|
Raenir Salazar posted:On a separate note insofar monarchies go, I forget where I read this, where some traveller is in some Kingdom ruled by a Queen and he asks the locals what they think and they're totes cool with it because, "When the Queen has a child you know it's the Queen's child." I thought this made sense; better to have a matriarchy if you have a monarchy to avoid a lot of the issues of succession. There's lots of variation on succession, with changes like this there is no perfect way to do things, instead each system will come with different trade offs. In Kerala India, the line of succession followed through the Maharajah's sisters, rather than his own children. This amounts to more or less the same system as the one you have outlined, just without giving the women authority except in cases of regency. This kind of matrilineal inheritance certainly does remove ambiguity in parentage. However it introduces problems of its own. In particular, it constrains the number of heirs that can be produced in each generation, and therefore increases the odds that succession will fall on someone of distant relation to the current reigning monarch, which obviously can cause problems. In times and places where male monarchs can have concubines, the royal family almost never fails to produce an heir and there will often be dozens of potential successors. With so many heirs, these systems also usually allow for the reigning monarch to appoint his successor, theoretically improving the odds that the next leader will be competent. Of course by making succession flexible, these systems encourage intrigue and fratricide within the royal court.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The big thing that would not be done for anything serious (or by sane people, idiots exist across the ages) would be actually having cleavage since that is just a trap to catch incoming weapons and aim the force right into your chest. If women were in armor often they would 100% have it custom fitted to their body and you could still show a woman's form without the extent fantasy takes it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Squalid posted:In times and places where male monarchs can have concubines, the royal family almost never fails to produce an heir and there will often be dozens of potential successors. With so many heirs, these systems also usually allow for the reigning monarch to appoint his successor, theoretically improving the odds that the next leader will be competent. Of course by making succession flexible, these systems encourage intrigue and fratricide within the royal court. dark horse candidate: the king of poland. it's not like it didn't work the other way before! 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Jun 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Libluini posted:But I understand this feeling, it always hits me if I encounter Science Fiction that openly challenges what I know about physics too hard. There was some weird series about people living on neutron stars, which in that particular universe were just tiny planets you could walk on. That was so absurd I couldn't get into it. If the author had labelled it fantasy instead, my dumb brain would have been able to just accept this nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:What year of hre borders, and do you count imperial knights as separate entities?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:The big thing that would not be done for anything serious (or by sane people, idiots exist across the ages) would be actually having cleavage since that is just a trap to catch incoming weapons and aim the force right into your chest. If women were in armor often they would 100% have it custom fitted to their body and you could still show a woman's form without the extent fantasy takes it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:i liked the system where each Emperor of the HRE appoints his successor in his lifetime, but the one time that ended up being really really important Matthias II picked a guy that everyone knew the Palatine and Bohemia would reject. like literally anyone else would have probably caused fewer problems than Ferdinand of Styria I don't think any of these systems ever rose quite to the level of monarchy, but there are also some systems of succession via acclamation. In Yemen sheikhs are a variation of "big men," who have to earn the loyalty of their tribe. Each tribe will have several potential leaders who have to compete amongst themselves for supporters by giving the best favors, getting people jobs or wives. They basically have to come from one of a few aristocratic families, but they have almost no ability to command anyone to do anything, only to persuade. Leadership succession within the tribe may pass from father to son, but can quickly shift elsewhere without violence if a sheikh alienates his followers. It's semi-aristocratic but with a strong populist tinge in practice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:I had my first fencing class today and the women's boob protector looks exactly like boobplate. Bit of plastic with two big ole honkin' tiddie impressions moulded into it. (One of us! One of us!)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Cessna posted:The British Army is cutting back to 150 tanks. Comedy option: rebuilt Montreal Locomotive Works and start building Grizzlies again. Or just get the Americans to build them, like they did with the 57 mm Gun M1 Also turns out that I did the SU-152 article already and didn't cross it off my list for some reason. Queue: T-34 applique armour projects, Challenger I, military use of scale models, PzIV Ausf.F-G, Schmeisser's work in the USSR, Kalashnikov's debut works, Kalashnikov-Petrov self-loading carbine, Medium Tank M4A4, Hellcat, Heavy Tank T29, Hotchkiss H 35 and H 39, Experimental Polish tanks of the 1930s, Medium Tank M3 use in the USSR, HMC T82, HMC M37, GMC M41, Archer, T-29-5, Avenger I, FIAT 3000, FIAT L6-40, [M13/40, M14/41, M15/42], Carro Armato P40 and prospective Italian heavy tanks, Grosstraktor, Panzer IV/70, SU-85, KV-85, Tank sleds, Proposed Soviet heavy tank destroyers, IS-2 mod. 1944, Airborne tanks, Soviet WWII pistol and rifle suppressors, SU-100, DS-39 tank machinegun, Flakpanzers on the PzIV chassis, Sentinel, Comet, Faustpatrone, [Puppchen, Panzerschreck, and other anti-tank rocket launchers], Available for request:  Object 237 (IS-1 prototype) T-80 (the light tank) MS-1 production SU-76M (SU-15M) production S-51 SU-76I T-26 with mine detection equipment T-34M/T-44 (1941) T-43 (1942) T-43 (1943) ISU-122 Object 704 T-46 NEW  Alecto  Heavy Tank T32 Heavy Tanks T30 and T34 Assault Tank T14  Jagdpanzer IV Gebirgskanone M 15 Maus development in 1943-44 German anti-tank rifles Czech anti-tank rifles in German service Hotchkiss H 39/Pz.Kpfw.38H(f) in German service Flakpanzer 38(t) 15 cm sFH 13/1 (Sf) Grille series Oerlikon and Solothurn anti-tank rifles Jagdpanther VK 30.02 DB and other predecessors of the Panther RSO tank destroyer Sd.Kfz. 10/4  Lahti L-39     Trials of the LT vz. 35 in the USSR Development of Slovakian tank forces 1939-1941
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:I don't think anything will stop the brits from getting tanked overseas
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Reposting what someone else said in the Total War thread because I want to know why people point out it's wrong:quote:It's a little strange because historically swords are the "kill peasants" weapon. Swords are pretty bad against anything in armor, compared to maces, polearms, axes, or most any other melee weapon, but they're really, really good at butchering unarmored people. Considering the general lack of armor among the majority of the units in this game, swords should be better than they are. I've seen this pop up on a few places now. Swords being dedicated peasant killers sounds wrong to me but I have no idea why (as far as I know, they were mostly symbols of power and wealth).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Azran posted:Reposting what someone else said in the Total War thread because I want to know why people point out it's wrong: So they’re saying that katanas are underpowered in Total War?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:anecdotal evidence but the worst tourists i've seen are the australians. brits expect ossis to speak english and get mad when they don't (i end up translating) but australians travel in groups and get a mean edge when they drink Brits are frequently drunk arseholes, but old Germans can be pretty bad as well. A weird mix of stubborn and dumb. I saw an older German woman nearly get lynched in Tangier. She was with a tour group, and she had been trying to cuddle and pick up local children. It was extremely tense, she was oblivious and then aggressive. I didn't see how it ended, because a crowd of pissed off Moroccan dudes were closing in, and I didn't want to be a white guy there when poo poo went down. The tour guide (I thing Spanish but maybe local) was loving terrified, and pretty much on his knees apologising to the guys she was yelling at in German. Mr Enderby fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Jun 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Azran posted:Reposting what someone else said in the Total War thread because I want to know why people point out it's wrong: They're not. I'll let the medievalists chime in with more detail, but the long and the short of it is that swords are better thought of as side arms than as something that isn't good at going through armor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
Eeeeeenh. Sword + shield combos did happen quite often in history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:A weird mix of stubborn and dumb. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Jun 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
Azran posted:Reposting what someone else said in the Total War thread because I want to know why people point out it's wrong: So to start with there's a lot of different kind of swords here's an overview for the 12th-16th centuries, though even this has some pretty major gaps https://myarmoury.com/feature_oakeshott2.html Some are more dedicated to cutting, some are more dedicated to thrusting, some are kinda in-between. Swords that were dedicated to thrusting can sometimes be very explicit anti-armor weapons, like the estoc. Now, the estoc is arguably not a sword, but if that's your tack there are still lots of type XV or XVIII that are extremely lethal at attacking joints or visor slits. But even the cutting-focused swords can be anti-armor weapons in their own way. If you hit somebody hard enough in the head, they may be concussed. They may also die. We have recorded instances of people being hit so hard with swords that, even though they were wearing helmets, the blow killed them. This is even moreso the case with flexible armours like mail. Even then, not everyone who is armoured has total coverage. If they do, you can still rip parts off and hack at their vulnerable bits. That is why the wide-bladed type XIII survives into the 16th century, by which time it would be very rare to see a soldier without armor. I've also seen a 16th c katzbalger that was mounted with a 9th c. blade (a type X). The usage timelines given in the article I linked are not very reliable, frankly. The "peasant hacker" side is also somewhat silly. Killing peasants happened in war of course, but not typically in a pitched battle. Levying farmers to war was a sign of real desperation, such as during a national invasion for which you were unprepared. Harold Godwinson summoned the fyrd to fight both the Norman and Norwegian invasions in 1066, but none of his successors used it in any similarly significant way. Even Louis VI (1108-1137) who inherited a terribly weak kingdom, chiefly used the peasants he levied to dig fortifications or stand as sentries. It was his knights and professional or semi-professional soldiers like the men of Ghent at the siege of Bruges who did the vast majority of the fighting. The other side of it is that, in general, you don't want to kill the peasants because they do not have any real loyalty to their feudal lord except what they can provide in protection. They will farm for you as well as they farmed for their prior overlord, and will probably farm better than any colonists you would bring in to replace them, given they know the local soil etc. This is not to mention that pitched battles formed only a small part in medieval warfare, which was dominated by ravaging, skirmish, and siege. Cyrano's reference to them as a "sidearm" is kind-of correct. Your more reliable anti-armor weapon, the lance, would probably be broken in the course of the battle. In that sense the lance was indeed your "primary" weapon, the first one you use. However, lances tended to break relatively early in a fight, so your sword would be in use for more time than your lance. During a siege assault the lance may not be used at all. Consider this image from Basinio Basini's Hesperis: https://imgur.com/a/D2VnIZo The men-at-arms on the ladders have their swords out, because you can't climb a ladder easily carrying a drat lance. But their comrades below them still carry their lances! The reach the offered was clearly valuable, but it might not always be available, or to your best advantage. You don't really see the same preference shown toward pistols in modern war, which is what most people think of as a "sidearm" and why I take issue with the term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
I thought murdering the other guy’s peasants was a major strategy in feudal warfare though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:You don't really see the same preference shown toward pistols in modern war, which is what most people think of as a "sidearm" and why I take issue with the term. In order to stress to the reader that these swords are being thought of within an entire complex of ideas, I usually translate seitengewehr as side-weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:I thought murdering the other guy’s peasants was a major strategy in feudal warfare though? You might do that if you wanted to obliterate a region out of vindictiveness and cruelty, like William I did to the North of England, but that was in response to a rebellion. Contemporary chroniclers considered this extremely unusual and basically said he was going to hell for it. But if you're in Europe and fighting another European Christian power, which is most wars at the time, or a Muslim power in Iberia until like the 14th century or something, you're not doing that no. The Teutonic Knights loved to enslave people in the Baltics and I think it's through the crusading orders that ideology for chattel enslavement of Africans gets developed, but that's a digression. HEY GUNS posted:in early modern mercenary german, the word they use for sword is seitengewehr, which can one-for-one be translated as sidearm. But there it's part of a whole culturally specific thing where the word gewehr, "weapon", on its own means pike and other edged weapons are compared to it. I should clarify I'm speaking for cav specifically. As a foot soldier you'd probably use a spear more often and have less concern for it breaking. Also, sometimes cavalry would get replacement lances after charging but from what I've seen that doesn't happen often. Would be glad to be corrected on that tho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
Here is an obscure flight from 'Hitler's spies': So the formation that flew strategic intelligence flights for the Third Reich was known as "Fligerfurher zbV" - Flyer Command on special duties, though also Kommando Rowehl after its commander, Col. Theodor Rowehl. In an extremely fuzzy relationship with conventional command structure, the aircraft were Luftwaffe but were often operating under Abwehr command, but that was cool because Rowehl was frequently taking commands from Goering personally. Anyway, this was a unit that did recon over the USSR since 1934, and in the preface to the invasion, the formation apparently attempted a flight to recon the Sverdlovsk in the Urals from Kirkenes in Northern Norway? Kahn doesn't give a lot of detail, only that the flight was a round trip of 3000 miles [4828 km] and the flight never returned, likely forced down by the Soviets. I imagine the aircraft involved was a Ju 86P, though a quick glance at wikipedia says it doesn't have the range for that. Anybody know anything about this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
Sidearms can still see heavier use than normal depending on conditions. The US military saw heavier use of handguns like the M9 during operations in Iraq because the war and occupation involved a lot of building clearing that M16s and M249s were unsuitable for. This and general usability are why there was such a push to replace the M16 in general service with the smaller M4. This is also where the philosophy behind the new M17 pistol comes from. There’s been a realization that a lot of asymmetric warfare and occupation conditions (especially by special forces) cause greater reliance on small weapons, making “good enough” emergency weapons or symbols of rank insufficient. Everyone wants their sidearms reliable, accurate, powerful, and capable of firing over a dozen rounds without reloading.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Isn't the most important thing to keep in mind with full plate armor that it was fairly rare? Like the bulk of soldiers in a battle aren't going to be fully armored in plate for most periods of history, and when it becomes logistically plausible to fully armor the majority of an army, firearms were on the way in. Like earlier forms of armor weren't exactly something to sneeze at, but the classic head-to-foot, barely a crevice exposed armor with special armpit-guard plate armor had a fairly narrow range.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:the classic head-to-foot, barely a crevice exposed armor with special armpit-guard plate armor had a fairly narrow range. *unless you're polish, in which case your primary weapon is a big metal spike like a gigantic rapier which you charge with like a lance. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Jun 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Isn't the most important thing to keep in mind with full plate armor that it was fairly rare? Like the bulk of soldiers in a battle aren't going to be fully armored in plate for most periods of history, and when it becomes logistically plausible to fully armor the majority of an army, firearms were on the way in. The type of armour you describe in detail had a relatively short timespan but plate protection covering the most important bits and identifiable to most arms and armour scholars as a plate harness exists for a couple hundred years. Additionally although the complete armour might have been numerically fewer than other types, the guys wearing it will typically be first into the breach, as in the image linked in my last post. That means you're more likely to have to defeat the armor than with, say, the crossbowman with a haubergeon and skull cap. HEY GUNS posted:the stereotypical "knight in shining armor" full armor is early modern. it's either for jousting (in which case everything will have a special shape) or it's for horsemen armed with either lances or pistols.* It is precisely because firearms are here that the armor is so extensive It extends into the early modern period but you can find more-or-less complete suits of plate back to the end of the 14th century. Ive even corrected you about this before in an earlier iteration of this thread. And the coverage of armor has got absolutely nothing to do with the presence of firearms, that is completely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
Is modern body armor the first time armies have seriously considered the individual worthwhile to equip since gunpowder became the norm? I know the plate armor was a big deal until guns became a staple and the general sentiment became ‘don’t get shot’. But at what point did the tide shift back to armor? Iraq 2?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
Building on that, how common is personal armor among world militaries? Is it close to universal or do middling-to-broke armies still go with just a steel helmet?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:Is modern body armor the first time armies have seriously considered the individual worthwhile to equip since gunpowder became the norm? I know the plate armor was a big deal until guns became a staple and the general sentiment became ‘don’t get shot’. But at what point did the tide shift back to armor? Iraq 2? Lightweight body armor was used in the later years of Korea but wasn't that common. By Vietnam it was regularly issued. Often it wasn't used, especially on patrols, as it would cause more casualties from heat exhaustion than would be caused by enemy fire. In situations where combat was expected it was often used: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:Is modern body armor the first time armies have seriously considered the individual worthwhile to equip since gunpowder became the norm? I know the plate armor was a big deal until guns became a staple and the general sentiment became ‘don’t get shot’. But at what point did the tide shift back to armor? Iraq 2? Armor hung around for quite a while after the invention of gunpowder. It didn't disappear completely until some time in the 19th century as high-velocity rifle projectiles became a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 06:20
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Building on that, how common is personal armor among world militaries? Is it close to universal or do middling-to-broke armies still go with just a steel helmet? Body armor is pretty cheap nowadays. The poorest guerrilla units are still sending guys out in just their clothes, but I don't know of any organized military that has problems issuing armor to its soldiers. You still end up with unarmored soldiers (except for the helmet) in battle because not everyone wears armor during daily tasks in a combat zone. And modern Kevlar helmets are so cheap that I own a Serbian one in my surplus collection. If you want an idea of how cheap body armor is, an NcSTAR plate carrier is about $25. This is more meant for the airsoft and tacticlol crowd, but it's a working plate carrier. Plates are $60 to $200 each depending on the quality and any deals you might get from a supplier. A set of surplus Israeli UN body armor that protects against pistol rounds (with a groin protector) is $720, which is likely far higher than the military actually paid for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 08:03
|
|
|
OK, so when did that become the standard? I know world militaries don't all march in step, asking more for a decade/20-year period when they started becoming common.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:Is modern body armor the first time armies have seriously considered the individual worthwhile to equip since gunpowder became the norm? I know the plate armor was a big deal until guns became a staple and the general sentiment became ‘don’t get shot’. But at what point did the tide shift back to armor? Iraq 2? No, steel armor was still used up through WWII, HEY GUNS' people wore steel cuirass' as did cavalry up until and during WWI, and the Soviet vests in WWII could stop a round from a MP40 at 100 meters IIRC. The issue is that to keep up with faster jacketed rifle bullets you need a thicker, tougher plate of metal, which is heavier and more expensive, and after a certain point a foot soldier will tire out too quickly (hence the continued usage by cav) or it'll be too expensive to equip soldiers practically. (eg, the Soviet vests were only issued to units like scouts/pointmen, sappers, and infantry in urban fighting, or in other words groups that would be traveling lightly or not going very far) The "resurgence" of body armor is due to advances in synthetic materials (Kevlar and other plastics) and in ceramics and metallurgy (titanium, alloy steel, etc) for plate inserts that allow for greater protection at the same or lower weight. From what I've read, during the 80s the Soviets actually lead the west in body armor due to their access to greater amounts of titanium. They already had vests made out of titanium discs going into Afghanistan (IIRC the armor was originally for tax enforcement agents/special forces like Alfa), and quickly developed various titanium and ceramic plate armor that could stop rifle rounds, while at the same time the US was fielding the PASGT that could only stop shell splinters or pistol rounds and a limited amount of rifle-proof Ranger Body Armor that was introduced in the early 90s. A plate upgrade for PASGT was introduced in the mid 90s but apparently added a substantial amount of bulk to the vest compared to later purposefully designed vests. Grand Prize Winner posted:OK, so when did that become the standard? I know world militaries don't all march in step, asking more for a decade/20-year period when they started becoming common. Figure by the mid 80s every first/second world power (using the traditional usage of the term, not the Maoist one) had at least flak vests/pistol rated soft armor and regional powers could probably obtain it with little trouble. Rifle-proof armor is rare in the 80s (outside of Soviet forces of course), proliferates in the 90s, and by the late 00s becomes common enough that survivalists/gun nuts can buy rifle plates for a couple hundred bucks online. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5f1Fo4r4_I
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:So to start with there's a lot of different kind of swords here's an overview for the 12th-16th centuries, though even this has some pretty major gaps https://myarmoury.com/feature_oakeshott2.html Some are more dedicated to cutting, some are more dedicated to thrusting, some are kinda in-between. Swords that were dedicated to thrusting can sometimes be very explicit anti-armor weapons, like the estoc. Now, the estoc is arguably not a sword, but if that's your tack there are still lots of type XV or XVIII that are extremely lethal at attacking joints or visor slits. But even the cutting-focused swords can be anti-armor weapons in their own way. If you hit somebody hard enough in the head, they may be concussed. They may also die. We have recorded instances of people being hit so hard with swords that, even though they were wearing helmets, the blow killed them. This is even moreso the case with flexible armours like mail. Thanks for this effortpost, as well as everyone else who chimed in. This thread always delivers 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 10:20
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:your neutron stars = me and rivets on arya's swordbelt Is that because rivets are too advanced for given era or it's a bad crafting technique
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
The fencing was interesting because it was an introductory weekend thing so after them teaching us the barest of basics we did a few bouts and it was really impressive how exhausting wearing the armor is - it's light but you get really hot -, how exhausting even seconds of going up against a guy who actively wants to tag you is, how much concentration it requires etc. Idk how you'd deal with there being dudes to the left and right of that guy who could theoretically stab at you as well, the whole bit where there's no referee who steps in to give you a breather every couple seconds, etc. I mean everyone to your direct enemy's left and right is also pretty busy ideally, so that would limit their ability to stab in on you from the side. There was this viking chess type game where the way to remove a pawn was that there had to be one of your guys in front of it and then you had to flank it, so that makes a lot of sense. I mean none of this is new to anyone here. Sorry for blubbering on about my first piddling 12 hrs of fencing but it was exciting.Siivola posted:Yeah it's a weird piece of kit. At least it goes under the jacket.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Sidearms can still see heavier use than normal depending on conditions. The US military saw heavier use of handguns like the M9 during operations in Iraq because the war and occupation involved a lot of building clearing that M16s and M249s were unsuitable for. This and general usability are why there was such a push to replace the M16 in general service with the smaller M4. So what's the advantage of pistols in a situation like that? Way quicker to point and shoot? I've vaguely heard about certain police/military units having strong opinions on their pistols (like keeping their old M1911s) but as someone who mostly knows about guns via teh internet I've no idea if this was actually rational or not. Also I salute your new AV, DnD's badge of honor
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So what's the advantage of pistols in a situation like that? Way quicker to point and shoot? I've vaguely heard about certain police/military units having strong opinions on their pistols (like keeping their old M1911s) but as someone who mostly knows about guns via teh internet I've no idea if this was actually rational or not. The newest generation of combat pistols are...very effective weapons. I'd go so far as to say the average soldier with a minimal amount of training is more effective in super CQB (ie, room clearing) with an M17 than with an M4. They're light, very easy to aim, very versatile, and, to me at least, seem less prone to malfunction than are rifles. Some of the poo poo was stupid obvious. Like, my first M9 holster was the giant old canvas one with the flap over the top. It took a good half hour to get the thing out of the holster, and then another 15 minutes to actually get the hammer back and the big clunky iron sight on your target. As a result, I don't think I ever touched my M9 except to clear it before going inside to eat. Just replacing that old timey holster with the plastic thigh mounted ones made the M9 way, way more effective. Having modern sights and modern ammo and bolt on tactical poo poo makes a big difference also. Basically, the entire development process for the M17 looked at it in a fundamentally different way from old sidearms...instead of being a last resort weapon it was developed with specific offensive requirements in mind, and as a result, it was developed to be much more like a cop's sidearm rather than the thing the staff officers have to wear. Here's a decent article that discusses it: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/01/23/not-just-a-sidearm-armys-new-handgun-marks-first-step-to-changing-how-soldiers-fight/
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So what's the advantage of pistols in a situation like that? Way quicker to point and shoot? I've vaguely heard about certain police/military units having strong opinions on their pistols (like keeping their old M1911s) but as someone who mostly knows about guns via teh internet I've no idea if this was actually rational or not. The kind of combat where a pistol is the best solution is extremely close quarters, so close that even a carbine with the stock telescoped all the way down is too large. Iraq saw a lot of house clearing, including of buildings barely larger than a hut, where there was also the possibility of hand-to-hand combat. A pistol can be used even in a melee struggle whereas a rifle can get grabbed easily. This link has some stories of hand-to-hand combat that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, I found some footage of Buffalo Bill's old wild west show. This is timestamped to show Zouaves doing a drill and climbing a wall, including using their (preferably unloaded) rifles as climbing aids. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3meHAqxuDI&t=289s
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
I realise they're protective vests but every part of this makes me scream no internally
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:*unless you're polish, in which case your primary weapon is a big metal spike like a gigantic rapier which you charge with like a lance. What's the name of this? C.M. Kruger posted:Figure by the mid 80s every first/second world power (using the traditional usage of the term, not the Maoist one) What's the difference? Is the original not the west is the first, second soviet aligned pre split, third unaffiliated? Milo and POTUS fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jun 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 22:38
|
|
