Bren Tripods Redux

[Battlefront.com]

Simon,

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.

If John can not engage in a debate with someone, especially if the other side is so easy to poke holes in, then I don't think he has much value to offer this BBS.

Self appointed "body guards" obviously think of themselves as being the spine that their self designated protectee lacks, which I think is a sign of disrespect towards the protectee. I've seen John enough to know he has a pretty thick skin and can dish it out as well as anybody, so I for one think he is perfectly capable of standing on his own two feet. He does not impress me as a frail old woman or a "I'll take my ball and go home" type of person. Your actions imply that he is possibly one or the other.

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

Hard to tell the difference when I see you repeatedly engage in this behavior against Slappy. I even wrote you a rather lengthy and well intentioned email about this some months ago after several incidents of this. An email, I was very disapointed to see never replied to.

BTW, notice that I asked John NICELY to refrain from getting personal. A perfectly reasonable request IMHO.

Steve

[ April 17, 2002, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

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.

I agree. If an honest intellectual debate can not be conducted here online, then there really is no point in having this BBS. Incidentally, that is the same reason why we moderate this BBS in the way that we do.

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

Good advice to be sure. I also think it is advice that others in this thread and BBS could stand to think about as well. Slappy certainly does not have the market cornered on the type of things he is "charged" with.

Steve

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I even wrote you a rather lengthy and well intentioned email about this some months ago after several incidents of this. An email, I was very disapointed to see never replied to.

Leaving aside everything else you had to say, there are a number of possible explanations for this:

(A) I got it, had a fit of pique, didn't bother to reply.

( I got it, replied, you didn't receive the reply.

© I didn't get it.

I'd be going for © if I were you. Maybe you should have banned me for not receiving it or somefink. I'm sure that would have got my attention.

[Battlefront.com]

Simon,

I'd be going for © if I were you.

Honestly, that was what I assumed at first, even though I know I have a working email address for you. I meant to resend it just in case, but other things distracted me at the time. Probably something having to do with a certain game So I'll obviously take your word for it and conclude you never got it. I'll resend it to you if I can dig it up since the same exact reasons for writing it obviously still exist.

Steve

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by JonS:

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.

Regards

JonS

I agree Jon, but finish the quote. I said e-mail me or let us start a new thread on the BAR and Browning. I wanted to do this since the BREN issue of tripods is a dead issue anyway and the noise had risen way way above the signal. Also, John Salt needs a chance to read at least Ezell and possibly one of the books on Browning I have (or a different one for that matter -- most should tell the same story). At the same time he is getting a lot of his data from the 1975 edition of Janes, I have the 1989 edition and it may take a while to find the 1975.

Since we both lack sources the other has, the subject is off topic, the subject is conceptual rather than concrete, and the tone of the thread quickly got ugly, I felt it might be better going to a new venue, either on the forum in a new thread, or if it was way off CM topic, just as easily handled by e-mail, although I always prefer the forum (you never know when someone like M. Dorosh will drop buy with a bunch of groginess and send me back to my books for a week).

[Triumvir]

Steve,

Thanks for the detailed reply. I guessed that fitting this behaviour in would be a real bear. I agree with you 100% on how hacks create bugs -- I've built enough apps to know that the 10% of crappy work you slam in the week before the deadline creates 90% of the bugs... and that it's usually better to rewrite than to shove three pounds of crap into a one pound caviar bag.

I'm quite salivating over the future of the rewrite -- will this allow us to create TO&E on the fly? Can leadership apply to different unit types i.e. a Panther be the equivalent of platoon leader for infantry -- or better yet, be led by a infantry company commander for close support?

(Though to be honest, hearing that all will be in the rewrite sends warning shivers up and down my spine, because having rewritten a parser three times so far to radically changed spec, I know that waiting for the rewrite can be iffy... but then again, you don't have the same ridiculous arbitrary deadlines that most programmers do.)

As for the hacks for swapping in a PPsH for an MP40, assuming that the two have different costs (since I remember someone saying a couple months back that the PPsH had 70 firepower at 40m range) will this still affect the cost of the unit? Say I buy a German platoon A with MP40s, is the swap handled when I load the battlefield or will I have to buy German platoon B with PPsH?

As for my entry to the thread, it was certainly inflammatory and full of condescension. This is because I genuinely dislike Slapdragon and his attitude. I think the clearest sign that I dislike him is that the whole point of my post -- to tell John not to reply to him because he's an energy creature -- got completely dropped because of my bemoaning what a <anagrams are probably inflammatory too> Slappy is. I'm quite sorry about that; once I set finger to keyboard, I completely forgot the point of my post because he annoys me enough.

Your point is taken, and apologies for the somewhat petulant tone in my first reply to you. In mitigation, all I can say is that I intended to make a contribution, but got so annoyed at Slappy that I forgot to make the contribution. <anagrams> do that to me. The residual annoyance tipped the scales and let me keep that first paragraph instead of just getting rid of it, like the other three I'd written.

Seanachai,

What can I say but the above paragraph.

JonS,

I'm not sure if the ammo for AT weapons is handled quite the same as the squad loadout in my proposal. As I understand it, the amount of ammo fluctuates in a band for each type. So for example, taking a random tank, there are 30-40 HE rounds, 27-34 AP rounds, 0-3 smoke and 0-1 tungsten. All in all the total number of AT weapon rounds can vary from tank to tank. (CD at the office, so can't verify this, alas)

To convert the analogy, for AT weapons to be handled the same way as my squad weapons suggestion, after this initial distribution, for each round there is a 95% chance that it would keep it status and a 5% chance that it would change to a different type of round. I can't imagine that BTS would do this particular implementation since the randomisation has already happened.

If the number of AT weapon rounds was fixed, however, at 30-30-2-2 and then each of these had a chance to become a different round type, that would be closer to my suggestion.

Of course, that's all moot since it's not going to happen till the rewrite and the rewrite changes everything.

[Aunty Jack]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aunty Jack:

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

Please note Marlow, I never said what you have me quoted as saying. I think you are placing John Salt's quotes in my mouth by accident.

Funny, the quote attributed to you by Marlow appears in your message of April 15, 2002 02:00 PM, in the second paragraph Slapdragon. John quotes it in his message of April 15, 2002 06:42 PM. Perhaps you should be more careful about checking your sources (again)?</font>

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Triumvir:

As for my entry to the thread, it was certainly inflammatory and full of condescension. This is because I genuinely dislike Slapdragon and his attitude.

Seanachai,

What can I say but the above paragraph.

Spoken like a gentleman! And you can't ask more fair than that.

As for Slapdragon, lad, you have to understand: We all hate him. Sometimes I hate him so much, I can't get to sleep at night.

But that doesn't necessarily invalidate the things he says. Sometimes, hateful as it is to even contemplate, the useless sod might actually be right! I don't know, surely, but sometimes I think he might be. And I do notice, despite his 'tone', that he will 'discuss' things.

Mind you, a dark street corner, no witnesses, and a scatter gun filled with light enough shot to seriously perforate his buttocks without crippling him, and me for a hearty 'Woot' and pulling the trigger!

But perhaps that's just because we're involved in a game, and he's being a swine about dying.

Mind, my taunts are way better than his.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

... that doesn't necessarily invalidate the things he says. Sometimes, hateful as it is to even contemplate, the useless sod might actually be right! ...

As they say, even a broken watch is right twice a day.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Aunty Jack:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aunty Jack:

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

Please note Marlow, I never said what you have me quoted as saying. I think you are placing John Salt's quotes in my mouth by accident.

Funny, the quote attributed to you by Marlow appears in your message of April 15, 2002 02:00 PM, in the second paragraph Slapdragon. John quotes it in his message of April 15, 2002 06:42 PM. Perhaps you should be more careful about checking your sources (again)?</font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Slap "Wall-o-Words™" snipped

As for Donald, I think he is saying his dad used thr tripod to fire at obstacles to clear them of enemy soldiers (like Anzio) and cover fired for supply trucks and the like. Both would be reasonable uses for a tripod mounted weapon.

LOL - you need to spend some time in the Army if you really think that.

[ April 17, 2002, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Traject0ry]

Uh, oh - you got me (again)

For my defnse concerning the accuracy matter comes a long off the record explanation and my sources are mostly men (though with the profession of war) so some is bound to be erraneous. So as briefly as possible:

1) Bren Mk1 is an excellent weapon. Comfortable to fire and accurate. The sad thing is that while making preparations to "Overlord" a high number of weapons were to be manufactured. Also the Pacific theatre was grieving for equipment thus forcing the manufacturing companies to sad sacrifices. As noted under the "Scots Guard" the further versions of the Churchill were improvements but such not the case with Bren. Mk. 3 and Mk. 4 were simply cheaper production models thus allowing the company to make the ordered number of weapons on a reasonable expense. The later weapons were shorter, lighter and lacking both the excellent barrel backsight and the adjustable bipod (for quick positions on broken groud it would have been a nice addition). More importantly as I mentioned earlier the costs were cut with eight to 28 %! Now we are talking about a weapon which had loosely trimmed parts to allow abuse by weather and user thus giving some sactter as fired. As the more shoddier versions had a more composition it gave both the chamber and the muzzle nose more room to move. In addition to this the aims (both rear and front) were experiencing movement when fired. The rest is self-explanatory. Now the retirement of Bren in the 80's means weapons used then which were mostly either earlier quality models, those few elite crafted of the war time productions and some made after the war. After the war (shouldn't there be plenty left over after the war)?!?! My former comment earlier was ofcourse a bit out of order but it was the factory that gave the Bren a 1000 yards effective range but when the men at field tested two of the shelf Mk.4's by bolting them down they both gave a large beating zone. The iron sights (replacing the earlier barrel) were also hard to zero as the aims tended to move from the shock of the discharge. The troopers were not happy. Happier they were with the few Mk. 1's they already had for training. As a professional soldier I am always assuming the worst case thus acting according to my training. The truth is that only very few of the wartime production later models stayed on service after the wars (WWII+Korea) and the training weapons used after the war I have seen are usually either Mark 1's or manufactured after the war. Stenguns, cheaper Brens and other second class weapons were shipped to allies while own pros got to make their picks first. The reasons for the retirement of Bren are many including it's small beating zone (admitted) but the evolution of Bren on the battlefield is a model example of mass over quality. Once more please feel free to criticize...

Damn, scanned nice (small) pictures of tripod mounted Brens but it seems they can't be posted here.

[Traject0ry]

Upsie, was in a bit of a hurry sorry about the missing words and typos...

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

Slap "Wall-o-Words™" snipped

As for Donald, I think he is saying his dad used thr tripod to fire at obstacles to clear them of enemy soldiers (like Anzio) and cover fired for supply trucks and the like. Both would be reasonable uses for a tripod mounted weapon.

LOL - you need to spend some time in the Army if you really think that. </font>

[flamingknives]

Now the retirement of Bren in the 80's means weapons used then which were mostly either earlier quality models, those few elite crafted of the war time productions and some made after the war

Just a quick pointer.

The Bren guns used in WWII (and Korea, for that matter) fired 0.303 calibre rimmed cartridges, whereas the Brens used from the introduction of the L1A1 (modified FN FAL)

up to the 1980s used 7.62 x 51 NATO ammunition. Even if the mechanism was the same as the 0.303 Brens, the updating of the barrels would have greatly improved the accuracy.

[Battlefront.com]

Triumvir,

I guessed that fitting this behaviour in would be a real bear. I agree with you 100% on how hacks create bugs -- I've built enough apps to know that the 10% of crappy work you slam in the week before the deadline creates 90% of the bugs... and that it's usually better to rewrite than to shove three pounds of crap into a one pound caviar bag.

Yup, that about sums it up.

I'm quite salivating over the future of the rewrite -- will this allow us to create TO&E on the fly? Can leadership apply to different unit types i.e. a Panther be the equivalent of platoon leader for infantry -- or better yet, be led by a infantry company commander for close support?

Yes, on the fly Order of Battle (which is the larger organization of units which are in turn dicated by TO&E) will be quite flexible, at least during Setup. On the fly TO&E will be manditory since we are going to Relative Spotting and a far more detailed C&C model. The existing command structure (Order of Battle) would hobble the realism of such improvements.

(Though to be honest, hearing that all will be in the rewrite sends warning shivers up and down my spine, because having rewritten a parser three times so far to radically changed spec, I know that waiting for the rewrite can be iffy... but then again, you don't have the same ridiculous arbitrary deadlines that most programmers do.)

As you probably know, at some point a code base becomes the master and the programmer becomes the slave. This happens in particular for complex hardware, UI, and simulation based systems (like a historical wargame). When this happens you are faced with only the ability to drag incremental improvements out of a progressively less hospitable coding experience. The choice therefore is to settle for small improvements or rewrite the code to incorporate lessons learned and a new foundation for new feature sets. One choice gets you 10% improvements for almost as much work as a rewrite, but the rewrite has the sky as the limit. So ask yourself... as a programmer AND a gamer, which route would you want to go? We already made up our minds 2 years ago to do a rewrite as soon as CMBB was done, and I can tell you that we are itching more than ever to do that

As for the hacks for swapping in a PPsH for an MP40, assuming that the two have different costs (since I remember someone saying a couple months back that the PPsH had 70 firepower at 40m range) will this still affect the cost of the unit? Say I buy a German platoon A with MP40s, is the swap handled when I load the battlefield or will I have to buy German platoon B with PPsH?

I'm pretty sure the swap happens AFTER the unit is purchased, so there would be no price difference. As you said earlier, it is in and of itself rather insignificant (adding perhaps a point or two) so doing it this way doesn't have a practical affect on the scoring system. Also remember that we are talking about one weapon out of 9 or 10 (depending on the year) in a Squad. While it might wind up making a difference for that unit, it might not make any difference for another (i.e. an artillery round comes down and greases the SMG guy before he fired a shot). This is quite different from getting, say, a Panther when you purchases a PzII.

As for my entry to the thread, it was certainly inflammatory and full of condescension. This is because I genuinely dislike Slapdragon and his attitude.

This is fine with me. You don't have to like everybody that posts here. But remember, the actions of others can make things as bad for other reasons or worse. Thread Hijacking almost always makes things worse. Attack the message not the messanger is a good rule of thumb. Or, alternatively, ignore the message and the messanger. But going out of your way to slam someone (after two others got in digs as well) just spirals things into uselessness. I thought John was doing a fine job debating Slapdragon's points, except that he was being unnecessarily pointed with his words. Having three people come in to flame Slapdragon did nothing to help John but only served to sidetrack this thread.

Your point is taken, and apologies for the somewhat petulant tone in my first reply to you.

Apology excepted. Please keep in mind that Thread Hijacking really is counter productive, as well as being more than a little aggravating to others who do not have axes to grind.

Steve

[ April 17, 2002, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Triumvir]

Seanachai,

I'm well aware of the phenomenon of (anagram)s occasionally being right. Slappy is certainly an (anagram). But his hitrate is so damn low and he takes such a long route getting there that the occasional hits are crowded out by the forest of misses and _ridiculous_ extremes.

Specifically, comparing underwear to Bren tripods is ridiculous; I'm even willing to claim that yes, nasty underwear can definitely distract the wearer. You try wearing disposable undies in the field for three days without changing, thanks to being shoved around here and there, tell me how uncomfortable it is.

But to group that discomfort with an item that actually reduces recoil, allows for preset fire along expected paths and generally sings and dances is like grouping a rat and a rhinoceros when trying to figure out how much weight a floor will take; yes, they both have four legs and they both have a tail but no, somehow the two aren't quite the same mass.

Gresham's Law modified: Slappy's idiocies drive out his good posts.

(A _slightly_ more long-winded version of JonS's post, which I just noticed...)

[Croda]

Hey, I don't feel like reading through all of this as it is terribly boring and I find it quite odd that something as innocuous as the tripod for a gun could bring out such passion in people.

So, for those of us less-inclined to give a damn about the bitch-fest portion of these proceedings, could one of you chums sum this whole thing up and give us a breakdown of what the questions are, their answers, and why this damn thing is being argued at all?

I knew you could.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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.

OK, but the mitt really isn’t the type of special tool that keeps the M60 from having a true quick-change barrel (it does). Also, the mitt is not, strictly speaking, necessary. I have used empty sandbags, towels and field jackets in a pinch. I’m not sure, but doesn’t the MG3 also need some sort of mitten to change the barrel.

In any event, the U.S. is replacing the M60 with the M240(MAG), so the mitten will be a thing of the past soon.

[Traject0ry]

Just a quick pointer.

The Bren guns used in WWII (and Korea, for that matter) fired 0.303 calibre rimmed cartridges, whereas the Brens used from the introduction of the L1A1 (modified FN FAL)

up to the 1980s used 7.62 x 51 NATO ammunition. Even if the mechanism was the same as the 0.303 Brens, the updating of the barrels would have greatly improved the accuracy.

So true but a complete overhaul of the service weapons was made during 50's explained by the wear and tear on the weapons but it could be considered as an attempt to salvage and repair as many of the wartime produced weapons as possible. Those weapons later converted to new service calibre were thus already in good condition. As a warning: Do not post through communicator while riding the Tube, you'll probably type like an illiterate idiot

[Battlefront.com]

Triumvir,

Specifically, comparing underwear to Bren tripods is ridiculous; I'm even willing to claim that yes, nasty underwear can definitely distract the wearer. You try wearing disposable undies in the field for three days without changing, thanks to being shoved around here and there, tell me how uncomfortable it is.

On this count, at least, I think you are not able to clearly see what Slapdragon said and why. I can because I have made similar statements many times in the past. My favorite is the Bovine MG42 Sponge, which I coined for just such occasions A Search of some of the Archeives should come up with many hits on this topic.

Slapdragon's point is 100% valid and it is something which we have had an unfortunate number of problems getting people to understand. And that is, just because A = B does not mean that A = C. The missing part of the equation is that B = C.

It is most certainly true that in some situations the Bren tripod would be an advantage vs. its bipod. But what situations and to what degree? And more importantly, would this difference even register as a blip on the CM engine's system? We don't have very good evidence to be the judge of this because we don't even have evidence of general use in a ground role. However, based on what we DO know we feel that a Bren mounted tripod would not offer significant all around benefits in the CM system.

Although I haven't used the underwear example Slapdragon used, I have used a similar US Army boot example. And that is US Army boots were apparently horribly designed and tended to cause great discomfort, trench foot, and other nasty things. This is pretty much an established fact. But to jump from that to a negative modifier for US troops is a rather big leap to make, even though it most certainly affected the real soldiers in some way.

My point here is that I think your animosity towards Slapdragon colors your ability to read and judge what he writes. This makes you prone to jump on his back simply because he wrote it, not because of what he wrote. I read the same thing you did and found it to be 100% spot on. Not because I have an undying love for the guy, but because it was in fact spot on and something I myself have stated MANY times in just such a way.

More food for thought...

Steve

P.S. I agree with Slapdragon that the Bren is one of those Sacred Cow things to some people, like the other things he listed. This can present problems when trying to have an unbiased discussion about it.

[flamingknives]

No guarantees on quality Croda, but here goes.

Bren Tripods aren't modelled in the game, some people think that they should be, as they have information about them in action.

Other people think that it isn't important, as they have information saying that they weren't widely used.

There has also been some comment about the in-service date of the BAR, and design influences of LMGs of various sorts. This, AFAIK has not been resolved.

From what I understand:

Tripods were issued and used by Commenwealth troops.

They weren't very common.

Tripods aren't as effective for a magazine fed MG as a belt fed MG.

As to why everyone's getting so worked up, I haven't a clue, but there seems to be some kind of mass offensive on Slapdragon.

Traject0ry, I don't quite follow your post. Are you saying that there were two major overhauls for post-war Brens? One maintenance and one calibre change?

You have to be on the Tube? Worse luck

[Battlefront.com]

And some more food for thought...

I am asking, no... demanding, that people DROP the flaming of Slapdragon RIGHT NOW. If you have a problem with him, take it off this BBS or I will take you off this BBS.

The petty bickering and flaming of people, carried over from thread to thread, is not only aggrivating, boring and against the Forum rules... it is also WORSE (IMHO) than anything Slapdragon is accused of. It is like someone complaining about a person peeing in public by squating down and crapping on the guy's shoes. I don't give a rat's ass who is the target of such orchastrated behavior. Enough is enough.

As I have said, you do NOT have to like everybody who posts here. Some people are BOUND to rub others the wrong way. That is life. Going out of one's way to flame someone because of this is absolutely unacceptable behavior.

Have I made myself clear enough or do I have to start showing people the door?

Steve

[Triumvir]

Steve,

Your comment about my animosity clouding my posts is fair enough -- witness my entry here! --, and is why I do not often reply to Slappy or talk about him. As I said, I get dragged down to his level when I start discussing stuff there, and I don't appreciate that.

As for the rewrite, I think we both agree on how a complete rewrite is usually better than an incremental stuffing, mostly because the experience from the initial write is _invaluable_. You guys are lucky in that you are your own managers and therefore when the issue of a rewrite comes up, you do not freak at the thought.

Thanks for answering my questions on TO&E and ORBAT; I promise I won't reply to Slappy again anytime in the near future.

[Simon Fox]

It's amazing what a good nights sleep can do to clear the head.

Paraphrasing something posted by Steve:

Self appointed "body guards" ....other comments along the same theme decrying the practise.

The assumption that I'm trying to protect John or consider myself a self-appointed "bodyguard" being incorrect, all other comments in the same vein are irrelevant, including the rather farcical suggestion that my actions imply that I consider John gutless or sooky. More likely I'd be commiserating with him.

I don't resile for an instant from anything I have written in this thread. I totally reject your suggestion that I'm here to intercede between John and Slappy or to flame the latter. In fact it is you who I disagreed with. If John decided to clear off it would hardly be due to the likes of Slappy. More likely would be if he drew the wrong conclusion to the boards administrator coming down on him, however nicely, for getting a bit edgy in response to Slapdragon. An edginess which was in my opinion entirely justified, which was quite mild compared to thousands of other posts here many of them directed at Slappy for some mystifying reason

As for thread hijacking, I was addressing your OT post.

If other people decided there was some sort of Slappy free for all going then that's their look out.

As a final point I note that this thread was started by John Kettler to whom I and my fellow conspirators fully apologise for making him an unwitting dupe in my devious master plan for a Slapdragon BBQ.

<---redundant smiley added for the ironically challenged