Smoking Crow posted:

Also, did the British actually do anything innovative, or did they just steal everything from the Dutch? (They did corporations, crop rotation, military tactics, and the British got rich off it.)

PrinceRandom posted:

War is really depressing. Does it ever get depressing reading about real people killing real people?

Grand Prize Winner posted:

I wonder how much similarity there is between 50FA stories and primary sources. If his stuff survives ~500 years, maybe he'll be another Herodotus.

ArchangeI posted:

I still want to see those people explain why women can't fight in wars to a veteran Russian woman sniper.

SeanBeansShako posted:

Maybe he wants the modern example?

veekie posted:

So on melee cavalry, if I'm reading it right, you got the following main roles:
-Mobility, unlike infantry you more or less get to pick and choose where you're fighting, which lets your side exploit any vulnerabilities in formation.
-Intimidation, because you have a big guy, on a big horse, and they're both moving towards their opponent at a terrifying speed, which could break less trained formations if a significant chunk of their line lose their will to fight on, especially if whoever they make first contact with are probably going to die.
-Momentum, heavily armored cavalry can use the momentum of the charge to smash their target, then rely on superior equipment on both man and horse to win through.

So basically you look for weak spots and either harass or hammer through, depending on your loadout.

Is that right or am I missing something crucial.

Davincie posted:

Yeah I can't be bothered about that sort of stuff when you can walk around in tons of museums and just see piles and piles of similar swords. Now if it were a rare weapon or model, then maybe.

InspectorBloor posted:

ArchangeI posted:

Must be very ineffcient to wear so much metal when you fly a plane. At least it isn't trying to strangle you like the F-22 suit

Ferrosol posted:

There was the Flying Tigers in WWII who were a bunch of ex-american airforce vets who fought for the nationalist Chinese against the Japanese. Also I suppose the French Foreign Legion which fought in various battles kind of counts. Beyond that I'm drawing blanks for mercs.

Azran posted:

Thanks a lot. Gotta say your posts got me into reading more about planes, and I'm just in love with the topic.

At what altitude did pilots engage at during WW1? Open canopies must have limited them in some measure?

Raenir Salazar posted:

Bwuh? I don't recall any mysticism from my version; the only part that might not be useful in the modern day is the part about the use of fire arrows but even that could be refluffed to incendiaries in general.


It kind of sounds like people have weird expectations as to what the AOW is actually supposed to teach; the general rules of thumb serve as a foundation in which to base applied military thought on top of.

Obdicut posted:

On the above reenactor bit: I learned how to spearfish on a catwalk-- basically, where the salmon are running upstream (and sometimes the trout coming down) some tribes will build catwalks across the rivers and spear the fish as they jump up. One thing I definitely notices was that an overhand stab is a hell of a lot more accurate. I can't really figure out why, thinking about it, but there's something about the downward motion that made it easier for me, at any rate, to consistently hit the target. I notices this was true as well with bo practice. Obviously, in both those cases it's very different from using a pike or a war spear-- I was using a thin, light spear in the first instance, and a heavy but evenly-weighted bo in the second, but the difference seemed to be in hand-eye coordination, mostly. Something about the downward angle felt more natural. However, the overhand thrusts are, if you're not expert, really tiring. Just holding it up there, you do all these little micro-corrections. The guys who taught me laughed at me, and said that it reminded them of being kids and practicing this for the first time-- they could hold their spears up and cocked and it didn't tire them much at all.

the JJ posted:

That is sort of the prototypical Greek hoplite battle, though a. terrain, tactics, and other forces could change things very quickly and b. they are still trying to stab each other. Pushing was incidental, not a major part of the game plan.

And yeah, Salamis hosed up the Persian supply lines and they lost at Plataea. The Athenians were off shore looking for a ruckus, the Spartans could hold the Isthmus of Corinth pretty much indefinitely, so there was no real 'exit plan' for the Persians. What else were they going to do, settle down for an attritional war in a foreign land while that big rear end army starts to cough politely and ask about when their paychecks are coming though?

Fangz posted:

That is all well and good if you have those toys, and plenty of time to use them, but that is not always the case.

Flesnolk posted:

Would it be at all possible for a clash between major powers to not immediately result in nuclear armageddon?

Also, to stay on topic, a really popular alternate history idea is "what if Britain won the AWI". A lot of people portray it like everything would've been sunshine and roses from then on, but how feasible was the win? I know the French basically did all the real work, so I imagine if they don't enter the rebel colonists get curbstomped? How would a British victory in the colonies have affected the empire's later fortunes? They seemed to do just fine (I like to joke better) without the American colonies.

Slavvy posted:

The romans invented this so yeah it's been around for a couple of thousand years. The romans had an entirely professional volunteer army pretty much like any first-world modern state today. Even the organisation of modern armies has evolved from the roman system where a small group is commanded by one man, then another man commands several of those men, and another man commands several of those, and up and up until the commanding general.

The idea didn't really catch on with anyone else post-rome though, from what I understand. Part of the reason they're called the dark ages I guess?

Taerkar posted:

Perhaps I worded it wrong. I was asking more about how the soldiers were trained. Did they do a more one-on-one approach or were there a series of drills and motions that the troops would go through.

Part of modern combat training is to drill basic actions into the soldiers so that they don't have to think about performing various actions and thus remain effective during more stressful moments.

Outside Dawg posted:

Best guess is the late 1700's, "Retreat" is akin to "Taps" in the US Military, in the context of signaling the end of the day.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

AirForce.txt

On Navy bases it's at sunset goddamnit. Also nobody goes home at 4:30.

Outside Dawg posted:

The only "bugle" call (played on a phonograph) I ever recall hearing aside from Reveille and Taps at Camp Pendleton, was Colors.

(e): The only time Taps was used for "lights out" was during boot.

a travelling HEGEL posted:

Edit: For instance, there's an Italian guy from the late 1400s or early 1500s (I forgot his name, but he's quoted in one of the War And Society books) who thinks that a village on fire in the background of your battle is like a meal's dessert course--it adds zip and interest. You can also set the nearest village on fire if it's getting dark and you need light to fight by.

a travelling HEGEL posted:

There's few set battles, sure (for the people who may not know as much about this period, a single battle is quite costly and can decide a commander's entire career--they tend to weigh their options very carefully when considering one), but there's plenty of skirmishing, beating up quarters, or rolling up into a village and destroying the place.

Remember William Crowne's diary--they're a diplomatic mission and they didn't see a single battle, but everyone knows very well to never go into the woods without a convoy, and then a few of their company go missing and turn up tortured to death. Set piece battle or no, that could gently caress you up in the head.

InspectorBloor posted:

Context and all that. Do you know any martial art, where it's encouraged to act lazy?

Cumshot in the Dark posted:

I can't help but picture the Soviets sending Arab nations crappy 'export models' of their own doctrine.

the JJ posted:

e: It can also be a bit of a 'jury duty' phenomenon with conscripted national militaries. The ones actually competent enough to fill those jobs are also the ones competent enough to find something better to do with their lives.

Slavvy posted:

It pretty much was. Liddel Hart and Fuller developed a doctrine of rapid movement, bypass and penetration which was wholeheartedly adopted by the germans and shrugged off by their own military. These concepts were then proven in the blitz on France.

Probably didn't help that Fuller was a complete lunatic who happened to have the right idea.

Alchenar posted:

Incidentally the wikipedia page on Hart appears to have been vandalised into a sycophantic attack on his critics.

a travelling HEGEL posted:

Rosetta Stone sucks balls. If a college near you will let you enroll in classes even if you don't go there, that's what I did.

Six years ago, which explains my current problems.