An answer to Simon Fox

[IPA]

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

I suspect this is coming down to a more political issue. People want the Bren to be given the firepower and use of a MG42, so anyone who points out that it is just a rather heavy AR acting as a squad automatic weapon is throwing some mud on that image. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely not. No one here AFAIK has as yet claimed that the Bren had suppressive qualities on par with say an MG42.

It's a tactical issue not a technical one. British infantry section tactics, did and AFAIK still do, split the rifle group and LMG group into two separate tactical entities (criticised as archaic on the other thread). One to support while one moves forward (frog hopping?). The original request was for squads to be separated into these historical groupings when using the split command, so that historical tactics could be simulated in CM. I for one do not want separately purchaseable bren teams, as IMHO that is ahistoric.

Peter

(Edited because wrong part of quote was posted)

[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]

[David Aitken]

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

Otherwise, My neighbor has a Volkswagen beetle which he claims can go off road, thus making it an ORV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might have a more credible argument if you would avoid making disingenious comments like this and your earlier suggestion:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>just because a person is given a .45 and told to pull the trigger really fast does not make the .45 a HMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Volkswagen Beetle is a car. It was designed as a car. No-one is disputing the fact that using a machine for tasks beyond its conception therefore makes it a more substantial machine, simply through employment. Similarly, of course a fast-firing pistol does not suddenly become a machinegun. You continue to deny that the Bren is a LMG despite it being designed as such, and bearing all the characteristics of a LMG. Your perception of what weight of barrel makes a LMG or what size of magazine makes a LMG is totally arbitrary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I suspect this is coming down to a more political issue. People want the Bren to be given the firepower and use of a MG42, so anyone who points out that it is just a rather heavy AR acting as a squad automatic weapon is throwing some mud on that image.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are listening to Lewis's nonsense. He is the only one claiming that we want unrealistic capabilities bestowed upon the Bren.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>was used just like an automatic rifle (except for the rather odd emplyment as a vehicle mounted weapon)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you are clearly deluding yourself. The Bren correctly filled the role of LMG in the British squad. Now you are claiming that the role was actually that of an AR, and your only basis for this is because the US squad used an AR in the same role.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fact that the British did not have a really good LMG<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That comment would come as an immense surprised to the entire British army, and probably a good number of other armies, including the US and Germans.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>or for that matter an MMG does not mean that the Bren suddenly and magically becomes a good candidate for either role<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Bren is an excellent candidate for the LMG role because it happens to be a LMG.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>or that the designers of it thought they were making a GPMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is arguing that the Bren was a GPMG? Now you are moving the goalposts in an attempt to make your argument sound credible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In 1924 Vaclav Holek decided that the Belgian BN and the American BAR were not useful automatic rifles, so he started work on what he referred to as a "light machinegun. It was essentially a Bren with belt feed and a heavy barrel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are doing a good job of undermining your own argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Always an excellent salesman, he modified his design to make it fit into the BAR model -- removing the belt feed and replacing it with a magazine fed from the same direction. So like the bastard child it is, it retains some of the LMG characteristics, and indeed although the British used it as an AR inside of sections, they called it by what Holek called it in 1924.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are simply using narrative to try and put a slant on the facts which makes your argument sound credible. The facts you have delineated are that the Bren was designed from the outset as a LMG, and was simply modified to have a lighter barrel and a magazine feed. It does not "retain some of the LMG characteristics". The BAR has some LMG characteristics. The Bren is a LMG which could, in its original design, have been a MMG or a GPMG, as you later suggest:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After the war, the ZB26 concept was revisited in an attempt to make the weapon back into a true LMG or even see if it could fill the GPMG concept<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you have provided lots of evidence that the Bren is and always was a LMG, and besides trying to put a slant on the facts, have offered little to reinforce your own argument.

[Username]

About the eye candy above, it will be interesting if BTS decides if the russian LMG gets support weapon status. What is pictured here is very close to that weapon. I was watching the german news the other day and those russian weapons are still tapping away in the Balkans.

The BREN had to be cocked between magazines? Good God.. The '30' round clips were only loaded to 28 rounds according to several sources. The gunner (its number 1 to you people) had to do this with which hand? You have to look in for remaining rounds? Please. Great fun on a firing range, I am sure, but like the argument that troops were counting how many rounds were in the bolt action magazines, a bit much under combat conditions. I am beggining to think that british weapons were for well trained peace time armies.

But the BREN does have its atributes. I read often about its accuracy when firing automatic at point targets. This would be very useful for supporting a squad. It would be very useful at suppressing a small house. A MG42 could suppress a small two story building in my opinion.

Rune posted a british document that pointed out that even the british felt the inferiority to BELT FED weapons. It was largely ignored and much interest has been turned on to me instead. As for myself, do a search. As for belt fed weapons and going-for-broke, BTS has already made comments. Do a search there also.

Slappy is right. Theres a lot of politics and ingrained feelings/traditions/etc. here. There has been no BTS feedback on the topic. I would gather up some of that if I were in the BREN camp.

Lewis

PS About time someone mentioned the LEWIS machineguns.

[Slapdragon]

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

So you have provided lots of evidence that the Bren is and always was a LMG, and besides trying to put a slant on the facts, have offered little to reinforce your own argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the designer of the weapon first wanted to design an LKMG, but downgraded his concept when various militaries stated they wanted a better BAR. That is the point. The thing could have been an LMG, but was not an LMG -- it was actually modified from being good in that role.

The Bren team cincept is the same as the way the BAR was used -- to cover the advance of infantry from within the section / squad. Seems like your argument is that the Bren is an LMG despite what the designer thought he was creating (by modifiying his weapon) the British position that it was a sectional weapon, and their post war resistance to making it a true LMG while later purchasing the MAG-58 for the LMG role (one of the roles a GPMG can take), retaining the Bren in the AR role. This seems to be because people want to have individual Bren teams outside of their historic use from another thread (which I have not really read).

My suggestion for this would be to just split the squad and use the Bren as your "brean team" and the rifles in the "rifle team" rather than arguing that the Bren was truly an LMG in function as well as propoganda.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The BREN had to be cocked between magazines? Good God.. The '30' round clips were only loaded to 28 rounds according to several sources. The gunner (its number 1 to you people) had to do this with which hand? You have to look in for remaining rounds? Please. Great fun on a firing range, I am sure, but like the argument that troops were counting how many rounds were in the bolt action magazines, a bit much under combat conditions. I am beggining to think that british weapons were for well trained peace time armies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am moving into the camp which doubts your military service. Complex procedures can be very quick and easy when you are trained to do them. Your contentions would only be relevant to a civilian attempting to use the weapon. Apparently anything more than pulling the trigger is extremely complex in your mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the BREN does have its atributes. I read often about its accuracy when firing automatic at point targets. This would be very useful for supporting a squad. It would be very useful at suppressing a small house. A MG42 could suppress a small two story building in my opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not the LMG42. Yes the HMG42.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rune posted a british document that pointed out that even the british felt the inferiority to BELT FED weapons. It was largely ignored and much interest has been turned on to me instead. As for myself, do a search. As for belt fed weapons and going-for-broke, BTS has already made comments. Do a search there also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rune's post was largely ignored because you reposted it out of context. No-one is claiming that magazine fed weapons are on a par with belt fed weapons. It is only you that repeatedly makes this claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slappy is right. Theres a lot of politics and ingrained feelings/traditions/etc. here. There has been no BTS feedback on the topic. I would gather up some of that if I were in the BREN camp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the politics and feelings are coming from the Bren-is-AR / Bren-is-not-support-weapon camp. As for BTS, you may not have noticed, but they are busy on CM2 and rarely reply to any topic these days.

[Username]

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

It's a tactical issue not a technical one. British infantry section tactics, did and AFAIK still do, split the rifle group and LMG group into two separate tactical entities (criticised as archaic on the other thread). One to support while one moves forward (frog hopping?). The original request was for squads to be separated into these historical groupings when using the split command, so that historical tactics could be simulated in CM. I for one do not want separately purchaseable bren teams, as IMHO that is ahistoric.

Peter

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many people , including myself, are suggesting that also! Furthermore, if there were 'extra' BRENs in the TOE, then they should be in squads so that when you split them, the squad will have a half squad with two BRENs in it and the remainder having rifle/smg. I have also suggested that platoon HQ could have a built in BREN or maybe the other HQs.

Its just that some people here are on some kind of crusade for BREN support weapons and they are not accepting anything else. Read this thread again. Slappy, who I admit to giving a hard time, has not once fallen into the Aitken mindset of non-discussion. Aitken wont accept anything but his own point of view and has even demanded in anothet thread that I stop posting because I wont change to his point of view! How utterly simpleminded!

My position is that BREN support weapons will have to wait till after CMBB anyway, so wouldnt it be prudent to see how the face of infantry battle changes before demanding what "has to be" now?

But the crusaders want to vilify/marginalize/etc. All very tiring, believe me.

Lewis

PS Were the Lewis guns ever used in WWII?

[David Aitken]

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

Well, the designer of the weapon first wanted to design an LKMG, but downgraded his concept when various militaries stated they wanted a better BAR. That is the point. The thing could have been an LMG, but was not an LMG -- it was actually modified from being good in that role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This contradicts your own story of the weapon's development. The original design could reasonably have been called a GPMG, but was most certainly a LMG. The alterations that were made did not suddenly change it from a LMG to an AR. Your own logic that employment does not override design, dictates that although some armies might have wanted to use the Bren as an AR, it did not suddenly become an AR. It was always a LMG.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Bren team cincept is the same as the way the BAR was used -- to cover the advance of infantry from within the section / squad. Seems like your argument is that the Bren is an LMG despite what the designer thought he was creating (by modifiying his weapon) the British position that it was a sectional weapon,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly the mistake I have pointed out. Just because the US used an AR as their squad automatic, does not make everyone else's squad automatic an AR. The British used a LMG as their squad automatic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and their post war resistance to making it a true LMG while later purchasing the MAG-58 for the LMG role (one of the roles a GPMG can take), retaining the Bren in the AR role.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are slanting the facts again. Instead of saying that the MAG filled the GPMG role, you put the emphasis on "the LMG role (one of the roles a GPMG can take)", in an attempt to make the Bren seem like an AR. Bren: LMG. MAG: GPMG (and usually HMG).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This seems to be because people want to have individual Bren teams outside of their historic use from another thread (which I have not really read).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has nothing to do with the Bren's modelling in CM, and everything to do with your contention that it was an automatic rifle.

[Username]

Search under BREN and my number 1064.

I have never claimed to be in a commonwealth army. I have never fired a BREN. Its just so laughable what the BRENNERS are going to come up with next. Dont agree with me? Well your military experience is in question. "Think our description of firing our weapons is complicated, well, you have something to learn yank. (I do want to get the chance to fire a PIAT one day)"

Ponderous

Lewis

[David Aitken]

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

Many people , including myself, are suggesting that also! Furthermore, if there were 'extra' BRENs in the TOE, then they should be in squads so that when you split them, the squad will have a half squad with two BRENs in it and the remainder having rifle/smg. I have also suggested that platoon HQ could have a built in BREN or maybe the other HQs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is you who is making all the ahistorical suggestions. There is no precedent for putting the extra Brens from the TO&E into squads or HQ units, but bizarrely you are desperate to see this happen. Anything but model them individually.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Its just that some people here are on some kind of crusade for BREN support weapons and they are not accepting anything else. Read this thread again. Slappy, who I admit to giving a hard time, has not once fallen into the Aitken mindset of non-discussion. Aitken wont accept anything but his own point of view and has even demanded in anothet thread that I stop posting because I wont change to his point of view! How utterly simpleminded!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an interesting take on my comments. I earlier provided a link to the post in question, and I shall leave those concerned to decide for themselves. What I and others have been doing is simply responding to the unusual arguments of youself and Slapdragon. You in particular have been reacting hysterically to any suggestion that the Bren should be modelled as the LMG it was, refusing to listen to logical arguments, making sudden topic switches and doing your best to confuse the issue. This is why I recommended that you stay out of this and other discussions, as you have little credible argument to offer, and are not interested in the facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My position is that BREN support weapons will have to wait till after CMBB anyway, so wouldnt it be prudent to see how the face of infantry battle changes before demanding what "has to be" now?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a perfect example of your take on the subject. You are not offering anything that is actually relevant. You are simply trying to deflect attention from the subject.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But the crusaders want to vilify/marginalize/etc. All very tiring, believe me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, and you are the leading crusader. Arguing not from a desire for correctness, but from a bizarre perception of the way things should be, and apparently also from a contempt for the British war effort.

[IPA]

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

PS Were the Lewis guns ever used in WWII?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, not really up on the Lewis. AFAIK by WWII they had been downgraded to vehicle support MGs as well as anti-aircraft MGs on merchant shipping (my Grandfather, used to man one). Again IIRC they were sometimes used by the SAS for their long range desert jeeps, but they preferred double mounted Vickers K Guns (as did British Airborne Recce) which were also drum magazine LMGs.

Peter

[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: IPA ]

[David Aitken]

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

I have never claimed to be in a commonwealth army. I have never fired a BREN.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No-one ever suggested that you had. My point is that I find it very strange that you regard the simple mechanics of operating a weapon as a great impediment to its combat effectiveness. You make cocking a gun seem like a huge effort. In other words, your viewpoint seems very like that of someone who has never been trained to use a machine efficiently, and would therefore be expected to understand how easy it can become to operate a machine, however simple or complex, when you are used to doing it.

[Username]

quote:

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

Username wrote:

Many people , including myself, are suggesting that also! Furthermore, if there were 'extra' BRENs in the TOE, then they should be in squads so that when you split them, the squad will have a half squad with two BRENs in it and the remainder having rifle/smg. I have also suggested that platoon HQ could have a built in BREN or maybe the other HQs.

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

"It is you who is making all the ahistorical suggestions. There is no precedent for putting the extra Brens from the TO&E into squads or HQ units, but bizarrely you are desperate to see this happen. Anything but model them individually."

Again, repeat, NOT JUST ME. Reread the Bren thread, other people say as much also. In fact, on the first page of the thread! Its not just me. you are focusing on me because you feel that gives you leverage because of some percieved 'board villian' you make me out to be.

Also note your flip-flopping about equating the MG42 with the BREN in that thread.

As other people as well as myself have pointed out, the BREN support weapon would be no more of an asset than the presently modeled CMBO MG42 LMG (available separately). In fact, it might even be weaker. It would be subject to Jams.

The future modeled LMG/HMG belt weapons will probably have different characteristics. Even you have admitted that the BREN should not get these attributes as much (after flip-flopping in the other thread). I brought up this issue and I have 'say' in threads so don't tell me where I can post and don't advise others how to think. It only makes you look WEak.

At this point, you have painted yourself into some corner where you will accept nothing but correctness and weakness at all costs. Unfortunately the game has abstractions in many areas.

You never call out from the top of holy mount BREN to the gods of BTS. You rather want to have everyone here think the way you do instead.

Why dont you put some effort into contacting BTS? You arent changing my mind with your heavy handed converting at the stake mentality.

Lewis

[Tero]

http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary/def/6/0/8/5/6085200.html

machine gun Ordnance. 1. an automatic weapon firing small-arms ammunition of .60 caliber or less; as opposed to an automatic rifle, it is capable of longer sustained fire than an automatic rifle and is usually fired from a mount rather than hand-held.an automatic weapon firing small-arms ammunition of .60 caliber or less; as opposed to an automatic rifle, it is capable of longer sustained fire than an automatic rifle and is usually fired from a mount rather than hand-held.

http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary/def/6/0/8/5/6085200.html

light machine gun Ordnance. 1. in U.S. military usage, any machine gun of .30 caliber or less, excluding fully submachine guns, automatic rifles, and machine pistols.in U.S. military usage, any machine gun of .30 caliber or less, excluding fully submachine guns, automatic rifles, and machine pistols. 2. in general usage, any machine gun or fully automatic rifle weighing approximately 20 to 30 pounds with its mount.in general usage, any machine gun or fully automatic rifle weighing approximately 20 to 30 pounds with its mount.

So in English you can call it basically whichever you prefer and you are always right.

In contrast the Finnish term (strictly speaking) separates automatic rifle (SVT/SVS as opposed to bolt action rifles) and what is a (literal translation) rapid fire rifle (RFR later of for short) which referred to what was basically SAW (IRL even the SMG was initially treated as SAW in our army so that does not help much ).

The term automatic rifle refers to the method of reloading, the RFR to the employment. The distiction between a RFR and a MG is made (apparently) by the type of feeding and portability. If it was magazine fed and portable in one piece it was RFR, if it was belt fed and you had to disassemble it to move more than 100 meters it was MG. Hence the captured Soviet Detaryevs were RFR's, not LMG's since they had a IIRC 47 round magazine.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

light machine gun Ordnance. 2)in general usage, any machine gun or fully automatic rifle weighing approximately 20 to 30 pounds with its mount.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Under this definition, a BAR + bipod is a LMG.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So in English you can call it basically whichever you prefer and you are always right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep.

[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[David Aitken]

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

As other people as well as myself have pointed out, the BREN support weapon would be no more of an asset than the presently modeled CMBO MG42 LMG (available separately). In fact, it might even be weaker. It would be subject to Jams.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Despite this being irrelevant, it is also wrong. As I have said numerous times, when BTS enhances the realism of machineguns, they will all become more useful, including the Bren. As for jams, I thought all machineguns were subject to jamming. Again, you are singling the Bren out for attack.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I brought up this issue and I have 'say' in threads so don't tell me where I can post and don't advise others how to think. It only makes you look WEak.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't tell you were to post. I simply stated that, as long as you were behaving in the unnacceptable manner you were at the time, you might as well not take part in the discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At this point, you have painted yourself into some corner where you will accept nothing but correctness and weakness at all costs. Unfortunately the game has abstractions in many areas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea what this means or what relevance it has. Another example of Lewis-speak, an attempt to confuse the matter and strengthen your argument with decisive-sounding but meaningless statements.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You never call out from the top of holy mount BREN to the gods of BTS. You rather want to have everyone here think the way you do instead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have a very strange impression of my involvement in this discussion. I would be interested in exactly what aspects of my contribution here you think are attempts to convert "everyone here" to my way of thinking. As far as I am aware, I have only been speaking on the subject in question.

You also have an unfortunate habit of insulting or demonising your opponents. In this or the Bren thread you casually insulted Brian on several occasions, while he continued to deal with you in a mature manner. It is symptomatic of your inclination not to address the topic, but rather to attempt to "expose" what you imagine to be the underlying motives of those involved, and to argue your case from the outset not by dealing with the facts, but by dealing instead with the people involved and the related circumstances. One of your first comments in the Bren thread was to claim that it was simply an opportunity for "Her Majesty's servants" to complain. You chronically fail to offer your arguments any credibility, so it should come as no surprise to you when people start to focus on your self instead of what you are saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why dont you put some effort into contacting BTS? You arent changing my mind with your heavy handed converting at the stake mentality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never imagined that it would be possible to change your mind. What I have been hoping to do is limit the force of your confusion and Anglophobic bigotry in the discussion.

[Tero]

Under this definition, a BAR + bipod is a LMG.

If you are using the term "in general usage", yes. But if you are speaking about the term as used by the American military:

in U.S. military usage, any machine gun of .30 caliber or less, excluding fully submachine guns, automatic rifles, and machine pistols.

So what is LMG for the British is not necessarily an LMG for the Americans. Depending on who is talking and about which weapon of which nationality.

That would mean that the BAR is an automatic rifle while the Bren is a LMG. Or automatic rifle IF it is being fired by a GI. In the hands of a British soldier it will be a LMG. In the hands of a Finnish soldier it would be called a rapid fire rifle, not an automatic rifle or a LMG.

That would also mean that it should also be cathegorized in the support weapons elligible for use as a separate asset, under the British rules. The US rules imposed on it now are incorrect.

[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Username]

"Despite this being irrelevant, it is also wrong. As I have said numerous times, when BTS enhances the realism of machineguns, they will all become more useful, including the Bren. As for jams, I thought all machineguns were subject to jamming. Again, you are singling the Bren out for attack."

Aitken

Slight correction old boy, I brought it up numerous times. I brought it up initially. I brought up the fact that 28 rounds was the realistic magazine fill. And if someone were to be following the other thread, your comments here might be taken as another flip-flop. In the other thread, you claim that the new MG effectiveness has no bearing on the matters and here you are actually saying that BRENs should be eligible.

No. Jams are a peculiarity of support weapons. Might want to investigate that. Hence my comments about painting yourself into the corner.

In the other thread you distinctly said LMG42 and BREN were comparable. Then when everyone scoffed you lower the rod and say they are reguraly the same (or soemthing inane). So what do you mean? you accuse Slappy of rounding up or down? What are you doing? raising the bridge or lowering the water?

Should BREN be able to run? Should BREN be able to jam?

Watch out, you might get what you're after.

Lewis

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..

[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Username]

Another question is how long does it take to change the barrel?

[David Aitken]

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

Slight correction old boy, I brought it up numerous times. I brought it up initially. I brought up the fact that 28 rounds was the realistic magazine fill. And if someone were to be following the other thread, your comments here might be taken as another flip-flop. In the other thread, you claim that the new MG effectiveness has no bearing on the matters and here you are actually saying that BRENs should be eligible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I were you I would be careful about the comparisons you draw between my comments in this thread and my comments in the Bren thread. You have succeeded in drawing them together, but they were originally, and I continue to regard them as, separate topics. My involvement in this thread has been on the issue of the Bren's classification. My involvement in the other thread has been about the Bren's modelling in CM. It is you who has blurred the line between the two discussions.

However you have perceived my comments, my position has always been that the Bren would indeed benefit from BTS's more realistic modelling of machineguns. This does not, as you have persisted to claim, mean that the Bren will gain powers beyond its real-world performance. It will simply gain a more realistic representation within its capabilities, as will all other machineguns. I think you may be confusing yourself over my comments that BTS's improvement of machinegun performance has no bearing on the issue of the Bren being modelled more correctly. I was responding to your contention that it would be impossible to model the Bren correctly without giving it unrealistic powers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No. Jams are a peculiarity of support weapons. Might want to investigate that. Hence my comments about painting yourself into the corner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure why you think I am "painting myself into the corner". Neither am I sure exactly what you mean on the jamming issue. I understand that only support weapons jam in CM, and therefore, if the Bren were modelled as a support weapon, then it would indeed be susceptible to jamming. The issue of transferring the possibility of jamming to squad weapons is up to BTS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the other thread you distinctly said LMG42 and BREN were comparable. Then when everyone scoffed you lower the rod and say they are reguraly the same (or soemthing inane).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, what I said was, the Bren is quite capable of the performance currently bestowed upon the LMG42 in CM. It is ironic that your own bizarre logic and failure to accept the facts has necessitated my use of explanations which you are now turning around and using to confuse the matter yet further. It is increasingly obvious that confusion is an argumentative device of yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So what do you mean? you accuse Slappy of rounding up or down? What are you doing? raising the bridge or lowering the water?

Should BREN be able to run? Should BREN be able to jam?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More confusion. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by pulling random quotes out of the discussion and asking what I meant by them. If you understand English, then you will get a pretty good idea of what I mean by reading my posts, and the posts to which I am replying. However, as I am now quite aware, you choose not to consider what has been said, and instead make an impressive effort to portray it as nonsense, which it indeed seems like once it has received the Lewis treatment.

As long as you are unprepared to consider what is being said, then there is no point in me or anyone else replying to your posts. This is what I said in the other thread, and you accused me of telling you not to post supposedly because you would not agree with me. This is yet another example of your refusal to consider and respond, when you obviously prefer to wilfully misrepresent what has been said in an attempt to discredit the speaker.

Occasionally, you present what seems like a perfectly logical and reasoned argument. If you did that from the outset, there would be no problem. However, your technique appears to be to keep your logic until after you have frustrated the opposition so much that they are unwilling to discuss with you further, so that your credible argument goes unchallenged. Whether you intend it or not, you have a very clever and effective means to prevail in an argument – but for every credible post you make, there are ten which cannot be taken seriously. Therefore you should not be surprised when your logical questions go unanswered.

[Username]

Michael, Platoon HQs did indeed have a MG42. This was, however, mostly used as a spare for the platoon. They probably had a belt or two of ammo for the thing, but that is really only good for about one turn's worth of combat Michael, Platoon HQs did indeed have a MG42.

Steve

..and..

BTW, we only included the LMG42 as a seperate unit because they were assigned to some formations, such as the AT Company of certain division types. Generally they have no place in a CM battle since they correct numbers are found already in the squads.

Steve

Heres Steve from a year ago discussing extra MGs.

[ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Username]

"If I were you I would be careful about the comparisons you draw between my comments in this thread and my comments in the Bren thread"

(shaking)

LOL!!!!

[Username]

Any BREN gunner's here?

[JonS]

Lewis, several people with experience on the Bren from the armed forces of at least two countries have posted to this and the other thread. If you had read either thread - rather than just random snippets of Davids posts - you would be aware of this.

To answer your question about the TOE, the bren was used - as a seperate team - in many units. Read Simons' post on the first page of the "Bren: Not Sold Seperately" thread.

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

[Andrew H.]

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

To answer your question about the TOE, the bren was used - as a seperate team - in many units. Read Simons' post on the first page of the "Bren: Not Sold Seperately" thread.

[ 08-26-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not exactly what Simon's post said. Simon says ( ) that there were apparently superfluous Brens assigned to various units, such as the Bn. AT, etc. This is not evidence that there were separate Bren teams (at least, not for the purposes of CM). The most logical explanation for this is simply that Brens were provided to these crews for local defense. No one would go to the AT crews, strip it of two or three members, give them a Bren, and put them in the front line to support an infantry attack.

The mere presence of the weapons is not evidence of separate teams, any more than the fact that US tankers were issued SMGs is evidence that the US should have special SMG assault teams available.

However, the earlier point about the members of Bren carriers fighting dismounted is correct as far as I can tell and should be permitted when the CM engine is rewritten

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Andrew Hedges wrote:

The most logical explanation for this is simply that Brens were provided to these crews for local defense. No one would go to the AT crews, strip it of two or three members, give them a Bren, and put them in the front line to support an infantry attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this is exactly the reason why the LMG42 is modelled in the game – because it was attached to AT batteries and the like. If such formations are going to be modelled in CM, which they are, and these formations in reality had their own LMGs, then they should certainly be able to use them in the game, and for this reason they must be modelled as teams. Just like the LMG42.