PDA

View Full Version : Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Brother Oni
2016-06-28, 06:35 PM
Real World Weapon, Armour and Tactics Thread XXI

This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons, armour and tactics. The concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better, thus it's here rather than in Friendly Banter.

A few rules for this thread:


This thread is for asking questions about how weapons, armour and tactics really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.

Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.

Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).

No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so politics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis (These are arbitrary dates but any dates would be, and these are felt to be reasonable).

No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.


With that done, have at and enjoy yourselves!
Thread I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?24294-Got-A-Weapon-or-Armor-Question)
Thread III (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?21318-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-III)
Thread IV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?18302-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IV)
Thread V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?80863-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-V)
Thread VI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?124683-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VI)
Thread VII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?168432-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VII)
Thread VIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?192911-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VIII)
Thread IX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?217159-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IX)
Thread X (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?238042-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-X)
Thread XI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?255453-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XI)
Thread XII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?282471-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XII)
Thread XIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?308462-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XIII)
Thread XIV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?327994-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-XIV)
Thread XV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?347806-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XV)
Thread XVI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371623-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVI)
Thread XVII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?392804-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVII)
Thread XVIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?421723-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XVIII)
Thread XIX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454083-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XIX)
Thread XX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480058-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-Armor-or-Tactics-Question-Mk-XX)

Vinyadan
2016-06-28, 06:56 PM
An image I found interesting:
https://s31.postimg.org/yyrnbj057/e6190bf1db4f016f2d73542fc624d000.jpg

Knaight
2016-06-28, 07:40 PM
This isn't quite in the tactics category, but how did ancient armies tend to handle hygiene? I'm familiar with some of the specifics on the Roman side, including exactly which diseases predominated and how they were fought (to some extent, I'm not claiming expertise), but I'm wondering about other standards. Were there any particularly widespread techniques? Were there any really effective techniques that particular cultures got ahold of? Basically, if getting a surface level understanding, what particulars are worth learning?

Gnoman
2016-06-28, 09:12 PM
This isn't quite in the tactics category, but how did ancient armies tend to handle hygiene? I'm familiar with some of the specifics on the Roman side, including exactly which diseases predominated and how they were fought (to some extent, I'm not claiming expertise), but I'm wondering about other standards. Were there any particularly widespread techniques? Were there any really effective techniques that particular cultures got ahold of? Basically, if getting a surface level understanding, what particulars are worth learning?

Hygiene is most obvious by it's own absence up until shockingly modern times, militarily speaking. As late as the American Civil War it was far from unusual to find basics such as isolating the latrine trenches from water sources to be largely ignored.

fusilier
2016-06-29, 12:37 AM
An image I found interesting:
https://s31.postimg.org/yyrnbj057/e6190bf1db4f016f2d73542fc624d000.jpg

They appear to be firing the cannon with a hot "wire" which would have been heated to red hot (by the brazier to the left), and then thrust through the vent hole.

Brother Oni
2016-06-29, 01:57 AM
An image I found interesting:
https://s31.postimg.org/yyrnbj057/e6190bf1db4f016f2d73542fc624d000.jpg

Unless it's artistic interpretation, they also have appeared to have stuck the rear end of the cannon into the ground so that it get better elevation, maybe to turn it into a bombard, so the shot can clear the walls?


This isn't quite in the tactics category, but how did ancient armies tend to handle hygiene? I'm familiar with some of the specifics on the Roman side, including exactly which diseases predominated and how they were fought (to some extent, I'm not claiming expertise), but I'm wondering about other standards. Were there any particularly widespread techniques? Were there any really effective techniques that particular cultures got ahold of? Basically, if getting a surface level understanding, what particulars are worth learning?

I've found a journal article that covers water supply hygiene in Chinese armies, but I don't have access to anything other than the abstract: Hygiene of Water Supply in Ancient China′s Army by Gong (http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-ZHYS704.001.htm).

Basically water supply hygiene was very important - during the Zhou Dynasty (10th-3rd century BC), a rear service (logistics) official position called the Qiehu was established, whose sole job was to ensure the siting and digging of military wells. Various references to the importance of water hygiene continue through various Dynasties, all the way up to the last dynasty, the Qing.

There looks to be an even more useful article, The Controlling Measures of Epidemic Diseases Taken by the Chinese Ancient Governments by Shi (http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-SXDD200401021.htm), but the abstract isn't particularly useful by itself.

On a side note, I hate it when article abstracts do that - it's the scientific equivalent of getting [redacted] teased.

fusilier
2016-06-29, 08:29 PM
Unless it's artistic interpretation, they also have appeared to have stuck the rear end of the cannon into the ground so that it get better elevation, maybe to turn it into a bombard, so the shot can clear the walls?

Hmmm. I interpreted it as poorly rendered perspective (not uncommon in medieval style artwork). But it could be as you described, although I'm not aware of such a practice.

Mr Beer
2016-06-29, 10:08 PM
Unless it's artistic interpretation, they also have appeared to have stuck the rear end of the cannon into the ground so that it get better elevation, maybe to turn it into a bombard, so the shot can clear the walls?

Definitely looks like it to me, like it's an impromptu mortar. The archer is a possible point of comparison, looks like he's aiming upwards to shoot/suppress enemies on the battlements while the assault takes place. The cannon is pointing even more to the vertical.

Brother Oni
2016-06-30, 06:22 AM
Hmmm. I interpreted it as poorly rendered perspective (not uncommon in medieval style artwork). But it could be as you described, although I'm not aware of such a practice.

After some thought, I'm inclined to agree with you on it being perspective rather than spiking it in. Analysing the picture a little, with a couple of assumptions:

The cannon is attached to a wheeled carriage, which means it's big enough to fit one and heavy enough to require one (or just enough of a pain in the arse to move about to need wheels).

This puts spiking just the carriage's limber into the ground for additional elevation into a dubious light as it would have to support the weight of cannon itself, the rest of the carriage and the recoil when it was fired, which is a bit of a tall order.
I've seen replica ECW-era cannon in action and the recoil is not insubstantial, even for small cannon. Stressing the limber in this way sounds like a good recipe for breaking it.

Bombards without a wheeled carriage achieved additional elevation by means of siting it on a hill, planks placed under the front end and liberal amounts of dirt shovelling. Siting a wheeled cannon on a slope or some other precarious base sounds like a excellent way of getting it to disappear down the slope or another accident when fired, so this method was probably very carefully used, if at all.

snowblizz
2016-06-30, 07:13 AM
After some thought, I'm inclined to agree with you on it being perspective rather than spiking it in. Analysing the picture a little, with a couple of assumptions:

The cannon is attached to a wheeled carriage, which means it's big enough to fit one and heavy enough to require one (or just enough of a pain in the arse to move about to need wheels).

This puts spiking just the carriage's limber into the ground for additional elevation into a dubious light as it would have to support the weight of cannon itself, the rest of the carriage and the recoil when it was fired, which is a bit of a tall order.
I've seen replica ECW-era cannon in action and the recoil is not insubstantial, even for small cannon. Stressing the limber in this way sounds like a good recipe for breaking it.

Bombards without a wheeled carriage achieved additional elevation by means of siting it on a hill, planks placed under the front end and liberal amounts of dirt shovelling. Siting a wheeled cannon on a slope or some other precarious base sounds like a excellent way of getting it to disappear down the slope or another accident when fired, so this method was probably very carefully used, if at all.
I was thinking much the same. Just standing it up like that I'm willing to say no way it's not tearing the limber to shreds when fired. If you can get it balanced enough.
More inclined to see it as an perspective issue with the rather logical solution of having the limber dig into the dirt to soften recoil.

fusilier
2016-06-30, 03:05 PM
After some thought, I'm inclined to agree with you on it being perspective rather than spiking it in. Analysing the picture a little, with a couple of assumptions:

. . .

Bombards without a wheeled carriage achieved additional elevation by means of siting it on a hill, planks placed under the front end and liberal amounts of dirt shovelling. Siting a wheeled cannon on a slope or some other precarious base sounds like a excellent way of getting it to disappear down the slope or another accident when fired, so this method was probably very carefully used, if at all.

Also many medieval depictions of cannons seem to have had serious problems with perspective, especially when viewing the cannon from "behind." (although I've seen some that are pretty good).

See this image where the cannon appears to be shooting straight up:
http://res.cloudinary.com/dk-find-out/image/upload/q_80,w_1440/A-Bridgeman-243141_vrr9dr_m9wrq3.jpg
(If the image doesn't load, see this page: http://www.dkfindout.com/uk/history/castles/guns-and-cannons/ )

It's possible that the end of the carriage's trail was buried, or blocked by a mound of earth, to prevent the cannon from recoiling. If it's a hoop-and-stave cannon (which it appears to be) the pressure would be quite low (relatively) and preventing it from recoiling wouldn't be too injurious. In other gun designs the recoiling of the carriage is intentional, and can only be limited so much without damage to the carriage.

Max_Killjoy
2016-06-30, 03:43 PM
Yeah, it appears to be the artists struggling with perspective, rather than a factual illustration.

Vinyadan
2016-06-30, 04:58 PM
Yes, I'd say it's a perspective thing. In both images the inclination is right according to perspective, assuming that the eye of the beholder is situated in the middle of the image, but the length of the barrel doesn't change according to it. Scientific perspective was an invention of Brunelleschi, who lived in the XV century. There often is a certain time needed to allow new techniques to bleed out into different areas, as they already have their own stylistic language.

Anyway, these images are very detailed; I personally wasn't expecting it, as they also show precise knowledge of how these things were operated.

Galloglaich
2016-07-01, 04:45 PM
Well, a new thread is a pretty good excuse to come back ;)



Also many medieval depictions of cannons seem to have had serious problems with perspective, especially when viewing the cannon from "behind." (although I've seen some that are pretty good).

See this image where the cannon appears to be shooting straight up:
http://res.cloudinary.com/dk-find-out/image/upload/q_80,w_1440/A-Bridgeman-243141_vrr9dr_m9wrq3.jpg
(If the image doesn't load, see this page: http://www.dkfindout.com/uk/history/castles/guns-and-cannons/ )

It's possible that the end of the carriage's trail was buried, or blocked by a mound of earth, to prevent the cannon from recoiling. If it's a hoop-and-stave cannon (which it appears to be) the pressure would be quite low (relatively) and preventing it from recoiling wouldn't be too injurious. In other gun designs the recoiling of the carriage is intentional, and can only be limited so much without damage to the carriage.

I'm going to respectfully take the contrarian view here and say I think sometimes they were aiming them at a very steep near-vertical angle, if not "almost strait up", especially when shooting at walls or towers. That would be my guess for both of those illustration. You see guns being used in all sorts of strange ways in field conditions.


"They" did, I think understand field conditions and hygiene issues, fairly well. As for the civil war, remember the general rule for all things medieval or early modern - don't look at the 19th Century and project backward. You can find many parallels that way, but you need to check them out very carefully.


I think they knew what to do and not to do, (like keeping latrines away from water, burying or burning bodies, eating healthy varieties of food, keeping food preserved and so forth), if by "they" you mean the smartest and most experienced commanders and leaders. There were also simultaneously many leaders every bit as ignorant as those Civil War commanders previously mentioned. But a lot of medieval armies were manned by pro's (even if these were also people who had other day jobs), and pro's wouldn't tolerate the kind of conditions that conscripts would. If they didn't know anything about all this the consequences of keeping armies in the field even for a short time, especially in sieges, would have been even worse than they were (and they were quite bad).

But the problem is there were always many factors that came into this, including the amount of discipline that could be imposed (either from above or fraternally) within the army. I was a medic in charge of these exact issues and I can tell you, it's not easy to tell some hungry people for example that their food is contaminated or tell some tired people they have to dig a new latrine slit trench, and this is in a national army controlled by a very organized State. As time in the field increases, especially during sieges, discipline goes down. Supplies go down, especially supplies of things slightly less critical than horse fodder, ammunition, water and food get used up. So stuff like lime becomes less available. Money to pay troops also almost always runs out which doesn't help discipline either. Time and enemy activity may also constrict opportunities to do what is needed.

Anyway, from the historical accounts, disease can and did spread very quickly during sieges and certain types of warfare. And appeared to be almost inevitable, unless the army could be kept in steady supply (such as by rivers) and was able to make camps that were very organized and more like little towns. Problems with the army also spread as the armies took food and horse fodder from the surrounding areas and simply wrought general destruction. This problem of disease and famine was actually one of the chief reasons for seemingly (to modern minds) confusing cultural limitations on war. Just like a lot of people today can't grasp the reasons for the Geneva Conventions ("why would you limit yourself in any way when conducting war!?" goes the outraged thinking). But for soldiers I think it's more obvious. Anyway in the medieval era there was a specific and very real concern that particular vicious war which included "scorched earth" tactics often led to famine, and famine led to outbreaks of Plague, which could then stick around for years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_War

For example in the aftermath of one war between the Teutonic Knights and Poland, called the "Hunger War", in which each side practiced "Scorched Earth", plague did break out resulting in more casualties for the Teutonic Order than if they had lost a major battle. This later led to more restrictions being placed on war by treaty and tradition, so that mass famine didn't occur again. Not always adhered to perfectly but surprisingly, war was conducted quite a bit in Latin Europe with these restrictions being at least somewhat respected. Of course some others, for example the Mongols, never played by those rules.

The original outbreak of black death, incidentally, started or at least coincided with a massive failed siege by the Mongols of some fortified redoubts held by the Genoese in the Crimea. Plague broke out in the Mongol camp and they catapulted the infected heads of their own dead into the Italian fortifications.




As for the whole knife vs. pistol debate, this is my opinion. First, I think it's foolish to outright dismiss the observations of someone like Mike who is a paramedic and former Marine Corps medic. I was an Army medic for only a little while and I learned a lot from it, especially I learned to respect the experience of guys like Mike who had more time on task than I did and reached higher levels of it. Medical care, especially emergency medicine and first aid, are extremely eye opening experiences that are not well or accurately portrayed in our popular culture and entertainment media for a variety of reasons. It's like being in another world.


That said my own opinion is that the knife issue is somewhat balanced by skill with the knife and how big the knife is. A longer bladed knife that is stiff enough not to break, like a bayonet, is much more deadly. And more intimidating, incidentally.

But other than that my opinion basically is the same as Mike's. Pistols can fail to do much harm too, or jam, but knives from my experience both as a medic and as someone who has been around some street violence, are often not very good at stopping the fight. People often don't even seem to know they were stabbed. So you have a high legal liability to safety ratio - in the sense that the person you want to dissuade may not be dissuaded at all, but you still might get in real bad trouble for wounding or killing them.

In some places people stab a lot, notably certain towns in the more northern parts of the British isles for example, but seem to use them more to wound or disfigure than to kill from the stats I've seen. Maybe cultural adaptation?

But I have seen first-hand a buddy of mine chase a guy 4 blocks before realizing he'd been stabbed bad enough that his lung eventually collapsed. This is one of the reasons for self defense I prefer something like brass knuckles or a collapsible baton, and / or a gun, to a knife. And the knives I like are the big, very stiff and very strong ones that won't break. I have seen a lot of folding knives break and I've seen a lot of people cut themselves real bad with their own knives. Anyway my $0.02 as well, I don't expect it to be taken for gospel.



Finally, as to that old issue from many pages back in the previous thread about the gnomish company of catapult guys. I am going to be contrary yet again and say I don't think that is so unthinkable, in fact I think you did have groups of specialists just like that. It's just that like most people in the medieval world they had day jobs. They had other jobs, in other words. There were some full time condottieri etc. but most medieval mercenaries, even the knightly ones, did other things most of the time. They were craft artisans or merchants, sometimes even priests, or they ran their estates, participated in warlike sports like tournaments and jousts, and engaged in diplomacy and so forth. Medieval people were "Renaissance Men" in the sense that they often were good at a lot of different things. So I think your siege weapon mercs could very well have existed.

An example of travelling gun mercs. There was a Hungarian or German guy called Orban who apparently made some amazing big guns for the Turks. One they used for over 400 years, causing a couple of hundred casualties against the British as late as the 19th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orban

snowblizz
2016-07-01, 06:03 PM
Finally, as to that old issue from many pages back in the previous thread about the gnomish company of catapult guys. I am going to be contrary yet again and say I don't think that is so unthinkable, in fact I think you did have groups of specialists just like that. It's just that like most people in the medieval world they had day jobs. They had other jobs, in other words. There were some full time condottieri etc. but most medieval mercenaries, even the knightly ones, did other things most of the time. They were craft artisans or merchants, sometimes even priests, or they ran their estates, participated in warlike sports like tournaments and jousts, and engaged in diplomacy and so forth. Medieval people were "Renaissance Men" in the sense that they often were good at a lot of different things. So I think your siege weapon mercs could very well have existed.

An example of travelling gun mercs. There was a Hungarian or German guy called Orban who apparently made some amazing big guns for the Turks. One they used for over 400 years, causing a couple of hundred casualties against the British as late as the 19th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orban

Actually what most considered unthinkable was having someone lug around complete machines as a mercenary. I think we all agreed that the knowledge was often "mercenaried". Orban didn't bring his own guns after all, only his own knowledge.

Have you ever ran into an actual mercenary artillery* unit, "guns" and all?

*artillery/guns being used as a very generic terms what with antiquity and renessains eras beign considered

Actually just ran into a fairly interesting illustration from a book on Samurai by Turnbull of a cannon propped up on rice bags or something to elevate it.

fusilier
2016-07-01, 10:15 PM
Actually what most considered unthinkable was having someone lug around complete machines as a mercenary. I think we all agreed that the knowledge was often "mercenaried". Orban didn't bring his own guns after all, only his own knowledge.

Have you ever ran into an actual mercenary artillery* unit, "guns" and all?

*artillery/guns being used as a very generic terms what with antiquity and renessains eras beign considered

Actually just ran into a fairly interesting illustration from a book on Samurai by Turnbull of a cannon propped up on rice bags or something to elevate it.

Yeah. I do know of some large condottiere companies that had an artillery component, but I've never encountered an independent mercenary artillery "unit". Typically states owned the cannon but they contracted out their operation.

fusilier
2016-07-01, 10:18 PM
I'm going to respectfully take the contrarian view here and say I think sometimes they were aiming them at a very steep near-vertical angle, if not "almost strait up", especially when shooting at walls or towers. That would be my guess for both of those illustration. You see guns being used in all sorts of strange ways in field conditions.

Oh yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if they sometimes fired them at steep angles -- but I doubt they stood them up on their trails, with the wheels hanging in the air.

Galloglaich
2016-07-02, 12:38 PM
Oh yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if they sometimes fired them at steep angles -- but I doubt they stood them up on their trails, with the wheels hanging in the air.

Well, who knows. But from accounts they seem to have been used in all kinds of quirky ways, particularly the smaller guns. How guns were used varies of course enormously by the type and region and who owned them. But going back to the subject of cannon and mercenaries, I only have a very limited picture, but the following 15th Century sources give some clues:

Records of the Teutonic and Livonian Knights
Records of military societies like the "Brotherhood of the Blackheads" in Riga and Dorpat etc.
Records of several small Central European towns related to their militia being deployed or hired for wars
Chronicles of the Hanseatic towns (which I know you dispute the validity of)
Records (letters mostly) from Janos Hunyadi and Matthias Corvinus about the Black Army
Letters from George of Podebrady, King and military leader of Bohemia
Letters from Condottieri such as Jan Jiskra
Letters and anecdotes from people like Enea Piccolomini and Jan Dlugosz who were eyewitnesses


So from those sources, in no particular order, I know the following

1) Those really big named 'superguns', the giant bombards like the "Grosse Bosche" etc., were sometimes lent or rented out for battles or confrontations. Presumably they sent experts with them though I don't know many details. There is some stuff in the wiki's for some of them (particularly the non-English language wikis)

2) Smaller towns routinely hired out small militia forces as mercenary companies or committed them as nominal feudal obligations (usually for money, therefore blurring the line between vassal and mercenary) and these forces typically included a small number of men with a large amount of kit, usually including guns and cannon and a lot of ammunition, and other experts like smiths, carpenters, wheelrights, stonemasons and so on who were helpful in sieges and specifically in handling the guns. The one example that comes to mind immediately is the anecdotes from Regensburg of their deployment during the Hussite wars because it has so much detail on the kit and was cited by Hans Delbruck and frequently repeated since (including by me in various incarnations of this thread), but there are dozens of similar accounts in Dlugosz for example.

A lot of times (as in the Regensburg example) these small forces met up with larger, less well equipped armies and acted as their firepower hard core and their support element.

3) Hunyadi, Dlugosz, Jan Jiskra and Piccolomini all mention the use of small, expert mercenary companies of Bohemians, Cossacks or Germans who were mostly again, organized around guns, and specifically gun-wagons, or gun-boats. So forces of say 200 guys with 10 or 15 small guns. There were several of these documented in the region of what was then northern Hungary, now Slovakia.

Incidentally, I think Cortez's original small army of 500 guys, mostly light infantry, in Mexico had about a half dozen small artillery pieces if I remember correctly.

4) The Teutonic and Livonian knights have records of hiring mercenaries and hosting groups of visiting Crusaders who usually came in small but well equipped expert war-bands of either light or heavy cavalry, gunners / archers / crossbowmen, or cannon. Smaller cannon typically on gun-wagons or boats.

5) The Brotherhood of the Blackheads interestingly mention donating some guns and some kind of undefined "stone throwing weapons", maybe catapults, in the 16th Century (which is a little later than you would expect to see such weapons, but maybe not?). They were later used with success in the Livonian Wars against the invading Muscovite armies.

6) I won't get into the Hanseatic sources since you dispute them, but they show a similar pattern.

I'm not sure I could cite these examples, with the exception of the superguns, as purely built around cannon, but a lot of them were heavily oriented toward their cannon and cannon systems (mainly riverboats with guns and / or wagons with guns) at least in that part of Central Europe East of the Elbe.

Another example I just thought of was a small force of Bohemian mercenaries hired by the Poles to fight in the famous battle of Orsha. The battle was mainly a huge cavalry engagement but a small group of Czech gunners, with a combination of handguns and (probably small or medium caliber) cannon are apparently what turned the tide in favor of the Poles, against the Muscovites. You can see the Czechs behind their wagons almost hidden in the upper right corner of the famous (and excellent) painting of the battle:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Autor_nieznany_%28malarz_z_kr%C4%99gu_Lukasa_Crana cha_Starszego%29%2C_Bitwa_pod_Orsz%C4%85.jpg

Direct link for more detail:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Autor_nieznany_%28malarz_z_kr%C4%99gu_Lukasa_Crana cha_Starszego%29%2C_Bitwa_pod_Orsz%C4%85.jpg

So I guess you could argue it many different ways, but it seems to me that in the 15th Century, there were a lot of part time mercenaries and other small groups of fighters (militia, Crusaders, etc.), basically a whole category of them, who were oriented around cannons (and possibly even also mechanical or torsion stone throwers of some kind, based on the example of the Brotherhood of the Blackheads).

It's dangerous to make assumptions of course but there is no reason I can think of to assume that the similar equivalent couldn't have existed with small and medium sized catapults, ballistae and so on in the pre-gunpowder era (mid 13th Century and before) who may have hired themselves out the same way. One thing that is unclear is how such weapons were used, were they only for sieges or were they also used in open field battles the way the Romans apparently used scorpions and so on?

Overall I think there is some room for that gnomish company though.


.

Vinyadan
2016-07-03, 07:25 PM
So, I have a question. The man who died on a Tesla some time ago was an ex Navy Seal. How many SEALS are there?

And another question. SEALS are trained very well; this makes them at the same time an investment (which you want to see bring results) and a valuable good (which you don't want to lose too fast). How much are SEALS actually used? Are they constantly deployed? And how good is their chance to end service alive?

Storm Bringer
2016-07-04, 01:03 AM
So, I have a question. The man who died on a Tesla some time ago was an ex Navy Seal. 1)How many SEALS are there?

And another question. SEALS are trained very well; this makes them at the same time an investment (which you want to see bring results) and a valuable good (which you don't want to lose too fast). 2.How much are SEALS actually used? 3.Are they constantly deployed? 4.And how good is their chance to end service alive?

1) exact numbers are, of course, classified, but its in the low hundreds range

2) they are used all the time. As you said, they are a considerable investment, so they get utilised as much as
on a regular basis.

3) some part of the SEALS is deployed, somewhere, but I have no idea how often the individual solider is deployed. you need to balance the operational needs for his skills with putting too much pressure on him and "burning him out".

4) to my knowledge, the overwhelming majority of SEAL live though their service and retire into a peaceful civilian life. they just don't make the news.

snowblizz
2016-07-04, 06:24 AM
4) to my knowledge, the overwhelming majority of SEAL live though their service and retire into a peaceful civilian life. they just don't make the news.

Indeed. Watch out for the dude who when pressed "was a cook in the Navy, nothing more".

PersonMan
2016-07-04, 12:04 PM
Question: in the context of a modern army, what sort of impacts will you see from progressively worsening morale?

Presumably, badly-motivated or even anti-war conscripts would pull down their units, but how strong would this effect likely be?

Additionally, what sort of measures would be taken to try and maintain fighting capability for as many troops as possible even as equipment begins to grow scarce?

Gnoman
2016-07-04, 02:04 PM
Question: in the context of a modern army, what sort of impacts will you see from progressively worsening morale?

Presumably, badly-motivated or even anti-war conscripts would pull down their units, but how strong would this effect likely be?


The biggest thing is that important but tedious jobs like patrolling start to not get done, because the low-morale troops don't want to do them and don't have the motivation to do them anyway. Drug use can easily become a problem as well.



Additionally, what sort of measures would be taken to try and maintain fighting capability for as many troops as possible even as equipment begins to grow scarce?

If supplies are scarce, the goal of the soldiers becomes "get more supplies". Troops are very likely going to start making extensive effort to salvage enemy weapons and ammunition from the battlefield or start raiding enemy supply convoys solely to get food. In cases where the army is operating in friendly country, temporarily returning troops to civilian life until supply lines are reestablished can work as well. The early part of the Guadalcanal campaign (in which the Navy withdrew after landing the first wave of Marines, leaving the Marines unsupplied) or guerilla movements such as the PLA or USFIP are good historical models here.

Mike_G
2016-07-04, 02:05 PM
Question: in the context of a modern army, what sort of impacts will you see from progressively worsening morale?

Presumably, badly-motivated or even anti-war conscripts would pull down their units, but how strong would this effect likely be?

Additionally, what sort of measures would be taken to try and maintain fighting capability for as many troops as possible even as equipment begins to grow scarce?

The equipment is always scarcer than you want, the food is always worse. Marines (and soldiers, I assume) always bitch and moan.

Morale will be fine as long as the troops feel they can trust one another. I may be cold, wet, tired, hungry and pissed off at everyone from my fire team leader through the Commandant of the Corps to the President and every idiot sitting safe at home who voted for the President. But if I know that the Marines in my squad will have my back, I can function as part of that unit.

Once a soldier doesn't trust the rest of the unit, he stops taking chances, starts looking out for numero uno and the mission becomes "minimize my own personal risk." Whish means that patrols get half-assed, since aggressive patrolling is dangerous to the individual even though it makes the unit safer. Maybe I don't go look very hard for mines and snipers (again, because those things can kill you) and I just say I did and it looks clear. Or I hide in the bottom of my hole instead of shooting back, because putting my head above the lip of the hole is dangerous.

Lots of things that are important for the safety and success of the whole are the exact opposite of things that are safe for the individual.

This goes back as far as war. The first pikeman who runs away has the best chance to survive if the unit breaks, but the unit has the best chance to not break if nobody runs. And if nobody runs, more of them will survive overall.

Morale is high when I care more about my unit than myself. Once I start thinking "screw those guys, I'm going to worry about me" my personal morale is broken, and I am no longer an asset, but a liability. Everyone has a breaking point, and combat is stressful. Once enough of the troops have passed their breaking point, the unit is effectively useless.

The best way for authority to boost morale is to have officers and NCOs share the hardships with the men and demonstrate concern and willingness to expose themselves to as much danger as they ask the men to. Men will carry on if they think everyone else is going to. Nobody wants to be the first to break, and the example starts with the leaders. They set the tone.

The other thing a military can do is rotate troops out and let them rest and refit. Troops effectiveness will deteriorate over time in active campaigning. You can preserve it longer by rotating troops out and letting fresh troops take the heat for a while.

Little things like better rations, new equipment, clean socks (clean socks are like a +10 Morale bonus to everything) help. The men think the command cares about them, so they are more reluctant to let the unit down. How likely the wounded are to get treatment has an effect as well. If I'm pretty sure my buddies will pull me out and get me to medical care, I'm more likely to risk myself. If the wounded are left on the field to suffer and die, I'm going to make sure I'm not the guy who gets wounded.

Most armies are defeated by broken morale. You don't generally have to kill all of them , just make enough of them give up and start looking out for number one.

Vinyadan
2016-07-04, 03:03 PM
A practical example is the fall of Mosul in 2014. Absolute lack of identity in the army, fragmentation, the idea in some groups that serving the government wasn't in their best interest, together with possibly a number of problems which generally plague Arab armies ( http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars ), the fact that the State they were serving looked more like an assumption than reality and assorted fears and distrust made it so that 30.000 men were defeated by 2.000, with some joining the opposing side and others changing clothes, abandoning weapons and posts and hiding among the civilians. (This is why ISIS is currently under control of American-made 155mm M198 howitzers).

This could also be observed during the American invasion of 2003, when some Iraqi soldiers even tried to surrender to a journalist troupe. However, some elite units with esprit de corps did put up resistance, with the best example to my knowledge being the Republican Guard Medina Division, which scored the only Iraqi victory in the war during the attack on Karbala. The attack actually had the purpose of hitting the morale of the Iraqi army through the destruction of what was perceived to be its best division. The same unit quietly disbanded during battle ten days later, however.

Anyway, the point is that widespread low morale can bring to unexpected collapse, on levels which are unimaginable for armed forces in a "standard" situation.

fusilier
2016-07-04, 05:50 PM
Question: in the context of a modern army, what sort of impacts will you see from progressively worsening morale?

Presumably, badly-motivated or even anti-war conscripts would pull down their units, but how strong would this effect likely be?

Additionally, what sort of measures would be taken to try and maintain fighting capability for as many troops as possible even as equipment begins to grow scarce?

You might want to look at examples from WW1 (if that's modern enough). Poor morale and distrust of leadership led to large scale mutinies occurred which are quite different in condition and effect from what Mike_G describes.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-04, 06:26 PM
Once a soldier doesn't trust the rest of the unit, he stops taking chances, starts looking out for numero uno and the mission becomes "minimize my own personal risk." Whish means that patrols get half-assed, since aggressive patrolling is dangerous to the individual even though it makes the unit safer. Maybe I don't go look very hard for mines and snipers (again, because those things can kill you) and I just say I did and it looks clear. Or I hide in the bottom of my hole instead of shooting back, because putting my head above the lip of the hole is dangerous.

Another good - in fact, exact - example would be the behavior of many Argentinean conscripts during the Falklands War.

On the topic of Arab militaries, Kenneth Pollack's doctoral thesis (https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/11219) will answer any questions you have more thoroughly than everything else I've seen; many of the popular conceptions are oversimplifications or wrong (like the emphasis on the relationship with the USSR as a source of bad practices). It's less than 800 pages long, too, so it's worth a look if you're interested. He also wrote a book based on it, but the book's a bit watered down and doesn't examine all the possible alternative hypotheses quite as convincingly.

The reason I bring it up is because of something common between the Argentinean experience and most of the Arab catastrophes: abusively bad relations between the officer corps and the conscripts. When Arab units have collapsed under pressure, it has often (if not usually) been the officers that disappeared first.

cobaltstarfire
2016-07-06, 10:31 PM
So while I was making a grueling drive across the country, I got to wondering about how roads were built and maintained in the far past, and how thry may have differed between regions/cultures, as well as how this would effect troop movement.

I imagine a lot of roads start out as well worn paths that many people travel, did many of them remain just dirt pathways, or was there more to it than that?

I also had another question for the indeterminate sized heron riders, we talked about bows/xbows/and javelins, along with dropping heavy/pointy/burny things, but what about things like slings or sling shots?

Would a stone from such a weapon care as much about wind as a bolt or arrow?

I'm restricted to an ipod right now ao I appologize if anything is a little extra squirrelly, writing in this thing is a pain...

Knaight
2016-07-07, 01:10 AM
It depends on the stone. When it comes to sling ammunition, you can think of there as being a few distinct common materials, and a few distinct common shapes, plus various edge cases. Materials-wise, you generally got either clay, stone, or lead. Stone is a pretty large category, but looking at all the materials you can effectively think of denser materials as being less affected by wind and air resistance overall. With regards to shape, you usually had spherical, oblong, or football shaped projectiles, with football shaped projectiles designed to be more aerodynamic. In the context of stones picked up off the ground it was about finding approximately spherical or oblong stones that were good enough. Then there's size, where bigger projectiles are generally less effected by wind than smaller ones of the same shape and density, mostly because of the matter of how mass scales compared to cross sectional area.

Speaking really generally, I'd say that glandes are generally less susceptable to wind and air resistance, particularly in the context of falling speed.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-07-07, 03:06 AM
So while I was making a grueling drive across the country, I got to wondering about how roads were built and maintained in the far past, and how thry may have differed between regions/cultures, as well as how this would effect troop movement.

I imagine a lot of roads start out as well worn paths that many people travel, did many of them remain just dirt pathways, or was there more to it than that?

It would likely depend on where the road is and what it's used for - main roads near to a major trade settlement would be well maintained and made of stone, in order to facilitate the movement of goods and people in and out, while a small hamlet might have a rutted track that turns into mud for 8 months of the year, a well worn path to the nearest place of worship, and everyone who lives there normally uses their own knowledge of the local woods to get to anywhere else outside the hamlet they need to be.

snowblizz
2016-07-07, 04:43 AM
So while I was making a grueling drive across the country, I got to wondering about how roads were built and maintained in the far past, and how thry may have differed between regions/cultures, as well as how this would effect troop movement.

I imagine a lot of roads start out as well worn paths that many people travel, did many of them remain just dirt pathways, or was there more to it than that?

Generally roads weren't maintainted much in the faux medieval period. Until fairly late the best roadengineers in Europe was the Romans and their roads was all that anyone really had. That we'd recognize as roads anyway. And almost all major medieaval roads followed, were built on or just was the Romand roads.

Also generally roadmaintenance tended to fall upon those living along the road, as it is in many places still, even in developed countries the owner of a building might be responsible for the sidewalk even though such things tend to fall

Still generally the more people were around the "better" the road, and more likely to have an attempted pavement. So towns could ahve paved roads sort of "fading off" as we are removed from their area of influence.

Majorally speaking major features such as bridges were more likely to be maintained in a more systematic capacity, so various bridge and road tolls have ancient pedigree. Could even be the nucleous for a society. And often might be the responsability of a local potentate of some kind.

Yes differing regions would have vastly different roadnetworks, geography determines a lot. Which is why "road" in Scandinavia meant a beaten path through the forest you barely got a horse through except in winter when you used the frozen rivers. Until like the 1800s.

Sergeantilly roads, where not made by the Romans pretty much, would be a snaking path of local roads, with the main feature being a marker telling you how far you are (a major development). You start broadening that, and trying to cut out a better path, removing rocks and perhaps try to avoid the worst places.

Unsurprisingly this has a major impact on troop moments, where many places in the interior of Scandinavia e.g. it was a firm "nope" (not impossible, but it was a good way to get rid of your army). But it varies a lot, smaller forces more lightly armed could move much easier through broken and roadless country on paths. Anyone used to having good roads were at a disadvantage in suhc conditions, wheras ofc the opposite was true in "open country" where the more organised army can bring more force to bear. Romans and the Germanic tribes, obviously.

Tobtor
2016-07-07, 01:20 PM
Generally roads weren't maintainted much in the faux medieval period. Until fairly late the best roadengineers in Europe was the Romans and their roads was all that anyone really had. That we'd recognize as roads anyway. And almost all major medieaval roads followed, were built on or just was the Romand roads

This is true, though the perspective is of course Scandinavian, but the roads of Northern Germany, England and France wasnt (on average) much better. Of course paved roads existed, but they were rare, and mainly in and around towns, or between two closely placed towns.

I have excavated several roads (though thier date is very hard to determin...), and basically they consist of a set of wheel tracks cutting deeper and deeper into the ground, until the carts cant drive there, and they are moved a some distance to either side. Some of the better roads do sometimes have one or two ditches for drainage though (at least from the 16th century, but quite possibly also before), that the locals had to maintain.

Bridges are of course built and maintained and are important (as snowblizz say), and sometimes the road might be paved close to the bridge to accommodate the heavy traffic. Then some hundred meters away the road would branch out to several smaller roads which might not be paved. We have such patches of paved roads going back to at least the Iron Age in Scandinavia.

Other possibilities are timber built roads, or roads reinfoced when crossing wetlands etc (very common in the Netherlands and Denmark, some of the Netherlands ones are quite decent).

Of course the extensive Roman road network was maintained in some places, and even expanded in some areas during the medieval. How well they were maintained is hard to tell. I have also seen decent roads from ancient china... So I expect it to depend on your sense of period, and organisation in the respective area.

Asmodean_
2016-07-07, 02:57 PM
Scimitars.

Why?

Why not just a regular straight blade that'd be (presumably) easier to make?

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-07, 03:21 PM
Scimitars.

Why?

Why not just a regular straight blade that'd be (presumably) easier to make?


A curved blade makes draw and push cuts easier and more efficient.

Hoosigander
2016-07-07, 03:36 PM
What I write is specific to Early Medieval Ireland, since that's what I know best. It is also somewhat abstract since it is based mainly on law tracts. In Ireland there were multiple categories of road: a slige which had to be wide enough for two chariots to pass each other easily, a rout wide enough for one chariot and two horsemen, a lámraite a small road which connected two larger ones, a tógraite a road which was rented by a private individual who could collect tolls from travelers, and a bóthar or "Cow Road" which had to be as wide as two cows.

The larger roads were by law built of branches, stones, and earth. The story Tochmarc Étaíne describes the hero Midir building a road through a bog as a result of a wager, he lays down tree trunks and covers it with gravel and stones. The roads were supposed to be maintained by the local king and to be renovated every winter, before fairs, and during war. If a traveler was injured on the road it was the local king who had to pay compensation.

Natural features can also be incorporated into traveling routes. The Riada Esker in Ireland is a system of ridges formed by sand, gravel, and rocks deposited by meltwaters flowing underneath a glacier. The Riada Esker was called the "Great Way" and connected the West and East coasts.

In prehistory, there are remnants of Iron Age trackways that have been found in Ireland. Many are made from woven hurdles laid on brushwood, but there are some built of split planks that could accommodate wheeled vehicles. The most famous of these constructions is the Corlea Trackway dated to 148-147 B.C.
http://www.rte.ie/tv/waterways/media/features/features-corlea-full.jpghttp://www.ancientireland.org/corlea/P9280230ax.jpg

BayardSPSR
2016-07-07, 05:59 PM
In Ireland there were multiple categories of road: a slige which had to be wide enough for two chariots to pass each other easily, a rout wide enough for one chariot and two horsemen, a lámraite a small road which connected two larger ones, a tógraite a road which was rented by a private individual who could collect tolls from travelers, and a bóthar or "Cow Road" which had to be as wide as two cows.

For context, how wide were the chariots in use at the time?

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-07, 06:27 PM
For context, how wide were the chariots in use at the time?


Roughly 6 feet.

Galloglaich
2016-07-07, 08:16 PM
Question: in the context of a modern army, what sort of impacts will you see from progressively worsening morale?

Presumably, badly-motivated or even anti-war conscripts would pull down their units, but how strong would this effect likely be?

Additionally, what sort of measures would be taken to try and maintain fighting capability for as many troops as possible even as equipment begins to grow scarce?

Read up on the US Army in Vietnam during the 70's. That is about as bad as it gets. Pretty interesting too.

Hoosigander
2016-07-07, 09:15 PM
For context, how wide were the chariots in use at the time?

Roughly 6 feet.

Max_Killjoy is correct, a chariot would be around six feet wide. However, it is important to note that estimate is based on evidence from British and Continental Celtic chariots. The evidence for chariots in Ireland are mentions in literary and legal sources and some depictions on High Crosses. Unfortunately, no one has found chariots deposited in graves like in Britain and Continental Europe, there is some archaeological evidence in the form of linchpins, but nothing as extensive as elsewhere.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/eb/bc/db/ebbcdbc2c85ac0f406cc9dbe5052ffbb.jpg
Ahenny High Cross, 8th Century

No brains
2016-07-08, 12:02 AM
I thought I once read that a really good punch should use the last two knuckles, on the ring and little fingers, as the point of contact. I'm not sure where I read this and I don't know if there's any reason for this to be true. Is it mechanically stronger to hit that way? The best reason I can think of for punching this way to to limit damage to the index and middle fingers, as those are used more often for fine manipulation.

Brother Oni
2016-07-08, 02:21 AM
I thought I once read that a really good punch should use the last two knuckles, on the ring and little fingers, as the point of contact. I'm not sure where I read this and I don't know if there's any reason for this to be true. Is it mechanically stronger to hit that way? The best reason I can think of for punching this way to to limit damage to the index and middle fingers, as those are used more often for fine manipulation.

Depends on your punching technique.

If you punch a lot using a vertical fist (called a 'sun' fist in Chinese martial arts as the fist resembles the Chinese character for the sun 日), then contact with the last two knuckles is preferable due to body alignment and how the punch is thrown (usually from the elbow and along the 'centre line', but I can only say for the style I've studied).

If you punch a lot with the more regular horizontal fist, then the index and middle finger knuckles are better for the same reasons.

There's a fair amount of debate (ie angry internet raging) of which is better, but regardless of how you punch, you do have to condition (ie train) the appropriate knuckles to take the impact and make sure you have good technique.
When I was first starting out training, I cracked my ring finger knuckle and it took a couple years for it to heal fully (known as a Boxer's fracture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer%27s_fracture)).

Khedrac
2016-07-08, 03:03 AM
Scimitars.

Why?

Why not just a regular straight blade that'd be (presumably) easier to make?

Think about a straight edge intersecting with a body.
Assuming a roughly cylindrical body and a horizontal cut the blade should impact as the tangent to the surface which helps greatly with damage efficiency.
Problem - yes it impacts as a tangent, but it probably isn't the bit you were aiming for. To get a straight edge to hit the exact spot you want means you have to come in at a very, very specific angle. Given armour etc., this actually makes the cutting sword not that efficient.
Now consider the curved edge hitting the cylinder (the scimitar or sabre).
Although the blade cannot be said to form the tangent to the cylinder, the blade's tangent will be the cylinder's (body's) tangent at the point of intersection - still and efficient way of cutting.
However, hitting the part of the cylinder you want is now much easier - hitting with a different part of the blade hits a different part of the cylinder from the same striking angle - you have more options to achieve the hit you want.

Now whilst a cylinder is a good approximation in some cases, it is poor one in others.
Try hitting a flat surface: The straight edge hits at an angle - pretty much guaranteed (OK it is fine for hitting the corners).
The curved edge still hits with its tangent being the flat surface (up to the limit of curvature).

As Max_killjoy said above, the scimitar is far more efficient for cutting that a straight edge in combat.

(In a kitchen one is trying to do very different things, but look at old carving knives - curved edge. Also look at the cutters used to section pizza - curved edge.)

Carl
2016-07-08, 08:53 AM
Also look at the cutters used to section pizza - curved edge.

Appeal to pizza, thats a new one.

Sorry i now it's true, but having it pointed out is funny somehow.

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-08, 09:56 AM
As Max_killjoy said above, the scimitar is far more efficient for cutting that a straight edge in combat.


To follow up on my earlier comment, this is because a sword or knife edge does not just push through what it's cutting -- it has to slide along the surface to some degree. A curved blade more naturally falls into a push or pull of the blade across the surface of the target as a part of the swinging or even thrusting motion.

warty goblin
2016-07-08, 10:08 AM
Scimitars.

Why?

Why not just a regular straight blade that'd be (presumably) easier to make?

Note also that a curved blade is not necessarily any more difficult to make. One way to define the edge geometry of a sword is to forge the edge bevels in with a hammer prior to grinding and polishing the blade. Beveling in this manner does not remove any material from the blade, so since you are taking the same amount of material and making it thinner, it will to curve the blade, with the beveled edge on the outside of the curve. Forging in the bevel of a single edge blade in other words naturally gives you a curved sword. If you watch a smith bevel a double edged sword , they alternate which side of the blade they're working, in order to keep the piece straight.

No brains
2016-07-08, 10:28 AM
Depends on your punching technique.

If you punch a lot using a vertical fist (called a 'sun' fist in Chinese martial arts as the fist resembles the Chinese character for the sun 日), then contact with the last two knuckles is preferable due to body alignment and how the punch is thrown (usually from the elbow and along the 'centre line', but I can only say for the style I've studied).

If you punch a lot with the more regular horizontal fist, then the index and middle finger knuckles are better for the same reasons.

There's a fair amount of debate (ie angry internet raging) of which is better, but regardless of how you punch, you do have to condition (ie train) the appropriate knuckles to take the impact and make sure you have good technique.
When I was first starting out training, I cracked my ring finger knuckle and it took a couple years for it to heal fully (known as a Boxer's fracture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer%27s_fracture)).

Thank you for the information. How does one condition bones like that? Does every bone along the arm need to get conditioned or just the striking bones?


Appeal to pizza, thats a new one.

Sorry i now it's true, but having it pointed out is funny somehow.

Appeal to pizza is my favorite logical fallacy and I always fall for it when there's real pizza involved. :smallbiggrin:

Brother Oni
2016-07-08, 11:04 AM
Thank you for the information. How does one condition bones like that? Does every bone along the arm need to get conditioned or just the striking bones?

The same way you condition any part of your body, painfully. :smalltongue:

More seriously, hitting things hard enough repeatedly will cause damage to the structures involved - as that inescapable SOB Newton said, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so if you're hitting things at 1.5kN, that 1.5kN is also being applied back into your body. In the case of punching, it causes micro fractures in the bones, primarily in the metacarpals but the stresses involved will also slightly damage the rest of the muscles involved (arm, core, shoulder, etc), the tendons connecting the muscles, the bone where those tendons attach, the joints, etc. With proper rest and diet, the body will heal the damage, making the repaired structures stronger, thus allowing you to punch harder, which damages the body again, etc.

The repeated impacts to the knuckles also tends to make them more prominent - if you look at a fighter's hands, you can see how they tend to land their punches (in my case, it's the index, middle and ring fingers as I'm quite fond of the backfist punch). I've heard of Muay Thai practioners help their shin bone conditioning by initially rolling a glass bottle over the shin then progressing to rougher and harder materials inbetween their training sessions.

If you meant the actual biological processes of how the body repairs such damage, I can go into the detail of that but detailing how the bone repairs itself via fibroblasts forming a callus and the subsequent mineralisation and ossification process is probably something for another thread.

Tiktakkat
2016-07-08, 11:46 AM
Depends on your punching technique.

If you punch a lot using a vertical fist (called a 'sun' fist in Chinese martial arts as the fist resembles the Chinese character for the sun 日), then contact with the last two knuckles is preferable due to body alignment and how the punch is thrown (usually from the elbow and along the 'centre line', but I can only say for the style I've studied).

If you punch a lot with the more regular horizontal fist, then the index and middle finger knuckles are better for the same reasons.

I punch using the vertical fist, and I've always been taught, and experienced, that contact with the first two knuckles is preferable, due to both alignment with the elbow and to avoid a boxer's fracture.
I'm not really sure how you could or would use the last two knuckles to achieve any sort of useful alignment.

As for comparisons with the horizontal fist, there is a question as to whether that is intended as a "safety punch" to prevent proper alignment of the knuckles with the solar plexus and other targets.
From that, there are questions as to the differences between the alignment at the start of the movement and impact, during the impact, and at the end of the impact. a "vertical" punch might be intended to impact at a 10-20 angle off of vertical for best fit under the rib cage for strikes to the heart and liver as well as the solar plexus, while the "horizontal" punch represents the final position after a strike to other muscle groups that began vertical but twisted on impact to aggravate the damage to the muscle.

And then of course there are issues regarding the difference between bare hand strikes and covered (with boxing gloves or the like) strikes. Those pads are to protect the striking hand, not the target, typically the face. With bare handed strikes, the face tends to be a terrible target because of the structure of the skull. Even a "proper" punch is liable to result in a broken hand. Conversely, strikes to the rib cage, particularly at muscle/cartilage attachment points, generally do less damage to the striking hand.


The same way you condition any part of your body, painfully.

This.

Big time.

Due to damage to my wrists I avoid punching as much as possible. Despite that, I still have considerable visible scarring on the knuckles of the index and middle finger of both hands.
For other strikes, I did considerable conditioning of my finger tips, palm heels, and back of my wrist. (The last of which likely contributed to the wrist damage making punching less of an option for me.) I hit bags, pads, wood, drywall, and eventually even cinderblocks with finger tips.
I also conditioned my shins on heavy bags, including kicking the bottom of an old one with all the sand settled, and conditioning my big toe by striking up to drywall.

I will note though, that you must be EXTREMELY careful with such conditioning or the damage will eventually become debilitating.
All the macho factor of being able to clash shins with someone and watch them drop whimpering while you stand around smirking when you are in your 20s is really not worth all the limping when the air pressure changes too rapidly when you are in your 40s.

Galloglaich
2016-07-08, 04:00 PM
Max_Killjoy is correct, a chariot would be around six feet wide. However, it is important to note that estimate is based on evidence from British and Continental Celtic chariots. The evidence for chariots in Ireland are mentions in literary and legal sources and some depictions on High Crosses. Unfortunately, no one has found chariots deposited in graves like in Britain and Continental Europe, there is some archaeological evidence in the form of linchpins, but nothing as extensive as elsewhere.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/eb/bc/db/ebbcdbc2c85ac0f406cc9dbe5052ffbb.jpg
Ahenny High Cross, 8th Century

Some of the Irish roads seem to follow a pattern of complex, well built, well surveyed roads in Continental Europe which predate the Romans. Some of these are associated with "Celtic" culture but that is such a loose term that it's hard to realistically associate with much any more (it's out of favor with Academics). Anyway some kind of Celtic or proto-Celtic (Halstadt or before) culture seems to have been pretty good at making some good roads.

There were major 'road' (trails, portages etc.) systems crisscrossing Europe which also pre-date the Romans but which the Romans updated and built settlements along. Notably among these

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Via_Imperii_und_Via_Regia.png/640px-Via_Imperii_und_Via_Regia.png

The Via Regia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Regia)
The Via Imperii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Imperii)
The Via Lusatia
The Amber Road (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Road)

The Silk Road also connects with the Via Regia.

The medieval tends to be more elusive in this as in with all other things. It is very hard to generalize. Many contradictory things are going on at the same time. But I can say that in the Late Medieval they did have some fairly sophisticated roads not necessarily inferior to what the Romans built. The Romans built roads of course for different purposes and with different techniques. The Romans for example relied heavily on slave labor whereas in the Late Medieval they relied much more on machines and skilled labor. The Roman roads were for moving large infantry formations (Legions) from one end of the Empire to the other, and they tended to be incredibly, almost pathologically strait. Medieval roads were more for trade though of course armies used them too. They tended more to follow the natural curvature of the terrain.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Viaregia1.jpg/360px-Viaregia1.jpg
This is supposed to be a section of the old Via Regia

In the Holy Roman Empire there were a series of 'roads' (some of them were probably recognizable to us as roads, others more like trails, portages, traces etc.) which were called Reichsstraßen. Imperial streets is I think the literal translation. These had a special legal status as in robbing somebody on the Imperial road could get you in extra trouble, and certain types of other violent or destructive activities were more severely punished if they occurred on the Imperial roads. Similar rules were in effect in various countries for "Royal roads" or streets.

However in the Late Medieval period the most well maintained, built and surveyed roads were not the Royal or Imperial ones necessarily, but were the ones in the more built-up, urbanized areas. For example, the Old Salt Route (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Salt_Route) which was actually part of the Via Imperii I think, started out as a simple trail or trace but was eventually built into a nice road by Lubeck and Hamburg. It was used for carting salt and needed to be in good repair and relatively immune to weather. I believe this section is the actual old medieval paved road:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Alte_Salzstrasse_Breitenfelde.jpg/450px-Alte_Salzstrasse_Breitenfelde.jpg


Road systems in Northern Italy, Flanders, and around other smaller clusters of powerful or wealthy towns (for example in Upper Lusatia where a handful of towns formed the Lusatian League) tended to be well maintained. However in the middle ages for a variety of reasons, especially the fairly brisk trade of all kinds of bulk commodities and finished goods, they liked to move things by ship, boat or barge quite a bit. They made an incredible network of canals all over Europe. These again, started out mostly in the more urbanized areas. For example between Lubeck and Hamburg (and Luneburg and some other towns) the 7 mile Stecknitz Canal, finished in 1390, was one of the first large man-made canals made in Europe. Apparently they were moving about 30,000 tons of salt per year down that canal in the 15th Century, along with a lot of other cargo (and if necessary, troops and stuff like guns).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stecknitz_Canal

Today there is an incredible network of these canals linking almost every river in Europe. Water was (and generally, still is I believe, even compared to rail) a much more energy efficient way to move heavy goods, and often in medieval times, a safer way to travel partly because you could carry lots of heavy guns with you.


Medieval road systems and other infrastructure like bridges, tunnels and passes, were sometimes paid for by tolls, sometimes paid by a prince but most often by the nearby towns who wanted them in place and well-maintained for their own commercial and military benefits. Roads which were part of or along the major trade routes like the Via Regia or the Amber Road were more likely to be better maintained by the local municipalities because they were usually steady sources of income.

One other feature of medieval roads in the more organized areas, is that many of them were used by postal systems, kind of like pony express systems. The original coach, the kind of personnel carriage you see portrayed so often in period films set in the 17th or 18th Century, got it's name from a town in Hungary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kocs) which was one of the pony express postal stations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coach_(carriage)#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage#Coach
Of course the medieval period being complicated, there were also many areas with almost no improved roads at all.


G

Galloglaich
2016-07-08, 04:03 PM
This is one of the locks from the canal I mentioned, apparently (according to the Wiki) it's the original medieval lock. Gives you an idea how sophisticated they were (though the canal was quite shallow, only deep enough for fairly small barges)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Palmschleuse.jpg


The Flemish and the Dutch were also famously very good at making tons of canals. Venice is also known for this...

Some of the canals in Northern Europe even have shade trees planted the whole way...

Galloglaich
2016-07-08, 04:10 PM
A model of that same lock, the Palmschleuse at Lauenburg, meant to show what it looked like circa 1430

http://img.webme.com/pic/p/peters-bilderhp/esm-lauenbg-001.jpg

Galloglaich
2016-07-08, 04:20 PM
Another old medieval road, the Via del Sale in Italy

http://www.dangerousroads.org/images/stories/Newroads102/sale18.jpg

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/feb/26/walking-liguria-salt-road-Italy

http://www.dangerousroads.org/europe/italy/229-via-del-sale-italy.html

Brother Oni
2016-07-08, 04:56 PM
I punch using the vertical fist, and I've always been taught, and experienced, that contact with the first two knuckles is preferable, due to both alignment with the elbow and to avoid a boxer's fracture.
I'm not really sure how you could or would use the last two knuckles to achieve any sort of useful alignment.


Could I ask what style you've trained in? I'm quite short and the relevant martial arts style I trained in (Southern Mantis) is basically designed for my height and body shape, so I use the vertical fist for punching upwards or to normal height on the average westerner :smalltongue:.

Roxxy
2016-07-08, 07:17 PM
Is there really much advantage to holding a knife with an icepick grip? Been messing around with a kitchen knife and moving boxes (yes, I know, not a scientific study or a combat weapon), and holding it blade down doesn't seem to give an increase in power, and it's harder to control where the blade goes. I feel like I can stab faster and closer to where I want just holding the blade up and stabbing forward. Does this match combat trained people's experience with knives?

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-08, 07:45 PM
Is there really much advantage to holding a knife with an icepick grip? Been messing around with a kitchen knife and moving boxes (yes, I know, not a scientific study or a combat weapon), and holding it blade down doesn't seem to give an increase in power, and it's harder to control where the blade goes. I feel like I can stab faster and closer to where I want just holding the blade up and stabbing forward. Does this match combat trained people's experience with knives?

From what I've read, that "reverse grip" is used more for certain slashing techniques, and you'd really only stab down like that when you had an opponent helpless, and then you'd probably put your off hand on the back of our main hand to add extra control and power.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-08, 08:25 PM
Read up on the US Army in Vietnam during the 70's. That is about as bad as it gets. Pretty interesting too.

The Soviet Army in Afghanistan might be another good example, but the material on it's a bit thinner on the ground. Or at least, you have to look harder to find it in English.

(For example, I've heard anecdotes of Soviet officers literally dueling each other over women with grenades, but those are understandably difficult to corroborate.)

Tiktakkat
2016-07-08, 09:28 PM
Could I ask what style you've trained in? I'm quite short and the relevant martial arts style I trained in (Southern Mantis) is basically designed for my height and body shape, so I use the vertical fist for punching upwards or to normal height on the average westerner :smalltongue:.

Isshin Ryu, an Okinawan system that is predominantly Shorin with a bit of Goju.
It is generally a punching/kicking range system, but because I'm on the short side (5'8") and squat (180-210 at prime fighting weight), I use it more at punching/grappling range, and do a lot more finger strikes instead of punches.

One thing I stress when teaching that is rather "heretical" (at least in my area) when discussing kata "bunkai" is that the difference in height is HIGHLY relevant to the technique used. A target that requires a "vertical" punch on someone of the same height will require an uppercut on someone taller and a down "horizontal" punch on someone smaller.
Well, unless you really like breaking your hand or flailing ineffectively. :smallbiggrin:
That is one of many reasons why I phrase answers to most questions about techniques as "generally" - there are too many variables for absolute universal answers to be valid.

Tiktakkat
2016-07-08, 09:54 PM
Is there really much advantage to holding a knife with an icepick grip? Been messing around with a kitchen knife and moving boxes (yes, I know, not a scientific study or a combat weapon), and holding it blade down doesn't seem to give an increase in power, and it's harder to control where the blade goes. I feel like I can stab faster and closer to where I want just holding the blade up and stabbing forward. Does this match combat trained people's experience with knives?

It depends on the knife and the target.

If you need to penetrate mail or plate armor, or a skull, the ice pick grip, sometimes referred to as the rondel grip from the weapon of that name, is essential. Which is pretty much why rondel's were constructed the way they were, and why the grip is named for it.

If you need to cut a throat or gut someone in street clothes, the natural or sword grip is going to be more effective.

The thing is, a rondel is almost a spike, and slashing with it is nearly useless. So you pretty much MUST use an ice pick grip with one.
Conversely, something like a machete is just a cleaver, and stabbing with it is significantly less effective. So you pretty much MUST use a natural grip with it.
Of course then you get things like a bowie knife which can hack AND slash with great force, so you may want to switch back and forth depending on what you are doing at a particular moment.

Roxxy
2016-07-09, 12:20 AM
Would you ever want to slash with a knife, though, barring slitting a throat or the use of a cleaver like a kukri? I've been of the impression that yoj stab in a knife fight, and I feel like the sword grip is a lot easier to control with better reach.

Mike_G
2016-07-09, 07:06 AM
Would you ever want to slash with a knife, though, barring slitting a throat or the use of a cleaver like a kukri? I've been of the impression that yoj stab in a knife fight, and I feel like the sword grip is a lot easier to control with better reach.

As with all things, it depends on a lot.

First, you need the right knife. Some knives don't slash well at all. And you need the right target. If you are fighting, not just walking up and shanking an unsuspecting guy, you might slash at his arms to disable his knife hand or stop him from grabbing you. His hands and arms are probably closer to you that his body, so you may not be able to stab him until you get past the arms, which might be holding a weapon, so trying to disable them first is something you might do.

A slash (with a big enough knife) is more likely to sever muscle or tendons and blood vessels than a stab, so on an arm, it's more likely to be disabling. It's less likely to reach organs if you slash at the body than if you stab.

All that said, people can take a lot of stabbing. There are lots of accounts of people being stabbed a ton of times before falling over, even if the wounds eventually prove fatal. Slashing the guy's weapon hand first might not be an awful idea.

snowblizz
2016-07-09, 07:36 AM
Going to add one thing on the road question that was mentioned in a book. Culture can have impacts on roads too.

In Tokugawa Japan roads (and bridges and stuff) between "provinces" were left unattended to discourage travel internally between provinces. They also had "toll" stations and passes needed to control movement as well.

Tobtor
2016-07-09, 11:04 AM
As with all things, it depends on a lot.

First, you need the right knife. Some knives don't slash well at all. And you need the right target. If you are fighting, not just walking up and shanking an unsuspecting guy, you might slash at his arms to disable his knife hand or stop him from grabbing you. His hands and arms are probably closer to you that his body, so you may not be able to stab him until you get past the arms, which might be holding a weapon, so trying to disable them first is something you might so.

A slash (with a big enough knife) is more likely to severe muscle or tendons and blood vessels than a stab, so on an arm, it's more likely to be disabling. I't less likely to reach organs if you slash at teh body than if you stab.

All that said, people can take a lot of stabbing. There are lots of accounts of people being stabbed a ton of times before falling over, even if the wounds eventually prove fatal. Slashing the guy's weapon hand first might not be an awful idea.

Also sometimes you want to not kill your opponent, but just disable him (usually killing someone is a much harsher penalty - there could also be religious/moral reasons for not killing someone).

cobaltstarfire
2016-07-09, 05:18 PM
The road info is much appreciated (and the info on canals too is really neat I think canals might be apprpriate for some areas in my story...)

How about roads in other parts of the world? Have we found much about roads in the Americas? I know there was some trade from south america to the midwest in north america, or what about the Indus Valley civilizations or pre-colonization Africa?

Galloglaich
2016-07-09, 08:43 PM
The road info is much appreciated (and the info on canals too is really neat I think canals might be apprpriate for some areas in my story...)

How about roads in other parts of the world? Have we found much about roads in the Americas? I know there was some trade from south america to the midwest in north america, or what about the Indus Valley civilizations or pre-colonization Africa?

I don't know that much about it but I know the Incas had a road system that went up pretty much the entire length of the Andes, and I think the Chinese had sophisticated road networks and canals like in Europe.

GraaEminense
2016-07-10, 06:56 AM
Also sometimes you want to not kill your opponent, but just disable him (usually killing someone is a much harsher penalty - there could also be religious/moral reasons for not killing someone).
There is also the simple fact that a slash covers a wider area than a stab. It may be harder to land a good hit, but it's easier to hit something. If you're mostly trying to keep the enemy at bay, or you're just not very good, slashing may be a better choice. It also requires less body commitment and the arm moves less predictably, so they're harder to counter.

Not that there's much safety in anything involving knives.

Yora
2016-07-10, 08:08 AM
Quick Question: Are flamethrowers still legal in warfare or do they count as chemical weapons?

Re4XN
2016-07-10, 08:29 AM
Quick Question: Are flamethrowers still legal in warfare or do they count as chemical weapons?

The Geneva convention has nothing against flamethrowers, HOWEVER, there is a number of drawbacks to them that make them undesirable as weapons.

Hoosigander
2016-07-10, 08:57 AM
As Gallogloich says, the Incas are nearly as famed as the Romans when it comes to road building. Also like the Romans they often were building on top of previously existing road networks. The main North-South highway was 3,700 miles long. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_road_system

There is an interesting phenomenon in Chinese History referred to as the Tang-Song transition. Between the late Tang and early Song there was a shift in population towards Southern China, along with a transition to a cash economy and an economic boom. This affected roads, in previous dynasties most of the main thoroughfares radiated out from the capital. As you can see in this map of Han Dynasty China, all roads led to Chang'an.
http://totallyhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/han-dynasty-map.jpg

After the Song period there was much more interconnection between the provinces and a more complicated road network. On a smaller level street plans in cities changed as well. Pre-Song cities were built on a grid pattern with city limits defined by walls. Many of the new commercial centers that expanded had a more organic (or chaotic) street plan.

It is impossible to talk about transport in China without talking about massive water works projects. The Grand Canal evolved over many years, but was substantially built during the Sui dynasty. There are also many canals built during the Warring States Period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canal_(China)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingqu_Canal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhengguo_Canal

GraaEminense
2016-07-10, 09:06 AM
The Geneva convention has nothing against flamethrowers, HOWEVER, there is a number of drawbacks to them that make them undesirable as weapons.
Not illegal per se, but the "no unnecessary suffering" clauses of the Geneva and Hague Conventions would probably limit justifiable use to a handful of scenarios. If we're playing by the rules, that is.

Gnoman
2016-07-10, 09:53 AM
Flamethrowers are subject to the same restrictions as any other incendiary weapon. These restrictions are that they cannot be used against civilians, or against military forces in close proximity to civilians. Any other use is perfectly legal under the laws of war. Flamethrowers have mostly fallen out of favor (replaced by napalm-filled rocket launchers such as the M202 FLASH) because they are very short ranged and the large fuel tank has a habit of igniting when struck by a bullet.


The "undue suffering" clauses of the conventions are directed primarily at things like blinding lasers, triangular knives, and similar weapons that are explicitly intended to not just take somebody out of the fight but mess them up so bad that the enemy has to direct massive resources to treat them.

Re4XN
2016-07-10, 11:07 AM
Because they are very short ranged and the large fuel tank has a habit of igniting when struck by a bullet.

Short ranged, yes. Prone to igniting if shot? Not so much. If the fuel tank gets shot, the most likely thing that is going to happen is that the gasses inside will escape and you will be knocked down. The fuel will just leak. Unless the tank is struck by incendiary ammo, the odds of it igniting are pretty slim.

Also, regarding the terror caused by flamethrowers, they make you a priority target on the battlefield. During WW2, snipers would prioritize the flamethrower carriers. MOREOVER, the liquid in it would not last much past 5 minutes, so you had to really micro manage its usage.

And yes, flamethrowers are "incendiary weapons" and as such are regulated by the Geneva convention, but by no means are they illegal (unless, as stated above, they are employed in civilian areas).

Brother Oni
2016-07-10, 02:58 PM
Short ranged, yes. Prone to igniting if shot? Not so much. If the fuel tank gets shot, the most likely thing that is going to happen is that the gasses inside will escape and you will be knocked down. The fuel will just leak. Unless the tank is struck by incendiary ammo, the odds of it igniting are pretty slim.

As far as I can tell, it depends on the exact flamethrower.

The US M2 flamethrower had a petrol tank propelled by a separate nitrogen tank - I would agree that shooting holes into the pressurised nitrogen container would not be overly dangerous, but it would take the weapon out of commission. Shooting holes in a liquid petrol tank is a lot trickier to determine as it depends on the air/fuel mixture inside the thing - a nearly empty tank may explode, while a nearly full one would most probably leak all over the place. If you start leaking petrol all over the place, then any ignition source whether that's from the wand, incendiary round, muzzle flash or spark from a round striking steel, is going to be bad for the soldier wearing the thing.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-07-10, 03:13 PM
Some of the canals in Northern Europe even have shade trees planted the whole way...

Which sounds like a luxury, but would have been quite handy with horse-drawn boats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekschuit) or vessels propelled by human power, as sailing was often not much of an option with a big boat on a small canal. Shade improves staying power, making transport along the canal faster and cheaper.

Mike_G
2016-07-10, 04:05 PM
As far as I can tell, it depends on the exact flamethrower.

The US M2 flamethrower had a petrol tank propelled by a separate nitrogen tank - I would agree that shooting holes into the pressurised nitrogen container would not be overly dangerous, but it would take the weapon out of commission. Shooting holes in a liquid petrol tank is a lot trickier to determine as it depends on the air/fuel mixture inside the thing - a nearly empty tank may explode, while a nearly full one would most probably leak all over the place. If you start leaking petrol all over the place, then any ignition source whether that's from the wand, incendiary round, muzzle flash or spark from a round striking steel, is going to be bad for the soldier wearing the thing.

It was still big, heavy, short ranged, has a limited duration of actual flame use, and made you a prime target.

It's good for clearing bunkers if you can suppress the enemy enough for the operator to get close enough safely, because it uses up the oxygen, so even if you don't burn the enemy, you make it so they have to evacuate to survive. In the Pacific, where a lot of Japanese bunkers were made of logs rather than concrete, you could also just set fire to it and force the defenders to abandon it.

Tank mounted flame throwers are very useful, as they are much less vulnerable.

Mr Beer
2016-07-10, 04:06 PM
Also, regarding the terror caused by flamethrowers, they make you a priority target on the battlefield. During WW2, snipers would prioritize the flamethrower carriers. MOREOVER, the liquid in it would not last much past 5 minutes, so you had to really micro manage its usage.

Plus flamethrower troops who surrendered were less likely to make it to POW camp as opposed to a nearby ditch.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-10, 10:39 PM
Quick Question: Are flamethrowers still legal in warfare or do they count as chemical weapons?

In practice, thermobaric weapons have completely filled the role of flamethrowers in urban combat and bunker busting, with the added benefits of not spreading (for use in proximity to friendly forces, or when you're expecting infantry to occupy the position fired on), having longer-range delivery systems, and being far more effective against both vehicles and infantry in the open (massed rocket-delivered thermobaric warheads (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1) have been decisive in both Ukraine and Syria).

~10-page overview pdf here (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/Flame_2015.pdf).

Galloglaich
2016-07-10, 11:07 PM
Which sounds like a luxury, but would have been quite handy with horse-drawn boats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekschuit) or vessels propelled by human power, as sailing was often not much of an option with a big boat on a small canal. Shade improves staying power, making transport along the canal faster and cheaper.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that but it makes a lot of sense.

The military use of the river and canal networks was apparently substantial, incidentally. I read a statistic a while back that the Hungarians during the era of the Black Army maintained several hundred armed boats. So did the Prussian Confederation during the 13 Years War during roughly the same period.

The Cossacks seemed to use the rivers as their best means of taking out the Mongols, though I'm not sure precisely what the mechanism was or how the tactics worked, it seems to have been the basis through which so much of Central Asia was eventually conquered by Muscovy / the Russian Empire. It was apparently through Cossacks using the rivers to a large extent.

Galloglaich
2016-07-10, 11:10 PM
As Gallogloich says, the Incas are nearly as famed as the Romans when it comes to road building. Also like the Romans they often were building on top of previously existing road networks. The main North-South highway was 3,700 miles long. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_road_system

There is an interesting phenomenon in Chinese History referred to as the Tang-Song transition. Between the late Tang and early Song there was a shift in population towards Southern China, along with a transition to a cash economy and an economic boom. This affected roads, in previous dynasties most of the main thoroughfares radiated out from the capital. As you can see in this map of Han Dynasty China, all roads led to Chang'an.
http://totallyhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/han-dynasty-map.jpg

After the Song period there was much more interconnection between the provinces and a more complicated road network. On a smaller level street plans in cities changed as well. Pre-Song cities were built on a grid pattern with city limits defined by walls. Many of the new commercial centers that expanded had a more organic (or chaotic) street plan.

It is impossible to talk about transport in China without talking about massive water works projects. The Grand Canal evolved over many years, but was substantially built during the Sui dynasty. There are also many canals built during the Warring States Period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canal_(China)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingqu_Canal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhengguo_Canal

Great post, fascinating. I may have remembered this wrong, and it's not my area of expertise by any means so forgive me if I botch some of these details. But I seem to recall something about how when the Chinese came under pressure from "Wako" pirates and a lot of Japanese Ronin prowling along their coasts in the 16th Century, they simply retreated most of their trade back to interior canal networks rather than bother with fighting a war (which was kind of looked down upon by Mandarins).

Later when the Japanese kind of forced their hand by invading Korea, the Chinese dusted off some ancient military books, built a navy and wiped out the Japanese fleets.

The Jesuit missionary and 'memory palace' expert Matteo Richi had a very vivid first hand description of traveling down one of those canals in an Imperial barge IIRC, which was quite evocative. Fascinating period. Crouching Tiger / Hidden Dragon! They need to do more period films like that ...

G

Brother Oni
2016-07-11, 01:53 AM
Fascinating period. Crouching Tiger / Hidden Dragon! They need to do more period films like that ...

They do, they're just not translated into English unfortunately.

Here's a list of this season's period dramas: link (http://www.dramapanda.com/2016/01/2016-best-wuxia-historical-chinese-drama.html).

snowblizz
2016-07-11, 04:59 AM
Great post, fascinating. I may have remembered this wrong, and it's not my area of expertise by any means so forgive me if I botch some of these details. But I seem to recall something about how when the Chinese came under pressure from "Wako" pirates and a lot of Japanese Ronin prowling along their coasts in the 16th Century, they simply retreated most of their trade back to interior canal networks rather than bother with fighting a war (which was kind of looked down upon by Mandarins).
I do believe the Wako (because despite the name and claims, the majority of these were actually Chinese) problem was primarily a result of the shortsightedness of denying their populace access to sea trade. IIRC even fishing in anything but the smallest craft wasn't even allowed. This lead to piracy since the coastal populations kinda depend on the sea, which in turn meant the powers at be focused even more on using the canals as interior channels since they lacked the will or ability to do something about coastal trade. In essence I think the canals are in part both cause and effect of the piracy.



Later when the Japanese kind of forced their hand by invading Korea, the Chinese dusted off some ancient military books, built a navy and wiped out the Japanese fleets.

Oooo... don't let a Korean catch you saying that. It was the Koreans themselves who developed the naval forces to beat the Japanese, fact is, much of it was on the shoulders of one man whose patience in the face of corrupt stupid shortsighted politics verges on saintly, Admiral Yi. I can't recall exactly how much Ming China contributed, but the major contribution to sea-warfare was Korean, e.g. the Turtle ships and putting more emphasis on cannon over boarding.

Very nice byte sized overview of the Korean side of that conflict through the POV of the man who arguably won the war.
http://bit.ly/1FkP5ZO

Hoosigander
2016-07-11, 08:46 AM
Great post, fascinating. I may have remembered this wrong, and it's not my area of expertise by any means so forgive me if I botch some of these details. But I seem to recall something about how when the Chinese came under pressure from "Wako" pirates and a lot of Japanese Ronin prowling along their coasts in the 16th Century, they simply retreated most of their trade back to interior canal networks rather than bother with fighting a war (which was kind of looked down upon by Mandarins).

Later when the Japanese kind of forced their hand by invading Korea, the Chinese dusted off some ancient military books, built a navy and wiped out the Japanese fleets.

The Jesuit missionary and 'memory palace' expert Matteo Richi had a very vivid first hand description of traveling down one of those canals in an Imperial barge IIRC, which was quite evocative. Fascinating period. Crouching Tiger / Hidden Dragon! They need to do more period films like that ...

G

The Haijin was a policy imposed in 1371 by the first Ming Emperor, the Hongwu Emperor, which made foreign trade illegal. The ostensible rationale for the policy was to deal with the early waves of the Wakou, who came from the islands laying between Japan and Korea. The policy was ineffective and compounded the problem by forcing many coastal Chinese communities into piracy as well, as Snowblizz mentions by the 16th century Wakou were an ethnically mixed lot but the Chinese may have been the majority of the pirates. Because of this very ineffectivness some historians have speculated that there were other reasons for the law, like trying manipulate the Japanese by exploiting their dependence on Chinese goods, some have seen it as a more extreme version of Song and Yuan attempts to try and stop the outflow of bullion and attribute the policy to concerns about the currency. The Ban was included in the book the Hongwu Emperor wrote as instructions for his descendants and continued until 1567. The Ming continued to heavily regulate trade and required foreign merchants to operate through licensed agents and capped by a quota. This system was officially in place through the later Ming, but declining state power made its enforcement nominal.

In the early days of the Qing dynasty there was a concern about Ming loyalists in southern China and connections between mainland Chinese and the Koxinga regime in Taiwan. So, under the Kangxi Emperor in 1661 and 1662 residents of certain areas in southern China were required to destroy their property and move 30–50 li inland (16–26 km or 10–16 mi). This lasted only about 8 years and was rescinded in 1669. The Qing banned trade in the South China Sea specifically from 1717-1727, due to concerns about contact with the Chinese diaspora which might harbor disloyal elements.

The Chinese did make military efforts to combat piracy, as well. Many coastal forts were erected and garrisoned, particularly along the southern coast.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Hui'an_Chongwu_Cheng_20120302-20.jpg/220px-Hui'an_Chongwu_Cheng_20120302-20.jpg

Particularly in the early wave of Wokou piracy, the Koreans also deserve a lot of credit. In the late 14th century they were very active with their naval forces in combating piracy. In 1419 the Koreans actually invaded Tsushima Island with a fleet of 227 ships and 17,000 soldiers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cei_Invasion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haijin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Clearance

Tobtor
2016-07-11, 11:57 AM
Just a note on roads: the amber road was not "a road" but a series of roads. It was a 'route', rather than a 'road'. Most of it (at least the noerthern parts) wasn't well built all the way as a roman road.

Here is one of the best preserve Iron age roads from Denmark (Brosskovvejen for those interested). It dates to ca. 200-300AD and is thus contemporary with the Roman roads, so some Germanians was perhaps inspired.
http://slks.dk/fileadmin/_processed_/csm_2013-8_Anden_oldtidsvej_-_foto_2_d1d91ec1dc.jpg

The thing is that we can only follow these roads through wetlands/boggy areas, this can either be due to preservation (thick layers of turf protecting the roads) or perhaps they were only built were needed: in the wetlands were carts would sink into the ground without roads.

Here is an even older road (around 1-5th century BC date for the stone road, a plank road is C14 dated to perhaps 2-3.000BC -though the age of the trees should be factored in):

http://naturstyrelsen.dk/media/nst/9230817/s_renagerlund_oldtidsvejen.jpg?width=678

I can tell you such roads are a pain to excavated and record/draw.

Galloglaich
2016-07-11, 01:21 PM
The Haijin was a policy imposed in 1371 by the first Ming Emperor, the Hongwu Emperor, which made foreign trade illegal. The ostensible rationale for the policy was to deal with the early waves of the Wakou, who came from the islands laying between Japan and Korea. The policy was ineffective and compounded the problem by forcing many coastal Chinese communities into piracy as well, as Snowblizz mentions by the 16th century Wakou were an ethnically mixed lot but the Chinese may have been the majority of the pirates. Because of this very ineffectivness some historians have speculated that there were other reasons for the law, like trying manipulate the Japanese by exploiting their dependence on Chinese goods, some have seen it as a more extreme version of Song and Yuan attempts to try and stop the outflow of bullion and attribute the policy to concerns about the currency. The Ban was included in the book the Hongwu Emperor wrote as instructions for his descendants and continued until 1567. The Ming continued to heavily regulate trade and required foreign merchants to operate through licensed agents and capped by a quota. This system was officially in place through the later Ming, but declining state power made its enforcement nominal.

In the early days of the Qing dynasty there was a concern about Ming loyalists in southern China and connections between mainland Chinese and the Koxinga regime in Taiwan. So, under the Kangxi Emperor in 1661 and 1662 residents of certain areas in southern China were required to destroy their property and move 30–50 li inland (16–26 km or 10–16 mi). This lasted only about 8 years and was rescinded in 1669. The Qing banned trade in the South China Sea specifically from 1717-1727, due to concerns about contact with the Chinese diaspora which might harbor disloyal elements.

The Chinese did make military efforts to combat piracy, as well. Many coastal forts were erected and garrisoned, particularly along the southern coast.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Hui'an_Chongwu_Cheng_20120302-20.jpg/220px-Hui'an_Chongwu_Cheng_20120302-20.jpg

Particularly in the early wave of Wokou piracy, the Koreans also deserve a lot of credit. In the late 14th century they were very active with their naval forces in combating piracy. In 1419 the Koreans actually invaded Tsushima Island with a fleet of 227 ships and 17,000 soldiers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cei_Invasion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haijin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Clearance

I stand corrected, thanks for the great and informative post! As usual the 'official' version one hears lacks the all-important nuance.

Is it true that part of the problem with the whole Wokou situation was all these Japanese Ronin coming out of Japan because once their lord had been defeated they had no position in the Feudal society?

Did the Chinese 'dust off' any ship designs or did I hallucinate that part?

G

Hoosigander
2016-07-11, 09:53 PM
I stand corrected, thanks for the great and informative post! As usual the 'official' version one hears lacks the all-important nuance.

Is it true that part of the problem with the whole Wokou situation was all these Japanese Ronin coming out of Japan because once their lord had been defeated they had no position in the Feudal society?

Did the Chinese 'dust off' any ship designs or did I hallucinate that part?

G
When it comes to Ronin I think that Brother Oni may be more informed than I, but it seems to me that although Ronin may have been among the ranks of the Wokou, civil disorder in Japan was probably not a main driver of the Wokou crisis. The first wave of Wokou piracy in the late 14th and early 15th century occurred after the establishment of the Ashikaga Shogunate and before the outset of the Onin War. By the time of the second 16th century Wakou wave most of the leaders of the pirates were Chinese, often people with connections to Southern Chinese merchant families. Japan played an important role as many of the pirates, like Wang Zhi, sheltered in Japan and fostered relations with locally powerful Daimyo. The first wave of Wokou were from the border islands of Korea and Japan and were probably driven by marginal economic circumstances, the main reason for the second Wokou wave was the Haijin policy which removed legitimate options for seafarers and even encouraged rich merchants and local southern Chinese gentry to initially collude with the pirates.

I was unable to find any references to the Chinese 'dusting off' any ship designs, but I wouldn't rule it out. There was a definite decline in the Ming Navy in the mid 15th century. The Early Ming had a proactive coastal defense policy which involved garrisoning outlaying islands and attempting to intercept pirate fleets at sea. Starting in the 1430s many of the outward stations were abandoned and the fleet did not mount patrols beyond the coast. It was very expensive to maintain the fleet in its previous state and this period saw a war in the north with the mongols which consumed both the attention and the finances of the Empire. The Ming fleets were severely reduced in size, and instead of building large seagoing vessels they mainly built smaller, oar driven craft for use in inland waters. In the mid-16th century there seems to have been an improvement in the Ming navel forces. There might be some truth to your anecdote, although maybe the background is the Jiajiang era Wokou Raids rather than the Imjin war?

Galloglaich
2016-07-11, 10:31 PM
When it comes to Ronin I think that Brother Oni may be more informed than I, but it seems to me that although Ronin may have been among the ranks of the Wokou, civil disorder in Japan was probably not a main driver of the Wokou crisis. The first wave of Wokou piracy in the late 14th and early 15th century occurred after the establishment of the Ashikaga Shogunate and before the outset of the Onin War. By the time of the second 16th century Wakou wave most of the leaders of the pirates were Chinese, often people with connections to Southern Chinese merchant families. Japan played an important role as many of the pirates, like Wang Zhi, sheltered in Japan and fostered relations with locally powerful Daimyo. The first wave of Wokou were from the border islands of Korea and Japan and were probably driven by marginal economic circumstances, the main reason for the second Wokou wave was the Haijin policy which removed legitimate options for seafarers and even encouraged rich merchants and local southern Chinese gentry to initially collude with the pirates.

I was unable to find any references to the Chinese 'dusting off' any ship designs, but I wouldn't rule it out. There was a definite decline in the Ming Navy in the mid 15th century. The Early Ming had a proactive coastal defense policy which involved garrisoning outlaying islands and attempting to intercept pirate fleets at sea. Starting in the 1430s many of the outward stations were abandoned and the fleet did not mount patrols beyond the coast. It was very expensive to maintain the fleet in its previous state and this period saw a war in the north with the mongols which consumed both the attention and the finances of the Empire. The Ming fleets were severely reduced in size, and instead of building large seagoing vessels they mainly built smaller, oar driven craft for use in inland waters. In the mid-16th century there seems to have been an improvement in the Ming navel forces. There might be some truth to your anecdote, although maybe the background is the Jiajiang era Wokou Raids rather than the Imjin war?

Great post man thanks.

I never really thought the Japanese Ronin were numerically dominant among the Wokou but rather that they provided some muscle and got some of the Daimyo involved as you noted. It's interesting that Chinese government policies actually turned so many of their own people against the State.

Can you expand a bit on the technical details of naval combat in that area in the 14th and 15th Centuries? Were their larger seagoing vessels multi-masted ships or single masted? When did they start using cannons on ships? Were these like Junks? Or the bigger ships like in the Grand Fleet?

Could you give a little overview of conflicts with the Mongols in this period? I know a bit about the earlier period under Kublai Khan etc. but not so much in the 15th Century or later. It's kind of an interesting parallel with Europe where everyone today seems to think the Mongols went away in the 13th Century when in fact they never went anywhere...

Coidzor
2016-07-12, 12:39 AM
The "undue suffering" clauses of the conventions are directed primarily at things like blinding lasers, triangular knives, and similar weapons that are explicitly intended to not just take somebody out of the fight but mess them up so bad that the enemy has to direct massive resources to treat them.

Blinding lasers and triangular knives, you say?

snowblizz
2016-07-12, 09:17 AM
Can you expand a bit on the technical details of naval combat in that area in the 14th and 15th Centuries? Were their larger seagoing vessels multi-masted ships or single masted? When did they start using cannons on ships? Were these like Junks? Or the bigger ships like in the Grand Fleet?

Would suggest the Osprey books:
https://ospreypublishing.com/fighting-ships-of-the-far-east-1
https://ospreypublishing.com/fighting-ships-of-the-far-east-2

and the Extra Credits feature on Admiral Yi I linked earlier. 5 easy instalments of under 10 minutes.

Galloglaich
2016-07-12, 12:19 PM
Would suggest the Osprey books:
https://ospreypublishing.com/fighting-ships-of-the-far-east-1
https://ospreypublishing.com/fighting-ships-of-the-far-east-2

and the Extra Credits feature on Admiral Yi I linked earlier. 5 easy instalments of under 10 minutes.

Thanks. Good old Osprey, I think I do have an Osprey book that gets into all this a bit, but not one of those two, thanks for the tip.

I also wonder did the Portuguese sell guns to the Wokou during the 'second wave' ...?

G

Hoosigander
2016-07-12, 02:42 PM
Can you expand a bit on the technical details of naval combat in that area in the 14th and 15th Centuries? Were their larger seagoing vessels multi-masted ships or single masted? When did they start using cannons on ships? Were these like Junks? Or the bigger ships like in the Grand Fleet?

Could you give a little overview of conflicts with the Mongols in this period? I know a bit about the earlier period under Kublai Khan etc. but not so much in the 15th Century or later. It's kind of an interesting parallel with Europe where everyone today seems to think the Mongols went away in the 13th Century when in fact they never went anywhere...

When it comes to the technical aspects of naval warfare we are fast approaching the limits of my knowledge. I can say that in the 16th century the Chinese were using artillery on ships, including models derived from the latest Portuguese cannon. This is a depiction of a Chinese War Junk from 1562:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Chinese_war_junk_from_Zheng_Ruozeng's_Chouhai_tubi an_(1562).jpg/359px-Chinese_war_junk_from_Zheng_Ruozeng's_Chouhai_tubi an_(1562).jpg

Beyond that I can only say that the books snowblizz recommended look like a good place to start. I got my information about the 15th century decline of the Ming Fleet from an article, "The Decline of the Early Ming Navy" by Jung-Pang Lo. It was written in the late 50s, so historical research has probably progressed since then, but I found it useful.

The first wars between the Ming and the Mongols followed organically from the Red Turban Rebellion as Ming armies followed Toghon Temür's (the last ruler of the Yuan Dynasty in China) retreat from modern Bejing into what is now Inner Mongolia. Initially the Ming were sucessful, but in the 1370s a series of defeats allowed the Yuan to retain control of Mongolia and continue to claim rightful rulership of China. Separately, former Yuan officials set themselves up as independent rulers in Manchuria and in southwestern China. In 1382 the southwestern remnants were conquered and in 1387, after a military defeat, the leader of the Manchurian Mongols surrendered and was granted a noble title and an estate in southern China. In 1388 the Battle of Buir Lake had disastrous consequences for the Northern Yuan, the Ming Army defeated the Mongol Khan Tögüs Temür, who was killed while retreating by a Mongol chieftain.

The defeat and assassination marked the end of the Kublaid line as leaders of a united Mongol state. From 1388 until the reign of the Dayan Khan (1479-1543) the Mongols were divided into Eastern Mongols and western Mongols (or Oirats). Under the Yongle Emperor (1402-1424) the Ming alternately conciliated or launched punitive expeditions against either the Eastern mongols or the Oirats, sometimes trying to leverage the hostility between the two Mongol groups in order to gain allies in their attack on the other. Both the Eastern Mongols and the Oirats were at times a tributary state of Ming China and at others raided it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yongle_Emperor%27s_campaigns_against_the_Mongols

Esen, an Oirat, reunified most of the Mongols (Under the nominal suzerainty of the Toghtoa Bukha Khan, since Esen was not descended from Geghis Khan) and as a result of disputes over trade and the tribute relationship he invaded China. The Zhengtong Emperor led his Army personally and was captured at the Battle of Tumu, which was an overwhelming rout for the Chinese. However, Esen was not able to exploit his success and conquer Bejing or achieve his demands for more advantageous trade terms. Esen later attempted to usurp the title of Khan and was killed in battle against rebels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumu_Crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esen_Taishi

In the late 15th and early 16th centuries the Dayan Khan (a descendant of Kublai Khan) reunited the Mongols and re-established the Northern Yuan as a powerful State. His wife, Mandukhai Khatun, also played an important role as it was she who first put him on the throne when he was seven (she waited until he was nineteen to marry him). Dayan Khan was constantly raiding China, in 1517 he led a large invasion force towards Bejiing but was defeated and turned back. Like Esen, the source of the conflict was the Mongol's desire to renegotiate the terms of trade agreements. Dayan Khan's grandson, Altan Khan, also raided the Ming and he even attacked the suburbs of Bejing. The mental image people have of the Great Wall of China are usually of the Ming era defenses built in the 1560s and 1570s to protect northeastern China against Altan Khan. Altan Khan actually did get special trading rights with Ming China as a result of a peace treaty signed in 1571.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_Great_Wall

geffy
2016-07-12, 03:15 PM
subscribed, this seems like a very interesting thread

snowblizz
2016-07-12, 06:10 PM
I also wonder did the Portuguese sell guns to the Wokou during the 'second wave' ...?

G
I'm wagering on, "most likely". And if not them, Japanese daimyo who as we know learned to make guns from the Portugese right quick. The Sea Lords (and I think that was an 'established term' for some daimyo) were pretty heavily involved in all that. Japanese were big on selling weapons. My gut feeling from reading about the period, mainly from the Sengoku Jidai angle, is that the Sea Lords, being dependant on trade for much of their income would semi-sponsor the Wokou. When not directly engaged. If nothing else turning a bit of a blind eye to their retainers and selling on goods with questionable provenance. I'm betting the modus operandii was to rob Japanese and sell in China and rob Chinese and sell in Japan.

I'm pretty sure one part of solving the problem was for official trading to be established under the Tokugawa and one condition being the Shogun policing his subjects on the matter.

I could probably do better if I dig out the two books I linked too but then I just re-read those all night.:smalltongue:
But the answer to your question about the technical aspects seems to have been yes, yes and yes. Ships of many sizes were used, the bigger the more masts they'd have, though usually removed in battle, and yes junks but other types too. Primarily engaging with arrows and boarding actions, but then later on with guns and small cannon, they even used catapults and flamethrowers. Some of the ships were ludicrously large though, several stories high floating palace-fortressesss even (height being an advantage with a mostly small caliber fihgting style). From the illsutrations some of them I do wonder how they weren't blown over. European vessles of the 1500s as I understand where more heavily armed in cannons, more emphasising big guns, and they would not use their ships in line of battle style. Again, as I understand it that was partly the innovation the Koreans under Yi came up with, they focused more on heavy guns, with broadsides and ofc the "turtle ships" even being armoured and pretty much impervious to the opposition. The Japanese was much more into boarding, I don't think it would be too far off the say the Japanese were a bit like the Spanish and the Koreans much like the English (both were underdog seafihgters staving off foreign invaders big on landwrfare). Still IIRC admiral Yi is credited with inventing modern ship combat way before the west really got into duking it out with cannon, I think some British admirals were very impressed with his thinking.

Hoosigander
2016-07-12, 09:36 PM
On the subject of ships I found this interesting post: http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/07/mingdynastynavycomparison.html

BayardSPSR
2016-07-13, 03:05 PM
On the subject of ships I found this interesting post: http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2015/07/mingdynastynavycomparison.html

Unfortunately, the fact that it measures cannon based on their weight rather than their weight of shot means that it may not be an accurate comparison of firepower.

EDIT: Fascinating site, though. I'm particularly amused by the post on how Osprey's representation of Chinese militaries is terrible.

Re4XN
2016-07-13, 03:56 PM
How many M24 Grenades would it take to neutralize a Landship (approximately)? And what would be the most efficient way to do so, throw them on top, beneath, strap a couple together? How well did the tracks hold afterwards?

Hoosigander
2016-07-13, 04:23 PM
Unfortunately, the fact that it measures cannon based on their weight rather than their weight of shot means that it may not be an accurate comparison of firepower.

EDIT: Fascinating site, though. I'm particularly amused by the post on how Osprey's representation of Chinese militaries is terrible.

Yeah, for a second it sure threw me for a loop when I saw cannon being described as thousand pounders, before I noticed it was weight of the piece itself rather than the weight of the shot.:smallsmile: It was the text and the illustrations I thought were more valuable.

Mike_G
2016-07-13, 06:03 PM
How many M24 Grenades would it take to neutralize a Landship (approximately)? And what would be the most efficient way to do so, throw them on top, beneath, strap a couple together? How well did the tracks hold afterwards?

What exactly do you mean by "landship?"

Brother Oni
2016-07-13, 07:13 PM
When it comes to Ronin I think that Brother Oni may be more informed than I, but it seems to me that although Ronin may have been among the ranks of the Wokou, civil disorder in Japan was probably not a main driver of the Wokou crisis.

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but rather surprisingly, samurai pirates are a little out of my field of knowledge. :smalltongue:



I'm wagering on, "most likely". And if not them, Japanese daimyo who as we know learned to make guns from the Portugese right quick.

I believe they also bought them from the Dutch, who didn't have pesky clauses attached to their guns like permitting Jesuits in, who would promptly try to convert as many people as they could.



What exactly do you mean by "landship?"

I think he means WW1 era tanks like the Mark IV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_IV_tank).

I'd say get as close as you can then try and stick a grenade through a hatch or other port/vent, in which case you'd only need one as even if the shrapnel doesn't kill the crew, the smoke and fumes will drive them out (it's not spacious or comfortable inside, particularly with a crew of 8 and an open engine in the middle of the compartment).

Unless he meant the TOGII* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOG2), which is more landship than tank, despite being of WW2 vintage:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/TOG2_Tank_Bovington.jpg

For reference, the TOGII* is longer and taller than an Abrams M1A1 but not quite as wide.

fusilier
2016-07-13, 08:29 PM
How many M24 Grenades would it take to neutralize a Landship (approximately)? And what would be the most efficient way to do so, throw them on top, beneath, strap a couple together? How well did the tracks hold afterwards?

See here:
http://www.landships.info/landships/tank_articles.html?load=tank_articles/German_Anti_Tank.html

They would have been the WW1 variant of the Stielhandgranate (M1916) but I think they had pretty similar performance. Basically, throw a bag of grenades (or a bundle from 1918) either onto the top of the tank or under a tread, and you could expect to disable the tank. No details on the actual damage done to the tank however.

Re4XN
2016-07-13, 08:57 PM
Yeah, I was talking about tanks like the Mark IV used in WWI. Thanks for the answers. I was aware that German troops strapped the heads of their grenades (7 or 8) and throw them for a larger explosion, but did not know how efficient this was.

Will need to dig into this a bit further. Did not know stuff like Anti-Tank rifles existed.

Mr Beer
2016-07-13, 10:46 PM
Will need to dig into this a bit further. Did not know stuff like Anti-Tank rifles existed.

WWI tanks had pretty crap armour so you didn't need particularly heavy projectiles or specialised ammunition to penetrate. Like the link above indicates, a contemporary elephant rifle made a plausible anti-tank weapon.

Gnoman
2016-07-14, 12:08 AM
Even a basic Mauser became a tolerable antitank weapon in WWI with the right ammo. Both the "reverse" round and the later "K" bullet could knock out a Mk I with a little luck.

Khedrac
2016-07-14, 04:44 AM
WWI tanks had pretty crap armour so you didn't need particularly heavy projectiles or specialised ammunition to penetrate. Like the link above indicates, a contemporary elephant rifle made a plausible anti-tank weapon.

This also depends a lot on the tank in question (I happened to visit Bovington Tank Museum a couple of months ago). One of the landship/tank designs on display was the training tank - no real armour, just a metal shell to feel like the real tank - not for use on the front.
Due to production shortages they actually shipped and used a lot of the training tanks in the early tank battles. Normal rifle rounds would go through their armour...

Re4XN
2016-07-14, 07:13 AM
Apparently when the Mark IV came, the K round was no longer good enough. The T Gewehr was developed (and deployed) with the sole purpose of penetrating tank armour. The rounds were huge, judging from the images (13mm). It was the only AT Rifle used in WWI, which makes sense, since the British were sending hundreds of tanks their way...

Comet
2016-07-14, 07:15 AM
When were stabilisers first developed for archery? I understand that the modern compound bow was developed in the 60s, but were there bows before that had rods attached for balance, stabilisation or even impact absortion? In other words, when did the silhouette of the bow first change from the classic thing we expect to see when we think about, say, medieval archery?

Brother Oni
2016-07-14, 10:33 AM
When were stabilisers first developed for archery? I understand that the modern compound bow was developed in the 60s, but were there bows before that had rods attached for balance, stabilisation or even impact absortion? In other words, when did the silhouette of the bow first change from the classic thing we expect to see when we think about, say, medieval archery?

The typical bow thought of in medieval archery depends very much on where in the world you're talking about. Since you mentioned medieval, I'll assume you meant in Europe.

The typical image is of a Welsh or English longbowman and these days they are called 'self bows', that is they're carved out of a single piece of wood.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Englishlongbow.jpg

This is in contrast to bows that are made of layers of wood, bone and sinew glued together, or composite bows and bows which have a curve in the ends of limbs (recurve), bows which curve away from the archer throughout (reflex) and those that curve towards the archer throughout (decurve).

Archery started to decline in the 16th Century in England, disappearing completely as a weapon of war by the time of the 17th Century English Civil War (the Privy Council passed an ordinance in 1595 stating that archers no longer need to be mustered). Archery got a resurgence during Victorian times and this lead to the development of the carriage bow, or a bow that broke into two halves and slotted together (supposedly for easy storage in a carriage as a bow should be about the same length as the height of the archer).
http://www.greenmanlongbows.co.uk/images/page%20images%20and%20photos/take-down%20longbows/P1050135%20a.jpg
The earliest advertisement I can find for one in the west is from ~1830 for a 'jointed' bow, although Eskimo bows are also of the takedown variety and there are records of the Chinese and Japanese using hinged and latched bows since the 1700s.

Carriage bows were the precursors to modern takedown bows which come with a central 'grip' or riser and the arms of the bow (limbs) slot or screw into the riser and these modern bows were developed in the late 1940s by Fred Bear, influenced heavily by American flatbows (bows that have flat, rather than rounded, limbs). Fred Bear also pioneered the use of fibreglass for bow limbs and hence the modern laminated bow (an updated version of the composite bow).


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0a/ce/ca/0aceca4607407582719f5bd77bba95d7.jpg

In the early 1960s, Earl Hoyt started marketing 'torque stabilised' bows, which are now called the top and bottom rods of a bow's stabilisation system. There were a number of competing systems (such as mercury filled hollow rods) over the years and these days, the most common system is a long rod stabiliser and a pair of short rod side stabilisers attached by a v-bar, which screws into the front of the riser:
https://luacguides.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/stabs.png?w=627
https://jordansequillion.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/mps-system.jpg



Compound bows are basically what happens if you let engineers loose on a task with no supervision. These string and pulley monstrosities hit the market in the 1969 so post-date modern takedown bows and the first introduction of stabilisation systems.


As a side note, modern takedown bows are modular in design, so you can attach as much or as little as you like. I know an archer who shoots his olympic recurve barebow (all he has is the riser, limbs, string and an arrow rest; no sights, stabilisers, clicker or any other gubbins). I'm personally not good enough to get anything out of side stabilisers yet, so only have a long rod, sights and arrow rest (because I'm using plastic fletchings on my arrows). I'd probably go without the long rod as well if I could nail down my style to tune my bow correctly to minimise the vibration.

2D8HP
2016-07-14, 12:43 PM
The typical bow thought of in medieval archery depends very much on where in the woThe typical image is of a Welsh or English longbowman and these days they are called 'self bows', that is they're carved out of a single piece of wood.
Self bow:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Englishlongbow.jpgThat looks AWESOME!
IT MUST BE MINE!
(Suggestions are very welcome)

:smile:

Brother Oni
2016-07-14, 06:20 PM
That looks AWESOME!
IT MUST BE MINE!
(Suggestions are very welcome)

:smile:

Are you planning to shoot with it or mount it on a wall as decoration? If it's for decoration, then just get the cheapest one that looks good (not judging, just saying).

If it's for shooting, then I highly suggest taking at least a beginner's course at a decent archery club. They'll show you how to shoot properly and give you pointers as to the specifications of the bow you need. You don't want to be that guy who walks into an archery shop and says "I want a bow" without any idea of what he needs. While you can just buy a cheap starter bow, a couple of arrows and just start shooting at straw bales in your backyard with no instruction, I don't recommend it.

I assume you're in the US and there are a number of traditional bowyers and companies who can sell you a bow. I can't give you advice on bowyers in the US, but glancing at some US websites like 3 Rivers Archery (http://www.3riversarchery.com/buy/arrows/broadheads), you're looking at ~200 USD for the bow alone, another ~40 dollars for 6 wood arrows (aluminium and carbon fibre arrows don't fly right out of a traditional longbow as they're a bit too light for the bow), then however much you want to spend on a tab (finger protector for your drawing hand), bracer (protection for your inside forearm of the arm holding the bow) and a quiver. Depending on your shooting form, you may also need a chest protector, otherwise the string can potentially hit your chest when you loose it.

Wood bows degrade over time as the wood loses its spring from being under constant tension. This will reduce the power you get out of the bow and hence your accuracy and range goes to pot, so you have to unstring your bow when you're not using it (modern fibreglass bows don't suffer from this problem).

If you're planning to go hunting, check your local state laws as there will be a minimum draw weight requirement, plus there may be other laws on carrying a dangerous weapon in public. You'll also need broadhead arrowheads as a standard target point generally won't bring the animal down (again I can't give advice on this as bow hunting is illegal in the UK).

2D8HP
2016-07-14, 07:33 PM
Are you planning to shoot with it or mount it on a wall as decoration? @Oni,
Thanks for the tips!
No hunting for me, as I wouldn't want to leave my family long enough to pursue it, plus I wouldn't want a slow kill on my conscience (this is not a dig on hunters, and the skills they have). Our local Regional Parks have an Archery Range near my home (http://www.redwoodbowmen.org/range), and near my work (https://goldengatepark.com/archery.html), I have no plans beyond that.
But now I'm curious about archery where you live in "Longbow"land!

:smile:

Knaight
2016-07-14, 07:42 PM
@Oni,
Thanks for the tips!
No hunting for me, as I wouldn't want to leave my family long enough to pursue it, plus I wouldn't want a slow kill on my conscience (this is not a dig on hunters, and the skills they have). Our local Regional Parks have an Archery Range near my home (http://www.redwoodbowmen.org/range), and near my work (https://goldengatepark.com/archery.html), I have no plans beyond that.
But now I'm curious about archery where you live in "Longbow"land!

:smile:

If you're doing target shooting you'll still want a substantially better bow than one intended to be decorative. I'd recommend hitting up the archery range to figure out what your preferred draw weight is (if you buy an 80 pound bow and it turns out that you can't handle anything more than 60 you just wasted a fair amount of money), and then seeing about finding a bow afterwards.

Brother Oni
2016-07-15, 03:17 AM
If you're doing target shooting you'll still want a substantially better bow than one intended to be decorative. I'd recommend hitting up the archery range to figure out what your preferred draw weight is (if you buy an 80 pound bow and it turns out that you can't handle anything more than 60 you just wasted a fair amount of money), and then seeing about finding a bow afterwards.

Just to build on this a little, even 60lb is a fairly hefty weight for a beginner (remember that you'll be holding onto this weight with three fingers via a bit of string then drawing and releasing this multiple times), so in all likelihood you'll start off with something fairly light (30-40lbs) then go up in draw weight up as you improve.

I know it's difficult, but try not to let your ego dictate what draw weight you get. Being 'over bow-ed' or having a draw weight that's too heavy for you just means you have poor precision since you're struggling to hold the bow still at full draw and you'll get tired very quickly. While medieval war archers never held their bows at full draw for long, target archery is a different situation.

I've also heard horror stories of archers with completely inappropriate kit, like one had a bow so heavy for him, it took him and a friend to draw it. Also, make sure your arrows are long enough:

http://www.archeryblog.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Arrow_hand4.jpg

Yep, that's his hand trapped around the riser as he didn't notice his arrow falling off the rest before he loosed.

snowblizz
2016-07-15, 05:39 AM
I love how people in those situations have time to stop and take pictures. It's just a flesh wound!:smalltongue:

And not only is the dude pinned, he's a got a finger AND hand caught there.

Brother Oni
2016-07-15, 01:57 PM
I love how people in those situations have time to stop and take pictures. It's just a flesh wound!:smalltongue:

I believe the picture was taken by another person who was at the range while they were sorting out the guy for transport to hospital.

If you want to see a flesh wound, take a look at carbon fibre arrow accidents. CF arrows shatter into razor sharp splinters when they break and those injuries look extremely painful.

Carl
2016-07-15, 09:41 PM
Just looking at that makes my hand hurt. Ow, Ow Ow Ow.

Clistenes
2016-07-15, 11:43 PM
I'm wagering on, "most likely". And if not them, Japanese daimyo who as we know learned to make guns from the Portugese right quick. The Sea Lords (and I think that was an 'established term' for some daimyo) were pretty heavily involved in all that. Japanese were big on selling weapons. My gut feeling from reading about the period, mainly from the Sengoku Jidai angle, is that the Sea Lords, being dependant on trade for much of their income would semi-sponsor the Wokou. When not directly engaged. If nothing else turning a bit of a blind eye to their retainers and selling on goods with questionable provenance. I'm betting the modus operandii was to rob Japanese and sell in China and rob Chinese and sell in Japan.

I'm pretty sure one part of solving the problem was for official trading to be established under the Tokugawa and one condition being the Shogun policing his subjects on the matter.

I could probably do better if I dig out the two books I linked too but then I just re-read those all night.:smalltongue:
But the answer to your question about the technical aspects seems to have been yes, yes and yes. Ships of many sizes were used, the bigger the more masts they'd have, though usually removed in battle, and yes junks but other types too. Primarily engaging with arrows and boarding actions, but then later on with guns and small cannon, they even used catapults and flamethrowers. Some of the ships were ludicrously large though, several stories high floating palace-fortressesss even (height being an advantage with a mostly small caliber fihgting style). From the illsutrations some of them I do wonder how they weren't blown over. European vessles of the 1500s as I understand where more heavily armed in cannons, more emphasising big guns, and they would not use their ships in line of battle style. Again, as I understand it that was partly the innovation the Koreans under Yi came up with, they focused more on heavy guns, with broadsides and ofc the "turtle ships" even being armoured and pretty much impervious to the opposition. The Japanese was much more into boarding, I don't think it would be too far off the say the Japanese were a bit like the Spanish and the Koreans much like the English (both were underdog seafihgters staving off foreign invaders big on landwrfare). Still IIRC admiral Yi is credited with inventing modern ship combat way before the west really got into duking it out with cannon, I think some British admirals were very impressed with his thinking.

Japanese pirates in Philippines had firearms indeed.

And many daimyos were patrons of wokou and smugglers. Even the shoguns were suspected to pull the strings of the wokou, using them to test the strength of other countries without attacking them openly.

Also, many (probably most) of the chartered merchants sent by the shoguns and daimyos to Manila and other ports of the Sea of China were also smugglers and pirates who could turn into invaders if required. The chinese Ming dinasty had made maritime trade illegal for a long time, which didn't make it disappear, it just put it under control of wokou, pirates and smugglers willing to break the law and fight the chinese navy.

The history of the Philippines is fascinating. There happened stuff that seems straight out of fantasy. There was a time shogun Hideyoshi prepared a espionage mission to Manile in search of weaknesses, and had a team of spies study Christianism and disguise themselves as Christian pilgrims. Except that Manila isn't considered sacred at all by Catholics, and there isn't anything there considered holy enough to make a pilgrimage, so Spanish authorities knew at once that those were spies, and while they didn't dare do anything against them (they didn't want to provoke Hideyoshi), they started preparing themselves for an invasion from Japan (which never came).

Maquise
2016-07-16, 12:46 AM
What colors can steel patina come in? And does anyone know of swords that have the hilt colored/enameled (historically, that is)?

Xuc Xac
2016-07-16, 01:23 AM
What colors can steel patina come in?

Reddish orange to dark brown. It's called rust and you don't want it on a sword.

Brother Oni
2016-07-16, 05:45 AM
What colors can steel patina come in? And does anyone know of swords that have the hilt colored/enameled (historically, that is)?

I've heard of decorated and coloured crossguards and basket hilts, but doing anything to the grip that makes it more slippery is generally a bad idea.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/hb/hb_1970.77.jpg

Generally such ornate decoration are for decorative and ceremonial weapons rather than fighting ones, but enamelling was common to help protect the sword from rust.


Reddish orange to dark brown. It's called rust and you don't want it on a sword.

Does a damascus pattern count as a patina or is that intrinsic to the blade structure and not count as surface layer?

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-16, 07:30 AM
What colors can steel patina come in? And does anyone know of swords that have the hilt colored/enameled (historically, that is)?

There's this -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_oxide

Mike_G
2016-07-16, 07:40 AM
Reddish orange to dark brown. It's called rust and you don't want it on a sword.

Well, there's always bluing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_(steel)

PersonMan
2016-07-16, 08:03 AM
So, after asking before about how much manpower a modern nation could deploy, I'm now wondering what limitations on naval/air production there are - it's not possible to just draft more fighter jets, after all. Could a smaller nation militarize its industry quickly to supply their air force with planes, or would that end up with bad equipment at best? How long would it take to go from "we need an aircraft carrier" to "our aircraft carrier is ready to fight"?

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-16, 08:26 AM
So, after asking before about how much manpower a modern nation could deploy, I'm now wondering what limitations on naval/air production there are - it's not possible to just draft more fighter jets, after all. Could a smaller nation militarize its industry quickly to supply their air force with planes, or would that end up with bad equipment at best? How long would it take to go from "we need an aircraft carrier" to "our aircraft carrier is ready to fight"?

If the country has the capacity to build very large ships and high-performance jets, access to legitimate combat vessel and aircraft design capability (or a way to steal them outright), and a way to train crew and pilots...

At least 10 years, minimum.

Mike_G
2016-07-16, 12:03 PM
A lot depends on how much industrial capacity the nation has, and how much is or can be dedicated to military production.

For the best example, look at the US buildup in WWII. We had a very small military in 1941, and a huge one in 1945. We had developed new and better tanks and planes as we went, and built I don't even know how many warships.

But we did that by shifting most industrial production to wartime use. No new cars were built, as the automakers were all building stuff for the military. We had a large unemployed population, still recovering from the Great Depression, that we put to work. We brought women into the workforce in numbers that simply had never been done before.

The story in other nations was similar. New systems were designed and built in the thousands in a short time. Look at German or Russian tanks from 1939 and 1945. How many new models went from not even a concept to functioning mainstays of the military in five years?

So, if the pieces are in place, and the situation is desperate enough, a nation can ramp up wartime production very quickly.

The answer will be very different from country to country and period to period. The US could crank the stuff out, if the government told Ford, GM, and Chrysler that they were in the M1 Abrams business until further notice. In peacetime mode, we can't get the damn F 35 to work, let alone into production in the numbers we'd need. Likewise, a nation without that industrial capacity would have a very hard time moving fast. If you have to build shipyards and aircraft factories before you build the carrier, it's gonna be a while.

Here is a handy link for WWII production, which is a bout the biggest example ever of total wartime economic focus.

Gnoman
2016-07-16, 12:20 PM
Naval ships take an immense amount of time to build. The USS Gerald R. Ford began construction in 2009, and is supposed to enter service in September of this year, taking roughly seven years te be ready. This is for a nation that already has extensive experience building large warships building a design that is merely an incremental improvement over one that has been built many times. Even the Virginia-class submarines take 3-4 years, and they are not only on the small side for warships but are a design optimized for fast construction.

Tanks can be built faster. Any plant that builds cars or large trucks can put out armored vehicles, and they don't take that long to build. The M1 Abrams was built at only one factory, and were built at a rate of about 120 per month. Full industrial mobilization would result in a massive ballooning of this figure.

Aircraft can also be built quite quickly - in 1987 Lockheed was producing 30 F-16s per month. This was, again, at just one plant and was in a period when the USAF had pretty much all the planes it needed, so Lockheed was mostly building for the export market.

In all of these cases, the main limiting factor is manpower.

Brother Oni
2016-07-16, 12:39 PM
Aircraft can also be built quite quickly - in 1987 Lockheed was producing 30 F-16s per month. This was, again, at just one plant and was in a period when the USAF had pretty much all the planes it needed, so Lockheed was mostly building for the export market.

Complexity of the aircraft plays a major role in my opinion too. During WW2, the Willow Run plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_Run) streamlined the 17 day production time of a B-24 bomber such that one was rolling off the line every 63 minutes (basically there was somewhere in the region of ~388 aircraft in varying stages of production at any one time).

I'd also say that during WW2, the US's comparatively isolated position meant that its manufacturing base was pretty much safe, unlike the situation in Europe for both sides.

JustSomeGuy
2016-07-16, 01:09 PM
If you don't mind affecting the mechanical properties of the steel, you can go from a light straw yellow to deep purple or blue via tempering.

Mike_G
2016-07-16, 01:14 PM
I'd also say that during WW2, the US's comparatively isolated position meant that its manufacturing base was pretty much safe, unlike the situation in Europe for both sides.

Absolutely agree.

The US could swamp the Axis powers simply by having an industrial base beyond the range of heavy bombers.

Outside of the attack on Pearl harbor, and the invasion of a few islands of Alaska, the US never had to deal with a direct attack.

The Philippines and Wake Island were US possessions, but not centers of production.

We could build ships and planes and tanks and train troops in complete safety. In fact, US factories were supplying the UK, China and USSR before we actively joined the war.

Knaight
2016-07-16, 02:09 PM
Just to build on this a little, even 60lb is a fairly hefty weight for a beginner (remember that you'll be holding onto this weight with three fingers via a bit of string then drawing and releasing this multiple times), so in all likelihood you'll start off with something fairly light (30-40lbs) then go up in draw weight up as you improve.

I know it's difficult, but try not to let your ego dictate what draw weight you get. Being 'over bow-ed' or having a draw weight that's too heavy for you just means you have poor precision since you're struggling to hold the bow still at full draw and you'll get tired very quickly. While medieval war archers never held their bows at full draw for long, target archery is a different situation.

It's also worth looking into size - if you're particularly tall or short you might want a bow sized to that. I'm about 6'4", which is enough to make a standard sized recurve uncomfortably small to use - which is really fun when combined with a high draw weight.

fusilier
2016-07-16, 02:35 PM
So, after asking before about how much manpower a modern nation could deploy, I'm now wondering what limitations on naval/air production there are - it's not possible to just draft more fighter jets, after all. Could a smaller nation militarize its industry quickly to supply their air force with planes, or would that end up with bad equipment at best? How long would it take to go from "we need an aircraft carrier" to "our aircraft carrier is ready to fight"?

In a very general sense, Italy in WW2* is an example of a nation that could put more men in uniform, than it could effectively train and equip, due to a limited industrial capacity. Somewhat ironically, the Italian Army was more effective when it was smaller. Italy produced some nice fighter aircraft during the war, but never enough of them -- and it was easier to keep building older designs (like the Fiat Cr. 42) than to adapt production lines to new aircraft. Naval forces also suffered from having to prioritize resources and their planned aircraft carriers were never completed. Likewise, the Battleship Impero, of the excellent Littorio-class, was never completed.

In the 19th century and early 20th century, Italy's few capable shipyards and general budget problems meant that naval vessels often took a very long time to complete. Italian designs were often very innovative, but took so long to complete that sometimes they were almost obsolete by the time they were commissioned.

* WW1 is a bit different, as Britain had so much surplus it could supply Italy with plenty of coal to drive its industry. Also WW1 wasn't nearly as mechanized as WW2. However, the main limiting factor appears to have been a lack of coal, so the basic fuels to drive industry should be an important consideration in how well a nation can increase it's industrial output.

Mike_G
2016-07-16, 02:46 PM
Pretty interesting video of mixed weapon sparring. Interesting to see odd combinations like dagger versus spear, or sword and buckler versus sabre.

Some decent technique, and some nice grappling. Not sure what the limits are for these guys, but they get pretty full contact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20DOzJRbgUY

Worth a look.

snowblizz
2016-07-16, 03:35 PM
Naval ships take an immense amount of time to build. The USS Gerald R. Ford began construction in 2009, and is supposed to enter service in September of this year, taking roughly seven years te be ready. This is for a nation that already has extensive experience building large warships building a design that is merely an incremental improvement over one that has been built many times. Even the Virginia-class submarines take 3-4 years, and they are not only on the small side for warships but are a design optimized for fast construction.

But it's also a nation that has no immediate need for another ship and just needs to let it sit around filled with crew on the taxpayer's dime. The US could probably build one super carrier a year if they really wanted, but what use would those be?

Carl
2016-07-16, 05:27 PM
But it's also a nation that has no immediate need for another ship and just needs to let it sit around filled with crew on the taxpayer's dime. The US could probably build one super carrier a year if they really wanted, but what use would those be?


Probably much faster than that. As i understand it current US supercarriers are built in somthing like a dozen sections which are built out of the dock then lowered in and bolted together. But current production has just one section under full construction at once. So even without pushing for faster section speed they could subject to appropriate restructuring of the dockyard to allow all dozen sections to be under simultaneous maximum speed production. Add on pushing up section production speed and there's no reason they couldn't build one in a few months subject to material and manpower supply from the sounds of it. The real limitation is likely to be either in how quickly they can build the reactors or the electronics.


However, the main limiting factor appears to have been a lack of coal, so the basic fuels to drive industry should be an important consideration in how well a nation can increase it's industrial output.

Although today oil, gas, and especially electricity have replaced coal in most applications. That would probably be the USD's biggest stumbling block to ramping up their production, many areas have notoriously brownout prone power grids. Significant expansion of industrial capacity in those areas would certainly need some serious remedial work.

Brother Oni
2016-07-16, 06:00 PM
It's also worth looking into size - if you're particularly tall or short you might want a bow sized to that. I'm about 6'4", which is enough to make a standard sized recurve uncomfortably small to use - which is really fun when combined with a high draw weight.

I would agree, but I assumed 2D8HP is looking at a longbow rather than a recurve, so he's getting a long length bow regardless.

I'm the opposite of you as I'm short so have a correspondingly short draw length (~28" while I'm 5'7"), so in order to get the necessary power for distance, I have to go for a heavier draw weight than I should theoretically should so have had to bulk up (well bulk up more :smalltongue:).

fusilier
2016-07-16, 06:04 PM
Although today oil, gas, and especially electricity have replaced coal in most applications. That would probably be the USD's biggest stumbling block to ramping up their production, many areas have notoriously brownout prone power grids. Significant expansion of industrial capacity in those areas would certainly need some serious remedial work.

Yes, the main power source for most industry is electricity -- of course you need something to power your power plants. I was referring specifically to Italy in the WW1 period when I mentioned coal, but obviously there are other fuels that can be used. The question is does the state in question have sufficient access to such resources? Then in addition to fueling the power plants there's the raw materials needed to make the weapons.

If the resources exist, is there a supply system already in effect to efficiently exploit those resources? If not, expanding the industry could be difficult -- not only do new factories have to be built, but new power plants to power them, new extraction sites to get the raw materials have to be developed, transportation networks to move raw materials to factories, etc.

Vinyadan
2016-07-16, 06:37 PM
About construction times: this looks like a classic saturation situation to me. Once everyone has bought a fridge or a TV, you can expect sells to go down and production to stabilize. Once the US already has enough of a fleet to challenge anyone, you can expect the shipyards to build less.
A look at China might be more interesting.
Wikipedia:
One STOBAR carrier: Liaoning was originally built as the 57,000 tonne Soviet Admiral Kuznetsov-class carrier Varyag[45] and was later purchased as a stripped hulk by China in 1998 on the pretext of use as a floating casino, then partially rebuilt and towed to China for completion.[46][47] Liaoning was commissioned on 25 September 2012, and began service for testing and training.[48] On 24 or 25 November 2012, Liaoning successfully launched and recovered several Shenyang J-15 jet fighter aircraft.[49][50][51] She is classified as a training ship, intended to allow the navy to practice with carrier usage. On 26 December 2012, the People's Daily reported that it will take four to five years for Liaoning to reach full capacity, mainly due to training and coordination which will take significant amount of time for Chinese PLA Navy to complete as this is the first aircraft carrier in their possession.[52] As it is a training ship, Liaoning is not assigned to any of China's operation fleets.[53]
More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_programme.
In general, it would seem that China first bought external materials. Then tried to learn how things work, from an engineering an training perspective. Lastly, it attempts to build stuff.
Going back to the original question: I think a good question is what a smaller nation is. I assume it isn't the USA. There are a few nations which already have the infrastructure and the industrial capability to build large quantities of military equipment: Germany and Italy still heavily rely on industry for their economy, so, in case of conversion, they could produce without fear of energy shortages. However, they are not autonomous in development of many weapon systems (aviation being the important point). This means that they would have to sublicense or buy abroad.
France and the UK don't have such an expanded industrial sector, but produce pretty much everything an army needs. So they would be ready to build from a licensing standpoint, but may run into energy shortages or infrastructure insufficiency.
Russia is something of a glass cannon, with, in theory, enormous resources and production capabilities, but, in practice, no money to put them to use. Russia is rearming, however, and it could be of interest to take a look at its programs.
Anyway, in most cases, I would expect such a nation to buy a lot from abroad and make horrible debts, rather than simply ramping up its production capabilities. It takes trained personnel, people with degrees, infrastructures, money, preparation, know-how to start creating this kind of advanced weaponry on your own. China and India are doing it, but they are behemoth countries and are needing decades. If you look at Israel, it had to fight its first war using supplies from Czechoslovakia.
One more question is how easy it is today to destroy tanks and aeroplanes. There is no doubt that both are extremely useful, but we are now seeing them used in asymmetrical warfare. How would it go, if two countries were to face off on equal footing? What I mean is that right now you need overwhelming power to use these things effectively, otherwise area denial will be impossible to overcome. Being able to ramp up production means having to deal with a long-term war. In such conditions, you could get new tanks and aeroplanes, although I doubt you would be able to get a new carrier (I am thinking of regional powers, not of the USA).
You might want to look into the Iraq-Iran war. It was dreadfully long, and fought between two relatively well developed countries not too long ago. You can also take a look at the various tensions around the world (Greece-Turkey, India-Pakistan...). I don't know if the last wars fought by colonial powers in African colonies have seen such an increase of production (France, Portugal).

cobaltstarfire
2016-07-16, 07:23 PM
Although today oil, gas, and especially electricity have replaced coal in most applications. That would probably be the USD's biggest stumbling block to ramping up their production, many areas have notoriously brownout prone power grids. Significant expansion of industrial capacity in those areas would certainly need some serious remedial work.

But that does depend on the area, Texas for example might not have much trouble at all increasing industrial capacity, it's on its own power grid, and often has enough of a surplus on electricity that bids for electricity sometimes go into the negatives. (I know that sounds weird, and I don't know how to explain it properly, but the way it manifests for the general public is they get "free" electricity at certain times, cause the electricity has to go somewhere. It's usually the chief selling point providers use there, how many free hours you can get if you choose them over someone else).

I dunno how the rest of the US deals with its power, I've heard certain companies basically have a death hold on many places which is the main reason why infrastructure can't be fixed/repaired/upgraded.

Coidzor
2016-07-16, 07:39 PM
So, after asking before about how much manpower a modern nation could deploy, I'm now wondering what limitations on naval/air production there are - it's not possible to just draft more fighter jets, after all. Could a smaller nation militarize its industry quickly to supply their air force with planes, or would that end up with bad equipment at best? How long would it take to go from "we need an aircraft carrier" to "our aircraft carrier is ready to fight"?

Depends on what sort of industrial base they have. Japan is a small nation with the technical know-how and developed industry to be able to convert over to producing high-tech military equipment so long as they have access to the resources, which is dicey given their position relative to most of the countries they might conceivably go to war with that isn't so far outside their reach that it'd be multiple decades or centuries in the making.

IIRC, South Korea manufactures some of its modern military equipment, not just buying it, so assuming they didn't get crippled by a surprise strike, I believe they could expand and redirect their manufacturing to war materiel, but in all likelihood, a big conflict would be over before they could start producing a whole lot of finished goods, especially if things escalate to a nuclear conflict.

Whereas some place like Montenegro or Luxembourg is screwed as they're minuscule and have no real industrial base and could in large part be occupied by the security forces of their neighbors.

Small central American states wouldn't be able to have access to the raw materials or the right kind of tech/industrial base for all of it but would definitely have manpower and some amount of industry that could be converted over to some things, probably mostly small arms, explosives, some amount of armor depending on raw materials, and maybe some chemical weapons if they produce pesticides instead of import them.

The example of Cuba's industrialization and militarization would be of interest, I believe, though IIRC their efforts were intentionally hobbled by their Soviet trading partners to keep them dependent.

Carl
2016-07-16, 11:36 PM
@Vinyadan: I wouldn't be so sure on the UK electricity wise. Remember seeing a documentary once on the UK power grid, (youtube clip of the relevant segment below), they have to handle some very serious upticks in demand at certain times of day so the grid itself is capable of handling a lot more power on a continual basis than it currently does, weather they can produce that much more continually is another matter but i wouldn't assume they either couldn't, or couldn't add it quickly if they needed to.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTM2Ck6XWHg

For reference a bit of a wiki walk suggests 3GW is about 5% of the UK's normal daily consumption.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-17, 01:19 AM
@Vinyadan: I wouldn't be so sure on the UK electricity wise. Remember seeing a documentary once on the UK power grid, (youtube clip of the relevant segment below), they have to handle some very serious upticks in demand at certain times of day

That's a tea thing, isn't it?

Brother Oni
2016-07-17, 02:12 AM
That's a tea thing, isn't it?

Yup. Electricity companies expected an uptick in demand during the advert breaks or at the end of very popular programmes (in this case, a TV soap opera EastEnders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EastEnders)), since that's when people stick the kettle on to make a quick cuppa.

Never get between an English person and their tea - we've gone to war over it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War).

Vinyadan
2016-07-17, 04:37 AM
Now that I think about it, France also has a superproduction of electricity, which is usually sold abroad for very low prices (nuclear energy).

cobaltstarfire
2016-07-17, 08:41 AM
Wasn't there another one or two countries in Europe that also has a huge surplus thanks to their wind farms?

snowblizz
2016-07-17, 05:06 PM
Wasn't there another one or two countries in Europe that also has a huge surplus thanks to their wind farms?

Anyone running portions of renewable electricity has to have back-up power to cover the renewable waiting to be renewed. Ironically often coal.

All countries run a surplus, because you can't really run on a deficit. Simplistically speaking. You can't run a surplus if you don't have anywhere to send it either.

As I've had it explained to me what the French have then is Watts, raw power, but you also need voltage and amps to keep it all up.

Gnoman
2016-07-17, 05:19 PM
As I've had it explained to me what the French have then is Watts, raw power, but you also need voltage and amps to keep it all up.

Whoever explained that to you knows nothing about electricity.

Watts = Voltage * Amperage. You cannot have one without the other three. This is one of the two most basic, fundamental electrical concepts.

snowblizz
2016-07-17, 05:33 PM
Whoever explained that to you knows nothing about electricity.

Watts = Voltage * Amperage. You cannot have one without the other three. This is one of the two most basic, fundamental electrical concepts.
I never said they were separate. But balancing a grid is a tricky business, since you need to keep all of that balanced.

He knows a lot about electricity actually and was entirely correct in what he was saying. He also works at keeping the power grid infrastructure up and running. The ones with a whole lotta volts in them.

My ability exactly retell the story from a discussion about powergrids may not be as good. I think the basic principle of it was no amount of wind power is going to help you the day it's not windy. Because he was quoting some dude (who is responsible for makign sure Sweden doesn't black out) who wanted more Watts, continuously, and was very annoyed about all the talk about energy.

cobaltstarfire
2016-07-17, 06:33 PM
Anyone running portions of renewable electricity has to have back-up power to cover the renewable waiting to be renewed.

.

I wasn't talking about whatever "normal" surplus, I was talking about a large enough surplus that they regularly sell to other countries, or practically have to give it away just to get it off their grid.

unwise
2016-07-17, 06:51 PM
For those interested in modern military logistics, as well as a damn good show, take a look at "Generation Kill" it is the doco made by that Rolling Stone reporter about the 1st Recon Marine group that were the first to enter Iraq during the second gulf war.

Some stand out features:
- The backgrounds of soldiers is pretty depressing, mostly the poor of course
- War is boring 99% of the time, horrifying the other 1%
- Everybody gets equipped with nightvision, but the corp forgets to give them batteries. They have to get them sent from family at home if they want to be able to see.
- Orders send them towards an airstrip across an entirely open field and they only have hummers. The airfield is protected by tanks, so they have at best 1.5 km of killing field where their weapons are not in range, but the tanks are, to cross entirely unprotected. Not to mention nothing that can puncture tank armor at range.
- An officer calls in fire-close air support, for no good reason. Apparently calling in dangerous air support commands automatically gets you a medal for bravery and he wanted one. Thankfully he got the coordinates wrong and it landed nowhere near them.
- amphetamine abuse is pretty much mandatory to reach the objectives

The stand out thing from historic military strategy for me is just how evil everybody was. Even the "good guys" of history are evil bastards by today's standards. Even guys like Saladin who were considered noble and fair by their enemies (with good reason at the time) were, by today's standards, heinous war criminals. This gives me some hope regarding the world moving ever so slowly in the right direction.

Carl
2016-07-17, 09:29 PM
I think the basic principle of it was no amount of wind power is going to help you the day it's not windy.

Your friend needs to take a rain check on that statement and actually think about it for a moment.


Wind power is perfectly capable of providing long term continuous output with no fewer stoppages than any other plant type. The catch is it needs a capacitor bank that it can charge during high winds to cover the shortfall in low winds and thats somthing no wind farm currently includes AFAIK. It adds a lot to both the startup and operating costs whilst reducing capacity for a given size of wind farm. Another reason it's not included.

Mr Beer
2016-07-17, 10:29 PM
Wind power is perfectly capable of providing long term continuous output with no fewer stoppages than any other plant type. The catch is it needs a capacitor bank that it can charge during high winds to cover the shortfall in low winds and thats somthing no wind farm currently includes AFAIK. It adds a lot to both the startup and operating costs whilst reducing capacity for a given size of wind farm. Another reason it's not included.

I believe that technological limitations for storing electricity is the main barrier from mass switching over to renewable energy?

Carl
2016-07-17, 11:32 PM
I believe that technological limitations for storing electricity is the main barrier from mass switching over to renewable energy?


We've been able to do large scale energy storage for years, many early military particle and laser weapon experiments used really energy inefficient designs that required stupendous capacitors to store the energy. Again it's just that it adds cost to the plant and reduces the overall output so the price per kw/h generated goes up and that makes the electricity produced expensive which is somthing everyone's so desperate to avoid their willing to hobble the whole thing.

Whilst i'm not suggesting they literally hook up a ridiculous number of car batteries, (there are some good reasons to avoid the tech for this purpose, but they are a stupidly simple design overall), if you take a look at the first entry of the chart here (http://www.puretyre.co.uk/car-battery-specification-chart/), the energy density comes out at approx 75kw/H per cubic meter, (this is less than a tenth the best batteries, though those are hard to charge, but there are fully rechargeable designs with way better energy per volume). Bearing in mind a typical turbine will be spaces at hundreds of meters apart there's more than enough room for truly huge battery capacity buried under the towers. I mean your still only talking hours of storage capacity at full output in most cases of between 50 and a 100 hours with car battery grade storage density, but thats still 2-3 days of capacity without any increase in plant land footprint. Go for better batteries and expand the plant area' and you can build some really serious capacity measurable in weeks of full output.

I mean if your asking, could we go out and do it tomorrow, the answer is probably no, not because we lack the technology, but because we lack the industrial capacity to mass produce the necessary storage mediums on the kind of scale necessary to make it all work, and we'd need to develop institutional experiance of how to build somthing like this from a gross engineering standpoint.

In that respect it resembles the earlier supercarrier question. most nations using a lot of wind power have the basic science and technology needed to make it work, but not the raw developed industry and construction experience in the specific area's. But then the same was true of wind turbine technology before this all got started.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-07-18, 03:08 AM
We've been able to do large scale energy storage for years, many early military particle and laser weapon experiments used really energy inefficient designs that required stupendous capacitors to store the energy. Again it's just that it adds cost to the plant and reduces the overall output so the price per kw/h generated goes up and that makes the electricity produced expensive which is somthing everyone's so desperate to avoid their willing to hobble the whole thing.
One of those storage methods is to use surplus electricity to effectively put the hydroelectric plants we have in the UK into reverse and pump water back into the reservoirs - it's normally done overnight when the demand on the gird is at it's lowest so that the plant can generate during the day.

Anyway, another thing to consider for military availability is previous generation equipment - anything that's currently in mothballs or assigned to units like the National Guard which could potentially be returned to front line service.

Mike_G
2016-07-18, 08:50 AM
Anyway, another thing to consider for military availability is previous generation equipment - anything that's currently in mothballs or assigned to units like the National Guard which could potentially be returned to front line service.

We're doing that now.

Since the F 35 is both delayed and awful, old planes are being taken out of mothballs and pressed into service. The Pentagon expected a new air fleet by now, but with delays and cost overruns and a higher operational tempo of more or less constant warfare over the last 14 years, our air fleet is old and worn out.

Carl
2016-07-18, 09:06 AM
The problem with the hydroelectric storage is that the volumes of water required quickly get extreme for long duration output programs. For example if the UK wanted to cover it's normal daily usage out of such systems for a week, (to represent bad weather across the country for a period of time), and the average drop of water over the run was 10 meter's you'd need to store some 4000 cubic kilometers of water. Thats a lot, it's equivalent to 26 aswan dam's. Even spread out that's probably more storage capacity than the the UK has the available space to build. And thats assuming no serious growth in output capacity is present in the system.

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-18, 09:48 AM
For those interested in modern military logistics, as well as a damn good show, take a look at "Generation Kill" it is the doco made by that Rolling Stone reporter about the 1st Recon Marine group that were the first to enter Iraq during the second gulf war.

Some stand out features:
- The backgrounds of soldiers is pretty depressing, mostly the poor of course
- War is boring 99% of the time, horrifying the other 1%
- Everybody gets equipped with nightvision, but the corp forgets to give them batteries. They have to get them sent from family at home if they want to be able to see.
- Orders send them towards an airstrip across an entirely open field and they only have hummers. The airfield is protected by tanks, so they have at best 1.5 km of killing field where their weapons are not in range, but the tanks are, to cross entirely unprotected. Not to mention nothing that can puncture tank armor at range.
- An officer calls in fire-close air support, for no good reason. Apparently calling in dangerous air support commands automatically gets you a medal for bravery and he wanted one. Thankfully he got the coordinates wrong and it landed nowhere near them.
- amphetamine abuse is pretty much mandatory to reach the objectives

The stand out thing from historic military strategy for me is just how evil everybody was. Even the "good guys" of history are evil bastards by today's standards. Even guys like Saladin who were considered noble and fair by their enemies (with good reason at the time) were, by today's standards, heinous war criminals. This gives me some hope regarding the world moving ever so slowly in the right direction.


Keep in mind that Rolling Stone has something of an agenda when it comes to war reporting... and that you might be getting a focus on the "lowlights".

Brother Oni
2016-07-18, 11:34 AM
For example if the UK wanted to cover it's normal daily usage out of such systems for a week, (to represent bad weather across the country for a period of time)...

You do realise that extended bad weather in this instance means non-stop blue skies and no wind? :smalltongue:

The UK's entire water infrastructure is geared around the fact that we receive rainfall at least once every 3 days and if there's a period of more than 2 weeks without rainfall, a drought is declared.

cobaltstarfire
2016-07-18, 11:45 AM
Keep in mind that Rolling Stone has something of an agenda when it comes to war reporting... and that you might be getting a focus on the "lowlights".


I've been told by folks who went through Vietnam that there really needs to be more show of the "lowlights" of war these days, because people no longer really understand the implications of it. Showing of those lower moments doesn't happen or flat out isn't allowed because it is bad for moral back home. (though I understand that the imagery can also be very disturbing, which is probably another reason why it's generally not shown)

Even if that thing in particular is biased towards "lowlights" most of the rest of the media is not, so it's not really a bad thing to see that end of the spectrum too, and just keep in mind that stuff will likely be misrepresented, or misunderstood* regardless of if it's pro, or anti.


*one thing that comes to mind is a documentary we watched in sociology that was very anti-war, where a plane dropping flares was portrayed as a plane engaging in an aggressive action I don't know if the creators were just ignorant or were pushing an agenda. One of the other students who had been in the military and was apparently familiar with what was going on told us that no, the plane was not engaged in a violent action at all, though I can't remember the details.

I'm sure some of the military folks in here can elaborate on that further though.

Xuc Xac
2016-07-18, 12:14 PM
*one thing that comes to mind is a documentary we watched in sociology that was very anti-war, where a plane dropping flares was portrayed as a plane engaging in an aggressive action I don't know if the creators were just ignorant or were pushing an agenda. One of the other students who had been in the military and was apparently familiar with what was going on told us that no, the plane was not engaged in a violent action at all, though I can't remember the details.


In much the same way that the gunner is the only violent member of a tank crew. The others are just driving around or moving ammo around, which doesn't directly hurt anyone.

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-18, 12:27 PM
I've been told by folks who went through Vietnam that there really needs to be more show of the "lowlights" of war these days, because people no longer really understand the implications of it. Showing of those lower moments doesn't happen or flat out isn't allowed because it is bad for moral back home. (though I understand that the imagery can also be very disturbing, which is probably another reason why it's generally not shown)

Even if that thing in particular is biased towards "lowlights" most of the rest of the media is not, so it's not really a bad thing to see that end of the spectrum too, and just keep in mind that stuff will likely be misrepresented, or misunderstood* regardless of if it's pro, or anti.


*one thing that comes to mind is a documentary we watched in sociology that was very anti-war, where a plane dropping flares was portrayed as a plane engaging in an aggressive action I don't know if the creators were just ignorant or were pushing an agenda. One of the other students who had been in the military and was apparently familiar with what was going on told us that no, the plane was not engaged in a violent action at all, though I can't remember the details.

I'm sure some of the military folks in here can elaborate on that further though.

It's more that "charge this tank base using just your jeeps", "these guys are speed-heads", and "officers calling in air strikes danger close to get medals" are lowlights that distort the truth, rather than lowlights that illustrate the truth.

Khedrac
2016-07-18, 03:25 PM
One of those storage methods is to use surplus electricity to effectively put the hydroelectric plants we have in the UK into reverse and pump water back into the reservoirs - it's normally done overnight when the demand on the gird is at it's lowest so that the plant can generate during the day.Last time I checked we have exactly one of those plants (Dinorwig (http://www.electricmountain.co.uk/) in Wales) and it's not actually a conventional hydro plant, it is a specialist power storage plant.

In fact storing large quantities of energy in a useful form is very expensive. Whilst it may work for specialist military projects (e.g. nuclear bomb simulation testing), most of those are also ones that require very fast discharge, so they may not be as useful as you might hope for power grid support.
Power generation tends to be a balcance between flexibility and continuity. Nuclear power provides a steady supply of power but it very poor at reacting quickly to changes in demand.
Gas (one of the main reasons the UK stopped building coal) responds very quickly (both ramp up and ramp down) but is regarded as less environmentally friendly and sustainable (why we are looking at fracking so much).


Oh - and as for bad weather for wind generation being still air, well strong winds (particularly gusty ones) can be just as bad - at a certain point they have to switch the wind turbines off to protect them fromt he wind...

cobaltstarfire
2016-07-18, 03:39 PM
It's more that "charge this tank base using just your jeeps", "these guys are speed-heads", and "officers calling in air strikes danger close to get medals" are lowlights that distort the truth, rather than lowlights that illustrate the truth.

In that case, yeah that's quite icky.

Carl
2016-07-18, 06:12 PM
@Oni: Rain dosen;t mean wind, but i was thinking more in the too high a wind speed case actually, though even having enough speed to run does not guarantee full output, which is the catch with wind and solar power anywhere outside of some very specific parts of the world. You can see significant variance in output even if they can operate. A fact that requires a lot of excess capacity or a lot of storage to go with a lower capacity, and if the area your working with is geographically small enough you can't use the first because you can build enough capacity sufficiently separated that there's a low enough chance of a significant chunk of it being offline at the same time. If you meant that rainfall into reservoirs could be used to help with the storage. Nope, using the uk's area times it average rainfall it receives just 250 km of water a year.

Admittedly said powerplant mentioned above shows what you can do if you've got a suitable place to construct a large reservoir that sits next to a steep downslope, based of the math they have a drop of around 450 meters for their water so it's around 45 times more energy storage for a given amount of water as my previous example numbers, but even mountainous areas like scotland won;t be over endowed with suitable sites.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-18, 09:08 PM
Even the "good guys" of history are evil bastards by today's standards. Even guys like Saladin who were considered noble and fair by their enemies (with good reason at the time) were, by today's standards, heinous war criminals. This gives me some hope regarding the world moving ever so slowly in the right direction.


It's more that "charge this tank base using just your jeeps", "these guys are speed-heads", and "officers calling in air strikes danger close to get medals" are lowlights that distort the truth, rather than lowlights that illustrate the truth.

Context, as ever, is crucial. Unfortunately, narratives and context don't always mix that smoothly.

Tobtor
2016-07-19, 02:00 PM
@Oni: Rain dosen;t mean wind, but i was thinking more in the too high a wind speed case actually

While this is true, the case is that:


The problem with the hydroelectric storage is that the volumes of water required quickly get extreme for long duration output programs. For example if the UK wanted to cover it's normal daily usage out of such systems for a week, (to represent bad weather across the country for a period of time)

Is unrealistic either way. I do not think the entire UK will have to shut down all wind mills for a week do to heavy wind either.... (at least even in small Denmark it have never happened for more than a day or two). Especially as heavy wind usually comes with periods of good strong wind for windmills in neighbouring regions (storms in Scotland might mean strong wind in Wales/Southern England etc). Also bad weather also include rain and thus continues new supplies for any hydro plants (which usually gathers up water through rivers which can include a large area).

Now, I do agree that most countries shouldn't be relying on wind energy alone (Denmark is I believe one of the only countries were wind have made up 100% of the needed electricity, and that is only for a couple of days).

But a combination of renewable energy sources might be realistic. At the moment they are focusing on improving the grid in order to connect countires, making sure that when the wind is too strong or too weak in Denmark you can either get power from German wind (or sun), or Norwegian/Swedish waterfalls.

Water can in some countries be the sole energy source.

The main reason that Iceland have aluminium smelters is that they have a lot of cheap renewable energy (hydro plants 70% and geothermal energy 30%). The geothermal also gives 92% of the heating (and they use a lot of heat and never thinks of saving it - heating important streets etc with underground heating systems). Thus in some cases renewable energy does supply the was majority of power needed (only 0.2% is fuels based (oil)).

Of course Iceland is a small country (300.000 inhapitants), but it is also a major aluminium "producer: Wikipedia have that "The aluminum industry in Iceland used 71% of produced electricity in 2011." And Iceland smelts something like 2% of the worlds aluminium (and also a few other metals is smelted). USA is at 4%. Thus if USA had an Iceland within the borders, it could increase the aluminium production capacity with at least 50% of the current one (or apply the energy toe steel or other industries).

Creating large scale hydro plants and geothermal energy stations is of course something that takes times, but not unrealistic in a war economy.

Geothermal energy is mostly used for heating (apart from in Iceland) but could be applied for electricity in many countries, also many with much less activity than Iceland (geothermal energy is viable in most of Europe, just more expensive).

cobaltstarfire
2016-07-19, 02:45 PM
Did someone actually suggest that wind was the soul source of energy for most places?

I mean when I mentioned Texas, yeah I did mention the wind farms out in the west, but Texas is not exclusively powered by wind. It's just that the wind farms are the cause for big energy surpluses in Texas. I'd heard that the same is true of some countries in Europe.

Though it does sound like even if a place does have a noticeable energy surpluses, that doesn't mean the grid could necessarily handle the uptick in usage.

Carl
2016-07-19, 10:59 PM
@cobaltstarfire: It started as a result of a comment someone made regarding the infeasibility of large scale wind power and i just ran with it to the extreme as a demonstration point. That said AFAIK there's a big push in europe in general to be as fully renewable as possibble.

@Tobtor: You're missing a key point. With a large number of non-weather dependent plants like gas and coal fired ones the chances of a sufficiently high percentage becoming spontaneously unavailable for a sufficiently extended period of time to crash the entire grid is exceedingly unlikely in the extreme. Any combined wind + storage has to achieve a similar level of unlikeliness taking into account both mechanical failure and freak once in "X millennia" weather events or other variables. TBH i suspect a week may be on the conservative side, but that was why i chose such a seemingly ridiculous value, the UK grid based on what i've heard is so over engineered it probably has a mean time between gridwide failures from purely mechanical and weather related causes measured in a number greater than the span of human history to date.

Yora
2016-07-20, 05:09 AM
Do we know anything about military surgeons in Asia? All I've ever seen is either Roman or medieval.

I was particularly wondering about dealing with infection in unsanitary conditions as you have on campaigns and during sieges. Japanese religion makes a big deal about cleanliness and purity with water often taking a prominent role. Might that be related to an awareness of infectious substances?

snowblizz
2016-07-20, 05:35 AM
@cobaltstarfire: It started as a result of a comment someone made regarding the infeasibility of large scale wind power and i just ran with it to the extreme as a demonstration point. That said AFAIK there's a big push in europe in general to be as fully renewable as possibble.
Not infeasibility, the observation that any significant renewable energy source is backed by non-renawable sources in case the former fails. These back up plants would be easily available to boost power production for short term while expanding production e.g.. Also, many power intensive factories have their own power generating facilities, e.g. a papermill provides all of it's own power and more besides if needed. Which is why Google has a server park in one of Stora-Enso's old papermills.

For that matter most western countries have spare industrial capacity currently sitting unused because we've outsourced so much production to China. Some of it can no longer be used ofc, eg some of the biggest shipyards in Sweden were turned into residential areas.

I would expect know-how and materials being a bigger issue than infrastructure like buildings and power grids. Most cases though today and the nearpast we are very dependant on neighbouring countries and gobal trade. By design actually.


TBH i suspect a week may be on the conservative side, but that was why i chose such a seemingly ridiculous value, the UK grid based on what i've heard is so over engineered it probably has a mean time between gridwide failures from purely mechanical and weather related causes measured in a number greater than the span of human history to date.
All depends on where you are. Locally the back-up power is estimated on a need for 100 days to replace the main sea-cable if someone snaps it.

Brother Oni
2016-07-20, 06:26 AM
Do we know anything about military surgeons in Asia? All I've ever seen is either Roman or medieval.

I was particularly wondering about dealing with infection in unsanitary conditions as you have on campaigns and during sieges. Japanese religion makes a big deal about cleanliness and purity with water often taking a prominent role. Might that be related to an awareness of infectious substances?

I found a paper earlier on when looking up answers for a question on water hygiene: The Controlling Measures of Epidemic Diseases Taken by the Chinese Ancient Governments by Shi (http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-SXDD200401021.htm), but the abstract isn't particularly useful by itself.

I'll do some more digging when I have some more time, but you've mentioned 'Japanese religion', to which my reply is 'which one?'. If you can narrow down which period you're interested in (the four major belief systems have had an extremely chequered history of integration with each other over the years in Japan, unlike in China), it'll help narrow down my searches and how much dancing around the 'no religion' board rule I'll have to do.

Carl
2016-07-20, 06:51 AM
@Snowblizz: I feel like you've forgotten the original thing that started this discussion. The observation on your freinds part that you can't have a completely renewable power grid. My point is you can if you replace the non-renewables with large scale storage. His corollary left unstated but which in my experiance is typical of professionals is that this makes renewable energy unworkable. And he';s right. Without government regulation, and interference it will allways, allways allways be cheaper to replace the two plants with one non-renewable plant that runs all the time, because the costs of leaving your non-renewable plant sitting there ready to go whilst not as high as having it running, (your not paying fuel duh), isn't trivial. Result, your electricity costs for the renewable sources are actually higher unless the cost of producing the renewable is lower, (and in most cases it's not, Hydro and Geothermal are the two big exceptions, in sustained operation designs they tend to have very cheap electricity).


All depends on where you are. Locally the back-up power is estimated on a need for 100 days to replace the main sea-cable if someone snaps it.


Thats why i specified gridwide.

fusilier
2016-07-20, 10:06 AM
Though it does sound like even if a place does have a noticeable energy surpluses, that doesn't mean the grid could necessarily handle the uptick in usage.

When I first mentioned power as a strategic consideration in increasing military industrial output, I didn't think we would end up debating renewable energy . . . :-)

Anyway, I think the term I'm looking for is "excess capacity" -- not necessarily surplus, as power plants aren't usually running at 100% of output (for a variety of reasons). Due to fluctuations in demand the grid often has to be able increase/decrease supply fairly quickly. If memory serves me right, natural gas power plants were initially used to augment the grid during peak hours as their generators could be turned on and off quickly. However, I would consider excess capacity to be the ability to increase power beyond usual peak demand.*

If excess capacity is low, prioritization of military-industrial facilities and power rationing are other options. How much industry can be converted from civilian to military use is also factor. (I think Vinyandan covered which countries are heavily industrialized and would therefore have an advantage).

*What exactly that would be I don't know -- I think typically conventional plants *can't* have all their generators running, for various maintenance purposes or to maintain a reserve capacity, etc. Although certain forms of renewable might be different.

cobaltstarfire
2016-07-20, 11:47 AM
When I first mentioned power as a strategic consideration in increasing military industrial output, I didn't think we would end up debating renewable energy . . . :-)



Me neither, I wonder if things had gone differently if I had omitted the bit about the windmills producing more energy than the state can use up.

I was mostly just bringing up Texas as a place that could possibly take on a large uptick in industrial work, because the grid is stable and has a higher capacity than it currently needs.

Yora
2016-07-20, 11:58 AM
I found a paper earlier on when looking up answers for a question on water hygiene: The Controlling Measures of Epidemic Diseases Taken by the Chinese Ancient Governments by Shi (http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-SXDD200401021.htm), but the abstract isn't particularly useful by itself.

I'll do some more digging when I have some more time, but you've mentioned 'Japanese religion', to which my reply is 'which one?'. If you can narrow down which period you're interested in (the four major belief systems have had an extremely chequered history of integration with each other over the years in Japan, unlike in China), it'll help narrow down my searches and how much dancing around the 'no religion' board rule I'll have to do.

I am mostly interested in whether Asian physicians where aware of infectious contaminations before germ theory gained acceptance in Europe. Medieval European medicine usually doesn't look to great compared to India and China so I wouldn't be hugely surprised.
I only know that in some Japanese shrines there are fountains to wash the hands and mouth before entering to be cleansed of impurity. That clearly seems to indicate a concept that negative conditions can be transmited by touched and that water can wash off the contaminant. But really no idea how far back that custom goes. Could be relatively new for all I know.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-20, 01:40 PM
I only know that in some Japanese shrines there are fountains to wash the hands and mouth before entering to be cleansed of impurity. That clearly seems to indicate a concept that negative conditions can be transmited by touched and that water can wash off the contaminant. But really no idea how far back that custom goes. Could be relatively new for all I know.

Ritual purity/cleanliness, which is also a thing in India and the Islamic world, has no relationship to medical hygienic practices.

Vinyadan
2016-07-20, 02:22 PM
Ritual purity/cleanliness, which is also a thing in India and the Islamic world, has no relationship to medical hygienic practices.

It's also a western thing. Miasma coming from the dead was the reason why people weren't allowed to die in temples in Ancient Greece, and Hector wouldn't sacrifice to the gods before having washed his hands. Ritual cleaning was done in Rome with water containing ashes, which was used until the XX century in the Mediterraneum to wash clothes. Even the post-Vatican II liturgy maintains a moment in which the priests washes his hands, and other, less ubiquitous, uses of water (wash feet, full immersion...), which actually have no hygienic meaning.

Mike_G
2016-07-20, 03:00 PM
Just because a thing became ritualized doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason behind it first.

People realized that sickness followed filth and stink and death. But the same way we can't get idiot celebrities to vaccinate their kids today, it was probably easier to just tell people that Zeus hated smelly worshipers than try to explain vectors of disease.

A lot of dietary taboos like Kosher and Halal foods actually make a lot of sense in days before refrigeration, whether or not you take those rules as a matter of faith. We hear warnings about trichinosis from pork to this day. If you just say "God says that's an unclean animal" people will listen. Talk about salting or smoking it and they might not.

The public can be pretty stupid, and religion has been used to control them for centuries. Don't think it's just luck that "ritual" practices tend to be what would benefit public health or the established order.

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-20, 03:05 PM
Just because a thing became ritualized doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason behind it first.

People realized that sickness followed filth and stink and death. But the same way we can't get idiot celebrities to vaccinate their kids today, it was probably easier to just tell people that Zeus hated smelly worshipers than try to explain vectors of disease.

A lot of dietary taboos like Kosher and Halal foods actually make a lot of sense in days before refrigeration, whether or not you take those rules as a matter of faith. We hear warnings about trichinosis from pork to this day. If you just say "God says that's an unclean animal" people will listen. Talk about salting or smoking it and they might not.

The public can be pretty stupid, and religion has been used to control them for centuries. Don't think it's just luck that "ritual" practices tend to be what would benefit public health or the established order.


Given some of the absolutely useless and even counterproductive things DO get ritualized as well, I have a hard time thinking that it ISN'T just dumb luck. Even without religion, people draw really silly conclusions about things and set down absolutely meaningless boundaries -- I have a friend who FREAKED OUT about someone using "non-dish" soap to wash dishes, even though the ingredient lists were identical, because "It's not for dishes, you don't use it on dishes, you can't use it on dishes!"

Mike_G
2016-07-20, 04:05 PM
Given some of the absolutely useless and even counterproductive things DO get ritualized as well, I have a hard time thinking that it ISN'T just dumb luck. Even without religion, people draw really silly conclusions about things and set down absolutely meaningless boundaries -- I have a friend who FREAKED OUT about someone using "non-dish" soap to wash dishes, even though the ingredient lists were identical, because "It's not for dishes, you don't use it on dishes, you can't use it on dishes!"

No arguing with that, but if you see how handwashing or what food you aren't supposed to eat together or at all is emnphasized, and realize these people lived in a time before toilet paper or refrigeration, I think a lot of religious teaching were codification of common sense.

The same way peasants were encouraged to endure suffering in this life for the big prize in the next one, rather than realizing they were being hosed and doing something about it.

Most rituals involve ingraining stuff that was healthy, or that helped keep the people obedient to the powers that be.

Just because it's cynical doesn't mean it's wrong.

Xuc Xac
2016-07-20, 04:14 PM
Traditional Chinese medicine is really good for "external" things such as bruises or broken bones. Many topical ointments or oils applied to injuries have antibacterial properties (especially the ones that are herbal infusions in distilled alcohol). However, the Chinese never vivisected people like the Romans did to figure out internal anatomy. They didn't even dissect corpses until the 20th century. They followed the Platonic/Aristotelian ideal of deriving the truth from abstract thinking instead of experimental data. That is, they had the concepts of Yin and Yang and the elements and assumed that they must apply to everything and tried to extrapolate from them to explain the human body's functioning without actually investigating it (the same thing happened with Western medicine being held back by humorism being extrapolated from generic elemental principles). They stuck to the surface for the most part: massage, acupuncture, acupressure, checking the patient's pulse. They were good at eliminating bruises and setting broken bones and (accidentally) disinfected wounds with herbal infusions made from alcohol or boiled water. If a patient had a deep puncture wound or internal injuries, the doctors could put on a show of offering treatments, but they didn't actually have any techniques that were effective. Their only real surgeries were amputations and maybe lancing boils.

Carl
2016-07-20, 05:30 PM
There's probably a lot of darwinism going on. Typical religious centers aren't over endowed with huge numbers of people so if their day to day activities increase their chances of dying of any cause it increases the chances of the a series of events wiping out the temple population. It also means a greater chance of both regular and pilgrimage worshipers surviving which increases its importance as a center of worship. In effect they don't have to be aware of what the procedure is doing or how or why, (there's no evidence of this anywhere AFAIK) for reality to make it dominant over time. The main reason this didn't work for humanity at large is complicated but a big part is that most ordinary communities are more than large enough to not be wiped out or seriously culled by any given disease at any given time, (and if it is it doesn't necessarily have the same influence effects present in the place of worship example amongst other factors). Thats a big part of why the black death has the reputation in the west and europe that it does. It's not that it's the deadliest or most virulent or whatever disease ever, it's that it was a very rare example of a mass scale continental epidemic that actually wiped enormous numbers, (for the length of time involved), of entire settlements off the map over a huge geographical area.

Vinyadan
2016-07-20, 06:07 PM
Let's say that it's half and half.

The concept of contagion was a religious, and lather anthropological one, before becoming a medical one. The idea is that something which touched a being - let's say, a field mouse - keeps something of that being.
This can be positive or negative. A field mouse has wonderfully strong teeth. I might keep the little pole in which the mouse dug a home near my house. This way, my family's teeth will grow healthy and strong.
Negatively, a mouse is a little thief. I might decide that whoever touches the pole in which I saw a mouse run away with my corn is going to suffer contagion and grow a thievish spirit.
This means that I need to purge him from this contagion. The easiest way is to have him wash his hands. With time, a regulated, ritualized washing style will develop.
But why wash his hands? Because, when I touch mud, my hand becomes muddy, and everything I touch also becomes muddy. Mud is washed away with water. So it's not really a direct consequence, but more like an analogy.

We need to think that ancient people, at least in the West, were extremely superstitious, at levels which we can't really imagine nowadays. Developing this kind of rituals must have been a natural thing for them. Just ask Schweinsteiger why he wanted penalty kicks in Italy's side of the field.

The way in which people behaved when they were in a temple mainly depended on the fact that the god was supposed to live in there. Nowadays, there are some countries where people demand visitors to take off their shoes when they get inside (BTW, this is something I hate: at least give me some flip flops, don't make me walk around barefoot while you aren't). What was demanded to be taken off when visiting a temple was ritual impurity. Hector wouldn't sacrifice to the gods with dirty hands, but, IIRC, in that scene he actually sacrificed a dress. This is different from those sacrifices where the sacrificier was pretty much starting a banquet and thus needed clean hands.

I actually think that the whole "clean your hands before eating" thing was born because of taste. Food tastes better without mud on it. We also recognize mud and other things as not edible, and avoid putting them into our food. But, by analogy, the habit was expanded to anything which involved gifts (originally, food) and visits to the gods.

The reason why I don't believe ritual purity was bound to hygiene, anyway, is that washing hands became a sanctioned healthy habit only in recent times (XIX century). I think there was a perception of filthy or disgusting, but not of unhealthy in today's sense. The reason of my belief is the story of Dr Semmelweis. He noticed that development of fevers in new mothers could be avoided, if the physicians treating them washed their hands not just with soap and water, but with a chlorine solution, after they had dissected a cadaver. Of course they washed their hands: hands get dirty in the guts of a dead man, but Semmelweis noticed that their hands still stunk and proposed chlorine to make the smell go away. Semmelweis's methods decreased the insurgence of puerperal fevers from 16% to 3% in the clinic. However, there was still no germ theory. This means that people did not believe Semmelweis's methods had scientific meaning. All he could say was that chlorine made the cadaveric smell go away from the hands of the medics. Back in the day, it apparently was no problem that a gynaecologist helped give birth with hands that smelled like a corpse (which he had just dissected). As a result, Semmelweis's ideas about cadaveric particles resting on hands and carrying out fever were seen as ridiculous. After all, without knowledge of self-replicating germs, the idea of cadavers emitting such a powerful poison that it could be carried in such small quantities as to be only identifiable through smell was seen as excessive. A few years earlier, Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes had found physicians to be vessels of diseases which they carried from patient to patient. He also met strong opposition to his theory, because contagion was seen as something of a folk tradition. Epidemics were supposed to be caused by environmental conditions or (poisonlike) impurity in food. This is why people would immediately start looking for inexistent poisoners as soon as a problem became widespread or well known (they still act this way, look at autism and vaccines).

So, there might have been an embryonic understanding of hygiene, but it didn't build any unitary theory, and it actually was self-contradictory, with possible traces of ancient knowledge being exaggerated (lepers) or misunderstood (purity). I also think that there was a lot of reverse engineering on both sides, turning common sense into ritual practice (and needing to explain why a mundane praxis got metaphysical significance) and later attempting to explain ritual practice as socially useful. Anyway, I don't see it as cynical, for reasons I won't explain here.

There is a story about people being conscious of the fact that drinking treated beer was healthier than untreated water in the Middle Ages, but I don't really believe it. I think they just liked beer.

Mr Beer
2016-07-20, 06:41 PM
Just because a thing became ritualized doesn't mean there wasn't a good reason behind it first.

People realized that sickness followed filth and stink and death. But the same way we can't get idiot celebrities to vaccinate their kids today, it was probably easier to just tell people that Zeus hated smelly worshipers than try to explain vectors of disease.

So if we can just get Gwyneth Paltrow to believe in Zeus, the Western world can get back on track to eliminate measles? It seems easier than trying to get morons to understand established scientific facts like germ theory, that's for sure.

rrgg
2016-07-20, 06:52 PM
This is just some information about "bullet-proofed" armor in the late 16th century from Roger Williams.

He writes that few if any soldiers wore armor which was proof against a musket at 200-240 paces. Although during assults a small number of soldiers or officers in musket proofed armor would be sent ahead to scout the wall for breaches.

A soldier with the best proofed shields would not be able to fight with them for more than an hour, so lighter-proofed shields were better for targeteers

Horsemen's armor should be at most pistol-proof at the front, otherwise it would be too heavy for most horses.

Pikemen should wear helmets which are caliver-proof at the front at 200-240 paces. About 20% of the pikemen should have corselets which are the same thickness as their helmet the front.

It seems that Williams is talking about some pretty powerful weapons here. According to him a caliver used around 15-20 grams of gunpowder per shot while a musket used 40-50 grams per shot, for comparison a military charge for a flintlock musket in the 18th-19th centuries was generally less than 10 grams of powder.

--

On a slightly related note, he writes that horsemen charging into a hail or arrows weren't that worried about their unarmored horses being shot out from under them as long as they themselves were armored. So I guess the Hollywood-style "every horse does a dramatic frontflip almost certainly breaking the rider's neck unless he's a main character" may not be that accurate.

Edit: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A15466.0001.001?view=toc

Vinyadan
2016-07-20, 07:04 PM
How long was a pace?

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-20, 07:04 PM
How long was a pace?

If I recall correctly, roughly a yard.

rrgg
2016-07-20, 07:44 PM
How long was a pace?

In English it's about a yard, possibly closer to 2.5 feet. For comparison he estimates the maximum range of most English archers to be 240-280 paces.

Mike_G
2016-07-20, 08:32 PM
A "pace" was originally just a step. So you walked 200 steps and set up a target, which is a bit imprecise, but workable.

Today (or 1986, which is the last time I did close order drill), the military marches with a "30 inch step" which is 2.5 feet.

fusilier
2016-07-20, 10:29 PM
In English it's about a yard, possibly closer to 2.5 feet. For comparison he estimates the maximum range of most English archers to be 240-280 paces.

+1

A Roman pace was a "double pace"; about 5 feet. Sometimes people confuse the two, but unless specified or the context makes it obvious, I usually assume approximately 2.5 feet to the pace.

snowblizz
2016-07-21, 07:35 AM
Nowadays, there are some countries where people demand visitors to take off their shoes when they get inside (BTW, this is something I hate: at least give me some flip flops, don't make me walk around barefoot while you aren't).

Wear socks like grown man? What are you, a cave person? We don't have dirt floors inside any longer. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Also flip-flops inside? Are you nuts.

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-21, 08:40 AM
There is a story about people being conscious of the fact that drinking treated beer was healthier than untreated water in the Middle Ages, but I don't really believe it. I think they just liked beer.


The understanding that drinking even a mildly fermented beverage (which included boiling the water in the process) was healthier than drinking water from many sources goes back to at least 5000 BC with the Sumerians and Egyptians. Of course they didn't understand why, but over time it just became obvious that, for example, kids who drank "small beer" weren't getting crippling diarrhea repeatedly.

It didn't hurt that the beer was less filtered and carried more of the nutrients from the grain used to make it, than modern beers.

Related, it's also important to understand that many modern beers are super-strong compared to what people drank on a daily basis. People weren't walking around with a heavy buzz on all day every day.

Vinyadan
2016-07-21, 09:22 AM
Wear socks like grown man? What are you, a cave person? We don't have dirt floors inside any longer. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Also flip-flops inside? Are you nuts.

My opinion can be summed up thus:
1. Wearing socks without shoes or some sort of sole, to me, means being barefoot.
2. I accept being barefoot if the person I am visiting also is barefoot. If the other person isn't barefoot, I see it as if he were sitting and leaving me standing, or drinking and not offering me anything: inhospitable.
I never had a quarrel about this, anyway, it just irks me.

Storm Bringer
2016-07-21, 02:53 PM
There is a story about people being conscious of the fact that drinking treated beer was healthier than untreated water in the Middle Ages, but I don't really believe it. I think they just liked beer.


like Max_Killjoy said, a lot of the "beer" being drunk was "small beer", which was very weak by todays standards, often only 1-2% ABV (compared to 5% ABV for Budweiser and most similar beers, or 6-7% for some of the stronger ales).

In a similar fashion, the Romans and Greeks routinely drank their wine watered down, and it was a while set of derogatory nicknames for people who were such alcoholics that they drank their wine pure (though it is believed that greek and roman wine was much stronger than modern wines, so the end result may have been the same as modern wine) .

fusilier
2016-07-21, 11:47 PM
There is a story about people being conscious of the fact that drinking treated beer was healthier than untreated water in the Middle Ages, but I don't really believe it. I think they just liked beer.

I remember reading an article that pointed out that people in the Middle Ages did drink water -- they just didn't write about it often as it was normal and boring. I think it went on to mention that from time to time city and town records show concern for accessing clean and healthy water. Having said that, they may have considered beer and wine to be safer if the water supply was questionable.

Martin Greywolf
2016-07-22, 06:26 AM
I remember reading an article that pointed out that people in the Middle Ages did drink water -- they just didn't write about it often as it was normal and boring. I think it went on to mention that from time to time city and town records show concern for accessing clean and healthy water. Having said that, they may have considered beer and wine to be safer if the water supply was questionable.

This. You can fins wells all over the place in castles and churches. To take one castle I know well as an example (Beckov, SK, if anyone is interested), it used a massive cistern right in the citadel portion of it to collect rainwater to drink for a long time, and built a well around early 16th century, IIRC.

The well was situated at the bottom of the castle rock, so far down they actually had to extend castle walls to it. The highest part of castle walls when measured from the ground is there, actually. There were soldiers whose sole duty was guarding the well, they had higher pay, and in case they let something happen to the well water, they were punished. By beheading.

Poisoning wells was also a time-tested tactic, chucking dead people or animals in there to contaminate the water. This took out your well out for quite a few days, since it had to be cleaned with lime.

Beer and wine, all weaker than our own or watered down to be weaker, was used when there was a concern about water quality. That means not only marching armies, but, for example, travelers. Especially the wealthier ones would rather fork over some cash rather than risk that local water supply is contaminated, especially since they changed places so often. This is perhaps one of the major reasons why inns became a thing as early as 11th-12th century, and why monasteries (who almost always had to take in travelers in need because they had in in their rule) brewed beer and made wine so often.

Garimeth
2016-07-22, 11:41 AM
This. You can fins wells all over the place in castles and churches. To take one castle I know well as an example (Beckov, SK, if anyone is interested), it used a massive cistern right in the citadel portion of it to collect rainwater to drink for a long time, and built a well around early 16th century, IIRC.

The well was situated at the bottom of the castle rock, so far down they actually had to extend castle walls to it. The highest part of castle walls when measured from the ground is there, actually. There were soldiers whose sole duty was guarding the well, they had higher pay, and in case they let something happen to the well water, they were punished. By beheading.

Poisoning wells was also a time-tested tactic, chucking dead people or animals in there to contaminate the water. This took out your well out for quite a few days, since it had to be cleaned with lime.

Beer and wine, all weaker than our own or watered down to be weaker, was used when there was a concern about water quality. That means not only marching armies, but, for example, travelers. Especially the wealthier ones would rather fork over some cash rather than risk that local water supply is contaminated, especially since they changed places so often. This is perhaps one of the major reasons why inns became a thing as early as 11th-12th century, and why monasteries (who almost always had to take in travelers in need because they had in in their rule) brewed beer and made wine so often.

I imagine the popularity of tea was of a similar origin, but am not certain.

Storm Bringer
2016-07-22, 12:19 PM
I imagine the popularity of tea was of a similar origin, but am not certain.

possibly. the popularity of Coffee and drinking chocolate (which preceded the solid form of chocolate by something like 150 years) could well be related to this as well.

Yora
2016-07-22, 12:30 PM
I heard tea became popular because pure sugar water or raw sugar cane would be disgusting, but american sugar was a great high energy dietary supplement. Add bitter tea and you can drink it in large quantities. Hop in beer has the only purpose to counter the natural sweetness you'd otherwise get.

Silly action movie question: Could you rig a suitcase with a tripwire activated claymore mine to blow up in the fact of whoever flips it open and be able to survive it standing on the opposite side of the table?
Sounds like a great movie stunt, but videos I've seen of claymore training make it look like a really big bang in all directions.

Miraqariftsky
2016-07-22, 01:08 PM
We're doing that now.

Since the F 35 is both delayed and awful, old planes are being taken out of mothballs and pressed into service. The Pentagon expected a new air fleet by now, but with delays and cost overruns and a higher operational tempo of more or less constant warfare over the last 14 years, our air fleet is old and worn out.

Just cruising by and came across your post there, sir. What's the news on the good old A-10 Warthog? Last I heard, it was about to be discontinued? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't warplanes along the line of the Warthog a better fit for today's warzones than yet more expensive jets? If they really want a replacement, why not rather make a successor, as the Blackhawk is to the Huey? Though, pretty sure the latter is still in service, because, though old, it's still a cheaper and proven workhorse, right?

PersonMan
2016-07-22, 01:10 PM
I think it'd primarily be a function of the strength of the explosive (from what I've read, you can probably get a weaker 'boom' and still kill someone at arm's length) and the strength of the suitcase.

If you pack a full-strength high explosive into a normal suitcase, it'll probably just turn into shrapnel, but a specially reinforced thing could be able to deflect a blast especially if it's not from a bomb made to punch through much more than half a meter of air and a suit.

Gnoman
2016-07-22, 01:12 PM
I heard tea became popular because pure sugar water or raw sugar cane would be disgusting, but american sugar was a great high energy dietary supplement. Add bitter tea and you can drink it in large quantities. Hop in beer has the only purpose to counter the natural sweetness you'd otherwise get.

That would be logical - except that sugared tea wasn't a thing until the 1740s, and by that point the drink had been increasingly popular in Europe for a century (the cost of importation slowed the growth of popularity) and in China (where sugaring the stuff never caught on) for at least three thousand years.



Silly action movie question: Could you rig a suitcase with a tripwire activated claymore mine to blow up in the fact of whoever flips it open and be able to survive it standing on the opposite side of the table?
Sounds like a great movie stunt, but videos I've seen of claymore training make it look like a really big bang in all directions.


5. Danger Area

a. Danger From Fragments (fig. 4). The danger area consists of a 180° fan with a radius of 250 meters centered in the direction of aim.

b. Danger Area of Backblast and Secondary Missiles (figs. 4 and 24). Within an area of 16 meters to the rear and sides of the mine, backblast can cause injury by concussion (ruptured eardrums) and create a secondary missile hazard.

(1) Friendly troops are prohibited to the rear and sides of the mine within a radius of 16 meters.

(2) The minimum safe operating distance from the mine is 16 meters. At this distance, and regardless of how the mine is employed, the operator should be in a foxhole, behind cover, or lying prone in a depression. The operator and all friendly troops within 100 meters of the mine must take cover to prevent being injured by flying secondary objects such as sticks, stones, and pebbles.

16 meters would be a very large table.

Vinyadan
2016-07-22, 01:12 PM
I'd rather impute that to caffeine and endorphins.

Anyway, the note about travellers is actually something I have been confronted by in certain occasions. People who have grown up in a certain place drinking from a certain water source usually end up having no problems, while travellers can get ill by drinking from that same source even once. Nowadays we impute this to germs in the water, to which people can grow resistant over time, to the point that the water is, to them perfectly potable; to outsiders, however, it is contaminated. This fact was once described through the theory of seasoning. The first years in a new place could bring about a number of diseases, which would disappear once the person had "seasoned" himself to the new location, i.e., simply spent enough time there, eating and drinking what was available. I know the theory was around from the 15th to the 19th century because of the great explorations, maybe something similar was to be found earlier in relation to shorter travels.

Roman wine was different from today's wine in many ways. It was much, much stronger, and also very turbid, to the point that it had to be filtered before use. After having been filtered, water was added to it, in quantities of about 1 wine : 4 or 5 water. Of course, there is the matter of fact that that water came from the aqueduct or the fountain or the source of the place where the drinkers came from, so they already were accustomed to it. Wine was drunk hot (emperor Tiberius Claudius Nero was called Biberius Caldus Mero, "Hot Pure Wine Beverage"), which could have unknowingly made the water safer to drink. Roman cities had sewers, however, which might have made them healthier than what was to come later. Road taverns were to be found in the Po Valley around the first years of the empire. One could pay a fixed price for dinner and accommodation. However, places were it was possible to dine and sleep are a common feature in the classical era, although I am not sure of their location outside villages or cities.

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-22, 01:13 PM
Just cruising by and came across your post there, sir. What's the news on the good old A-10 Warthog? Last I heard, it was about to be discontinued? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't warplanes along the line of the Warthog a better fit for today's warzones than yet more expensive jets? If they really want a replacement, why not rather make a successor, as the Blackhawk is to the Huey? Though, pretty sure the latter is still in service, because, though old, it's still a cheaper and proven workhorse, right?

The "newer, faster, higher, tech-ier, stealthier" fighter jokes and New Age Warfare wonks at the Pentagon keep trying to kill it... so they can put the relative pittance this would save into their precious F-35 program.

Its friends in the Congress and often the Army keep giving it a stay of execution.

Mike_G
2016-07-22, 01:47 PM
The "newer, faster, higher, tech-ier, stealthier" fighter jokes and New Age Warfare wonks at the Pentagon keep trying to kill it... so they can put the relative pittance this would save into their precious F-35 program.

Its friends in the Congress and often the Army keep giving it a stay of execution.

Second this.

The A-10 is the balls. Soldiers love it, because it's a great ground attack plane. So, for fighting ISIS or any of our current conflicts, it's a very good asset to have.

But the zoomies who think Top Gun is a porn film just want newer, faster, higher tech jets, even when the new tech is questionable, buggy and overpriced.

The Marines have their own air assets, which the Army doesn't, and Marine pilots train more for close air support (because ground combat is what Marines do) than Air Force pilots who want to dogfight.

JustSomeGuy
2016-07-22, 01:58 PM
Is the suitcase anchored down somehow so the claymore can be 'set' into something solid and stable? If it were set off unattatched, i've a feeling newton's 3rd law might influence it's discharge somewhat!

Vinyadan
2016-07-22, 02:02 PM
The A-10 has its areas of application, which don't seem to be going to disappear any time soon. At the same time, in an all out war, instead of an asymmetrical conflict, its utility would decrease very fast, since it is unusable in areas without complete control of the skies. Its infantry support role is subordinated to the enemy air force and defences already having been offed. So it's all a matter of what you wish to be prepared for. Let's say that I hope the Warthog stays in service because, if it were to become obsolete to the point of being useless, it would mean that the world would be on the verge of a war between major or super powers (or that newer avionics are easily hackable, making newer aeroplanes unusable and leaving the A-10 uncovered against a smaller air defence force).

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-22, 02:08 PM
The A-10 has its areas of application, which don't seem to be going to disappear any time soon. At the same time, in an all out war, instead of an asymmetrical conflict, its utility would decrease very fast, since it is unusable in areas without complete control of the skies. Its infantry support role is subordinated to the enemy air force and defences already having been offed. So it's all a matter of what you wish to be prepared for. Let's say that I hope the Warthog stays in service because, if it were to become obsolete to the point of being useless, it would mean that the world would be on the verge of a war between major or super powers (or that newer avionics are easily hackable, making newer aeroplanes unusable and leaving the A-10 uncovered against a smaller air defence force).

The last time I checked, no A-10 had ever been "shot down" by another plane in dissimilar air combat exercises (I make no promise of being 100% up to date) -- fighters just aren't as good as one might think at coming down into the weeds where the A-10 lives, and AAMs still aren't that great at hitting a slow-moving, cool-engined target flying at under 200 feet. In an actual turning fight at low altitude, the A-10 has a pretty steep advantage, it carries a pair of all-aspect Sidewinders, and the "warthog stomp" (point nose, pull trigger, hose target with 30mm rounds) is surprisingly effective for a plane with no air-to-air radar.

Carl
2016-07-22, 02:28 PM
Yeah if it's close to stall speed an A-10 can actually turn inside a sidewinder, even when the later has bled most of it's own speed off. If it's still going like a bat out of hell it's no chance of stay with the A-10 in a turn. Now weather at such low speeds it can get enough miss distance to be safe from proximity detonations i can;t say. But it's worth bearing that in mind. If you want somthing that can stay with it through a turn at that slow a speed, well, time to break out the museum pieces, cira WW2.

Yora
2016-07-22, 02:33 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't warplanes along the line of the Warthog a better fit for today's warzones than yet more expensive jets? If they really want a replacement, why not rather make a successor, as the Blackhawk is to the Huey? Though, pretty sure the latter is still in service, because, though old, it's still a cheaper and proven workhorse, right?

The idea was to have only a single plane that can do the jobs of several different old planes, which would make it easier to produce it in high numbers, get replacement parts, and train pilots and ground crews. Because that would be a lot cheaper and save huge amounts of money.
Oh, the irony... :smallbiggrin:

It wasn't a stupid idea in the beginning, but at some point they should have realized that they can't actually build such a plane and cut their losses. Instead they kept hoping that those issues could be fixed if they throw a bit more money at it. Now we know: They couldn't.

Probably needs still just a bit more money to get it right. :smallwink:

snowblizz
2016-07-22, 04:53 PM
. Now weather at such low speeds it can get enough miss distance to be safe from proximity detonations i can;t say.
The plane itself should be designed to take a tank shell to the face. I'm not sure proximity anything is going to bother it much.:smallbiggrin:
Am also a Warthog fan obviously.

If you ask me instead of whining about how someone got convoys of white toyota pick-ups to make technicals they should be strafing said convoys with Warthogs. Solve the problem much faster that way.


It's probably a somewhat legitimate complaint that an A-10 could do with a serious ipgrade when it comes to various electronics, at least for targeting and such.

Vinyadan
2016-07-22, 05:20 PM
BTW, there's a voice in my head telling me that the A-10 was the inspiration for the design of the Y Wing.

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-22, 05:40 PM
The plane itself should be designed to take a tank shell to the face. I'm not sure proximity anything is going to bother it much.:smallbiggrin:
Am also a Warthog fan obviously.

If you ask me instead of whining about how someone got convoys of white toyota pick-ups to make technicals they should be strafing said convoys with Warthogs. Solve the problem much faster that way.


It's probably a somewhat legitimate complaint that an A-10 could do with a serious ipgrade when it comes to various electronics, at least for targeting and such.


It has had multiple major avionics upgrades, along with the wing replacement program to extend its service life.

IIRC, all these programs together, for the entire A-10 fleet, cost less than a single F-35.

rrgg
2016-07-22, 06:24 PM
As far as beer and wine vs water goes. As I understand it there is little to know evidence that people in the past drank only beer or other beverages to keep from getting sick while there is quite a lot of evidence that people drank water and that towns and cities put a lot of effort into securing fresh water sources.

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-22, 06:30 PM
As far as beer and wine vs water goes. As I understand it there is little to know evidence that people in the past drank only beer or other beverages to keep from getting sick while there is quite a lot of evidence that people drank water and that towns and cities put a lot of effort into securing fresh water sources.


Would have to go back and check posts, but I don't think anyone claimed that people drank only beer, etc.

Carl
2016-07-22, 06:35 PM
To be 100% fair to the F-35 it started life as a specification broadly similar tot eh F-16/F-18 but with a remit to take advantage of new tech since then to build in better electronics, stealth, and supercruise features. None of thats really an issue to achieve, the resulting plane isn't going to be as cheap or capable at any single role as a dedicated aircraft, but it's good enough and cheap enough that it is an acceptable plane for what it's designed for. But then the whole STOL/VTOL and that allways requires compromises. It's basically the F-111 problem all over again, trying to build a plane thats all things to all people is a compromise too far.

Mike_G
2016-07-22, 06:57 PM
To be 100% fair to the F-35 it started life as a specification broadly similar tot eh F-16/F-18 but with a remit to take advantage of new tech since then to build in better electronics, stealth, and supercruise features. None of thats really an issue to achieve, the resulting plane isn't going to be as cheap or capable at any single role as a dedicated aircraft, but it's good enough and cheap enough that it is an acceptable plane for what it's designed for. But then the whole STOL/VTOL and that allways requires compromises. It's basically the F-111 problem all over again, trying to build a plane thats all things to all people is a compromise too far.

So build an improved F-18, and improved A-10 and an improved Harrier, rather than a huge, expensive boondogle that won't do any of those jobs as well.

We don't have a Navy of one model of all purpose carrier/cruiser/destroyers. We don't have an infantry company where every man has a rifle, LMG, ATGM, mortar and sniper rifle. Why the hell do we think we can make one fighter that can do everything?

Vinyadan
2016-07-22, 07:06 PM
So build an improved F-18, and improved A-10 and an improved Harrier, rather than a huge, expensive boondogle that won't do any of those jobs as well.

We don't have a Navy of one model of all purpose carrier/cruiser/destroyers. We don't have an infantry company where every man has a rifle, LMG, ATGM, mortar and sniper rifle. Why the hell do we think we can make one fighter that can do everything?

They like gish classes :P Just be happy they didn't throw a B-52 and a tanker seaplane into the mix, too. Maybe with oil rig capabilities included, just in case they run out of fuel.

Carl
2016-07-22, 07:15 PM
So build an improved F-18, and improved A-10 and an improved Harrier, rather than a huge, expensive boondogle that won't do any of those jobs as well.


Well thats more or less how it started out, but then they started stacking stuff. The real issue, (as i understand it), is that what started as a US air force/navy joint project to provide a stealthed, high tech avionics, supercruise replacement for the F-16/F-18 in the dual role ground attack/air superiority category, (i.e. a direct replacement for an existing plane), morphed over time as other service branches and american allies threw in requirements and they tried to make a "NATO" jet rather than a US Air Force/Navy Jet. The European powers mostly operate carriers without catapults and the marines want a direct replacement for the harrier and they decided to try and do a one plane covers all job and it's just bogged the whole thing down in compromises. AFAIK the F-16/F-18 are considered very good multi-role aircraft and the original plan would likely have produced a good plane, but adding that much, well i'm reminded about the story of the bradley's development...

Too many cooks spoiling the broth and all that.


They like gish classes :P Just be happy they didn't throw a B-52 and a tanker seaplane into the mix, too. Maybe with oil rig capabilities included, just in case they run out of fuel.


Nobody wants heavy bombers anymore. Personally i think thats kinda silly given how weapons tech has turned out, but thats a whole other discussion.

Gnoman
2016-07-22, 08:17 PM
The F-35 had so many things going against it that it is practically a miracle that what's been produced is as good as it is. Quite apart from the inherent flaws in the "One aircraft for every purpose" boondoggle that has a very obvious origin (the F-18 has already replaced all other Navy aircraft in carrier service, vastly increasing flexibility (although this was possible because the entire mission of the F-14 was axed and the A6 was an overall obsolete design), the F-16 is a global workhorse for land-based services, the planes aren't that different overall (the F-18 is a development of the YF-17 that competed against the F-16 in the Light Fighter Program) so it should be reasonable to build one plane that can duplicate both), there's also the requirement to work with as many defense contractors as possible (in order to make sure those companies stay in business so that the country retains a diverse military R&D/Manufacturing base against future need), and the fact that the plane was accepted into service well before the design was finished.


As for the A-10, the detractors want it gone because it is a single-mission aircraft (much out of style nowadays), it lacks precision bombing capability (which is a capacity that is very much in style even though it is useless in the CAS role), and the Air Force has always hated the Close Air Support mission anyway.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-22, 09:06 PM
On F-35: the international participants in the program are a large part of it. If you axe the F-35, you axe the only stealth fighter that any US ally is going to have access to for the next several decades. Keep the F-35, and you get a whole bunch of allies with them too.

Mike_G
2016-07-23, 07:25 AM
As for the A-10, the detractors want it gone because it is a single-mission aircraft (much out of style nowadays), it lacks precision bombing capability (which is a capacity that is very much in style even though it is useless in the CAS role), and the Air Force has always hated the Close Air Support mission anyway.

The Chair Force worried they may have to actually see the enemy?

PersonMan
2016-07-23, 08:37 AM
Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

How much does air superiority / supremacy make it more difficult - would it simply be a "bigger miracle" if the enemy has planes in the area as well, or would something like this more or less require the superior side to not have much air power present?

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-23, 09:22 AM
Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

How much does air superiority / supremacy make it more difficult - would it simply be a "bigger miracle" if the enemy has planes in the area as well, or would something like this more or less require the superior side to not have much air power present?

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.


If the larger countries have air dominance (the small nation's aircraft can't fly without being shot down, and their air defenses are fully suppressed), then the only thing they (the smaller country) can do to hold out like that is for their entire military to "go guerilla".

Knaight
2016-07-23, 09:31 AM
If you look at the 6 days war, that was won largely by a surprise attack on planes sitting in an airfield believed to be out of range of the Israeli planes. This sort of thing - where a strategic target is highly vulnerable, but thought safe and left minimally defended - could happen in any number of different scenarios, and could easily at least buy time.

Vinyadan
2016-07-23, 10:09 AM
Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

How much does air superiority / supremacy make it more difficult - would it simply be a "bigger miracle" if the enemy has planes in the area as well, or would something like this more or less require the superior side to not have much air power present?

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.

There are all the wars the Soviets lost in its early years (e.g. against Poland, but also other, less absurd cases, like in the Baltic countries, Finland, Armenia). There is the first Chechen war. There is the Vietnam War, although that wasn't an American invasion. There are all the Afghan wars, where successful invasions aren't evidently enough to control the territory of a country which is actually a big box full of warring tribes.

Anyway, pretty much anything is possible. One option is for the stronger country to suddenly collapse and dissolve in different countries; a part of German-speaking historiography explains this way how Austria was defeated by Italy in WWI - that they weren't defeated by Italy, and that the country collapsed on its own in different nations.

Another option is a massive morale collapse, to the point that order is impossible to keep and the army pretty much disappears. This is what happened in Iraq during the first battles against ISIS.

Another option are fatal mistakes, or extreme exploitation of weak points. When India defeated Pakistan in 1971, one of the reasons was that Pakistan was already at war in East Pakistan. India blockaded the Bay of Bengal, so that Pakistani soldiers couldn't be rescued or pulled out. Some say this was also due to the wrong mentality, with the romantic idea that a single Pakistani soldier was worth eight Indians still running in the background.

In general, overextension, lack of money, lack of combustibles and lack of materiel can end a war, although I can't think of an example right now where the army didn't start a war with incomplete preparations.

Air force gives a clear reaching advantage, but the problem is what you are going to do with that advantage, if you can't bring the ground forces over there. Just think of the damage inflicted by bombing during WWII, it did hit cities, industries and rail roads, but it wasn't enough to win on its own, not without extreme blows like atomic warfare. Again, you can think about Vietnam, or Chechnya.

The larger problem I see is that of money. Either the larger country plunges into an economic crisis with no way out, or they will come back in a few years and conquer you (see: Poland, Baltic States, Chechnya), unless you create a situation in which war simply isn't an interesting proposal any more. The only example I can think of is the EC, and it only was created because of American efforts in preparation for another war.

OK, I had not noticed that you want the little country to actually lose. A two week miracle could work if an unexpected situation presents itself: a weapon capable of taking out soldiers inside vehicles deemed safe, for example, would make advancing much more difficult, and evaluation mistakes in the position of enemy forces can cause a counter-offensive to function. It all depends on the terrain. Or maybe the equipment is the wrong one: let's say that you were expecting to fight on the mountains, but your advance is stalled somehow before you get there. Your men have mountain equipment, but you actually are in the boggy terrain where water flows from the mountains. The enemy attacks you with the right equipment and tactics for the terrain and you have to pull out.

PersonMan
2016-07-23, 11:26 AM
OK, I had not noticed that you want the little country to actually lose. A two week miracle could work if an unexpected situation presents itself: a weapon capable of taking out soldiers inside vehicles deemed safe, for example, would make advancing much more difficult, and evaluation mistakes in the position of enemy forces can cause a counter-offensive to function. It all depends on the terrain. Or maybe the equipment is the wrong one: let's say that you were expecting to fight on the mountains, but your advance is stalled somehow before you get there. Your men have mountain equipment, but you actually are in the boggy terrain where water flows from the mountains. The enemy attacks you with the right equipment and tactics for the terrain and you have to pull out.

Yeah, I think I didn't explain it well enough in my first post. I'm mostly thinking of individual battles, or a series of battles, rather than a massive strategic thing.

Thanks for the info, though!

Hoosigander
2016-07-23, 11:51 AM
Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

The phrase "miracle victory" brings to mind the so-called "Miracle on the Vistula," which Vinyadin was alluding to in the mention of the various wars the early Soviet Union fought against neighboring states. The Battle of Warsaw was a decisive counterattack that defeated the Red Army as it approached the Polish capital itself. The key to the Polish victory was the weak southern flank of the Soviet advance. The Soviets had a northwestern front (advancing on Warsaw) and a southwestern front, (advancing on Lwów) the Mazyr Group which linked those two forces consisted of a single infantry division of 8,000 men.

However, the first Polish attack came in the North, when the 5th Army commanded by Władysław Sikorski crossed the Wkra. The 5th Army had been given almost all the meager armor the Poles possessed and they made rapid progress as the Soviet units were exhausted. Two days later a specially formed 20,00 man strong Assault Group under the personal command of Piłsudski attacked the single division linking the two Soviet fronts, advancing deep into the enemy rear, cutting off communications and splitting the Soviet forces. The result was a rout of the entire northwestern front. It's worth noting that the areas of Poland where most of the fighting took place are essentially one huge plain so both the Soviet advance and the Polish counter attack gained ground very quickly once the enemy was outflanked.

Besides the strategic failure, rivalries and disagreements between Soviet commanders also contributed to the deafeat. Semyon Budyonny, commander of the 1st Cavalry Army, took his army to support the advance on Lwów as opposed to Warsaw as ordered. The Poles also obviously benefited from from reduced supply lines and better logistics as the war approached Warsaw.

There are a few caveats to using the Polish-Soviet War as a model for a David V. Goliath victory. The first is that, by the summer of 1920, both armies had rough numerical parity with the other, both in terms of total forces and those involved in the Battle of Warsaw itself. The second is that, neither the Soviet nor the Polish armies were particularly well equipped. Thirdly, although the Russian Civil War was largely over the Soviets still had to commit forces elsewhere, including White resistance in the Crimea. So, the Red Army of 1920 was very far from the juggernaut of 20 years later.

To get the two-week miracle that you want for story purposes I think it could go something like this. Country A attacks country B and is able to rapidly advance almost to the gates of the capital itself. In the rapidity of its advance (and maybe it has a second front drifting the other direction to capture an important industrial city) it allows one of its flanks to become open and B's Army launches a counterattack into that gap. Perhaps the counterattack progresses more slowly that the Polish one due to more variegated terrain. After two weeks of the successful counterattack A's general is able to do what Mikhail Tukhachevsky could not and reorganize his army into a coherent front, perhaps along a river. From there country A can plot a more measured offensive or simply bleed B with attrition.

fusilier
2016-07-23, 12:58 PM
Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

How much does air superiority / supremacy make it more difficult - would it simply be a "bigger miracle" if the enemy has planes in the area as well, or would something like this more or less require the superior side to not have much air power present?

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.

One simple solution is for the attackers to badly underestimate the forces needed for a rapid victory, and the defender being well prepared. Examples include: Austria-Hungary attacking Serbia in WW1, Italy attacking Greece in WW2. Forces have to be mobilized and concentrated for an assault -- if there aren't enough of them present when the assault begins, and the attacker didn't anticipate this eventuality, it may take a longer amount of time before the reserves can be called up. The defender would need to be well prepared for the assault, which may mean they had forewarning of some sort.

Attacking ground targets from the air requires good intelligence on the location of key points (airfields, supply concentration points, etc.) -- the defender can defeat this, at least temporarily, by repositioning those resources, and hoping that the attacker's intelligence is out of date when they launch the offensive. (I think Poland managed to do this to a certain extent with their air force in 1939, by moving a lot of their aircraft to temporary bases, although it didn't help them too much).

Vinyadan
2016-07-23, 01:29 PM
One simple solution is for the attackers to badly underestimate the forces needed for a rapid victory, and the defender being well prepared. Examples include: Austria-Hungary attacking Serbia in WW1, Italy attacking Greece in WW2. Forces have to be mobilized and concentrated for an assault -- if there aren't enough of them present when the assault begins, and the attacker didn't anticipate this eventuality, it may take a longer amount of time before the reserves can be called up. The defender would need to be well prepared for the assault, which may mean they had forewarning of some sort.


Darius attacking Athens deserves a honourable mention, even though he lacked an air force. :P


Semyon Budyonny

One of the best literary books written in the Soviet Union before WWII is Red Cavalry, by Isaak Babel, who reports some of his experiences in the Cavalry under Budyonny during the war. When he read it after the war, Budyonny asked for his execution. A terrific book, Stalin later censored it and purged Babel.

Hoosigander
2016-07-23, 03:15 PM
One of the best literary books written in the Soviet Union before WWII is Red Cavalry, by Isaak Babel, who reports some of his experiences in the Cavalry under Budyonny during the war. When he read it after the war, Budyonny asked for his execution. A terrific book, Stalin later censored it and purged Babel.

Thanks for the recommendation, I've checked and found my local library has a copy so I'll get it soon.

snowblizz
2016-07-23, 05:54 PM
Thanks for the recommendation, I've checked and found my local library has a copy so I'll get it soon.

*Pffft* They don't purge the way they used to I'll say that.:smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:

BayardSPSR
2016-07-23, 08:41 PM
Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

...

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.

Try looking at the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and some of the offensives launched by Ukrainian forces in the fighting there, the vertical ambush at Karbala (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala), and maybe even the Tet Offensive (tactical defeat, but strategic victory). Setbacks are always possible, though the longer the war and the more important the strategic objective of the larger side, the more likely they are to be temporary.

A "two-week miracle" is likely to involve extreme intelligence failures on the part of the dominant side. Possibly also logistical failures. Maybe the dominant side assesses that a large enemy unit has been destroyed by airstrikes which in reality struck decoys, and the surviving force achieves a local breakthrough that happens to seize or destroy the invader's fuel dumps, temporarily halting the invasion and scattering large numbers of hastily-mobilized reservists in the process?

If the invasion isn't being conducted by land, there's always the "lucky submarine sinks/cripples carrier" option.


If the larger countries have air dominance (the small nation's aircraft can't fly without being shot down, and their air defenses are fully suppressed), then the only thing they (the smaller country) can do to hold out like that is for their entire military to "go guerilla".

Complete air supremacy can be really hard to get and keep, though: it hasn't happened in most interstate wars, especially those without the US involved in them. Planes can't be airborne and ready to strike 24/7, and some kinds of target are extremely difficult to locate and engage, even with precision munitions, especially when air defenses can't be totally suppressed.

Weather could also be an issue.

Martin Greywolf
2016-07-24, 05:03 AM
Concerning the topic of what people were drinking in olden days.

First thing you must accept is that there are no hard answers - literally no one bothered to write this sort of thing down. The most we have are bills from large celebrations, like royal weddings, or just religious celebrations in cities. These are, as you can imagine, not exactly representative of day to day life. Another source would be expenses for a militaryt campaign, but logistics were handled in large part by requisitioning the supplies nearby, so the information there is also incomplete.

1) Water

We know for a fact that a clean source of water was a big deal. Apart from laws and regulations concerning wells, the fact that many villages sprung up around sources of water (sometimes rivers and streams, sometimes springs) is very telling. People were likely reasonably aware of the fact that the larger the water source is, the less clean it will be - a river downstream is a bad idea for drinking water, mountain stream is a lot safer (marmot piss aside). At times, you were forced to use that for drinking, but those were desperation measures.

One thing that is often forgotten is that medieval or not, people knew to boil water to make it safe. Where you run into problems is knowing when to use it - since theory of disease spreading wasn't up to snuff, boiling, filtering and, later, distilling were only used to make a water that looked unclean safer. If they knew that water will give you runs by the means of trial and error, then they might boil it even if it looks clean, but they'd be more likely to find another source if possible.

Lastly, rain water can be gathered rather easily, and it was definitely used for drinking, as we know from many castles having huge cisterns to store it. Aside from cities and castles, it probably wouldn't be all that popular, since villages tended to have wells or streams nearby, but it could be used occassionally.

2) Non-alcoholic drinks

Making hooch isn't the only way to get safe drinks. Some drinks, like coffee or tea are made safer just because they have to be boiled, and these were, in a way, known in the medieval times too. You obviously had little tea preior to colonial empires, but oral tradition does come to the rescue. Local herbs were used not only as remedies, but sometimes to just have a good tasting drink that will warm you up. What was used depended on what was available, but most common variant were strawberry leaves, whether fresh or dried.

Let's also not forget what we would call juice, made of either fruit or vegetables. Apple ciders were especially popular, and apples were often stored over the winter (you can do so without drying them, if you know how), so they were available all year round.

Last but not least, we have milk, and that was a huge, huge source of drinks. Almost every single family had at least a cow or two, not counting sheep, goats and so on. There were recipes to prepare milk in all the ways imaginable, from sweetening it with honey (it's delicious, by the by) up to and including making into hooch.

3) Alcohol

This is the one people talk most about - ABV content was rarely over 30% during the middle ages, though. You need to distill stuff to make drink that strong, and that process wasn't invented quite yet, or at least not widely known. You can get strong concentrations of alcohol, around the 30% mark, byy freezing the drink and taking out the ice, but stuff like this was expensive.

Making the drink less potent by adding water was also popular, as was sneakily putting in water to rake in profits, as we know from many, many laws that detailed penalties to innkeepers who did it.

4) What DID they drink, then?

Well, this depends on the person in question. It's quite likely that a rich dude rarely drank pure water, having alcohol, honeyed milk or some other thing nearby. Traveling people usually used what was nearby, and usually tried to avoid local water, it seems - inns had tidy profits from selling alcohol to them.

People who couldn't afford to stay at an inn, well, that's something we know pretty much nothing about. If they had a cow with them, milk seems like a ready made source of fluids, otherwise, wells and springs would be preferred, and in a pinch, a stream will do. Using local herbs to make "tea" is also possible, especially is they weren't in a hurry.

Locals would drink water in reasonable quantities, if only because they were well aware which source is clean and which isn't.

Soldiers, well, all of the above, it really depends on what situation they're in. Sometimes, situation was desperate enough to just straight up start drinking from whatever was available, and as you can imagine, that rarely ended well - dysentery is what you get if you're lucky.

Storm Bringer
2016-07-24, 08:59 AM
Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

How much does air superiority / supremacy make it more difficult - would it simply be a "bigger miracle" if the enemy has planes in the area as well, or would something like this more or less require the superior side to not have much air power present?

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.


I note the use of the plural "neighbours" rather than the singular "neighbour". in collation warfare, their is room for major errors between partners based on simple misunderstandings to example, Country A might be responsible for everywhere east of City X, and Country B might be hold the line west of the city, but neither country actually attempts to take the city, and the defenders sally out unopposed and destroy a major supply dump that brings everything to a halt for weeks until more supplies can be brought up.

another option is the international partner for the small nation. Maybe a major power was funnelling in ammo and so on (much like the US supplies Israel), but was forced to widthdraw support in the face of international pressure. without the support and supplies, the invaded nation crumbles.


third road is the late joiner. the smaller invaded country is doing ok, but has had to throw everything and the kitchen sink into stopping the invasion. Country C, which has a border to the invaded country, decides that it either wants some of the spoils, or that it doesn't want the invading country defeated, so joins in the war and invades the small country, sealing its fate.

that said, the easiest way to have a "two week miracle" would be a systemic and wide spread underestimation of the smaller country, and a subsequent failure to assign enough forces to the initial attack. For example, the attackers commit second rate troops to the attack, thinking they will be more than good enough to steamroll the puny forces of the small nation. Or maybe they decide that this would be the perfect chance to test their new doctrine, fresh from eager mind of a general staff eager to justify their salaries. or maybe the political leaderships slaps restricting rules of engagement on them, to minimise damage to the prize and make occupation easier.

when they get their backsides kicked, the gloves come off. the elite troops get sent in, using tried and tested tactics and permissive ROE, and sort out the mess.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-24, 02:11 PM
On the topic of "two-week miracles," take a look at Operation Badr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Badr_(1973)), the Egyptian offensive at the start of the Yom Kippur War, thinking about it in the context of the on-again-off-again conflict between Egypt and Israel. Careful Egyptian planning + Israeli intelligence failures + sudden escalation = dramatic, but not decisive, victory. Even an outnumbered force could pull off something similar if they were able to gain a local superiority in numbers.

fusilier
2016-07-24, 09:20 PM
Soldiers, well, all of the above, it really depends on what situation they're in. Sometimes, situation was desperate enough to just straight up start drinking from whatever was available, and as you can imagine, that rarely ended well - dysentery is what you get if you're lucky.


There's a journal of an officer of a company of volunteer infantry that travelled down the Santa Fe trail during the Mexican American War with General Kearny. At one point they were told that good water was only a few miles down the trail. After marching a few miles with no sign of water, they were again told that good water was just a few miles away. This went on all day, and when they finally reached the water it was brackish with green scum floating in it. The mounted troops had arrived before them, and none of them were drinking it. None of their horses or mules were drinking the water either. The infantry drank the water! They were all sick the next day.


Last but not least, we have milk, and that was a huge, huge source of drinks. Almost every single family had at least a cow or two, not counting sheep, goats and so on. There were recipes to prepare milk in all the ways imaginable, from sweetening it with honey (it's delicious, by the by) up to and including making into hooch.

I saw another article somewhat recently that pointed out that adults also consumed human milk, and that certain recipes even called for it.

Martin Greywolf
2016-07-25, 01:52 AM
I saw another article somewhat recently that pointed out that adults also consumed human milk, and that certain recipes even called for it.

I'm massively skeptical of this, this sounds exactly like one of the things someone would write in a chronicle or travel journal to wow the people reading it (a.k.a. dog people syndrome), or as a bit of propaganda against people they didn't like. There was nos shortage of either, and I find that easier to believe that the logistical hassle of actually pulling this off.

Alternatively, it could be something that a nobleman with weird tastes (heh heh, tastes) did and got away with because, well, nobility. Also, no shortage of that either, just look at Elizabeth Bathory.

That said, if you have a source, I'd like to see it, maybe it was actually a thing...

fusilier
2016-07-25, 07:16 AM
I'm massively skeptical of this, this sounds exactly like one of the things someone would write in a chronicle or travel journal to wow the people reading it (a.k.a. dog people syndrome), or as a bit of propaganda against people they didn't like. There was nos shortage of either, and I find that easier to believe that the logistical hassle of actually pulling this off.

Alternatively, it could be something that a nobleman with weird tastes (heh heh, tastes) did and got away with because, well, nobility. Also, no shortage of that either, just look at Elizabeth Bathory.

That said, if you have a source, I'd like to see it, maybe it was actually a thing...

May have been more of a remedy, but, like you said earlier, a lot has to be inferred --

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36072989

cucchulainnn
2016-07-25, 10:30 AM
On the drinking thing. Lets not forget that there is more then one way to clean water. I read in several places that Romans issued vinegar to legions to use as a water purification system. A few table spoon fulls adds enough acid to kill most dangerous stuff. Add a little honey and it actually tastes pretty good. I know I've tried it. A wine skin of vinegar which can clean multiple gallons of water is a lot easier to carry then the water it self. The same basic recipe has been used ever since most recently called switchel, substituting molasses for the honey. The other benefit for a worker's or soldier's drink is it is high in the nutrients that we sweat out. You know electrolytes like what is in Brawndo.

I drive trucks with out AC and have been drinking switchel instead of gatoraid and like it much better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posca

Hoosigander
2016-07-25, 02:30 PM
On the subject of Switchel, a clip from my favorite cooking show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8sPaesPOiU

cucchulainnn
2016-07-26, 01:01 AM
On the subject of Switchel, a clip from my favorite cooking show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8sPaesPOiU

That is where I first heard about it. I was very hesitant to drink it. Lets be realistic, what is basically vinegar in water sounds gross. But it really is tasty. At the end of the day when I get home after sitting in what is box on top of a several hundred degree oven. I've sweat so much I look as though someone hosed me off. The switchel really does help. Although I stopped adding ginger. It was to much.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-26, 01:25 AM
On the subject of Switchel, a clip from my favorite cooking show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8sPaesPOiU

This seems like something I must try; thank you both for bringing it up.

Martin Greywolf
2016-07-26, 02:05 AM
May have been more of a remedy, but, like you said earlier, a lot has to be inferred --

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36072989

Ah, yes, that would make more sense, weird stuff as a remedy was pretty common, including possible human sacrifice in Hungary of 16th century. From reading the article, I'm pretty sure that's what it was and some incautious editing or rampant extrapolation led to them claiming that people drank it regularly. One other thing we should note is that the article's main academical person, Dr Joan Fitzpatrick, is a lecturer of English, not a historian per se.

Garimeth
2016-07-26, 07:32 AM
The Marines have their own air assets, which the Army doesn't, and Marine pilots train more for close air support (because ground combat is what Marines do) than Air Force pilots who want to dogfight.

The F-35 got the official endorsement of the Corps when Amos was Commandant though, he's also the first and only aviator to make Commandant.

The f-35 is a colossal waste of money, but let's be honest too, that money would be better spent on UAVs and operators - not other planes. The decade is not far off where manned aircraft will be a thing of the past or a hobby.

Storm Bringer
2016-07-26, 09:50 AM
The F-35 got the official endorsement of the Corps when Amos was Commandant though, he's also the first and only aviator to make Commandant.

The f-35 is a colossal waste of money, but let's be honest too, that money would be better spent on UAVs and operators - not other planes. The decade is not far off where manned aircraft will be a thing of the past or a hobby.

I'd argue that given most UAVs reliance on satellite control, they may prove to not be as useful against a high tech enemy with the ability and will to jam and/or knock out the relay sats.

Vinyadan
2016-07-26, 10:03 AM
I'd argue that given most UAVs reliance on satellite control, they may prove to not be as useful against a high tech enemy with the ability and will to jam and/or knock out the relay sats.

To this one may add that there are at least 2 countries which can put satellites out of commission, but we don't know if anyone has developed any countermeasure to this.

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-26, 10:47 AM
If we get to the point when stealth is common-place and communications are easily knocked out... we might be back to manned aircraft engaged in visual-range dogfights with guns and short-range heat-seekers.

That would be ironic.

And really, people have been calling the manned fighter "soon to be obsolete" since at least the mid 1950s if not sooner, and yet here we are in 2016 and the pilot in the cockpit is still necessary for most missions.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-26, 03:15 PM
If we get to the point when stealth is common-place and communications are easily knocked out... we might be back to manned aircraft engaged in visual-range dogfights with guns and short-range heat-seekers.

Or lasers. It would be hilarious if, against all expectations, late 21st century air combat strongly resembled the dogfights in Star Wars.

Carl
2016-07-26, 05:51 PM
And really, people have been calling the manned fighter "soon to be obsolete" since at least the mid 1950s if not sooner, and yet here we are in 2016 and the pilot in the cockpit is still necessary for most missions.

They've been calling the end of manned aircraft for a long time, but the reasons are very different these days. For a long time it was that missile could allways shoot down aircraft. And there's some truth to this. The navies of the world have generally had the tools since the advent of guided missiles to handle any air threat quite well bearing in mind the constraints of the era, (this is why the UK had such issues in the falklands, most of their ships were designed and equipped from an era when the threat to design against was high level high speed aircraft, not low level attacks and sea skimming missiles, stealth may become the new version of this). However this technology has rarely transitioned well if at all to land based applications, but thats beginning to change.

More importantly the claims of the end of manned aircraft now are based on the idea of an actual viable replacement able to fulfill all of the same roles. Drones aren't quite there for a lot of applications IMO, but they're getting much closer and many roles can be taken over by them with the properly designed drones. That said whilst the technology is there to build adequately capable drones, the actual design and construction work is still largely not-done.

Max_Killjoy
2016-07-26, 05:57 PM
They've been calling the end of manned aircraft for a long time, but the reasons are very different these days. For a long time it was that missile could allways shoot down aircraft. And there's some truth to this. The navies of the world have generally had the tools since the advent of guided missiles to handle any air threat quite well bearing in mind the constraints of the era, (this is why the UK had such issues in the falklands, most of their ships were designed and equipped from an era when the threat to design against was high level high speed aircraft, not low level attacks and sea skimming missiles, stealth may become the new version of this). However this technology has rarely transitioned well if at all to land based applications, but thats beginning to change.

More importantly the claims of the end of manned aircraft now are based on the idea of an actual viable replacement able to fulfill all of the same roles. Drones aren't quite there for a lot of applications IMO, but they're getting much closer and many roles can be taken over by them with the properly designed drones. That said whilst the technology is there to build adequately capable drones, the actual design and construction work is still largely not-done.


It's not that I think it can't happen, it's just that the "death of the fighter" people have been so wrong so often for so long that it's at the "I'll believe it when it actually, fully, really, truly happens" stage.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-26, 06:46 PM
More importantly the claims of the end of manned aircraft now are based on the idea of an actual viable replacement able to fulfill all of the same roles. Drones aren't quite there for a lot of applications IMO, but they're getting much closer and many roles can be taken over by them with the properly designed drones. That said whilst the technology is there to build adequately capable drones, the actual design and construction work is still largely not-done.

UAVs do have a unique vulnerability when it comes to EW, though; even the most advanced remotely-piloted vehicle would only need its connection with its pilot to be cut for it to be disabled. This might not be the case for autonomous vehicles, but that's a huge can of worms when it comes to targeting...

warty goblin
2016-07-26, 07:31 PM
UAVs do have a unique vulnerability when it comes to EW, though; even the most advanced remotely-piloted vehicle would only need its connection with its pilot to be cut for it to be disabled. This might not be the case for autonomous vehicles, but that's a huge can of worms when it comes to targeting...

For a bomber or something like that I can certainly see why people would worry about autonomous drones, but I can't figure there'd be so much in the way of worries about civilian casualties for an air superiority autonomous drone. I mean there just aren't that many things that look like fighter jets that aren't fighter jets.

BayardSPSR
2016-07-26, 07:36 PM
For a bomber or something like that I can certainly see why people would worry about autonomous drones, but I can't figure there'd be so much in the way of worries about civilian casualties for an air superiority autonomous drone. I mean there just aren't that many things that look like fighter jets that aren't fighter jets.

AWACS and transport and refueling aircraft, on the other hand...