|
Fangz posted:What?
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
I don't really get the axis of any of your arguments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:you would not. sit down, face forward, hold your good arm straight out in front of you, make a loose fist, and turn your wrist so your thumb faces the floor. that is how you hold your arm to stab with a saber and it's fine. As for getting caught on bone, that is what moulinets are for--the little twists you do with your wrist. Oh, so you're kind of directing the force down your arm, through your torso, and into the saddle? Then you just articulate appropriately to free the blade as you ride by? I was thinking it was more like dragoons or skirmishers riding around the flanks swatting at dudes who aren't facing them. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
What sort of sword would be good in a trench? Let's say I'm an officer leading a raiding party into enemy lines. Is my sword useful in the confined space of a trench?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:What sort of sword would be good in a trench? Let's say I'm an officer leading a raiding party into enemy lines. Is my sword useful in the confined space of a trench? Eh, you're probably better off with more than one sword because the other dude's gonna have his rifle up to block you. Ideally you'll want to have tossed a grenade in there first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Oh, so you're kind of directing the force down your arm, through your torso, and into the saddle? Then you just articulate appropriately to free the blade as you ride by?  You have to take it slower, but stabbing the poor bloody infantry in the face is still valid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:What sort of sword would be good in a trench? Let's say I'm an officer leading a raiding party into enemy lines. Is my sword useful in the confined space of a trench? The kind that shoots 9mm at 500 RPM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:What sort of sword would be good in a trench? Let's say I'm an officer leading a raiding party into enemy lines. Is my sword useful in the confined space of a trench? you can regrind one from a bayonet
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
I dunno about what's best for you, but look out for the people with the claymores. [img]  [/img]
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:What sort of sword would be good in a trench? Let's say I'm an officer leading a raiding party into enemy lines. Is my sword useful in the confined space of a trench? no it is not, your sidearm is going to be more useful but not as useful as the grenades that your enlisted guys are carrying
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:
A légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:What sort of sword would be good in a trench? Let's say I'm an officer leading a raiding party into enemy lines. Is my sword useful in the confined space of a trench? A dagger, mace, axe, or even a modified entrenching tool would be better, almost always. The quarters are just too tight to use anything else effectively - the closest analogue from earlier in history is fighting on a ship. If you had to use a sword, a gladius style short sword or a short chopping blade like cutlass would be okay choices. For the officer sword you might already have, it's only virtue would be it's better than nothing. It's a bit long for the confines of a trench - accounts from the war indicate even a bayoneted rifle needed too much room to be used effectively on trench raids - and the scabbard would be yet another thing to get tangled in wire or whatever. The same would apply to any long blade. If all you had was the issued officer's sword, it would probably be best to cut the blade down to a dagger length and dull the hell out the finish. Then you'd have a suitable length blade and could punch people in the face with the hilt - effectively a trench knife. If you're assaulting a trench, an SMG or shotgun if you can get one, or even a stocked pistol or pistol-caliber carbine of some kind. If you can't get one of those, a pistol and one of the close quarter melee weapons I mentioned first. Plus as many grenades as you can get your hands on. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Oct 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:shotgun if you can get one edit: derp HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Oct 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:The quarters are just too tight to use anything else effectively - the closest analogue from earlier in history is fighting on a ship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Did anybody ever try using a pike to clear a trench? Seems like it would work pretty well, until you hit a corner or something
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Oh, so you're kind of directing the force down your arm, through your torso, and into the saddle? Then you just articulate appropriately to free the blade as you ride by?  you also slash etc., there's an entire martial art for this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Did anybody ever try using a pike to clear a trench? Seems like it would work pretty well, until you hit a corner or something
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:combat shotgun, extra short with the birdseye grip got one myself for home defense HEY GAIL posted:not a medieval Italian alley? Ainsley McTree posted:Did anybody ever try using a pike to clear a trench? Seems like it would work pretty well, until you hit a corner or something You’d also have the problems they found with bayoneted rifles only more so. If you missed a stab, the opponent could usually get inside your reach and shank you. And it was hard to turn around in a trench with it to face an attacker coming from another direction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Imagine being on a horse and having to stab at people with that Patton one as you rode by, instead of slashing, as you would with all those other ones curved for that purpose. Even assuming the Patton saber was phoneboothed 50-100 years backward so that you'd have some kind of actual application in a regular order of battle, depending on which of his past lives Patton was channeling at the time. I was wondering that as well, how do you use what appears to be a short thrusting sword as a cavalry saber? I do enjoy that these lancers have a bracket in the stirrup to put the lance in  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fcp_4rQPlU OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Oct 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:What sort of sword would be good in a trench? Let's say I'm an officer leading a raiding party into enemy lines. Is my sword useful in the confined space of a trench? From what I've heard, a shovel. Maybe they can add a big sword part to that shield shovel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:From what I've heard, a shovel. maybe make the handle a sword blade You are probably way better off with a pistol than a sword.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Siivola posted:I dunno about what's best for you, but look out for the people with the claymores. The truest Battlefield weapon. I never got tired of hiding in bushes, deploying claymores right next to me, and waiting for people to sprint past. Cyrano4747 posted:No, the entire German rationale for the war was deeply rooted in National Socialist ideology. It was a deeply flawed ideology, but it goes a long way towards explaining why the felt that it was absolutely vital to secure territory in the east for the Reich. Do you feel that this conflicts with the arguments in Wages of Destruction, that economic circumstances made Germany turning against the USSR was the natural choice anyway? Is that just two factors that are tough to disentangle because they're pointing you to the same conclusion? Disclaimer: I have not actually read Wages of Destruction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 00:10
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Nazi Germany built its economy for war. I think it's wrong to talk about "economic circumstances forcing war", as if those economic circumstances existed in isolation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cushbomb/status/919771585044795392 how could that dude have been so right about wallenstein and so wrong about pikes....
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
zoux posted:Those are all peculiar but they don't seem to be symptoms of autism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Jackson were a real sperg he would not have gone to war with so shoddy a rail infrastructure. Conclusion: not an autistic person
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:The Poles had partly mobilized in secret, and ordered full mobilization on the 30th. Except that the French pressured them into rescinding the order. By the time they reissued it the next day, the lost time meant they weren't able to get all of their forces into place. One of the problems of the Polish deployment was that they focused on the outer frontiers because their biggest concern was that Hitler would just take a little bit and then negotiate to keep what he just took. The Soviets had a similar belief to a lesser extent in their favoring heavy deployment on the frontiers rather than more easily defensible lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:One of the problems of the Polish deployment was that they focused on the outer frontiers because their biggest concern was that Hitler would just take a little bit and then negotiate to keep what he just took. The Soviets had a similar belief to a lesser extent in their favoring heavy deployment on the frontiers rather than more easily defensible lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
lol wut
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:It's an understandable mistake, at least. Field fortifications had halted large offenses during the Great War. The Germans were pretty much the only people who realized that tanks could achieve the kind of breakthrough, followed by rapid penetration and pursuit, that had proven impossible in the last war. Oh, I see. That's why they won, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
I mean I think one of the major characteristics of the first world war trenches was that there were miles of them. You don't just break the line and then you're done, you break the line and there's another million loving lines behind that one. That's also the case to a degree with the interwar fortifications on the Maginot line which was about six miles deep between the first warning posts and the really heavy stuff, with middling fortifications between the two, precisely because it was engineered to defeat armoured attacks where the outer posts would give the main line time to make ready and the whole area is under observation and artillery coverage from the fortresses and rear line guns. As it's designed to deter attacks and was built and manned on a postwar budget, it can't exactly range infinitely deep, but fortification design doesn't suggest people were blind to the idea of armoured offensives, and there's a reason that the Germans didn't try attacking those fortifications because they'd probably have gotten massacred if they did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Similarly Hitler and OKW believed that the Czech fortifications were about just as impervious and thanked christ that they could take them without firing a shot. In reality I suspect they probably could have used air power, special forces, and other combined arms operations to open up narrow holes along key sectors in which to bypass the majority of it but then who knows what else is different in a scenario the Czechs fight on. The Soviets wanted to move the fortifications to the Molotov Line mainly because doctrine called for decisive fighting in the border area followed by a counter attack with a entirely counter-offencive strategy that neglected the possibility of having to fight a fighting retreat to the Stalin line. I don't think they were particularly worried about salami tactics, they just were overconfident that the Red Army would be ready in time to properly fight that battle on their terms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Similarly Hitler and OKW believed that the Czech fortifications were about just as impervious and thanked christ that they could take them without firing a shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqoUdd9Ge4E I love these WWII training films so much all the creative talent of Hollywood applied towards instructing every Joe Blow G.I. in every martial art imaginable from ditch digging to boiler maintenance. The budget on these films must have been absurd
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Squalid posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqoUdd9Ge4E
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I was wondering that as well, how do you use what appears to be a short thrusting sword as a cavalry saber?  In fact the famous 1796 light cavalry sabre is shorter. You just stick out your arm and run your horse over anyone who ducks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:i like the ones that try to tell us to stop accidentally insulting the british It's better to deliberately insult the inbred Limeys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
Wait until after we're not holding onto your stuff to insult us.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Siivola posted:35” is not short!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Is the main advantage of the sword over the lance that it's easier to use if you get mixed up close with the enemy? Easier to use your off hand? Great, now I'm wondering if modern materials science can make barding good enough to bring back the cuirassier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 14:45
|
|
