Bren Tripods Redux

[Battlefront.com]

Simon,

Once again, the reason why Thread Hijacking should be a bannable offense is being reinforced...

The assumption that I'm trying to protect John or consider myself a self-appointed "bodyguard" being incorrect

This was not an assumption, but a perfectly reasonable interpretation. No, I did not think you said to yourself "John needs defending", but it came off that way none the less. I was also not just addressing those comments to you alone.

More likely I'd be commiserating with him.

Then do it in private email and don't continue your Slap Bashing in threads you don't even care enough to post in EXCEPT to "commiserate". This is certainly not the first time I have seen you do this either. Not even the second time I have had such a conversation with you.

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.

BS. You came into a thread you had not been a part of before to do what? Put in a constructive, on topic comment about Bren tripods? The history of LMGs? Their use? Nope, none of the above. You simply wanted to get in some digs on Slapdragon (or me, makes no difference since either is Thread Hijacking). Again, this is something I have seen you do many times before, so even if you are as innocent as you pretend to be in this one case there is a track record following you. And the same thing for Edward, and I would assume Triumvir as well by the tone of his posts.

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.

Well, that would be your opinion and not Triumvir's. And if John can't take a polite request for him to take the edge off his post, then I welcome him to never post here again.

An edginess which was in my opinion entirely justified

I do not think you are neutral enough to have an opinion on this matter. Just like Triumvir, your history of antagonism with Slapdragon is long and very well known. It was, afterall, the ONLY reason you posted to this thread.

which was quite mild compared to thousands of other posts here many of them directed at Slappy for some mystifying reason

And what of it? I do not expect everybody to get along. It is impossible for that to happen. But that does not, and will never, excuse abusive behavior. Apparently there is something in the Aussie culture that differs on this point, but that is not a valid excuse.

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

My OT post? That is not for you to decide, nor for you to correct. You start up your own BBS and then you will have the authority to make that call. As it is you, Edward, and Triumvir quite succesfully hijacked this thread. And it is something you have done more than a few times in the past, try as you might to paint yourself as some innocent spring lamb.

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

Amazing how you can just duck out of things you helped start like that. I see it differently because I have seen you do this before. And not just to Slapdragon, although he is by far your most favored target.

Simon, I am indeed quite disapointed with your behavior (not just in this thread) and dodging of responsibility for your actions. That might not matter to you one bit, or to anybody else, but it does to me.

Steve

[Triumvir]

Incidentally, I strongly deny any statements to the effect that I am working in deliberate conjunction with either Simon or Edward. Furthermore, I'm no antipodean. Even if some of them are rebranding themselves as Asians nowadays (which they may have stopped doing.)

Again, the only reason I stepped in is because I wanted to warn John Salt. I've watched him post on USENET the past six years; enjoyed his posts; don't want to see him stuck to tar baby.

No further contributions to this thread.

[Michael Dorosh]

Seanachai by God you were right about this one!

Now, send me a turn. I delayed looking inside this train wreck for several solid days, then I got worried and came looking for you! Did I mention you owe me a turn?

[argie]

Ummmmm... I have insomnia and I read a Bren Tripod Thread... What a mistake! I think I will never sleep well again

Two things, no one really important:

- Madsen model 1926 was standadized in Argentine Army and used until replacement by MAG in 1958 as Platoon LMG.

- JonS, a clock must be broken AND stopped to give the right hour twice a day, and not to be a 24hs model also

[Gyrene]

What is it about tripods that make people so angry?

Gyrene

[Battlefront.com]

Triumvir,

Incidentally, I strongly deny any statements to the effect that I am working in deliberate conjunction with either Simon or Edward.

Never said any of you acted in deiberate conjunction with each other. In fact, I am sure you did not. However, all three of you did the same exact thing for, almost certainly, the same exact reason. And it had the same exact result. So, although you didn't conspire to do this before hand, the results are identical. The thread was hijacked. Therefore, to me the conspiracy thing is totally irrelevant since it would be no worse if there was an offline coordination of postings.

Again, the only reason I stepped in is because I wanted to warn John Salt.

There is something called email. I respectfully request that you use it the next time you feel so motivated.

Steve

[ April 18, 2002, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

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,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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</font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

What is it about tripods that make people so angry?

Gyrene

Unlike the wife the tripod allows itself to be manhandeled into the position when you feel the urgent need to use it ?

Apart from the "Bren tripod in-out" debate this thread seems to be very much about terminology and doctrinal issues. (How it is rendered in CMBO does not really seem to be an issue, just an excuse. )

From where I sit it seems this is a case of technical characteristics of the weapon vs the doctrinal deployement of it. Some people seem to take offence when other people think it should be grouped up with the MG-42 (which was either a LMG or a HMG depending on its place in the organization) and not with BAR (an automatic rifle).

Some people seem to think a LMG needs to be belt fed to be one, others seem to think it was the doctrinal use of the weapon determines its role in the organization no matter what the mechanical characteristics. I belong conditionally to the latter school of thought. My frame of reference has conditioned me to call magazine fed, rifle caliber SAW's as automatic rifles while doctrinally they have been regarded and used as LMG's. Given that I would have to call both the Bren and the BAR automatic rifles. Both were SAW's. From what I have read the British army regarded the Bren as a LMG, doctrinally while the US Army regarded the BAR as an automatic rifle, doctrinally.

Mind you, there was no belt fed LMG in the British army at the time while the US Army had the M1917/19(?) LMG. Pretty much the only army to deploy a belt fed SAW during WWII was the German army with its MG34/42 family. This should also be taken into account.

[ April 18, 2002, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Battlefront.com]

Edward,

Noted - however if one is to throw around accusations of gratuitous behaviour one would do well to look at the first paragraph above -

As I have said to you and others, I reserve the right as moderator to spank people when needed. The other option is to just ban people without more than a "I find so and so's posts in violation of the rules, therefore they are no longer allowed to post here". One standard for posters and another for me? To some extent yes. Unfortunately, it is necessary sometimes because some people can not act responsibly.

if I had been targeting the particular individual YOU named there would have been much more input by me.

Whether you inteneded me or Slappy as the target, what you did was STILL wrong, unproductive, and otherwise of no value.

By the way - when was the last time I partook of the particular activity you so easily ascribe to me ?

Don't care to waste any more of my time on this. I've seen you enter into a fray just to enter it in the past. Granted, not for quite some time as far as I know. Even if I am mistaken, you clearly did it here so your behavior is not excused in any case.

Steve

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

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

The action of the BAR was imitated in such designs as the Chatellerault, certainly.

[snips]

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##)

</font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Traject0ry:

[big snips]

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.

[snips]

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. [snips]

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.

[snips]

The iron sights (replacing the earlier barrel) were also hard to zero as the aims tended to move from the shock of the discharge.

While that all sounds plausible on its face, I don't think it matches the facts. Despite the improvements in production engineering, the Bren remained a quality-built gun throughout the war (and incidentally my Grandad worked at RSAF Enfield Lock, the only factory in the UK to make Brens during the war). According to Hogg & Weeks' "Military Small Arms of the 20th Century" (6th edn, A&AP, 1991) The Mk 2 was in production from June 1941, and you are right that it had the non-telescoping bipod, as it was the variant that introduced the producton simplifications. This, far from being "shoddy", was the gun that must have done most to build the Bren's reputation for accuracy. The Mks 3 and 4 were lightened and shortened converions of the Mks 1 and 2 respectively, introduced in July 1944 with the intention of being used for jungle warfare but in fact used in other theatres too.

I'm not sure about the sights moving as a result of recoil, either; I've only ever fired 7.62mm Brens, and the .303 is perhaps a harder-kicking cartridge, but with 7.62mm there is minimal felt recoil, and sight alignment presents not the slightest problem.

The conversions to 7.62mm were not based exclusively on early-production or post-war guns, either; the L4s I used to use in the TA had date-stamps of 1943 and 1944 scored out on the sides of their receivers.

According to "Jane's Infatry Weapons 1975", the L4 conversions were made as follows:

L4A1 Converted Mk 3

L4A2 Converted Mk 3

L4A3 Converted Mk 2, chromium-plated barrel

L4A4 Converted Mk 3, chromium-plated barrel

L4A5 Converted Mk 2

L4A6 Converted L4A1, chromium-plated barrel

L4A7 Converted Mk 1, none made

All the best,

John.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

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

The action of the BAR was imitated in such designs as the Chatellerault, certainly.

[snips]

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##)

</font>

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Seanachai by God you were right about this one!

Now, send me a turn. I delayed looking inside this train wreck for several solid days, then I got worried and came looking for you! Did I mention you owe me a turn?

What else were they going to do? Another 'if pigs had wings, how strong would umbrellas need to be thread', with everyone covered and stinking from the results of the 'live fire' tests.

Bugger, do I owe you a turn? Hmm, yer roight, lad. I'm on it.

[Aunty Jack]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

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.

I suggest you go back and reread Donald's message if you believe that, Slapdragon. It is not supported by his comments. He makes it very clear, in the first sentence of his message, exactly how his father was utilising that Bren mounted on a tripod and it was not to "clear beach obstacles". Further, I would ask, do you know which Arm of the British Army is responsible for obstacle clearance and why I find it somewhat amusing that you appear to be trying to utilise this quote to support your evidence of the use or rather non-use of Brens mounted on tripods in an infantry role, particularly when you cannot it seems, even comprehend what it says?

[Slapdragon]

Ithink there has been a miscommunication, see below:

[ April 19, 2002, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Slapdragon]

What I think is also very interesting is that in the long drawn out gashing away over a modification that would not even be noticeable in the game, no one has yet, in six months, presented any sort of information to lead anyone looking at the issue from a neutral point of view that the Bren was deployed in any numbers on a tripod. It says something that with all the people who have looked, nothing has turned up.

[Slapdragon]

OK Aunty Jack, now I understand why you are seemingly coming from left field with this, you have not read his sentence:

My Dad remembers using one on the beaches of Sicily in the AA role (1943). He was in the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders and was part of a 'beach-brick' for clearing obstacles, covering landings of supplies, etc.

The man's job on the beach was doing the above tasks, of which the Bren may or may not have been of use (not stated). It was used in the AA role on a tripod.

I too figured that the Bren would be used in those situations because he mentions them in this paragraph of his short comment, and I really could see the Bren being used in a static role covering the mopping up stage of a beach landing. But it is apparent that it was not used like this, or at least he does not mention it. So the evidence from this comment is that it was really only used in an AA role on a tripod, and even that very rarely.

I most definately withdraw that post as possible evidence that it was used in static situations. I was wrong about this -- it is apparent that static situations may have been as rare as use in mobile situations as the evidence for it is so slim.

[Slapdragon]

[ April 19, 2002, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Stuka]

Whats a Bren tripod?

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Stuka:

Whats a Bren tripod?

Stuka, dear lad, it is a form of raw and badly preserved meat that will cause Grogs to fight like Pit-bulls for the chance to sink their teeth into it, claim it as their own, and warn off all others with their angry growls and threatening behaviour.

Alternately, it is a tale told by an idjit, filled with sound and fury, and signifying nothing.

Finally, it is a strange form of children's poetry as written by drug addicts.

beware the jabbering Grog, my son

the jaws that bite, the claws that catch

beware the running HMG, and shun

the frumious Bren Tripod!

Other than those, it seems to be a way of exposing one's self in a Grogly contest of 'whose information is more pointless'.

[Michael Emrys]

Seanachai, your rhyme doesn't rhyme. Come on, old son, you can do better than that. Have another try. C-.

Michael

[Aunty Jack]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

OK Aunty Jack, now I understand why you are seemingly coming from left field with this, you have not read his sentence:

That is extremely presumptuous of you Slapdragon, considering that it has been me, not you, pointing out that it is very obvious that you not I who has not read his message properly. I have pointed out, what, twice now that you failed to read his message properly. Again, I stand by my comment, you have not read or comprehended what he said.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My Dad remembers using one on the beaches of Sicily in the AA role (1943). He was in the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders and was part of a 'beach-brick' for clearing obstacles, covering landings of supplies, etc.

The man's job on the beach was doing the above tasks, of which the Bren may or may not have been of use (not stated). It was used in the AA role on a tripod.

</font>

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Seanachai, your rhyme doesn't rhyme. Come on, old son, you can do better than that. Have another try. C-.

Michael

True, you have me there. But, I maintain, it read fairly well. Unlike a lot of the whinging and posturing that's attended the totally unnecessary resurrection of this thread.

But, Michael, your point bears serious consideration. I shall ponder this. Indeed, one should post better attempts at poetry on a thread as weighty and significant as this.

Otherwise children might grow up thinking that the role of Bren Tripods in the European theatre of war was no more significant than bad poetry, or a bunch of otherwise educated and intelligent individuals casting bile and venom at each other.

So, better poetry it shall be! Because the other's a bloody given, isn't it?

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Aunty Jack:

It is included in the CES. Again, I ask, Slapdragon, you do know what a CES is? Do you realise its significance when discussing the availability of pieces of equipment in the British or Commonwealth armies?

Well, I can't answer for the egregious Slapdragon. But we of the Cess know what Cess is, and what it's significance is.

Basically, CESS is the concept of how many angels can relieve themselves on the head of a pin before they drown in their own excrement.

It's a lot more than you might think, as this thread gives witness to.

Of course, you have to apply the 'idiocy' factor, as the angry angels start shoving each other's heads under with derisive remarks.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

But, Michael, your point bears serious consideration.

Heaven forfend! I fear I must betake myself to a less humid clime. Farewell.

Michael