The Bren LMG: Not Sold Separately...

[Subvet]

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

Read my lips. Ab-re-vi-a-tion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shouldn't that be "A-bre-vi-a-tion?"

[JonS]

Excuse me? Since when is using source material "trolling"? :eek:

By your definition Rexford, not to mention BTS, are trolls, since they make extensive use of source material.

Bad Rexford. Bad, bad Steve. Shame on you Charles. Put those references away, and just accept what everyone says.

[Simon Fox]

Could you possibly cite a dictionary source for your definition of cite as a noun, Andrew?

It may well be that in Amglish cite is a noun, though I have looked at two American English dictionaries and in both cases it was a verb. Generally speaking I try and restrict myself to dictionaries when ascertaining the meaning of a word.

My original comment was to Jon who is from around my part of the world and can be expected to know what I am on about. As can be seen from his response he did. If the rest of you want to get your backs up and start sooking about how hard done by, misunderstood and maligned you are then carry on.

I'm working on it Jon!

[Guest Babra]

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

Excuse me? Since when is using source material "trolling"? :eek:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How did you get that from one word? Or are you trolling too?

[Guest Babra]

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

Could you possibly cite a dictionary source for your definition of cite as a noun, Andrew?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One last time for the troll's sake. I use it every day in court. It's used as an abbreviation of "citation", a citation, of course being a written reference.

Are we done yet?

[Andrew H.]

It's a noun, a synonym for citation. (It's also a verb, of course).

Thousands of people spend time working as cite checkers. Lots of software is available to perform automated cite checking (such as Westlaw's CheckCite). All law students are taught how to do cite checking. You can even buy books on the topic, such as Deborah Bouchoux's "Cite Checker."

It's a word, and it's a noun. Its nominal (as it were) absence from a dictionary is a sign that the dictionary is not complete, not evidence that cite can't be a noun.

This is, I think, getting off topic. Althouth the topic has a certain tenuous relationship to Gen. McNair's contention that tanks weren't for fighting other tanks; that's what tank destroyers were for.

I suppose tenuous is the right word for the connection.

[Simon Fox]

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

Shouldn't that be "A-bre-vi-a-tion?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No that should be A-bbre-vi-a-tion

tut tut

Maybe it should be Aberration?

Anyway the proper abbreviation for citation is cit.

[JonS]

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

How did you get that from one word? Or are you trolling too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. And if it wasn't, as you say, directed at me then I apologise.

I got it from the flow of the thread - the previous several posts had been between your goodself and I, then suddenly you played the "Trolls ... :rolleyes:" card, so it appeared it was directed my way.

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's a word, and it's a noun. Its nominal (as it were) absence from a dictionary is a sign that the dictionary is not complete, not evidence that cite can't be a noun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's nominal absence from the dictionary is a sign that lawyerspeak hasn't made it officially into the English language. If in the halls of justice it has acquired, through laziness or other means, a meaning other than that it originally had then fine. Just don't be suprised if the rest of the planet isn't enamoured with the idea of lawyers making up new meanings for old words. If you use it as a noun then say so and explain it as such, but don't go trolling around trying to 'prove' it is one. BTW (just for you babs) Jon is not a lawyer and therefore should be expected to use it properly.

[Brian]

Getting back to the original point - Bren's.

Brens were issued with tripods, althought after 1940 they were rarely seen simply because mounting a magazine fed LMG on a tripod was not seen as being particularly tactically useful because of its relatively low weight of fire.

In general, Brens were rarely deployed away from their sections, so what I suspect the original poster is seeking is the exception rather than the general rule.

In a game like this, there has to be a balance between the detail wanted versus the playability necessary.

Personally, I'd like to see the game automaticly switch between two resolutions, one, for company sized games, would show individual men, rather than amortised sections. The second, would be for battalion sized games, and would look pretty much as it does now. The first would allow the proper manauvre and occupation of ground, while the latter would speed the moving of large numbers of pieces. The first would answer the calls of people who want to seperate their Brens and the latter satisfy those who don't.

[Simon Fox]

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

I got it from the flow of the thread - the previous several posts had been between your goodself and I, then suddenly you played the "Trolls ... :rolleyes:" card, so it appeared it was directed my way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yea, that would be just like my original comment on cite was directed at Babra not you. Even though I was addressing you directly. See?

[JonS]

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

I'd refer you to "Definition 1:"

Citation<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I'd refer you to "Definition 2:"

http://school.discovery.com/cgi-bin/dbarch3.cgi?matchent=cite&submit=GO%21

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Guest Babra]

I tire of trolls...

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Babra ]

[JonS]

Babra

* You contend that in your world "cite" and "citation" mean the same thing, and that one is an abbreviation of the other.

* In support of your claim you post the url of the definition of the word CITATION (which was never in question).

* I used the same website to check the meaning of the word CITE, about which there has been some ongoing debate. This website - which you originally introduced to support your contention - indicates that CITE is a verb (transitive), and not a noun.

* This website does not say that CITE is an acceptable abbreviation of CITATION.

Uh-oh, I see you're "bored" and have changed your last post before I could respond to it. No matter - the above is still true. It's just out of context because of your editing.

[Subvet]

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

No that should be A-bbre-vi-a-tion

tut tut

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah ha! You got me there. I was referring to the pronunciation and didn't even notice the spelling. I don't think you can type a shwa or anything on a computer, so I didn't try to type it out the way it should be.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

Getting back to the original point - Bren's.

Personally, I'd like to see the game automaticly switch between two resolutions, one, for company sized games, would show individual men, rather than amortised sections. The second, would be for battalion sized games, and would look pretty much as it does now. The first would allow the proper manauvre and occupation of ground, while the latter would speed the moving of large numbers of pieces. The first would answer the calls of people who want to seperate their Brens and the latter satisfy those who don't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like this idea. Perhaps not something that's likely to occur soon, but a constructive thought nonetheless...

Perhaps some will cry "Micro-mangement Pedantic Twit!" and throw insults...

However, I would enjoy the possibilities in a company sized game...

[Richard Morgan]

A policeman from Paddington Junction,

Whose organ had long ceased to function,

Deceived his poor wife,

For the rest of her life,

By the dexterous use of his truncheon...

Now what was all that about Bren guns?

[Simon Fox]

Well I take Brian's point, though I venture to suggest that he is really imagining two seperate games.

Since the game currently allows splitting of squads it hardly seems inappropriate to suggest that in future the splitting occurs in a manner which more closely matches historical practice. Nor would that be particularly difficult since it would be only a variation of the current game. The current half-squads are somewhat brittle and the addition of a couple of bods to the maneuver element might add a bit of interest to those small scale games where platoons are quite important. It may not be as good as the utopia of every man modelled but that is a giant leap and this is a little step.

Of course the game is not going to be changed at this stage but these discussions are all grist for the mill for future iterations.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

Since the game currently allows splitting of squads it hardly seems inappropriate to suggest that in future the splitting occurs in a manner which more closely matches historical practice. Nor would that be particularly difficult since it would be only a variation of the current game. The current half-squads are somewhat brittle and the addition of a couple of bods to the maneuver element might add a bit of interest to those small scale games where platoons are quite important. It may not be as good as the utopia of every man modelled but that is a giant leap and this is a little step. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i quite agree.

[Guest PondScum]

iirc, the last time that the "smarter splitting of squads" issue came up, BTS stated that they only added the current splitting model to make up for the fact that there are no dedicated infantry recon units in the game. Hence the reduced morale of teams - you're not supposed to rely on them for combat, just to trigger ambushes and (hopefully) only lose a team instead of a squad CMBO is fundamentally a squad-level game.

[David Aitken]

PondScum is correct about BTS's take on the matter. I would ask, if you suggest splitting squads 3/7, which part do you use for recon? The part that's almost as big as a full squad, or the part that has the LMG? This is not something I would like to see changed.

However, it is currently the case that you can get a German LMG as a two-man team. I believe this is because it is part of the TO&E for AT detachments and such, which also happens to be one of the reasons cited for inclusion of a two-man Bren team.

The Germans have a light and a heavy. The US have two mediums and a heavy. The British only have a medium. There is not such a good argument for providing BAR teams, because the BAR is strictly an automatic rifle and a one-man weapon. The Bren is a light all-purpose machinegun. The suggestion that there would be calls for SMG teams is a bit out of hand.

So the question I would ask is, why is there no light machinegun team for Commonwealth troops in CM, while the other two main armies have an equivalent?

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

[Pak40]

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

err, you can get seperate, 2 man, LMG42 teams. Not as a split from a squad, granted, but you can get them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err...Yes I know. I've been playing this game just as long if not longer than you. But I'm not talking about those separate MG42s. I'm talking about the MG42's that come as part of a squad(hence the use of the phrase "Squad organic"), then being able to "split" the MG42 or an MG42 team off of the squad.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife

I certainly never advocated detachment of the BAR or any of the respective SMGs. I believe i indicated in my original post that i understand why CMBO does not model individuals; a 3 man team or 7 / 3 section split with no morale penalty was subsequently suggested - hence the discourse on historical usage of separate Bren teams.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is that the BAR and Bren performed the exact same duty and were used in similar manners. How could BTS justify the making a BREN team without making a BAR team? I believe they made the 2 man MG42 team because it was often truly used separately from squads quite often.

[Ben Galanti]

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

So the question I would ask is, why is there no light machinegun team for Commonwealth troops in CM, while the other two main armies have an equivalent?

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think the reasoning is as you stated. The units were taken from TO&Es on the squad level on up and not to necessairly to have balance accross all of the nationalities. I know the lmg42's were a specifc part of some higher formation (which a grog will have to refresh my memory on), they are not supposed to be representations of a part of a split squad. They should be quite rare in their use, basically only appearing if a player bought the larger formation.

Now, if there is a specific Commonwealth TO&E that has Bren teams non-organic to platoons, that's a different matter...

Ben

[Michael Dorosh]

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

The reality is that until the game models individual soldiers (and their loads), we have to accept certain limitations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well stated.

The concept someone else put forth about two levels of CM - one company and one battalion - is an interesting one.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

I'm talking about the MG42's that come as part of a squad(hence the use of the phrase "Squad organic"), then being able to "split" the MG42 or an MG42 team off of the squad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I think the discussion has moved on somewhat from there. The fact is that British squads were organised on a 3/7 (some people say 4/6) split not the 5/5 split currently in force. I can't say what the practice of other nationalities was but maybe they didn't have an even split either. This is an entirely different issue to that of seperate Bren teams as pointed out by David and Ben. Their understanding of the BTS rationale for the German LMG teams is closer to my impressions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My point is that the BAR and Bren performed the exact same duty and were used in similar manners. How could BTS justify the making a BREN team without making a BAR team? I believe they made the 2 man MG42 team because it was often truly used separately from squads quite often.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I am not particularly familiar with US squad practices but as pointed out by David the BAR and the Bren aren't exactly in the same league. The BAR may have been a one man weapon in the US squad but the Brit squad actually had a 3 man bren element. The rationale for making a seperate Bren team is exactly the same as that for making an MG42 LMG team: they were part of the TO&E for a higher formation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, if there is a specific Commonwealth TO&E that has Bren teams non-organic to platoons, that's a different matter... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I gave that earlier in this thread. The infantry Bn AT Plt, mortar Plt and Carrier Plt had Brens.