with biases.

Consistency is a logical fuction. History is more often than not biased. Historical consistency, by definition, does not mean thesis-antithesis-synthesis as it can be reached with any of two of the factors being absent. No is it by default unbiased or impartial.

Even with historical references, consistency isn't bias.

Of course not. But if you swear by consistency and claim at the same time there are NO room for biases especially when the consistency you are trying to find is in the realm of ultimate biases then the logical path from hard, cold facts to consistent models derived from them is broken.

I have no problems with consistencies. But when you label it historical consistency and claim that there is no room for biases then I just simply disagree.

That's absurd. Consistency in historical references is to treat ALL relevant factors of an historical event at the appropriate level for which they contributed to that event.

The problems here are: can you be confident you have ALL the relevant factors at your disposal, who decides what is relevant and who decides what factor works at the appropriate level and how significantly, if at all, they even contributed to the event ?

Also, by whose standards do you define the event in terms of space and timeframe ? Do you apply only period standards (and in that case from which side) or do you allow factors to be modified according to retroactive criteria ?

And from the most objective viewpoint possible, with minimal linkage to national bias.

That is a noble goal.

Now, take by example the recent CM forum discussion on Enfield rifles and aimed-fire training. Some posters argued that aimed fire, as a doctrine, defined the effectiveness of UK/Commonwealth armies. To me, that's historical inconsistency to arrive at "army effectiveness" by aimed fire alone. It ignores the contributions of artillery, armor, combined arms, logistics, attritional capabilities, etc. which all probably had relatively greater impact on UK army effectiveness.

IMO the Garand is overmodelled when compared to the Lee-Enfield. Both the US and the BritCom infantry used pretty much the same doctrine when it came to the employment of the principal infantry firearm. It did not define the effectivness of the armies but it did define the effectiveness of the Allied infantry small units (squads and platoons).

At higher levels these assests contibuted to the performance of the infantry. But that contribution was also counter productive in non-typical tactical situations. What has to be taken into account is the fact that in the micro level the contributions of artillery, armor, combined arms, logistics, attritional capabilities, etc can not be calculated in when the effectiveness of the infantry small units are determined. These assets had no direct impact on the combat effectivness and performance of the squads and platoons. The fact that the infantry units TRAINED to act as parts of the machine with all the assets at their disposal can not be ignored either. We have to look at what historically happened when the assets were denied or their performance/effectiveness reduced. IMO in this case the premise of historical consistency is not met when it comes to the relative performance of the US and the BritCom infantry small units when it comes to the principal small arms.

That wasn't necessary for the example. The point of the example is that it is very easy for game designs, even wargames, to take shortcuts with some game elements that wargamers might consider critical in treatment. A more common example is "command & control" if that helps you recognize an example as just that.

Point taken. The infantry close assault was too close to home.

Never played SP, but played the Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader series. As infantry, the Finns were treated like relative battlefield gods in that game system.

I nevel played SL/ASL.

You're confusing "consistent" with "generic."

What is the difference, in CM terms ?

That's why some aspects are getting more detailed treatment, like armor platoon C&C, artillery fire control flexibility, etc. In this case, some added detail or revision is needed to preserve consistency.

It still amazes me how easily they took the SMG ammo tweak in.

Tero, you may have a problem with the term, but the fact of the matter remains in that consistency IS a criteria to wargame design.

Again, the only problem I have is with the historical part. Historical consistency was thrown out when it was decided the stabilizer was in (with no malfuction penalty to boot) while the optics were out. Or it was excerted with a purpose.

If it's inconsistent, then it'll never approach relative historical realism, no matter how many minute little details are added in here & there.

Relative historical realism ? Relative to what ? Within the game or to RL occurances ?

You seem to manage to pict the terms that raise the hair in my neck.

I do agree a ton of accurate bits of detailed data do not salvage you if your basic model is flawed.

Strive for consistency first, and then worry about what details to apply while maintaining a consistent model.

Works for Microsoft ?

The other way around is putting the cart before the horse, and is a poor design process.

Have you ever wondered why the man is behind the wheelbarrow while the horse is in front of the cart ? Is the conventional horse cart configuration the only one possible ?

Try this as an analogy. If I want to fasten some hardware down onto a surface, do I first worry about bolt thread pitch and threads/inch? No, because first-off, bolts might not even be the right fastener type. First establish the appropriate fastener, its length & diameter. Then worry about thread pitch if you are using some bolt or screw.

I think the first consideration should be the surface you try to fasten it on.

You state it as if proven. Very well, then, run various tests and tabulate your results, then run it by BTS. But the statement above doesn't cut the mustard by itself.

Actually it has been proven that while the physical model is plausible each occurance is totally new for the game engine (and thus basically correct in principle) while for the player each occurance in separate games is accumulative. A reverse example: first shot hit propabilities of the hand held AT assets in CM is lousy to say the least and attributed to the (bad)luck factor among other things. Word from BTS has it that this kind of consistent unluckiness is under review.

That last statement verifies again your belief that BTS sought a "pro-US bias" through subtleties in the game model.

If there is a bias it is a pro-Allied bias. That would be historically consistent, given the outcome of the war.

Duly noted, then. Now prove it in a compelling way.

As I said my misgivings are mostly feelers:

Cross section targeting, first shot hit propability and spotting are intervowen. For example I have had a lone Stuart emerge from woods into a clearing and a MG fired on it from woods (in fact KT's hull MG. The fire discipline is an other issue not related to specific forces) and the Stuart targeted it. Instead of engageing the MG the Stuart backed off. How could it know it was a KT when only the hull MG was being fired UNLESS the cross section targeting revealed more than it should to the TacAI ? Spotting the KT in the woods is a plausible excuse except I have also had Stuarts in similar situations engage MG teams which just opened up without widrawing. For the fast turreted Allied tanks this is no problem as they can target and most propably dispatch the opponent before it can widraw.

stabilizers: "partially on" benefit with no malfuction penalties

optics out: no concrete evidence, but then again I have seen no concrete evidence of stabilizers being used, quite the contarary

AT guns picking any damn target they please: a problem for all except the German gets to play more with them. And in all fairness this "feature" does help the Allied more than it does help the Germans since the Allied player is less likely to be inundated by oncoming armour.

pillboxes/bunkers being classes as vehicles: sound targets giving their nature and location. Also: only available to the Germans.

It's again left to you to prove the last statement that the game model translation was intended by design to favor the US side. Or at least argue it in a compelling way.

I never said they favour the US side. They favour the ALLIED side. And intentional or not there were design decisions made that were not "balanced": the Germans had rifle grenades but only the Allied/US player gets them, supposedly because there are Panzer Fausts for the Germans. If "fair" game play is the goal then you should not be "fair" to one side only.

Compile on as you wish. But do allow the possibility that BTS may still ultimately reject your findings.

I have a bucket full of ashes and a spare set of clothes I can rip to shreads reserved for such unlikely eventuality.

The American Civil War, for starters.

Irrelevant, given the advances made in tactics and doctrine after it and before WWII. Why not go as far back as the Roman legions during their civil wars ?

Allow completely theoretical examples as possible comparison points.

If you want comparison points then you should have given parallel examples to go with the first example. From my POV your example was fundamentaly flawed because it assumed table top like conditions with Airfix scale figures.

If you don't, then your process of analysis is too inflexible.

Even the theoretical examples have to be realistic enough to be plausible.

Some things for a theoretical example, like who's attacking and who's defending, are useful as qualifiers. But for other things like terrain or prior losses, try to be flexible enough to consider "all other things being equal."

Your example depicted a rookie force with a short basic training followed by a stint in the front lines vs a professional unit with years of drilling in tactics and doctrine under what I assume are as realistic conditions as possible, but no front line experience.

The nature of the rookie formation casualties are important in case they lost officers or NCO's and they got fresh replacements with minimal training and no combat experience. No casualties is way better than 10% casualties with 50% of the officers and NCO's being taken out.

Terrain is all important if they had trained in flat, green open pastures of home and they wind up in arid, hot and hilly terrain for example.

Somehow, I get the impression that CMBB will be "lost" to you too. We shall see, though.

I will not skin the bear just yet. Believe me, if CMBB delivers I will be properly extatic.

Again, you state it as fact, while not privy to the extent of the CM code & code structure. Calling something "easy to implement" might be a little presumptuous. Perhaps it might indeed be easy to apply. But after all of the discussion here, it hasn't been established in a compelling way how such a revision will really add to the CM model.

You yourself said BTS has not popped in to deliver any input. Until they do all this is just hot air.

It will add detail, but will it be consistent in application?

If the model is historically consistent there should not be any problems with consistency in application. If a LMG/MMG unit is generic and historically consistently modelled then all you need to do is remodel the platoon organisation to form organic LMG unit(s) into the platoon, arm it with an appropriate weapon and support weapons, name it different, alter some assorted parameters and vóila you have an organic platoon BOF unit in your hands.

And is it so important as to merit BTS's time & effort relative to other design problems & issues?

For one the pre-war Finnish platoon was historically made out of 2 rifle squads with 1 (later 2 or more) SMG's and 2 rapid fire rifle (LMG) squads with 1 RFR/LMG and support rifles for the ammo bearers:

Infantry squad was 1+ 9 men (leader, SMG gunner, 7 riflemen, 1 riflegrenade man.

Squad weapons: 9 rifles, 1 SMG, 1 rifle grenade launcher

I think the riflegrenade was in paper only. I have never seen any references it being used in combat.

LMG squad was 1+ 6 men (leader, LMG gunner, gunners assistant, 4 ammo beares of which one can double up as the sharp shooter), Squad weapons: 5 rifles, 1 LMG, 2 pistols (for the gunner and his assistant)

A 1941 -1944 (CMBB) period platoon could have up to a dozen or even more SMG's and numerous LMG's. I'm still looking for an official OOB but for all I know the platoon structure remained the same throughout the war, only the number of automatics increased through battle field acquisitions.

To be historically accurate and historically consistent the OOB should be realistic enough and to be historically consistent, since some people think the tactics are in the realm of the player, Finnish tactics should work with the Finnish platoon better than they now work in CM with ahistorical forces.

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

Errr, I'd sugges that the use of military force for most of human existence has in reality been governed by political considerations. Perhaps Clausewitz summed it up best?

He says war is an EXTENTION of politics.

Wars are not fought for military reasons - they are fought for political ones.

Yes. But nowadays the operations are governed by the polls and the proximity of elections more than high principles.

They might not be good ones but they are there.

True.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Tero, your posts are getting almost as long as JasonCs. But at least he doesn't talk about the same thing all the time.

If you can tear yourself away from telling us about how BTS shafted the Germans for the 10,000th time, go check out this post (if you haven't already). If the numbers are that lopsided with BTS rooting for the home team, I'd hate to see what they'd be like if they were "fair"...

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]