"Howitzers vs. Licornes" Topic

Malcolm,

I just had to intervene on this – to stop my sides splitting! You will find with Kevin that when asked to produce the evidence to back his claims, he invariably invokes the English text and uses claims in place of facts. In his book, he lists several German books, but clearly ahs not read them, as those parts are drawn from recent English material. To be fair, he doesn't list any Russian works.

He famously had a rant in his own book in which he claimed other authors were simply jealous of the French innovations (p.75 of his book). His bizarre claim that gribeauval invented the bricole is made at least 4 times in his book – yet two boooks he referred to in his preparation show the Austrians are using in 1753 and indeed, it was in origin Prussian.

Now again, he seeks to further another claim about French optical sights being superior – well, yes, of course it was. The sight is in fact Germanic in origin – hausse is a German word after all, usually a prefix meaning "rising" (Haussemarkt for example is a rising stock market) and this sight is clearly shown in Austrian illustrations of 1769. The fixing to the barrel by devised by a Professor Lombard in 1780. yet, we have Kevin claiming as his rant goes into p.76 about Gribeauval where we have "his invention of .. the adjustable rear sight for gun tubes".

The elevating syustem was described by the author Muller (of the KGL and 1809 book fame) as "awkward", while Muller also points out that Austrian rounds were cast very accurately in graphite moulds, obviating the "go/no go rings" invented by Gribeauval.

We call these "bricole moments", a short ref to "copying third hand claims".

Strangely though, he doesn't now seem to read his own book! Above, Kevin says: "If you want to check what General Sievers said, it's on page 200 of Artillery of the Napoleonic Wars 1792-1815" – While Sievers does indeed say the French were better tacticians, he starts with "French artillery equipment was not better than the Russians".

Another example Kevin has touted has been the claim that Gribeuaval's system included an integrated tactical approach, which emphasised manoeuvrability and was taught in the French artillery schools. By this, I take him to mean du Teil, although Kevin cites this using the Nafziger 2003 translation as "The New Use of Artillery in Field Wars: Necessary Knowledge". The original was actually published in 1778, some way into Gribeauval's time of influence. There is an obvious flaw with this argument – the mobile guns were horse/Cavalry artillery, but these were only used by the French from the start of the Revolutionary Wars some 15 years later!

We would however expect to hear from Kevin with his best quote to back this up. On p.72 of his book, he quotes du Teil as saying "The proper execution of he artilelry is based on the art of EMPLACEMENT and hte directing of the fire to cause the greatest possible harm to the enemy and to give the greatest protection to the troops that it supports. Before the infantry and artillery can PROTECT each other, it is indispensible for the artillery to coordinate its tactics with the infantry or at least with the results of their principal manoeuvres and the greater or lesser effect with it will produce on such and such a manoeuvre and to judge their importance and the need to increase the rate of fire OR to change position" Now, aside from those last two words "change position", where is this an emphasis on manoeuvrability – especially when the emphasis is in fact on the art of emplacement?

In Kevin's book, words can mean whatever he wants them to mean – all hte better than he does indeeed produce the evidence to back his claims.

I am off now – I just had to wonder if Kevin read his own material.

Dmitry ('Malcolm'),

Thank you very much for the ‘Ad'iutant!' Link – very nice. I posted the link on the Napoleon Series Forum. I have the published edition of Krylov's work – it is a very useful study. I am glade that it is available on-line, as it is now out of print and very hard to find.

You are quite correct regarding the Russian artillery and its officers. Sadly, the vast majority of the published information is not available to those that do not read Russian. This is changing: The two volume English work published by George Nafziger, mentioned previously, concerning Russian tactics written by two Russian brothers; Mark Conrad has made available good quality English translations of Viskovatov, as well as a translation of an article concerning Markov's 23rd horse company in 1812; Bios of Russian artillery generals can be found in Alex's fine book on Russian generals.

For the Russian reader much is now available on the Internet. The Nilius work you posted; "Pokhodnyia zapiski artillerista – s 1812 po 1816 god" is available for download through Google; many Russian campaign histories are on Google, and published Russian documents (the massive 22 volume "1812" set is becoming available on Google) help provide a more balanced view of the Russian army in general and the Russian artillery in particular. I even found a German ‘precis', with much detail, of the 1820 Russian artillery manual, which was originally published in Polish in Warsaw – again on Google Books.

Hopefully, the two Pototski works on Russian horse artillery will be available on Google – Harvard, a participating member, has both volumes in its collection.

Current Russian publications are useful: Smirnov's work on the 1805 system, published by Reitar in Moscow is a good example. I was disappointed, however, that he did not use any of the period works, particularly the classic two volume 1808-09 Markevich ‘bible' on the system. He also did not use the Russian "Artillery Journal", one of the first to be published, which has much valuable information, including a period article on the Russian artillery ‘optics' <;^}.

I have spent many years assembling materials concerning the Russian Artillery of the Napoleonic period. I have in my collection: photographs and drawings of original Russian equipment, made in many locations around the word; all of the Russian artillery manuals from the 1750s through the 1820 Polish edition mentioned above; the two volume 1808-09 set of drawings and descriptions of the 1805 system; the available officer lists and promotion lists, as well as some of the available service records; the available regimental histories and published documents; all the period issues of the Russian "Artillery" and "Military" Journals; and the period orders and decorations lists.

Thank you for your several accurate posts regarding Russian artillery and its officers.

Steve

"We call these "bricole moments", a short ref to 'copying third hand claims'".

That definition doesn't seem to stack with the way the word 'bricole' is used on TMP nowadays – instead, it tends to be invoked as a jibe about arguments that become too obsessed with insignificant detail.

Malcolm,

Sir Robert Wilson's comment on Russian artillery officers: '…the artillery officers of inferior rank have not the same title to estimation as in the toher European services, for their education is not formed with the same care, and their service does not receive the same encouragement. To them is the toil and responsibility, but the honor is by no means assured them. Some favorite officer, completely ignorant of the science and practice of the artillery, is frequently in the day of action appointed for the day to the command of their batteries, and the credit is in the dispatches given to him for a service which depended on long previous systematic arrangements and laborious attention, with which he never was acquainted: an injustice mortifying to the corps, injurious to the individual artillery officer, and gravely detrimental to the general interests.' (page 22, Campaigns in Poland 1806 and 1807).

Tsar Paul started the reforms of the Russian artillery, the Russian artillery at the end of Catherine's reign 'the Russian artillery pieces were too heavy, and the artillerymen were not well-trained. There was no strict standardization of barrels and carriages. During peacetime, artillerymen were organized as infantrymen, and were trained to fire from various artillery pieces, but only in the beginning of a campaign were they given the pieces with which they served in the campaign. The artillerymen were not trained to maneuver their pieces, because most artillery horses were purchased at the start of a war.' -Zhmodikov's Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars, Volume I, page 25.

Tsar Paul reformed much of this, especially in organization and training, but at the same time he reorganized the Artillery and Engineer Cadet Corps, renaming it the Second Cadet Corps in which no specialized artillery education was given. The curriculum mirrored that of the Second Cadet Corps (formerly the Land Cadet Corps). Zhmodikov's, Volume I page 26.

This was circa 1800 and this placed the Russian artillery behind the French, British, and Austrian artillery in the education of its officers, and even behind the Prussians, as their artillery school was established in 1791.

The artillery train was militarized in 1803 (three years after the French) and Wilson remarked on the efficiency of the drivers and the excellence of the horse teams. However, 'the military educational establishments in 1800-1808 did not provide any special artillery training.' (Zhmodikov's, Volume I, page 62).

Artillery tactics were obsolete in the campaigns of 1805-1807, and there was no training in infantry/artillery and cavalry/artillery cooperation as there was in the French service since 1765. Russian command and control of their artillery at higher levels (corps and army) was very poor, and this continued throughout the period. Artillery officers such as Sievers and Yermelov tried to change things, but it was an uphill fight to get what they thought was a better way of employing their artillery.

This is from Zhmodikov's, Volume I, page 71:

'After the 1806-07 campaign, Major General Sievers, commander of an artillery brigade, wrote a report on artillery tactics and equipment. He wrote that French artillery equipment was not better than the Russians, but French commanders used their artillery more skillfully; they chose better positions for artillery batteries, and the actions of their whole army helped their artillery to be more effective. This was because they usually outflanked the Russian Army, so taht their artillery fire was concentrated at the Russian lines, and the Russian reserves were under a crossfire (though, at the same time Sievers noticed that the French liked to fire at a long range, elevated the barrels of their pieces too high in order to do that, and so their fire was not very effective). Comparing the ways of selecting artillery positions, Sievers wrote that the Russians usually placed their artillery on every hill in their position, so that the enemy could count almost all Russian guns. In contrast, the French placed their batteries of howitzers in depressions or behind hillocks, so that their artillery pieces could not be observed by the Russians. He also wrote that Russian artillerymen often fired at enemy batteries, and that senior commanders were partly responsible for that, because some of them liked to give orders to 'silence the enemy battery.' In order to perform this counterbattery fire, the Russian artillery expended too much ammunition and time.'

Enlisted artillerymen were trained in their companies and NCOs who wanted to become officers had to pass an exam given by the Artillery Committee. Those who were coming out of the Cadet Corps and wanted to go into the artillery also had to take an exam. The only formal education for artillery officers after 1808 was a class in the Guard artillery.

After 1808 Russian artillery doctrine began to change. Articles and manuals started to appear from 1808-1810, although Sievers' manual didn't get published until 1811. Much of what was published was copied from Guibert and du Teil, and French practices were adopted, such as how the ammunition resupply was handled in combat and how many caissons per gun were on the gun line. Artillery General Kutusaiv published his General Rules for Artillery in 1812.

Russian artillery organization continued to improve and was at its best in 1813-1814. Command and control at corps and army improved, but it was still in the embryonic stage compared to what the French were capable of doing. The Russians did nothing compared to what French artillery officers such as Senarmont and Drouot achieved on the battlefield with aggressively handled artillery. In the French army, that new doctrine had been developed in the 1760s and 1770s and their education establishment for artillery officers and NCOs was excellent (the Austrians had copied the French artillery schools for their own efforts which had very positive results in the 1750s and beyond). The Russians started late. Their existing education system for artillery officers was abolished around 1800 with detrimental effects to the arm. They never really caught up.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Malcolm,

Almost forgot-thanks for the websites. They'll be most useful in the future.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Widowson,

Apparently, the French howitzers had a longer range than the Russian licornes. At Borodino the large French howitzer battery was apparently hurting the Russians, and they couldn't bring it under licorne fire because of the ranges involved.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dave Hollins …

How can one continue to get cranky, and run off in a huff crying that they were ill treated by others here on TMP and vow never to return yet here you are ????

YOU disgust me sir ! you attack the person every time and shame yourself, this will only end with you running off crying fowl once again !!

My thread was about Licornes vs Howitzers and if there was any advantage of Licornes over Howitzers. You have used my thread to attack another poster yet again. You are NOT welcome here by me even if I cannot stop you but knowing you my dear man I have no respect for you or your academic credentials because of your attitude towards Kevin. If you wish to answer my original question go ahead, if not then please leave.

Shane

Malcolm,

Thx for the links, just wish I could read Russian ;-p

Check Wilson for the comments on the inferiority of Russian artillery officers.

Let us not forget that Wilson was stating an opinion in his book. Whether or not it was a fact would be open to conjecture.

Hollins is back? I almost missed that because the box was grey.

@Kevin F Kiley

The designs are very different, so it is interesting to think about the ranges. The Russian pieces are for smaller boulets and smaller charges --> less range. But they have longer bore --> more range (please see the links that were made above).

So, can you please describe with more detail about the ranges at Borodino, and where one can read about it? It is interesting to know that it was a question of range, not a decision to not shoot or the lack of ammunition or some other reason. Was there a report made by a prisoner ?

obusier de 5 pouces 6 lignes, boulet de 24 livres *, calibre 5 (système an XI [1803])
artillerie légère russe : edinorog (= the licorne) de 1/4 pud **, calibre 10 (système 1805)
artillerie de posittion russe : "edinorog" (= the licorne) de 1/2 pud ***, calibre 9 (système 1805)

* 24 x .4895 kg (le loi du 19 frimaire an VIII) = 11.75 kg = 25.9 pounds
** 1/4 pud = 4.09 kg = 9.0 pounds
*** 1/2 pud = 8.19 kg = 18.0 pounds

the licornes
picture
picture
picture
picture

lyamka (it is as it may be a bricole – for the men to pull in the the place of the horses)
picture
picture

otvoz (it is as it may be a prolonge – a dragging rope)
picture

the Markevich sight – 1799
picture

the Karbanov sight – 1809
picture

the boulets (it is in Russian, but may be OK for you)
link

the pieces (it is in Russian)
link

the equipment (it is in Russian)
link

the uniformes !! :-)
link

- un ami

Sadly Alte it is true,

Now we are going to be subjected to his rants and attacks on Kevin or anyone else he does not like. I find it very amusing how someone can run away crying vowing never to return and yet return.

what did he last say before leaving us last time ? oohh yes, something about leaving us to our fantasy games…the only fantasy here is Dave Hollin's promises to leave for good!

Un Ami,

I found that by accident when I was looking through Zhmodikovs' books last evening. I hadn't seen that before and thought it a good idea to post. The comments are on pages 73-74 of Volume II:

'At the same time, Russian artillery had a significant disadvantage: the unicorn was not well-adapted to plunging fire, because its barrel could not be elevated at such a high angle as the barrel of the howitzer, and Russian artillerymen were not well-trained in plunging fire. Ermelov wrote that , at Borodino, the enemy placed ieghty howitzers into the ravines of the Kolotcha River and Semenovskii Brook, so that only the heads of the enemy artillerists were seen, and Russian artillery was unable to silence or dislodge them. The maximum ranbge of Frnech howitzers was longer than that of the Russian unicorns. I.S. Zhirkevich, an officer in the 2d Guard light Artilery Company, writes that, at Bautzen, French howitzers fired at h is battery at such a range that he was unable to reply to them.'

I hope this helps. I would recommend these two volumes by the Zhmodikovs. They are available from George Nafziger.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Fritz,

Correct, that is Wilson's opinion. But it was based on first-hand observation as Wilson was with the Russian army as an observer and he admired that army very much.
Backed up by the material in the Zhmodikov's books, which are well-researched from Russian sources, the evidence is incontrovertible.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Un Ami,

Excellent references and very well done. You are a definite asset to this forum and I'm very glad you're here. Your contributions in a short time have been invaluable.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin: if two sources say something similar, then it is easier to accept the opinion of the one. I gladly defer to you on the veracity of Wilson on this topic.

Let me add my thanks to Un Ami for his contributions on this and a couple of other Napoleonic threads. You always bring something good to the conversation. We're glad to have you join us at TMP.

@Kevin F Kiley
@Alte Fritz

Thank you !! for your compliment to me.
:-)

"I.S. Zhirkevich, an officer in the 2d Guard light Artilery Company, writes that, at Bautzen, French howitzers fired at his battery at such a range that he was unable to reply to them."

His pieces would be then :
4 x edinorogi 1/4-pud (4.09 kg, 9.0 pounds)
8 x pushki 6-funt (2.48 kg, 5.4 pounds)

Here is a map of Bautzen :
link
one may click and zoom into the map

one can see the deployment of the russian garde – it is between Jenwitz and Bashütz on the left centre of the ligne of battle, in rebouts/redans/fieldworks
in front and to the left, at a range of 1.500 m is an heights occupied by the French
one supposes that the deployment is not perfect for the artillerie, but that it was needed to aligne the deployment of the russian garde with Blücher on the right
maybe it is better to say that Würtemburg should have been holding the little heights, at least with his cavalery, to protect the left side of the position of the russian garde

that said, it can be a problem of elevation and range that compromised the fires of the russian garde artillerie and was not a problem for the much heavier obusiers of the French (and firing on a target which will not move, they can make the necessary corrections for a long range firing)

but also (to me most important) it is the russian practice of setting the artillerie habituelly in works and then leaving it in the works, even if this is a bad place when the battle develops

this is especially a problem if the enemy has good obusiers, to put fires in at some higher trajectory, unless the works are well elevated (and at Bautzen, it was the opposite, the French standing upon the higher ground to make their fires with excellent obusiers)

my opinion, ok ?

Zhirkevich Ivan Stepanovich (1789-1848)
1795 – entered in the Shklov Nobles' Military School (later called by "Shklov Cadet Corps")
1805 – a junker-officer (officier aspirant) in the guard artillery battalion
1806 – a sous-lieutenant and adjudant in the guard artillery battalion
1813 – a staff-captain (capitaine 2e classe) and a commander of a company in the guard artillery brigade (previously called by "battalion")
1815 – a section leader in the artillery department of the War Ministry, later also serving as a representative on the special commissions
1829 – an assistant to the commander the arms factory at Tula
1834 – the governor of Simbirsk
1836 – the governor of Vitebsk
1838 – a major-general
1841 – retired, to write his memoires, published in :
Русской Старине (1874, т. IX – XI; 1875, XIII; 1876; XVI, XVII; 1878, XXII, XXIII; 1890, LXVII)

Here is a nice site with memoires about the general Arakcheev Aleksei Andreevich (1769-1834) (it is in Russian) :
link

Here is a little of a notice of the biography of the general Arakcheev (it is in Russian) :
rulex.ru/01010414.htm

- un ami

Un ami

I can only reiterate what Kevin and Alte have said, you are such a asset to us all here. Thank you and welcome.

Barry

@Kevin F Kiley

"I would recommend these two volumes by the Zhmodikovs. They are available from George Nafziger."

one supposes that they also helpful in the original russian
:-)

@Alte Fritz
"I gladly defer to you on the veracity of Wilson on this topic"
In French and in English, there is often Wilson behind the story, even as early as 1812 in French.
exemple :
Des progrès de la puissance russe: depuis son origine jusqu'au commencement du XIXe siècle
Charles-Louis Lesur (éd. 1812)

Wilson made his book in 1810, based on 1806 and 1807 – which led to the great defeat at Friendland and the famous Treaty of Tilsit.
So the comments of Wilson were mostly about a greatly defeated army, at least as it would be seen by French and English (maybe not the same to Swedish and Turks and Persians).

in all events, it was a army that was beginning its movement from a model of before 1805 like the Austrians and the era of the past to a new model like the French and the modern era

the changes in the artillerie are an example

it would not correct to say that the russian army made a full conversion to the best modern practices, even by 1812 or 1814.

but the changes and progress were very great – one supposes that seeing these changes in English (or even French) is not easy to do

and if the technical perfection was lacking, the numbers of men and guns and the ability to move them was not lacking

my opinion, ok ?

- votre ami

@Baztay

Thank you !! also very much

- votre ami

Un Ami,

The two Zhmodikov volumes were written in English. The greater majority of the reference material is in Russian, but the text I'm referring to was published in English.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Un Ami,

Have you considered writing a book or 10 on the Napoleonic wars ? You have an ability to find reference material I have never seen before and a knack of gathering and collating the information into a very user friendly way. You ability to find Russian source material and even more so in French would be an invaluable asset to all of us here around the world.

Do you have any projects in the wind ? and if so what are they ?

You obviously speak French, do you speak Russian? and any other languages for that matter ? I am sure there would be many Authors and Enthusiasts here who might value your ability to translate important works. The data on the Russian guns you linked to us is the kind of information I have been seeking for many years, to see it now at long last was a real shock. I would love to see it translated into English by someone. I really don't have the time to learn Russian.

oohh, and lastly. ever thought about migrating to Australia ? got a perfect spot for you at our war games table ;-p

Regards,
Shane

@Shane Devries

you are very very kind. I thank you ! :-)

one struggles with the problem of the languages. I fail usually, but if the history is very interesting, one can make an attempt.

the person "Steven H Smith" – he seems to find more than anyone
perhaps he will be our author ?

I would be very honored to go to Australia, it is a magical place with some of the good things of the USA and UK, and less of some of the not good things. And it is beautiful, and so are many of the women. :-)

You would be very happy to wargame with me – I have never won. When I was at university, years ago, my friends would make me commander of the fascists, to know that the victory was always with the good side.

Again, I thank you !!

- votre ami

I agree. Un ami has some very good information and ideas, as does Steven Smith. Perhaps a collaboration on a pamphlet?

@Luke Mulder

Thank you !!

- votre ami

any chance anyone can translate the Russian website gun stats and spread the info for us all ? I really would appreciate it as would many of us I believe…

this one :

link

for example

Nice information regarding Russian artillery in:

Zeitschrift für Kunst, Wissenschaft, und Geschichte des Krieges, 1827 Vol 9, Heft 3, Pp 260-289:

link

This information comes from the Polish edition of the Russian artillery regulations published in Warsaw in 1820:

Kosinski, Jan. Zasady nauki artylleryi z rossyiskiego na polski jeryk przetlomaczone, przez J. Kosinskiego. 2 vols. Warsaw: W Drukarni Kommissyi Rzadowej Woyny, 1820. [14] folded p. of plates : ill. 4o; 26 cm.

Try this link.
You will need a translating program
- try googles its a free download.

history.scps.ru/cadet/00.htm

Regards
Barry

The text I mentioned earlier:

Radozhitskii, Ilia Timofeevich. Pokhodnyia zapiski artillerista, s 1812 po 1816 god. Artillerie podpolkovnika I…. R….. Part 1 (1812). Moskva: V tip. Lazarevykh Instituta vostochnykhiazykov, 1835. 22 cm.

link

one see it is true, Steven H Smith has the best infos!

:-)

- votre ami

Just looking through this thread, blimey it's heavy going! I thought the WWII site was bad, but nothing compared to you lot….Savage!
I love the way Un Ami ignores it all and plows on with his, top notch by the way, information, makes good reading, and, looks very funny wedged between the 'Venom posts'!
Shame he smells of Cheese.
(sorry, couldn't resist, it was getting to be a bit of a 'Ami love in')

Hey! the threads only get heavy when artillery, Napoleon, Wellington, the French, the British or the Austrians are mentioned, so obviously not that often, enjoy all the other threads!

and un ami IS top notch, wish my French was as good as his English.

Ludwig

By John 54
You are a typical English 'gentleman'.
Do you suffer from envy, is it just sheer malice or do you have a lump of Wensleydale for a brain?

Sorry I can't say best regards.
Gerry McGinty

Gerry

I think this was an example of "British Humour", usually best ignored. Hardly malicious in any respect.

K

Oh, for the love of god lighten up you idiots, read the post! I think his posts are very interesting, and excellent reading.

'I think this was an example of "British Humour", usually best ignored. Hardly malicious in any respect.'

My, we are sooooooooooooooooo superior, aren't we?
When, and if, the object of my gentle humour demands an apology, I will apologise, but, as un ami seems an intelligent sort, I won't hold my breath. It seems the response only confirms my initial post.

@By John 54

The joking is 100%+ OK …. it is in friendship, and can only make a man smile. No apology is to be thought or written, please !

It is for me to send my best greetings and thanks to you and all the others who have given to me their welcomes and kindness.

:-))

- un ami

By John 54

No it is you who thinks

Gerry McGinty

John 54

Actually it is a quote from The Beiderbecke Tapes by Alan Plater (and I am British) but if Plater is too superior for you then I apologise. Clearly claiming people have a lump of Wensleydale for a brain cannot be anything other than humorous, especially on a board with a febrile atmosphere such as this one.

K

Right, (sigh), lordy, this could take some time,
1. I well aware of the quote, I saw it on stage last year, it made me chuckle.
2. The condesending way you dismissed 'British Humour' was the seed for my 'Superior' Jibe
3. 'No it is you who thinks you are superior – typical English post-empire decline',
'Sorry I can't say best regards'.
Mr Ewart, you appear to have a sizable chip on your shoulder about something, really quite nasty posts, I was surprised.
4. The original target of my softly softly dig is, as I suspected, fine about it, what, really, is the point of this?
5. I repeat, for the last time, I find Um Ami posts very good reading, he knows his stuff, and is a gentlmen.
6. I apologise to anyone who is following the original thread, I never mean't to get into such a poisonous discourse!
7. Who'd have thought cheese could cause such a kerfuffle!

John

typically another thread is derailed and nothing asked in the original post is actually resolved for me.

Shane,

At least a few of us tried.

Sincerely,
Kevin

By John 54
To quote another English gentleman: 'Methinks he doth protest too much'

Gerry McGinty

Shane and Kevin
Sorry if I helped in the hi-jacking but I couldn't let the 'softly softly dig' go unremarked – my French grandmother (as well as my Irish one and my Cherokee grandfather) would have been outraged if I had allowed that English superiority to be aired without reply.
Best regards
Gerry McGinty

no problem at all guys, I am sick and tired of the continuous sniping and attacks made by people here for no good reason other than hype and personal gratification or something.

I do understand people who respond to attacks directed at them, believe me I have endured my fair share of that here. i just wish people would think b4 they post…walk away and think about what you say then come back and decide before you hit the submit button.

Things have been downhill for Britain since the loss of India.