|
feedmegin posted:Also sometimes people beat even long odds (e.g. Frederick the Great in the Seven Years War; he was fighting Russia which was ruled by an anti-Prussian monarch, she died, her son was all about the bratwurst and changed sides). Hitler was actually hoping for a repeat at the end of World War 2 when Roosevelt died. Also, the Bolsheviks in the Russian civil war. Fighting the rest of Russia, France, UK, USA, Ukrainian Nationalists, Poland, Japan, loving Ungern Sternburg, the Czech Legion, Imperial Germany, Lithuania, iirc Kemal Pasha with a merry band of Central Asians. This list is not complete. The mega coalition opposing them fought among each other, couldnt coordinate at all, and the Bolsheviks mostly manage to isolate and defeat enemies in detail. Arguably longer odds for victory then Frederick the II.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Just think about Israel, too. It has more or less thrived on being able to defeat its external enemies separately and in detail; Napoleon, similar. But you do need the enemy to be disunified enough to let you do this.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Slavvy's idea was practiced in southern parts of Africa before the 19th century. Warring clans would meet, throw spears at each other from a distance, and avoided all trying to kill each other in hand-to-hand combat. Sometimes each side would choose a representative to fight in single combat, and the losing side would accept defeat and retreat. Other times they'd fight with blunted weapons and accept that a defeat with those would mean being killed in a real conflict. Then King Shaka came along and when his enemies came to the battlefield for some ritualized shadowfighting, his warriors would encircle and kill them all. Or counting coup by the Native Americans on the Great Plains. Combat and warfare for them was less about killing all the enemy tribe's warriors and more about raiding supplies and livestock, taking their territory, generally asserting dominance. Killing was obviously part of that, but demonstrating courage in battle was more prestigious and honorable. So, you end up with stories of tribal battles where the victor pursues retreating enemies not to capture or kill them but to beat them with coup sticks to disgrace and humiliate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Or counting coup by the Native Americans on the Great Plains. Combat and warfare for them was less about killing all the enemy tribe's warriors and more about raiding supplies and livestock, taking their territory, generally asserting dominance. Killing was obviously part of that, but demonstrating courage in battle was more prestigious and honorable. So, you end up with stories of tribal battles where the victor pursues retreating enemies not to capture or kill them but to beat them with coup sticks to disgrace and humiliate. I seem to recall that such behavior is actually pretty common across all cultures with low populations who can't afford too many pitched battles - for that matter, didn't early Greek cities tend to only fight until one phalanx broke and ran, without much effort spent trying to hunt down and kill the routers? In general, I understand it works fairly well as a system for resolving conflicts with a minimum of bloodshed, but the fly in the soup is that there will always at some point come a bastard who isn't willing to play by the rules, which if the bastard came from the same culture is usually the point where history assigns the label "The Great".
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Or counting coup by the Native Americans on the Great Plains. Combat and warfare for them was less about killing all the enemy tribe's warriors and more about raiding supplies and livestock, taking their territory, generally asserting dominance. Killing was obviously part of that, but demonstrating courage in battle was more prestigious and honorable. So, you end up with stories of tribal battles where the victor pursues retreating enemies not to capture or kill them but to beat them with coup sticks to disgrace and humiliate. I'd go further and list examples from all over the world. War between ancient Greek city states was quite ritualised. As was samurai warfare pre-warring states period. Or Aztec flower wars. I suspect that ritualisation of warfare and deliberate limits on what can be done to combatants and non-combatants tends to arise when there are alot of cultural similarities between the warring tribes. It's not a bad strategy when you want to limit the damage, but still want the opportunity to dickwave and gain social status. Of course, all it takes is one tribe to up and escalate it, and the whole thing falls apart. Or an invading force that doesn't play by the local's rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
This is gonna be a broad question, but what were some of the weirder kinds of ritual warfare? Are there any that survive in modern society, not counting sports but not limited to states? Do gangs go in for single combat?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
I believe the Maori also had highly ritualized combat, though they were also fine with trickery and actual killing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:This is gonna be a broad question, but what were some of the weirder kinds of ritual warfare? Are there any that survive in modern society, not counting sports but not limited to states? Do gangs go in for single combat? No joke, I think a serious argument can be made for professional sports as a replacement for that kind of ritual warfare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
All around the world people have tried to put rules on warfare on the principle that once it's clear one side is going to win it's in everyone interests to mutually acknowledge that fact and stop fighting. Sometimes the ritual becomes more important than the principle, but that's not something that's limited in any way to warfare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:No joke, I think a serious argument can be made for professional sports as a replacement for that kind of ritual warfare. There are sports where people literally throw spears and fight each other with swords. Sports totally are a form of ritualized warfare, although one that has been decoupled from the function warfare performs in the modern system of nation states. It's not like Germany can challenge France in football, winner gets Alsace-Lorraine (not least because the French would have to be stupid to go for it :cryingjogilöw:). But if you assume that warfare also serves to give people a way to prove their courage and skills etc. then sports absolutely qualify. But people shouldn't overlook how ritualized even the Western way of war is. Combatants are required to dress correctly and carry their weapons openly. If they do well, we pin little bits of metal to their chests. Anyone who isn't designated a combatant is off-limits. Combatants who have surrendered can't be mistreated. Hell, before about the middle of the last century a state had to give advance warning before they could engage another state in warfare. The difference between that and two native tribes meeting at a previously agreed upon place to shoot arrows at each other from really long range is really not that big. that's not to say that these rituals are perfectly observed, but that they are generally considered the "correct" way of doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
^^^^ "We all go crazy in the style of our times" or words to that effect, I believe. Rhymenoserous posted:The whole premise behind the technology gap was stupid as gently caress too. It basically existed on the premise that when you build the plant that builds the plane you staple all the documentation on how to build the plant and the plane on the outside of that plant and oops if it gets blowed up we no longer know how to do that
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:^^^^ I think that's partly the relatively low production figures, the fact that they would have gotten knocked out in defending the Nazi war effort, and the fact that they needed a bunch of maintenance nobody cared to do for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
You also can't ignore the huge importance that institutional knowledge plays in that sort of large scale endeavor and how long it can take to build it back up. The whole set of skills surrounding running, servicing, and launching flights off a carrier is one of the classic military examples, but there are tons of other areas. I remember reading something (article? post? email? gently caress its been forever) by a guy who basically got tasked with researching and writing documentation for 10+ year old telecom equipment. Some firm had a rat's nest in the backend of their IT operation that was just layer upon layer of old and new equipment, not all of it easy to service or easy to replace. There was a management shakeup that resulted in someone getting the bright idea to encourage a bunch of the older techies to take early retirement, and they got caught flat footed not having any loving clue how to repair, service, or even operate some of the really old poo poo that was still churning away in the back rooms. Complex systems of all kinds can be a major bastard like that, and a lot of what goes into keeping some equipment running isn't neatly reproduced in a tech manual. I can imagine it would be a similar headache if, for example, every AWACS crewman dropped dead at the stroke of noon tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Its difficult and expensive but not impossible, "Tank Restoration" managed to restore a panther, albeit with some more modernish parts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You also can't ignore the huge importance that institutional knowledge plays in that sort of large scale endeavor and how long it can take to build it back up. The whole set of skills surrounding running, servicing, and launching flights off a carrier is one of the classic military examples, but there are tons of other areas. I remember reading something (article? post? email? gently caress its been forever) by a guy who basically got tasked with researching and writing documentation for 10+ year old telecom equipment. Some firm had a rat's nest in the backend of their IT operation that was just layer upon layer of old and new equipment, not all of it easy to service or easy to replace. There was a management shakeup that resulted in someone getting the bright idea to encourage a bunch of the older techies to take early retirement, and they got caught flat footed not having any loving clue how to repair, service, or even operate some of the really old poo poo that was still churning away in the back rooms. Looking at military acquisitions and stuff, I'm starting to think that 40k's build times for ships might be realistic, especially considering their workforce.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:There are sports where people literally throw spears and fight each other with swords. Sports totally are a form of ritualized warfare, although one that has been decoupled from the function warfare performs in the modern system of nation states. It's not like Germany can challenge France in football, winner gets Alsace-Lorraine (not least because the French would have to be stupid to go for it :cryingjogilöw:). But if you assume that warfare also serves to give people a way to prove their courage and skills etc. then sports absolutely qualify. Of course, most modern conflict has involved the guys following highly ritualized rules coming to blows with guys who ignore literally all of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:You also can't ignore the huge importance that institutional knowledge plays in that sort of large scale endeavor and how long it can take to build it back up. The whole set of skills surrounding running, servicing, and launching flights off a carrier is one of the classic military examples, but there are tons of other areas. I remember reading something (article? post? email? gently caress its been forever) by a guy who basically got tasked with researching and writing documentation for 10+ year old telecom equipment. Some firm had a rat's nest in the backend of their IT operation that was just layer upon layer of old and new equipment, not all of it easy to service or easy to replace. There was a management shakeup that resulted in someone getting the bright idea to encourage a bunch of the older techies to take early retirement, and they got caught flat footed not having any loving clue how to repair, service, or even operate some of the really old poo poo that was still churning away in the back rooms. That poo poo happens with in-house software for big corporations all the drat time. I used to work for a gigantic card payment processor and they were still using Win2K workstations and ANSI terminal shells to service accounts in 2008. This is a company that probably handles most card payments happening within the US and they were basically playing Merchant Account: The Roguelike. The place where I work now used to route their entire account takeover reporting queue (reporting as in to the authorities, they are drat fast about alerting customers) through an access database, which was accessed through a remote desktop session, to feed alerts to investigators. They've since shaped up and use norkom like grown-rear end adult financial institutions but that doesn't change the fact that nearly everyone in the company uses IE8 to do the vast majority of their daily work. The only reason the AML section was granted security permissions to use Firefox (miraculously allowed to auto-update) was that IE8 was rapidly becoming incompatible with so many websites that it was obstructing work that is required by law. Why? Because of exactly what you described: the wizard bastards who set that poo poo up were bought out and everyone's deathly afraid to try bringing it into the modern world at a pace any faster than a crawl because doing so would likely cause a nationwide if not global payment systems outage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Tech is hard. Battletech wasn't actually having problems with repairing mechs or building new ones, it just had a period during which it wasn't really possible to design new ones because nobody really understood the full picture too well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That poo poo happens with in-house software for big corporations all the drat time. I used to work for a gigantic card payment processor and they were still using Win2K workstations and ANSI terminal shells to service accounts in 2008. UPS was using custom logistic scheduling software for tracking trailers, flatcars, etc, that only ran on OS/2 2.0 as late as ~2005, when I left there. IIRC, It had been migrated to a virtual machine running on either Windows NT4, or Win2k, I can't remember which.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:UPS was using custom logistic scheduling software for tracking trailers, flatcars, etc, that only ran on OS/2 2.0 as late as ~2005, when I left there. IIRC, It had been migrated to a virtual machine running on either Windows NT4, or Win2k, I can't remember which. Is that why their trucks always reminded me of an amberchrome display?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I believe the Maori also had highly ritualized combat, though they were also fine with trickery and actual killing. IIRC (it's been a loving long time since I read about this) the two were pretty much mutually exclusive. You did war to gently caress people up. You did ritualised combat as part of a larger diplomatic strategy when both sides knew it was never going to be war and it was just a way of getting the upper hand in negotiations. Also the Maori pre-empted trench warfare :kiwi:
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 06:17
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I'd go further and list examples from all over the world. War between ancient Greek city states was quite ritualised. As was samurai warfare pre-warring states period. Or Aztec flower wars. I doubt that it's that so much as ritualized warfare acts as a way to settle disputes that everyone agrees upon, and the sort of conflicts that bring in people from outside the cultural sphere are generally ones where the disputes are too big to settle with ritualized conflict. See, for example, the centuries of hostility between the Navajo and Apache branches of the Dineh migrants and their neighbors. Ritual combat couldn't settle the issue of the Navajo wanting a place to live in comfort and the best places already being occupied, so you had long periods of ritual conflicts and ritual raiding that ended with the Navajo carving out a place to settle. The Flowery Wars probably aren't as good of an example, as they were only performed with the Tlaxcalans and not the other enemies of the Mexica like the Tarascans or Mixteca. They probably were part of a negotiated settlement to allow the Mexica to avoid a potentially self-destructive subjugation of Tlaxcala but still force them to acknowledge Mexica superiority.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I seem to recall that such behavior is actually pretty common across all cultures with low populations who can't afford too many pitched battles - for that matter, didn't early Greek cities tend to only fight until one phalanx broke and ran, without much effort spent trying to hunt down and kill the routers? In general, I understand it works fairly well as a system for resolving conflicts with a minimum of bloodshed, but the fly in the soup is that there will always at some point come a bastard who isn't willing to play by the rules, which if the bastard came from the same culture is usually the point where history assigns the label "The Great". It's not just low populations. Two groups in a low pop conflict are free to get vicious. But if you go all in at group b. then group b. is going to go all in at you then group c. is going to stroll in and take the cake. There's always going to be a sort of rough equilibrium between what you might call in game theory 'selfish' vs. 'altruistic' (pragmatic v. ritual). And then poo poo gets more complex when you throw in new players. And how well the actors account for new players. (Humanity is bad at long term thinking. Ideal perfectly rational actors who could trust each other would obviously never ever wage war.) Tomn posted:I seem to recall that such behavior is actually pretty common across all cultures with low populations who can't afford too many pitched battles - for that matter, didn't early Greek cities tend to only fight until one phalanx broke and ran, without much effort spent trying to hunt down and kill the routers? In general, I understand it works fairly well as a system for resolving conflicts with a minimum of bloodshed, but the fly in the soup is that there will always at some point come a bastard who isn't willing to play by the rules, which if the bastard came from the same culture is usually the point where history assigns the label "The Great". Meh. Phalanxes had all their strength in their cohesion. If the winners tried to pursue at the same pace they'd be open to counter attacks/rear guard actions. Cavalry played a big role in this. It wasn't a decisive arm but having 'horse superiority' turned victories into slaughters and defeats into relatively bloodless retreats. Much is made of the Ten Thousand Greek heavy infantry styling on their Persian foes but Xenophon notes that they nearly gave up all hope when their cavalry deserted them. Basically "we can win 1000 battles and never defeat the enemy, but if they win just once we'll all be slaughtered." The Greeks had some totally weird formalizations about recovering the dead, but they pretty gladly went at each other as underhandedly and effectively as they could before all that happened. Alexander (well, Phillip) didn't roll over them just because he had better tactics and weapons (and not due to less formalization either) but also because Thebes had worn itself out tearing hegemony away from Sparta which had exhausted itself scrapping with Athens. Those were not pretty wars. The end of the expedition to Sicily was basically "the were so dehydrated that they broke ranks and ran to the river, where they drank greedily even as the waters began to run red with the blood of their compatriots who were being repeatedly stabbed in the back by the pursuing enemies." If they'd all kept to their ritual wars and thus kept their manpower and treasuries intact maybe the Macedonians would have faced a harder time of it. Hard to say. Grand Prize Winner posted:This is gonna be a broad question, but what were some of the weirder kinds of ritual warfare? Are there any that survive in modern society, not counting sports but not limited to states? Do gangs go in for single combat? Dance battles!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
So I know literally nothing about the Napoleonic Wars and would love to read a good, intermediate depth work on the war. I loved Battle Cry of Freedom, which was recommended by this thread, so is there essentially a work of similar depth on the background, battlefield tactics, strategy and accounts of the Napoleonic Wars?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:This is gonna be a broad question, but what were some of the weirder kinds of ritual warfare? Are there any that survive in modern society, not counting sports but not limited to states? Do gangs go in for single combat? There have been wars fought with bows and arrows in Kenya between the Masai, Kalenjin, and Kisii, as recently as 2008, with dozens dead on each side. I've seen claims that the fighters in 2008 eschewed guns because it was considered dishonourable and too much of an escalation, and others saying it was because neither side could afford to buy guns. In a recent 2012 massacre, the attackers used firearms as well as bows and machetes. Either it's a case of violence escalating to the use of "dishonourable" weapons, or they simply raised the money to buy weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:This is gonna be a broad question, but what were some of the weirder kinds of ritual warfare? Are there any that survive in modern society, not counting sports but not limited to states? Do gangs go in for single combat? For modern ritual warfare, European football hooligans are the obvious example that comes to mind. You said sports don't count, but in practice the whole phenomenon has very little to with sports. Especially here in Eastern Europe, where they're numerous, extremely tribal and the source of most small-time gang activity. (Most hooligans aren't gang members, but most street gangs are affiliated with a supporter group, it's a very grey area) From what I know about their activity in Poland it's very similar to how tribal warfare is described: These dudes are obsessed with their dumb "code" which is straight out of an anthropology textbook. Basically, the default way to settle differences between rival groups is to meet up in a field outside town with previously agreed-upon rules (no weapons or no metal weapons, equal numbers or whoever you can bring, no kicking people when they're down etc.) and just beat the poo poo out of each other until one side backs out. Also you get raiding: it's OK to attack other clubs's supporters around town if they're flying the colors, but the goal is to capture scarves, banners and so on to display as trophies. Extreme violence and bladed weapons that can seriously maim or kill someone are frowned upon because it escalates things and attracts police attention, and guns are pretty much completely taboo. I don't think I have to mention snitching. It could also be an interesting study in how ritualized warfare is as much a game of "when you can get away with breaking the rules" as anything else. As far as I can tell, these are technically the accepted norms, but they get broken all the time and hooligans' verbal slapfights are all about who is "dishonorable" because they pulled a knife or went to the cops. Plus, since the whole subculture exists on the blurry border between "semi-controlled outlet for aggressive young men's tribalism" and "actual organized crime", once in a while the stakes get too high and someone gets straight up murdered over a turf war. From what I can glean with outsider knowledge, the groups are constantly doing a balancing act between the advantage from rule breaking and keeping face with the other "tribes". Acts of trickery, escalation or attacking civillians happen fairly regularly, but if you do it too much and get a reputation as stabby lunatics nobody will want to deal with you. Of course, this only functions as long as you have a unifying culture and/or ideology. Supporters of clubs that hate each other and are normally attack-on-sight will usually pull together against the cops, every year they put aside all differences to get together and riot in far-right demonstrations, and against anyone deemed an ideological enemy, such as in raids on anarchist squats, it's fine to use fire, machetes, baseball bats and whatever else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
The recent capture of Crimea was in some ways exemplary of ritual warfare in modern era: neither side wanted to start armed hostilities, but neither side would just back down either. So you saw this weird situation where invaders stand only meters away from Ukrainians standing guard at the gates of their bases, occasionally testing the defenders' resolve and trying to go through the picket line. I don't know what to compare these Russian "wall to wall" fight club things to but I'm sure there is a historical precedent... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub1r8E8k2YI
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
I've been reading about the book "A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan, which is a history of the Vietnam War. One of the sections in the book details the huge infrastructure the US military built for itself upon arriving in South Vietnam, to include things like power plants, milk processing factories, and huge department store style Post Exchanges. The thing that caught my attention was the consortium of Brown & Root and J. A. Jones, aka RMK-BRJ, or the pre-cursor to the huge military contractor Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) who has the contract for the current military chow halls, services, laundry, building maintenance, etc. in Iraq and Afghanistan. These companies typically get a contract to provide say a dining facility, hire a bunch of contractors from a third country like Bangledesh, and have very well paid American civilians supervising these TCNs (third country nationals) who usually make a very meager salary. My question is, what are some early examples of militaries contracting with civilian companies to provide labor or the types of services to sustain a large military presence in a foreign land?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Was the crossbow widely used at some point of military history?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Was the crossbow widely used at some point of military history?  (Detail of Hans Holbein, St. Sebastian Altar, 1516. What that dude's doing will take a while, so they either need to do it alongside some pike or use pavises.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Various Chinese armies used crossbows (and repeating crossbows) as one of their primary weapons, going back to the Bronze Age. In Medieval Europe they were widely popular because soldiers could use them without needing extensive training and great physical strength (unlike, say, traditional bows or the longbow).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Question about crossbows - were they more difficult maintain than early firearms? To an outsider's eye they look more mechanically complex. And if so, then you might not need all that much training to shoot one, but to keep it in working order on campaign you'd need to have some experience. That combined with their construction (more complicated than late-medieval bows, right?) would lent itself towards a state specializing in them. Why it was Genoa instead of somewhere else, though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Crossbows and muskets fill a similar niche, huge blocks of recently drafted peasants, that have been drilled for a few weeks, firing in mass formation. More readily available than hand archers who have been training for years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Crossbows and muskets fill a similar niche, huge blocks of recently drafted peasants, that have been drilled for a few weeks, firing in mass formation. More readily available than hand archers who have been training for years. Grand Prize Winner posted:Why it was Genoa instead of somewhere else, though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
It's pretty invaluable for both castle defense and attack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Question about crossbows - were they more difficult maintain than early firearms? To an outsider's eye they look more mechanically complex. And if so, then you might not need all that much training to shoot one, but to keep it in working order on campaign you'd need to have some experience. That combined with their construction (more complicated than late-medieval bows, right?) would lent itself towards a state specializing in them. Why it was Genoa instead of somewhere else, though? Don't quote me on this, but I believe crossbows are generally more complex and expensive to make and maintain than early firearms. The first matchlocks that could be fired from the shoulder with a trigger basically just had a spring-loaded pivoting lever that would lower the burning match to the touchhole. Before that, you were holding the match in your hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Early gunpowder is really expensive though, unreliable too. And difficult to store.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Early gunpowder is really expensive though, unreliable too. And difficult to store. At the same time the ammunition is really cheap, isn't it? Compared to other missiles anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:At the same time the ammunition is really cheap, isn't it? Compared to other missiles anyway. Well yes, but only if you choose not to include gunpowder in the cost. Which it practically is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:At the same time the ammunition is really cheap, isn't it? Compared to other missiles anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:58
|
|