Bren Tripods Redux

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Just a note...

We looked into this ourselves and, oddly enough, came up with the same conclusion that many of the "anit-Bren Tripod" folks did. And that was the tripod was issued for AA defense.

[snips]

Anyhoo, even if we did see convincing evidence that they were used for a HMG ground role, we still wouldn't include them. Here is why:

[snips]

Here, let me feed you a couple of snippets...

"Mounting

The gun is usually employed as a light machine gun using a bipod but during the war a tripod was available. This enabled the gun to fire on fixed lines and could also be adapted readily for anti-aircraft use"

-- page 462, Jane's Infantry Weapons 1975, ed. Maj. F Hobart.

"Carrier fire power in defence

The carrier platoon should rarely be employed in the static role of increasing the depth of the position, unless guns so allotted can also be available as a mobile reserve. At night, or in fog or mist, the LMGs of the carrier platoon can, by means of the tripod, be laid on fixed lines."

-- page 207, Handbook on the British Army 1943, ed. Chris Ellis & Peter Chamberlain.

While I can see BTS' reasons for not modelling it, I don't see how it can reasonably be "disputed" that the Bren tripod existed and could be used in the ground role.

However, it's really not top of my list for things to add to CM -- illuminating rounds, trip flares, the Dingo, the Humber Light Recce Car (two of the commonest pieces of light armour in the BLA), the Sd Kfz 222 and the Littlejohn adapter all come higher up the list.

Mind you, it's nice to dream about the carrier platoon being modelled so that it is possible to cram the full complement of armament on the carriers, and have the option to dismount Brens, put them on tripods, and also go housebreaking with PIATs in the high-angle mortar role (while shooting low-angle 2-in mortar bombs in through the windows).

Honestly, I think the whole Bren tripod thing is probably wins the BBS' "Much Ado About Nothing Award" hands down

[snips]

Riiiighht...

You have seen, have you, page 55 of Ellis & Chamberlain's "Schmeisser", where it points out that the Steyr-Solothurn SI-100 SMG could be fitted with a tripod?

:eek:

All the best,

John.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

[qb]Somebody certainly needs to look a great deal more carefully, I agree.

Don't worry, we will get you up to speed.

Well, you have agreed that the concept of "marching fire" quickly became defunct (apart from Patton's resurrection of it in 3rd Army during WW2). How a weapon designed to fulfil a defunct role could possibly "call the tune" of later development is a bit hard to see.

Well, first you are making some serious errors of assumption. First you assume that a weapon whose patent was applied for in 1917 was not contemplated, worked on, designed, or presented earlier. The only way your assumption would work is if a weapon took only a day or two to design and then was thrown into production on day three -- clearly you have a old testemant / biblical view of the world with regards to arms development.

In fact, this would seem sort of absurd at the very least. The gas system for a man portable rifle was under works by Browning in the late 1890s. The bolt design was patent let at the turn of the century. Shoulder arm versions of a semi-automatic rifle firing on a similar patern to the BAR went into commercial production at the turn of the century. BAR mockups -- much different than the BAR of army specifications, but with noticeable family lineage, were around from before the war in Europe even started.

The next is the assumption that the Browning was designed for marching fire. Browning's concept was to produce a weapon to create a base of fire from which troops could advance in rushes. He felt this needed a shoulder fired automatic weapon carried by one man.

The action of the BAR was imitated in such designs as the Chatellerault, certainly. The idea that the BAR was influential on the development of LMG tactics, however, would be the utter tosh.

Only if you are ignorant of the history of weapons design. The Bar design parts, all made by Browning, predates the Chauchat by years. (I should have noted that the Browning closed bolt may have come in part from the Chauchat, even those the gas mechanism was much much older -- the oldest BAR designs prewar were all open bolt. ##edited##)

The only class of weapons since the BAR to use fixed barrels and bottom-mounted magazines -- and after a time-lag of about half a century, which suggests that the BAR was not a great influence -- are those SAWs that are heavy-barrelled versions of existing assault rifles, and a collection of bastardised crossbred nonsenses they are.

Again, while it is easy to dismiss the influence of John Browning on weapons design, and the BAR on the thinking of weapons, and it is very easy to try and confuse an issue that Browning was looking for what the US Army was looking for with his weapon (he was not).

Really? The Browning company web-site seems to think that the patent for the BAR was filed on 01 Aug 1917.

Again, you are making the assumtpion that weapons spring magically from the forhead of Zeus.

I'm not sure what bizarre set of conditions you are intending to specify to show that the BAR was in some way a "first", but the Lewis was in action with the BEF by 1914, and the Chauchat by 1915. The Mondragon -- clearly an automatic rifle rather than an LMG -- predated both by several years.

If, as you claim, the BAR was standardised (before it was even patented!) in 1916, it still fails rather to be a first, either as an automatic rifle or as an LMG. The true trend-S(a)etter {<-- obscure machine-gun joke} was the Madsen, which saw action in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, and continued in service one way or another for 50 years or so despite never being "standardised" by anyone. The Madsen, like most successful LMG designs, had a top-mounted mag.

Reread my previous comments and address them, you have gone afield of what I said by quite some bit.

The Browning company web-site claims that the BAR was used in action in 1918, which is news to me. I doubt that it was used in great numbers, though.

About 40,000 were used in combat. I assume that means your operational definition for being used in great numbers is 40,001 or better.

Apart from the quick-change barrel, the Madsen embodied all those features years before the BAR.

Except that the designer of the ZB24 claimed influence of the BAR, and I have never seen a claimed influence of the Madsen. Not saying he did not have 40,001 of them in his attic, just that he did not claim influence.

And, to make you happy on this subject, his influence was to keep the best elements of the BAR deign but fix the rest. You don't need to look at this as a compliment of Browning or his rifle, it was the faults of the BAR, along with its strong points, and a desire to produce a better (lighter) weapon than the 15/08 which drove the design.

I've never heard of this ZB24 before, and cannot find it in Hogg's Encyclopedia of Military Small-Arms (where, interestingly, the BAR is not classified under machine-guns at all) or by a web search. Could you give a reference to your source for this, please?

Try looking in the Czech section of Ezell, 9th edition or better. My 8th edition has a rather nice write up though also.

There is a much older book, Talor's "Machine Gun Development" that has a nice bio on the designer of the ZB24-33. Mine was published in 1955. It is very academic, paper cover, no pitures, and looks typed, but it appears to be a great source.

I have a couple of other books on the ZB series that I will see if I can dig out.

[ April 17, 2002, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Marlow]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Are you saying that the "hip assault" position is not taught?

I can't speak for every U.S. Army training course, but I was never taught to fire from the hip, nor have I ever tried it (except when goofing around and burning up a belt of blanks), during several years when I was on a MG team.

The only mention of firing from the hip was when the instructor told us that it was basically a worthless waste of ammuntion.

Also, you mention that in the TA, you didn't often use the tripods. We carried the things quite often (set up at any lengthy stop), and even occasionally used them in the attack.

Originally posted by John D Salt:

FN modified the BAR after WW2 to include a quick-change barrel. For some reason I don't understand, American neglect of this feature continued with the M-60, which requires tools for the barrel to be changed.

Where did you get that information? No tools required.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Marlow:

Where did you get that information? No tools required.

Well, not tools, exactly, but an asbestos glove ("Mitten asbestos M1942"), as shown on p. 487 of Jane's Infantry Weapons 1975.

All the best,

John.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Traject0ry:

... Bren ... gives wild scatter while fired upon targets further than 300 yards away even when mounted on tripod...

Really? Got a source for that statement? It is my understanding that one of the reasons for finally retiring the Bren in the 1980s(?) was that its beaten zone was too small. Since the beaten zone is a function of the weapons scatter, this would imply that your statement is 180° out of snych.

Regards

JonS

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Traject0ry:

... Bren ... gives wild scatter while fired upon targets further than 300 yards away even when mounted on tripod...

Really? Got a source for that statement? It is my understanding that one of the reasons for finally retiring the Bren in the 1980s(?) was that its beaten zone was too small. Since the beaten zone is a function of the weapons scatter, this would imply that your statement is 180° out of snych.

Regards

JonS</font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

I also have problems with this statement, but I remember reading that Brens were being retired in some cases only because wear and tear was making them innaccurate in service...

Quite possibly - after 50 odd years your would expect some degradation Still, I think we both agree that for most of its service life the Bren was considered to be an accurate weapon - perhaps too accurate given its role.

So Traj, what say you?

Regards

JonS

Edit: goosed the UBB

[ April 16, 2002, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[flamingknives]

AFAIK, the Bren was retired when the British army switched to 5.56mm small arms and was replaced at the squad level by the SA 80 based LSW.

Both these weapons are precision fire support, or in other words, accurate They are used to fire short bursts out to about 500 m with greater accuracy than the squad rifles, being equipped with a bipod.

As for comments about GMPGs and SAWs being irrelevent to WWII, these are types of weapons, not a specific one (MG42 is a GPMG and Brens, BARs and MG42s[light role] are SAWs) References to modern weapons are used as comparison.

[Battlefront.com]

John D. Salt wrote:

While I can see BTS' reasons for not modelling it

I'm glad you do. This position of ours has been lost on several people in the past.

I don't see how it can reasonably be "disputed" that the Bren tripod existed and could be used in the ground role.

The dispute is more along the lines of were they in fact used in the ground role, regullarly during the course of the war in Northwestern Europe. We don't have much, if any, evidence of that. We do have some anicdotal evidence from veterans that they didn't use them. This would not be the first piece of kit produced, issued, and lugged around, yet not used very much.

What was asked for before, during the last half dozen go arounds, was even modest evidence that they were in fact used in the ground role applicable to CM's scope and timeframe as their proponants claimed. If they were indeed issued and used in such huge numbers this shouldn't be too difficult to prove. But if there was a thread or source which established this, I did not see it. I did see some evidence to the contrary, which means that for now this is the side we sit on.

However, it's really not top of my list for things to add to CM -- illuminating rounds, trip flares, the Dingo, the Humber Light Recce Car (two of the commonest pieces of light armour in the BLA), the Sd Kfz 222 and the Littlejohn adapter all come higher up the list.

Well, all of these things will come in time. Many years' time by the looks of our development schedule

Well, not tools, exactly, but an asbestos glove ("Mitten asbestos M1942"), as shown on p. 487 of Jane's Infantry Weapons 1975.

Hmmm... I don't know what your point is. The MG34/42 also required an asbestos pad to remove the barrel. Since the M60 was closely modeled after the MG42 in many ways, this isn't very surprising to me. But what is your point? That the guns are badly designed ("neglect" in your words) because they get hot when 200 rounds or so are fired through with little time for cooling? If barrel changes did require "tools" (like a special wrench or something, not a glove) that would be a rather silly thing from a design standpoint. Better than not being able to swap out the barrel at all, but still silly

Steve

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt:

[qb]Somebody certainly needs to look a great deal more carefully, I agree.

Don't worry, we will get you up to speed.

</font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

... I don't know how the AEF was organised, so let's assume a completely square organisation. This gives 4 squads x 4 coys x 4 bns x 4 regts = 256 squad automatics to the division, and multiplying by 42 gives 43,000...

Minor point: I think the above may be meant to read "4 squads x 4 platoons x 4 coys x 4 bns x 4 regts = 1024 squad automatics to the division."

With 42 Divisions in the AEF we get to a total of 43,008, as stated.

Regards

JonS

Edit: ZB-24, although, I don't think this the the ZB-24 in question ... its from the right time period, but it isn't Czech, and it isn't an LMG.

[ April 16, 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Battlefront.com]

John,

Could you please take the edge out of your posts? There is no need for it. If you have an issue with what someone writes, fine. Point out what you take issue with and state why you object to it. There is absoluely no need to toss in a bunch of "tosh" when having an intellectual conversation, even if you disagree with the other side.

Thanks,

Steve

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by JonS:

[snips]

Minor point: I think the above may be meant to read "4 squads x 4 platoons x 4 coys x 4 bns x 4 regts = 1024 squad automatics to the division."

With 42 Divisions in the AEF we get to a total of 43,008, as stated.

You're quite right. Brainfart on my part. I should also perhaps mention that the "4 regts" could equally be written as "2 regts x 2 bdes", as I understand the AEF has 2-brigade divisions each of 2 regiments.

Edit: ZB-24, although, I don't think this the the ZB-24 in question ... its from the right time period, but it isn't Czech, and it isn't an LMG.

That's the only ZB-24 I know, too; AIUI it is Czech, this being the Mauser rifle built under licence at the ZB works. Of course "ZB-24" just gives the name of the factory and the nominal year of introduction -- I believe the designation for an MG produced in that year would be vz ZB 24.

All the best,

John.

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

John,

Could you please take the edge out of your posts? There is no need for it. If you have an issue with what someone writes, fine. Point out what you take issue with and state why you object to it. There is absoluely no need to toss in a bunch of "tosh" when having an intellectual conversation, even if you disagree with the other side.

Thanks,

Steve

Funny, I was just thinking he was being admirably restrained considering the provocation. For all the history of the Bren tripod saga John Salt is not part of it and neither as far as I can see has this thread got much to do with it. John's just getting his introduction to the Slapdragon modus operandi, testiness is the natural initial reaction. As we can see he's already got it well and truely sussed out:

Inventing silly statements and putting them into the mouth of your interlocutor is a childish and unconvincing mode of argumentation, and I strongly suggest that you pack it in right now.

Very perspicacious. Don't worry, I'm sure he'll soon settle down now he's familiar with the nature of the beast.

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Big Time Software:

John,

Could you please take the edge out of your posts? There is no need for it. If you have an issue with what someone writes, fine. Point out what you take issue with and state why you object to it. There is absoluely no need to toss in a bunch of "tosh" when having an intellectual conversation, even if you disagree with the other side.

Thanks,

Steve

Funny, I was just thinking he was being admirably restrained considering the provocation. For all the history of the Bren tripod saga John Salt is not part of it and neither as far as I can see has this thread got much to do with it. John's just getting his introduction to the Slapdragon modus operandi, testiness is the natural initial reaction. As we can see he's already got it well and truely sussed out:

Inventing silly statements and putting them into the mouth of your interlocutor is a childish and unconvincing mode of argumentation, and I strongly suggest that you pack it in right now.

Very perspicacious. Don't worry, I'm sure he'll soon settle down now he's familiar with the nature of the beast.</font>

[Triumvir]

I think John is being admirably restrained in his dealings with Slapdragon, someone to whose level I refuse to sink. Slappy may have issues with reading and comprehension, not to mention ego; perhaps this is why he's happy to scull about in the tranquil pond of this BBS, rather than in the slightly less tranquil Big 8, let alone the alt.* hierarchy.

John has done a considerable amount of research in his time and is, unlike Slapdragon, able to quote accurately from other posts, remember what his position was earlier in the day, and provide cites with page numbers, instead of vague hand-wavings "according to Hogg."

BTS may want this BBS to be nicey-nicey; hey, it's their BBS and I'm all for letting them screen out behaviour they don't like. All I ask is that when UBB comes out with a killfile or a scoring system where we can filter out authors, they upgrade to it; in the meantime, we have no choice but to listen to idiots and tune them out as best they can.

For those who say that you can skip someone's post, I say that the mere name is enough to piss me off by association and I'll be very happy to not see it at all thankyouverymuch, a position nicely consistent with BTS'.

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by edward_n_kelly:

Haven't we had people reacting similarly to the "beastie" banned ?

I'm not so sure about that, you're exagerrating somewhat there. Possibly those who belabour the beast indiscriminantly with crudely fashioned cudgels.

[ April 16, 2002, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

[Battlefront.com]

Simon and Edward, gee... what a total shock to see your contributions to this thread. Tell me, do you troll our BBS specifically looking for opportunities to get your digs in on Slapdragon? Neither of you have been a part of this thread, so why are you hear now? Hmmm...? And at least Aunty Jack was a part of the discussion before he made a purposeful flame bait post. But in any case, kindly keep your own personal vendettas off this BBS. It is tiring to say the least and is, IMHO, 10 times worse than anything you accuse Slapdragon of.

And Triumvir,

BTS may want this BBS to be nicey-nicey; hey, it's their BBS and I'm all for letting them screen out behaviour they don't like. All I ask is that when UBB comes out with a killfile or a scoring system where we can filter out authors, they upgrade to it; in the meantime, we have no choice but to listen to idiots and tune them out as best they can.

Like your post?

Listen folks... if you have NOTHING to add to a discussion except to slam someone, please kindly keep it to yourself or go someplace else. We do not need any self appointed thread hijackers here. In fact, this repeated behavior is something which I am thinking is about time to make a banning offense. If your first post in a thread is simply to slam someone, I think the BBS would be better off without such "contributions" in the future.

Understood?

As for John, I am sure he can handle himself just fine without the usually bullies showing up.

Steve

[Slapdragon]

John, we should probably revisit this discussion after you have chance to dig into the history of the ZB series of weapons. If you are serious about discussing this we can talk about it either off line or in another thread with the animostity dropped. The history of the ZB series, and the BAR for that matter, are fascinating, but it is far for complex than just a weapon geting adopted triggering another, and the thinking of the time was very very complex. We both could learn from each other if we let it.

The ZB-24 is listed in the 1925 BRNO catalog. A gas operated belt fed machinegunm it was the basis for the whole ZB magazine fed automatic weapon line.

And I should have said. The BAR was adopted for marching fire, but the intention of JMB was to create a man portable automatic weapon of great reliability, easy use, and good firepower. Models of this weapons were around before WW1, an open bolt version was presented before war (which you can find by reading the very book you earlier quoted) and by 1916 the weapon in its final form was being considered bu the military. 1917 represents the adoption date.

By wars end 80,000 weapons were produced, 40,000 reaching military units. How many were used (or really, how much they were used) when they were issued is anyone's guess but they were used. I do not know how they would fit into the TO and E of the Eastern front, but since very soon post war they were being issued one per squad, I can make the assumption that this was the planned WW1 issue.

So, e-mail me, or lets start a new thread to duck away from this, if you want to continue this.

[ April 17, 2002, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Triumvir]

BTS, it's your BBS. If you want to ban people, more power to you. It's one way of suppressing dissent.

That aside, understanding the difficulties in representing offensive and defensive TO&Es which came up in this thread, may I ask if it is possible to assign a random TO&E in a future CM?

Let's take a hypothetical German squad as an example. The TO&E for it might be 6 rifles, 1 SMG and 1 LMG. For each unit in the squad, there is a 95% chance that the weapon assigned is in fact the weapon in the TO&E. But 5% of the time, there exists a chance that this may be any other weapon possible, including foreign weapons. There should of course be a weighted distribution based on the nationality of the user -- slightly more likely that it's a national weapon rather than captured (say about 25% more chance in general)

So Schutze Karl might be the lucky (unlucky, more like) person who out of the six rifles gets stuck with lugging around the MG34 that he inherited from the last squad he was in that got wiped out by the hordes of oncoming Ivans.

The likelihood of there being 8 MG-42s in the squad exists; but honestly, the likelihood is so rare -- say 10% to pick up an MG-42 times 5% repeated 7 times -- that I would think that the ahistoricity can be accepted. Sure, play balance is an issue; if you buy 1 company, there is a reasonable chance that one squad might have a non-standard TO&E weapon that boosts firepower tremendously. But that squad might also draw a rifle for their MG-42 gunner...

I'd think that the occurrence would be low enough that there should be no reasonable impact on cost, which will probably be absorbed by the bulk purchase discount. Since the user will not know until the game begins exactly what his squad's weapons are, the purchase menu showing only TO&E, this will also discourage the possible tactic of purchasing then unpurchasing then repurchasing until you get enough non-standard squads to make your opponent very very unhappy.

Scenario designers should also not be allowed to tweak the weapons. This is to prevent the deliberate ahistorical creation of squads equipped exclusively with MGs for use in scenarios.

The impact on the game mechanics is minimal. The coolness factor is passably high, though; seeing that one squad in the battle with an extra MG42 adds a small but valuable element of uncertainty.

The coding factor, however, may be a serious issue; given that TO&E are fixed, BTS may have written in optimizations based upon that assumption. Nevertheless, this isn't asking for it to be done; but rather how much effort it would take to do.

Should I spin this off into another thread, BTS?

Edit: By the way, all figures on here were obtained by the usual SWAG methods. Furthermore, as goes without saying, this should apply to all infantry TO&Es irrespective of nationality.

[ April 17, 2002, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Triumvir ]

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Steve:

[QB]Simon and Edward, gee... what a total shock to see your contributions to this thread. Tell me, do you troll our BBS specifically looking for opportunities to get your digs in on Slapdragon?

No I let numerous opportunities pass by. I can't speak for Edward of course.

Neither of you have been a part of this thread, so why are you hear now?

I'm here now because I value John's contributions to this forum and I wouldn't want to see him go away in disgust.

But in any case, kindly keep your own personal vendettas off this BBS.

Other people might have personal vendettas on this BBS, I don't.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Triumvir:

BTS, it's your BBS. If you want to ban people, more power to you. It's one way of suppressing dissent.

Ooh, that'll win friends and influence people! You're after being the next ambassador to achieve World Peace, and no mistake! What's your day job, lad? Customer relations for British Air? Australian Telecom? Or Microsoft?

Sorry, a word, Grog types and Pseudo-Grog types! We've got some money down on this one, and would ask that none of you lot read the Peng Challenge Thread, because we don't want the betting prejudiced by fore-knowledge, as it were. You just carry on in the way that you're so nobly going, and we'll just get some money down on...well, there it is, eh?

No peeking, now!

[JonS]

Tri,

is what you are saying, in essence, to treat squad weapons the same way CMBO currently treats AFV ammo loadouts?

If it is then I agree, and I think it would make a bunch of people happy - with the possible exception being Charles

Regards

JonS

Edit: key word missing

[ April 17, 2002, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

... So, e-mail me, ...

Why take what has been a reasonable discussion 'off-line' again? All you have then is the other members of the forum missing out on any info. Again. In that sense it's little better than ensuring a thread gets locked.

A counter-suggestion; how about reading and trying to understand what others write.

IMHO FWIW

Regards

JonS

[Battlefront.com]

Triumvir,

BTS, it's your BBS. If you want to ban people, more power to you.

No, I rather not ban anybody as recent events in the General Forum clearly indicate. However, "not wanting to" does not mean that I can shirk my responsibilities to keep this a civil and productive place (overall) for the exchange of ideas and knowledge. Or in the case of the Peng thread, idiotic comments about the heritiage of other BBS members

It's one way of suppressing dissent.

Sure, but that isn't the issue. What is the issue here is that three people (Simon, Edward, and yourself) came into a thread that you were NOT involved in AT ALL only to post negative things about someone in the thread. You didn't even make a pretense of being at all concerned about what was being discussed. This is what we call Thread Hijacking and it is totally useless and counter productive behavior. Didn't your mother ever teach you that if you don't have something nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all? Or put another way, if you don't have something nice to say about someone, don't go trolling around looking for opportunities to verbally beat up on someone?

Honestly, anybody that can not tell the difference between propper and impropper behavior has no place on this BBS. Step back, take a look at the situation as it is, and hopefully you will see that I am totally correct here. I don't require that everybody like each other, or NOT rub each other the wrong way, but overlooking purposefully abusive behavior would be a great disservice to the rest of the BBS.

That aside, understanding the difficulties in representing offensive and defensive TO&Es which came up in this thread, may I ask if it is possible to assign a random TO&E in a future CM?

Nope, simply because we will do better than that The entire way units are represented in the game will change with the engine rewrite. Not only will this allow for varried weapons assignments within units, but also more varried units withing units. For example, the Germans had dozens of different Panzer Battalion formations, especially in 1941. There were many different possibilities of companies, platoons within companies, tanks within platoons, and types of tanks within platoons. In CMBO/CMBB this is impossible for us to simulate. With the engine rewrite it will be inherently and elegantly supported.

What we were able to hack some stuff into CMBB, but I forget exactly what. The only thing I know for sure which has made it in (so far) is that the squad SMG for German units can have a PPSh swapped in for a MP40. Don't know if more stuff like this is possible, but I am hoping that LMGs can have a bit more variety.

Scenario designers should also not be allowed to tweak the weapons. This is to prevent the deliberate ahistorical creation of squads equipped exclusively with MGs for use in scenarios.

Correct. This type of restriction (which is evident in other aspects of CMBO and CMBB) will remain. You obviously know, like we do, that people will start making scenarios with full squads armed with MG42s, MP44s, etc. This is just nonsense. It is about as realistic as having King Tigers with lasers Well, OK, not that unrealistic... but unrealistic enough to be justified in preventing it.

The coding factor, however, may be a serious issue; given that TO&E are fixed, BTS may have written in optimizations based upon that assumption. Nevertheless, this isn't asking for it to be done; but rather how much effort it would take to do.

Unfortunately, it is a matter of what we call "bloody hacks". Meaning, there is no support in the code for such behavior and therefore adding it involves making changes which may or may be wise to make. Hacks are well known for being the main cause of bugs and unintended behavior. Kinda like making a cake and deciding "heck, I think I'll throw in a cup of chocolate chips and see how it goes" Might turn out great, might wind up causing the cake to not rise. And the only way you will know it is to wait until the timer goes DING! and then check it out. So one needs to be VERY careful about making hacks. Bloody hacks are to be avoided unless the pros are so friggin huge that the cons can be risked.

Should I spin this off into another thread, BTS?

Nah, I think my answer about allowing pretty much everything BUT the kitchen sink in the engine rewrite should pretty much sow up the discussion

Steve