|
Haha yeah, by diamond the spearpoint I ment hammer it into a diamond cross section to reinforce the point. Kind of like making it a bodkin head.
|
| # ? Apr 11, 2012 23:13 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2013 08:32 |
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:I have something I want to ask about : Polearms. What Rabhadh said. It's basically the Medieval interpretation of the Phalanx/Shieldwall with the innovation of adding stuff onto the pointy end so that it's useful for more stuff.
|
| # ? Apr 11, 2012 23:15 |
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Haha yeah, by diamond the spearpoint I ment hammer it into a diamond cross section to reinforce the point. Kind of like making it a bodkin head. Ha! I guess I assumed that was the default shape for a spear.
|
| # ? Apr 11, 2012 23:37 |
|
|
The Viking reenactor thread has some discussion about how spears are useless in 1v1 but very effective in large groups, or paired with a shield guy who stands in front of them.
|
| # ? Apr 11, 2012 23:50 |
|
|
What was the more important factor in the Allied victory in WWI, tactical/technological improvements, or being able to weather more attrition/blockade the enemy?
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 00:32 |
|
|
If the Axis had utilized the ~8mil jews/gypsies/etc. that they liquidated + the others not liquidated; would they have had a better chance of not losing (as fast)?
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 00:34 |
|
|
Only the finest jewel encrusted polearms for the king.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 00:36 |
|
|
Griz posted:The Viking reenactor thread has some discussion about how spears are useless in 1v1 but very effective in large groups, or paired with a shield guy who stands in front of them. Long spears may not be great in close melee, but short spears have always been a cheap and very useful weapon. Shaka Zulu made the short spear the main weapon of his army, and those dudes were very successful. Chances are most warriors throughout history came equipt with a short spear, knife and shield.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 00:38 |
|
|
quote:Long spears may not be great in close melee, but short spears have always been a cheap and very useful weapon. Shaka Zulu made the short spear the main weapon of his army, and those dudes were very successful. Chances are most warriors throughout history came equipt with a short spear, knife and shield. Move forward a hundred-odd years and you've got bayonets on muskets, same principle, stab the guy before he can reach you with his sword/knife/own bayonet.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 00:42 |
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Ha! I guess I assumed that was the default shape for a spear.  Most bladed spearheads tended to be hollow ground to cause as big a wound as possible
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 00:43 |
|
|
I.W.W. ATTITUDE posted:What was the more important factor in the Allied victory in WWI, tactical/technological improvements, or being able to weather more attrition/blockade the enemy? -The UK made an effective naval blockade of Germany, while Germany never managed to solidly blockade the UK, France, or any other allies. -A massive influx of American soldiers and material helped turn the tide of the war. -Someone pleace correct me on this one: With the notable exception of tanks, the Central Powers' tactical and technological innovations were just as effective as those of the Entente. -German soldiers and civilians were suffering from starvation near the end of the war. Given those factors, I would say that weathering attrition was much more important than any tactical or technological improvements. In fact, it seems that, for at least the last 150 years, logistics (including procuring supplies, moving troops and equipment quickly, and just building up a strong economy) have mattered much more than battlefield engagements. I think I'm oversimplifying this. I'd love for someone to flesh out my argument and/or prove me wrong.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 01:28 |
|
|
Red7 posted:The shape of a diamond, otherwise that would be the most expensive militia known to man :P Though that reminds me of something I may have mentioned in here or somewhere else before. I've always wondered how super effective of equipment modern tech could make for a soldier prior to massive use of firearms. Like kevlar and ceramic armor, carbon fiber spear shafts, that kind of stuff. Some dude with a diamond encrusted spear and sword made from the best steel alloy we have for the job. Like could you make a nigh invincible warrior or were they so good at what they made, that not even our tech would compensate. I know its silly but its something I remember thinking about while reading about ancient arms/armor.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 03:39 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Though that reminds me of something I may have mentioned in here or somewhere else before. I've always wondered how super effective of equipment modern tech could make for a soldier prior to massive use of firearms. Like kevlar and ceramic armor, carbon fiber spear shafts, that kind of stuff. Some dude with a diamond encrusted spear and sword made from the best steel alloy we have for the job. Like could you make a nigh invincible warrior or were they so good at what they made, that not even our tech would compensate. It would certainly be possible to make an armor suit that could withstand the vast majority of ancient weaponry and arms of much higher quality than their ancient counterparts. However, people weren't any dumber back in the day and they knew how to use physics to their advantage. Even if you can't cut a guy you can always knock him down if you have a big enough hammer, or a horse, or just some buddies.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 04:16 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Though that reminds me of something I may have mentioned in here or somewhere else before. I've always wondered how super effective of equipment modern tech could make for a soldier prior to massive use of firearms. Like kevlar and ceramic armor, carbon fiber spear shafts, that kind of stuff. Some dude with a diamond encrusted spear and sword made from the best steel alloy we have for the job. Like could you make a nigh invincible warrior or were they so good at what they made, that not even our tech would compensate. If you really wanted to you could make something like a full set of plate armor using ceramic for the plates and kevlar for the mail, such a thing would make you pretty much resistant to anything a guy could swing at you. I dunno how much it would weigh compared to steel but you could probably move around well enough. As for blades I would imagine you could make something pretty spectacular out of modern materials, maybe carbon fiber or nanotubes mixed with some super high carbon steel or tungsten carbide? I don't know much about metallurgy but I'm sure if there were a market for the world's greatest edged weapon some lab somewhere would come up with something that would beat anything from the ancient world.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 04:17 |
|
|
I.W.W. ATTITUDE posted:What was the more important factor in the Allied victory in WWI, tactical/technological improvements, or being able to weather more attrition/blockade the enemy? Most definitively the attrition/blockade deal. In the end Germany lost both tactically and strategically because they were rapidly losing the ability to wage war. They couldn't replace losses, neither in materiel or manpower. Towards the end German artillery on the west front was so worn down that they couldn't guarantee that a barrage would hit the enemy trenches instead of their own.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 08:12 |
|
|
Rabhadh posted:*snip* While all of this is basically true, I would shy away from calling polearms 'modular'. The shape of a polearm was usually not a specific choice for a specific choice for a specific foe but rather understood as part of a larger fighting formation, or chosen out of habit. The Swiss had halberds not because they didn't think they'd fight armour and so didn't need a hammer head, but because it's what worked for them and they saw no reason to change. Additionally, many polearms were just adapted farming tools, like the flails of which the Hussites were so fond. The exception to this is the pollaxe, which may or may not (it is a matter of debate) have been a weapon exclusively for tournament and other forms of explicitly knight-on-knight fighting. I lean toward the 'not' side but I do not think it was popular on the battlefield because it was used exclusively on foot. This segues neatly into the question of polearms for one-on-one combat. Their strongest advocate was George Silver, who was inordinately fond of the 'brown bill' of the English and of the staff. He wrote with a strong nationalist twist, as he was reacting to the adoption of rapiers in England, and I disagree with him on a lot of things, but he certainly made a case that bills especially make fine weapons for single combat. One of his biggest flaws, however, is that he treats polearms in general but bills in particular as inherently superior to all other forms of weapon, which is patent nonsense. As an aside, evidence for the spiked-ball-on-a-long-chain type flail is slim. I recall seeing a depiction of one from the 12th or 13th century but I can't seem to find it again, and looking through things like the Maciejowski Bible or Beauchamp Pageants it doesn't turn up. WoodrowSkillson posted:Though that reminds me of something I may have mentioned in here or somewhere else before. I've always wondered how super effective of equipment modern tech could make for a soldier prior to massive use of firearms. Like kevlar and ceramic armor, carbon fiber spear shafts, that kind of stuff. Some dude with a diamond encrusted spear and sword made from the best steel alloy we have for the job. Like could you make a nigh invincible warrior or were they so good at what they made, that not even our tech would compensate. The bessemer process makes steel that is largely superior to earlier products, but you cannot make an invincible man now any more than you could then. Using materials other than steel is an iffy, and possibly silly proposition. British police kevlar vests have mail in them to stop knives because kevlar is bad at that. Additionally, late medieval armour already made guys very hard to kill, so even improvements in steel quality would make the practical differences slim. Weapons-wise, stuff like resin impregnation could be done to wood to make it more durable, but changing the fundamental materials would cause changes in flexibility, sectional density, etc that would generally be detrimental to performance. Maybe a spear shaft made of some kind of tough plastic would be better but I really don't know. Steel-wise, there could definitely be improvements made but it's not like it would make them super-soldiers. They'd have more durable swords but you don't win fights by trying to break the other guy's sword. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at Apr 12, 2012 around 12:51 |
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 12:45 |
|
|
I'd love to read through one of George Silvers fight manuals, or get some backsword training based on his principles. Its such a shame european martial arts are so undersppreciated
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 13:41 |
|
|
Bagheera posted:In fact, it seems that, for at least the last 150 years, logistics (including procuring supplies, moving troops and equipment quickly, and just building up a strong economy) have mattered much more than battlefield engagements. Logistics is hugely important, even before the US entered WWI, the fact that they were a huge supplier of the Allies gave them a major advantage. American factories that were safe from bombing were a key reason why they won both World Wars. The only western hemisphere power that was aligned with the Axis was Argentina, and they were much less developed industrially and were under US pressure.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 14:04 |
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I'd love to read through one of George Silvers fight manuals, or get some backsword training based on his principles. Its such a shame european martial arts are so undersppreciated You can in fact read his works: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Works-G...34239803&sr=8-4 There's also modern interpretation of his stuff: http://www.amazon.co.uk/English-Mar...34239890&sr=1-1
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 14:12 |
|
|
Konstantin posted:Logistics is hugely important, even before the US entered WWI, the fact that they were a huge supplier of the Allies gave them a major advantage. American factories that were safe from bombing were a key reason why they won both World Wars... Though that didn't stop the Germans from trying in WWI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_tom_explosion
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 14:34 |
|
|
Rabhadh posted:I'd love to read through one of George Silvers fight manuals, or get some backsword training based on his principles. Its such a shame european martial arts are so undersppreciated Also, where do you live? There are more and more European HMA schools popping up all over the place. Also, groups like the SCA tend to have a bunch of people who really delve into a lot of the period manuals and work with those techniques (as opposed to just rattan heavy list sport stuff).
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 14:46 |
|
|
I had a question harking back to Ancient Rome. I've never quite understood why the legions switched from fighting as a greek-style phalanx armed with spears to the iconic legionary with a gladius. Was it simply the increased flexibility of the formation? How did they succeed against other armies using the heavier formation? From my understanding the "heavily armored guys with long pointy sticks" formation is one of the most successful in pre-modern warfare.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 17:23 |
|
|
FishFood posted:I had a question harking back to Ancient Rome. I've never quite understood why the legions switched from fighting as a greek-style phalanx armed with spears to the iconic legionary with a gladius. Was it simply the increased flexibility of the formation? How did they succeed against other armies using the heavier formation? From my understanding the "heavily armored guys with long pointy sticks" formation is one of the most successful in pre-modern warfare. They (correct me if i'm wrong) got their asses handed to them by wandering Gauls and the Samnites. And the Gladius came later when the Romans experienced first hand in the Iberian Peninsula how a gladius-like weapon is effective in a flexible medium-armored infantry. It was common for the pre-Marian Roman armies to still use spears since a sword wasn't cheap and a soldier was supposed to provide it's own equipment. The flexibility of the formation allowed the rotation of the units, which by itself was a massive improvement over the "fight until you drop" phalanx tactics. Such flexibility also meant that a broken line wouldn't spell out doom for everyone around the breach. It's interesting to see a common reaction in the Mediterranean to the new tactics. It wasn't only Rome that adopted a flexible army. The Iberians, the Carthaginians and even the greek successor states tried to implement fluidity in their armies. That is why Pontus had "imitation legions" in Rome total war :P
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 17:52 |
|
|
As long as we're talking Rome: Total War, here's something I'd like to know. Did the romans really use war dogs and burning pigs? I'm not joking, burning pigs were a thing in that game. You'd use them to scare elephants and cavalry. e: so you're saying my army of nothing but screaming women was ahistorical?! Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at Apr 12, 2012 around 22:40 |
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 18:38 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:As long as we're talking Rome: Total War, here's something I'd like to know. Did the romans really use war dogs and burning pigs? I'm not joking, burning pigs were a thing in that game. You'd use them to scare elephants and cavalry. I'm not an expert, but these things might have been used once as a desperate tactic. Then again CA just like 'cool' military history and they've been hilariously wrong many many times before (Celts would not THROW THEIR TROPHIES AT THEIR ENEMIES ARGH).
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 18:51 |
|
|
Well, the siege of Megara was lifted when they sent burning pigs towards Antigonas II Gonatas war elephants, causing them to panic and rampage through his lines. Nothing to do with Romans there though. I believe good old Pliny the elder mentions that elephants are terrified of squealing pigs.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 19:02 |
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The British had rushed other biplanes into service. One was Gloster Gladiator, and it was probably the best engineered multiple-wing fighter in history. Compared to contemporary aircraft, it was superbly maneuvrable. It's flaws were obvious after some time at war. Neverthless, Gladiators scored kills, mostly against unwary Italian bombers. Their most famous engagement was a week at Malta, where 3 Gladiators probably confused the Italians long enough to score some hits. Nowadays, they are maintained by patriotic gentlemen of background and wealth. You, dear sir, are terribly wrong and should truly feel ashamed. I should not go so far as to demand you to hand over your grognards club membership card, but a refresher course would be in order. For how could one start a sentence with "Gloster Gladiators scored kills, mostly against..." and not continue this with "Soviet Air Force fighters and bombers"? Or start the sentence with "their most famous engagement was" and not continue this with "the Winter War"?  Okay, I'll be serious... FAF Gladiators shot down 34 airplanes in Winter War (and one in Continuation War, when they were no longer in an interceptor role), while the Swedish volunteer force defending the Lapland airspace shot down 8 planes. So maybe not the most kills by Gladiators overall, but it's worth a mention and there weren't many of them anyways. If you're interested, here is a kill listing of the Squadron 26 that had the Gladiators - the fifth column's letters tell the airplane's model where GL-xxx is a Gladiator (FR stands for Fokker D.XXI, FA is Fiat G.50, BU is Bristol Bulldog, BW is Brewster Buffalo). The sixth column tells the killed target. And if you're interested in the use of Brewster Buffalo in Finnish Air Force here's an old post of mine.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 19:11 |
|
|
FishFood posted:I had a question harking back to Ancient Rome. I've never quite understood why the legions switched from fighting as a greek-style phalanx armed with spears to the iconic legionary with a gladius. Was it simply the increased flexibility of the formation? How did they succeed against other armies using the heavier formation? From my understanding the "heavily armored guys with long pointy sticks" formation is one of the most successful in pre-modern warfare. It's been a while since I've read a lot about Rome and their military tactics, but this is the basic jist of it. Someone feel free to correct me. Phalanx's are good for defense or when you're fighting another phalanx, but not very flexible as you alluded to. Legions were broken down into smaller units that could more or less operate on their own if necessary, led by a military tribune or a centurion. Before the Marian reforms the older style legions still used the phalanx to some extent in the form of the triarii (oldest/most experience soldiers) who were armed with long spears and formed the final line in the formation in case things went really bad. This eventually got phased out though. The battle of Cynoscephalae (197 BC) is a pretty good example of how the Roman legion could adapt to fight the heavier formation of the phalanx. The Macedonians pretty much had the upper hand and were about to stomp the Romans but one military tribune noticed a weak spot in their lines and was able to get 20 maniples (a sub-division of a legion, 120 men, so roughly ~2,000 men total) organized into attacking that weak spot, completely turning the battle into a rout in Rome's favor. Phalanxes just couldn't reorganize and re-position themselves as quickly as a legionary units could. canuckanese fucked around with this message at Apr 12, 2012 around 19:57 |
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 19:54 |
|
|
From the time of Alexander until the rise of Rome the phalanx was the order of the day for the infantry of the mediterranian world. The problem was that the diadochi kept making their phalanx formations bigger and heavier, limiting their manuverability on the battlefield. They were still capable of great things if the there was no suprises, but they wern't the units Alexander had created and used anymore. Pikemen could still be effective, of that there is no doubt, but under the Diadochi the phalanxes and phalanx tactics stagnated and bloated to become less effective.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 20:11 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:And if you're interested in the use of Brewster Buffalo in Finnish Air Force here's an old post of mine. I'm still amazed that the Finns did so well with the Buffalo. In every other air force it did miserably, especially in US service. Then the Finns took it and gave it the highest K/D ratio of any plane in the war. They were absolutely crazy in World War II.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 20:37 |
|
|
For Finland they had only the choice to Go Crazy, Uncle Joe wasn't the most forgiving of tyrants.
|
| # ? Apr 12, 2012 20:45 |
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:If the Axis had utilized the ~8mil jews/gypsies/etc. that they liquidated + the others not liquidated; would they have had a better chance of not losing (as fast)? Don't think anyone answered this; would appreciate if somebody could!
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2012 01:30 |
|
|
Probably not, slave labour doesn't make for very high quality weapons and munitions.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2012 02:07 |
|
|
I think he means if they skipped the Holocaust.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2012 02:49 |
|
|
If they skipped the holocaust they had no drat reason to invade. The whole point was to massacre people in order to take their stuff/land.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2012 03:24 |
|
|
That is the crux of the problem, isn't it? If the Nazis weren't racist extremists, would they have still kicked off the whole WWII shebang? I think they still might have. If nothing else, they still wanted Alsace-Lorraine and the German-speaking parts of Europe near Germany's borders. If that was the sum total of their goals it might have been little more than a series of border skirmishes, though.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2012 03:49 |
|
|
Mans posted:They (correct me if i'm wrong) got their asses handed to them by wandering Gauls and the Samnites. And the Gladius came later when the Romans experienced first hand in the Iberian Peninsula how a gladius-like weapon is effective in a flexible medium-armored infantry. It was common for the pre-Marian Roman armies to still use spears since a sword wasn't cheap and a soldier was supposed to provide it's own equipment. The flexibility of the formation allowed the rotation of the units, which by itself was a massive improvement over the "fight until you drop" phalanx tactics. Such flexibility also meant that a broken line wouldn't spell out doom for everyone around the breach. Rome changed over after the 1st Samnite war I believe. The Samnites were hill tribes that had a complete advantage in rocky terrain over the Roman hoplite phalanxes. The Romans realized they needed more mobility and thus converted to the Maniple system. This is when the Hastati, Principes, and Triarii show up. 2 sword based infantry classes and a hoplite type veteran class. The Legions were armed by the state now and thus used short swords and large shields. They did not provide their own weapons and armor anymore. As to them against the Phalanx, that has already been covered, but yeah, basically the Romans were more heavily armored then the phalanx troops and were mobile enough to flank them. Once they were in close they had a total advantage over the phalanx troops and would rout or slaughter them.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2012 04:05 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Probably not, slave labour doesn't make for very high quality weapons and munitions. Someone should have told the Germans that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced...ng_World_War_II
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2012 05:37 |
|
|
In the last parts of the European offensive, American GIs were puzzled as to why German shells suddenly had such a high failure rate: after a barrage, artillery grenades would sit embedded in the ground, unexploded. Turns out, the forced laborers at ammunition plants had figured out a way to sabotage the explosives. So it is doubtful if more forced labor would have helped all that much.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2012 06:37 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2013 08:32 |
|
|
If Nazi Germany as a nation had not been racist against its own people and had only focused on the reversing Versailles treaty & acquiring Lebensraum from the east types of policies, then I'm sure that it would have performed somewhat better in WW2. The racism not only resulted in the slaughter of a lot of citizens (90% of Germany and Austria's Jews), which is terrible in itself, but there also would have been better uses for them than as slave labour. IMHO forced labour is not particularly efficient use of a work force so it wasn't economically wise. Soviet Gulags, for instance, were neither self-sufficient nor productive: it was cheaper to use free workers than prisoners for the projects like Stalin's canal or the railroads to nowhere in Siberia. Paid workers were better motivated, more skilled and more fit and you didn't need NKVD riflemen to stand guard on them. Then it also has to be remembered that many German Jews were high ranking bureaucrats, industrialists, scientists etc. whose input was sorely missed during the war years. If Albert Einstein had stayed in Germany it would not have helped them in developing an A-bomb, and it might not have delayed Manhattan Project significantly. But Germany could not afford the migration of people of that calibre if she wanted to take on enemies as big as USA and USSR. Germany needed every advantage that she had. They would still have lost, though. And they would have probably channeled all their racist tendencies against Poles instead, then.
|
| # ? Apr 13, 2012 06:57 |
|
