|
HEY GAL posted:i have heard of night actions, especially during sieges--like if you want to try to force the breach then. i have not heard of an entire battle. presumably since your dudes are trying to avoid a battle in the best of circumstances anyway, trying a pitched battle at night would be pretty pointless. Plus you would have a bunch of captains having nervous breakdowns trying to form perfect squares and read their root tables in the dark
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:44 |
|
MikeCrotch posted:Plus you would have a bunch of captains having nervous breakdowns trying to form perfect squares and read their root tables in the dark I think that is the least of their worries when storming a heavily defended breech at night.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:presumably since your dudes are trying to avoid a battle in the best of circumstances anyway, trying a pitched battle at night would be pretty pointless. I don't think Hegel's guys are trying to avoid battle, I'm pretty sure that's a dumb Machiavelli falsehood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Plus you would have a bunch of captains having nervous breakdowns trying to form perfect squares and read their root tables in the dark Well, in my mind that's kinda the idea. gently caress up those neat and tidy tercios by turning it into a confused brawl in the dark.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I don't think Hegel's guys are trying to avoid battle, I'm pretty sure that's a dumb Machiavelli falsehood. I'm pretty sure Hegel mentioned earlier that there wasn't such a thing as a decisive battle and keeping your army as intact as possible in the face of constant attrition was the most important thing, so there wasn't the same sense of bringing the enemy to battle and defeating them in the field like there would be in other periods. I believe alternative methods of defeating the enemy like starving out their armies by control of territory and sieges were preferred.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I'm pretty sure Hegel mentioned earlier that there wasn't such a thing as a decisive battle and keeping your army as intact as possible in the face of constant attrition was the most important thing, so there wasn't the same sense of bringing the enemy to battle and defeating them in the field like there would be in other periods. I believe alternative methods of defeating the enemy like starving out their armies by control of territory and sieges were preferred. I'll wait for her to provide a more expert analysis but if you just look at the 30YW there are a poo poo load of field actions so the thought that armies actively avoided battle isn't directly borne out by evidence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
battle is a huge deal and in some cases it's definitely not preferred. it's best if you can win a campaign by maneuver. a lot of battles happen though. edit: i mean, the thing is that it could ruin your reputation if you lose, but if you win whatever you gain from it will only last a few years at most. But on the other hand the generals do like to fight, personally. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I'm pretty sure Hegel mentioned earlier that there wasn't such a thing as a decisive battle and keeping your army as intact as possible in the face of constant attrition was the most important thing, so there wasn't the same sense of bringing the enemy to battle and defeating them in the field like there would be in other periods. I believe alternative methods of defeating the enemy like starving out their armies by control of territory and sieges were preferred. Everyone has pretty much preferred to destroy the enemy by not fighting a pitched battle throughout all eras of human history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Everyone has pretty much preferred to destroy the enemy by not fighting a pitched battle throughout all eras of human history. if you force them into a place where they have no food so they start deserting to your army, you win twice 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:if you force them into a place where they have no food so they start deserting to your army, you win twice Until you have so many soldiers you outstrip the land's ability to feed them and lose your army. But wining twice and losing once is still a net win I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Until you have so many soldiers you outstrip the land's ability to feed them and lose your army. But wining twice and losing once is still a net win I guess. MatthiasGallasTheDestroyerOfArmies.txt
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:41
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Until you have so many soldiers you outstrip the land's ability to feed them and lose your army. But wining twice and losing once is still a net win I guess. It's fine, they just need to live off the land what can go wrong! the people are cool with that right?  Oh.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Logistics of war would be so much easier if our cultures were okay with cannibalism. Paradoxically this might have resulted in more humane ways of warfare, after all you don't want to contaminate your food with chemical weapons or pick pieces of shrapnel from your dinner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Kuru makes for poor marksmanship tho
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
You also need to figure out how to make your tanks and guns eat people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You also need to figure out how to make your tanks and guns eat people. This is already being worked on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetically_Autonomous_Tactical_Robot I hope they gave a prize to the team who worked out that acronym quote:Cyclone Power Technologies stated that animal or human biomass was not intended to be used in the waste heat combustion engine of the robot,[3] and that sensors would be able to distinguish foraged materials,[1] although the project overview from RTI listed other sources including chicken fat.[4] Yes, let's call it chicken fat... or soylent green or whatever. Agean90 posted:Kuru makes for poor marksmanship tho You should be mostly fine as long as you don't eat brain? Nenonen fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:You should be mostly fine as long as you don't eat brain? Whats the point of cannibalism if you leave out the best part?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Logistics of war would be so much easier if our cultures were okay with cannibalism. Paradoxically this might have resulted in more humane ways of warfare, after all you don't want to contaminate your food with chemical weapons or pick pieces of shrapnel from your dinner. During the siege/sack of Rome, Roman citizens demanded a market for human meat
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
100 Years Ago, Sort Of 19 August: African wildlife, Tolkien, Plowman, Persia, Flora Sandes is great at sleeping, the American Flora Sandes begins her journey to the war. 20 August: Joffre's thoughts, the concluding part of the Saga of Loophole 14 (absolutely not to be missed, this is some A* lunacy), E.S. Thompson, Louis Barthas loves the Czarina of Russia (I am not making that up). (edit: yes, I know, I've tried to fix it, I have third-party confirmation (HEY GAL says "whagwan booyakasha my mandems", or words to that effect) that in fact I have fixed it, and yet...) Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, loophole 14... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
my dad posted:Holy poo poo, loophole 14... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:During the siege/sack of Rome, Roman citizens demanded a market for human meat Human meat was being sold by the pound in Anqing by the time it fell. The war in one anecdote: a father promises his daughter he will wait for her to die of natural causes before cooking and eating her. He does not keep this promise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
my dad posted:Holy poo poo, loophole 14... That was some Wile E. Coyote poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
What are the odds that the snipers aimed at the loophole were just being nice at the moment and took the coin as an opportunity to remind the enemy what they could do if they chose?P-Mack posted:Human meat was being sold by the pound in Anqing by the time it fell. God almighty, well this is one of the worst things I've ever heard. I've heard human meat is really bad for long-term sustenance too. If you've got the opportunity for literally anything else, you're better off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
I have a question probably for HEY GAL and Rodrigo Diaz-- why was it pikes and matchlock muskets rather than crossbows? Are guns in the period simply much more powerful than crossbows?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I have a question probably for HEY GAL and Rodrigo Diaz-- why was it pikes and matchlock muskets rather than crossbows? Are guns in the period simply much more powerful than crossbows? Guns are a lot cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I have a question probably for HEY GAL and Rodrigo Diaz-- why was it pikes and matchlock muskets rather than crossbows? Are guns in the period simply much more powerful than crossbows? This always puzzles me, too. Early guns were so slow, lovely and unreliable, I always struggle to see how they came to displace the tried and tested technologies of longbows and crossbows. I mean, it happened, so they obviously had some advantages that ultimately proved successful. Imagine (say) 300 longbow men facing off against an equal number of opponents armed with matchlocks. The bowmen could shoot further and much faster than the musketeers, so wouldn't they just win every time? I assume there's multiple books on this very subject and people in this thread will know what they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:This always puzzles me, too. Early guns were so slow, lovely and unreliable, I always struggle to see how they came to displace the tried and tested technologies of longbows and crossbows. I mean, it happened, so they obviously had some advantages that ultimately proved successful. Imagine (say) 300 longbow men facing off against an equal number of opponents armed with matchlocks. The bowmen could shoot further and much faster than the musketeers, so wouldn't they just win every time? I assume there's multiple books on this very subject and people in this thread will know what they are. Well for one thing it takes a lifetime to train a longbowman. Meanwhile crossbows have serious rof issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
There is also the issue of suitable materials. If I've gathered one thing from reading Juche it's that suitable horn for the real good poo poo isn't exactly easy to come by. I guess some crossbows get around this by using metal for the bow part? I dunno. Either way a bunch of iron to make into tubes plus some moderately straight wood wood is a lot easier to source than the specialized materials that I've gathered from this and the ancient history thread that make up your average arrow-chucker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There is also the issue of suitable materials. If I've gathered one thing from reading Juche it's that suitable horn for the real good poo poo isn't exactly easy to come by. I guess some crossbows get around this by using metal for the bow part? I dunno. Either way a bunch of iron to make into tubes plus some moderately straight wood wood is a lot easier to source than the specialized materials that I've gathered from this and the ancient history thread that make up your average arrow-chucker. Plus ammunition. Feathers and straight wood with the right flex is too much like actual work, better to be able to give the guys some powder, some window frames and a mold. Pretty sure the English records put arrows for a campaign as paying out the nose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
It always comes back to (and out of) windows in the end, doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:What are the odds that the snipers aimed at the loophole were just being nice at the moment and took the coin as an opportunity to remind the enemy what they could do if they chose? "All right you assholes, listen up! We got new orders from Division, no sniping field-grades *period*. Seems if we do it, those guys will as well and our REMFs ain't happy being team target. "This means *you*, Wisbouwski! Yeah, I've seen your artwork of the Colonel with the bullseye on his crotch, you're lucky he hasn't else you'd be out there clearing mines with your tongue..."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
my dad posted:Holy poo poo, loophole 14... That loophole 14, it's one hell of a loophole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Well for one thing it takes a lifetime to train a longbowman. Meanwhile crossbows have serious rof issues. Is a crossbow slower to load and fire than a matchlock?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Zamboni Apocalypse posted:"All right you assholes, listen up! We got new orders from Division, no sniping field-grades *period*. Seems if we do it, those guys will as well and our REMFs ain't happy being team target. If we kill the French leadership, they might get replacements that aren't garbage. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
my dad posted:Holy poo poo, loophole 14... Loophole 14 only killed officers who refused to believe the local commanders, so ... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I've heard human meat is really bad for long-term sustenance too. If you've got the opportunity for literally anything else, you're better off. This is nothing but propaganda from the commercial meat and farming industries. mllaneza posted:That loophole 14, it's one hell of a loophole. It's the best there is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Some Icelandic goose hunters found an oldass sword: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-37285805 Looks like it was made from cast iron!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So to drag up D&C chat back up Bewbies, I just wanted to say, this was a fantastic post. I was in the USMC about half a lifetime ago, and your post has enabled me to understand a little better some of the culture bullshit I despised so much. And made me even more glad I got out. Beautiful post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Is a crossbow slower to load and fire than a matchlock? If it is competitive with a matchlock in penetration and killing power, yes. When you're shooting a projectile with mechanical force, you have to supply as much work to draw the bow back as it will release when you shoot. You're not using an explosion to move your projectile. For something you're doing with just your arms and back, like a longbow, 150 lbs. draw weight is reasonable... provided the archer has been training for a very, very long time. However, crossbows have a much shorter power stroke than a longbow, so it is less efficient when imparting energy to the projectile. To get a crossbow to deliver similar performance to that longbow you probably need 300ish lbs. draw weight, far too much to be spanned by hand. It can be done with a belt hook, which allows you to employ both your legs. Machines are another option. You still have to do the same amount of work to span the crossbow, but you can do it more slowly over a larger distance. A goats foot lever spreads out the work by think 4:1, which makes a 400ish lb. crossbow manageable and still pretty quick to fire. But stacking up against a matchlock demands easily over 1000 lbs. draw weight. To span that you need to drastically increase your mechanical advantage by using a windlass or a cranequin, but all that mechanical advantage means you'll be working at it for a pretty long time. It will actually work out slower than a matchlock, especially if you account for hooking and unhooking the machine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 03:00
|
|
