/kc/ - Krautchan

diaspora of krautchan unite

Posting mode: Reply

Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 100.00 MB

Max files: 4

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


Battles Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 10:27:19 [Preview] No. 8950
I've already mentioned the book titled On Killing - The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman (Lt. Col. of US Army). It gave some food for thought and I'm planning to write some of my speculation.

But what did the author write? Let's summarize.
He starts with the observation that most men has a natural resistance to kill (only 2% of men - those who have "predisposition toward aggressive psychopathic personality" - can go on killing without becoming a nervous wreck). This resistance is so high that even at times that our life is directly threatened (like others shoot at us) still difficult to overcome it. This resistance is the reason why infantry fire was so embarrassingly ineffective in the past 300 years - with the exception of machine guns - despite the fact that infantry weaponry (rifles) are reliable and accurate enough to cause massive losses among the enemy.
The author gives examples and sources, such as a Prussian experiment in the late 18th century, several reports and notices from several authors during 19-20th centuries (American, French, Israeli etc.), and an interesting work by a US Army historian who (and his coworkers) made mass interviews with fighting GIs during and after WWII. Also he cites his own conversation with veterans of WWII and Vietnam.
He gives new ideas on what's really happening on the battlefield. He compliments the widely known fight-or-flight model with two other options: in reality the soldiers can fight, posture, submit or flight. And most soldiers choose the second option.
Then he ponders on what enables killing (I'm gonna write more about this later) and how modern (post-WWII) armies achieve this. Then he compares these methods with the ways of contemporary mass media. His conlcusion is (after pointing out the exponential rise of violent crimes) that mass media has an undesirable effect on society.

What interesting for me is this resistance, and the enabling part. These things are actually give an entirely new way of looking warfare, and how and why battles were won.
For example the part officers (the demanding authority to kill) play in the enabling. When people (professional historians, history pros and other armchair generals) comparing the Hellenic phalanx with Roman manipulus and why the latter was more successful they compare everything but the officers. In the phalanx he's only one among those who stand in line and do the poking with pikes, but a Roman officer is one outside the formation and pressuring the soldiers to kill. It makes a huge difference if someone shouting in your ears "stab! stab! stab!" and generally pressuring you to kill. Especially if this one person is an exemplary one, a veteran whose skill in killing surpasses all the others in that particular unit. However noone talks about this because noone thinks about it.

I'll continue this sometimes, maybe only next weekend, we'll see. If you wish to read the book you can probably find it on libgen.


Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 12:46:11 [Preview] No. 8952 del
>He starts with the observation that most men has a natural resistance to kill (only 2% of men

I think that premise is wrong. People easily kill each other in so called affect state, i.e. when they are enraged or afraid of death. I guess he says about 2% only when there is calm person who need to kill someone unrelated to him at all.

>This resistance is the reason why infantry fire was so embarrassingly ineffective in the past 300 years - with the exception of machine guns - despite the fact that infantry weaponry (rifles) are reliable and accurate enough to cause massive losses among the enemy.

There are plenty of reasons why armed warfare wasn't too costly in past times, and most of them are technological. But this is very broad theme to discuss. Avoiding of unnecessary violence sure has relation to it, but putting it forward seems wrong. Although broader concept like "discipline" can include it too.


Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 13:41:02 [Preview] No. 8954 del
(74.59 KB 724x1024 1500074692137m.jpg)
I read the book when it came out OP. US Marine. Some people, with European heritage, love fighting. Most of the rest of the world does not. People are different. It is useless to compile statistics on education without considering the ethnic make-up of the study, and so the same principle applies here.

Getting faggots to fight is like getting a negro to read. Its a real chore.


Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 13:48:57 [Preview] No. 8955 del
>>8952
>easily kill each other
That's a very huge overstatement. Even in affect state. Among normal people. It doesn't goes easily even to that 2%.
Let's see:
- Hungary is a country of 10 million people.
- From the 10 million 1,4 million was under 15 in 2014.
- In 2015 we had 280 113 (registered) crimes, 205 was homicide.
- The 8,6 million (more or less) adult committed 205 homicide.
- If every murder was committed by a different person that means 205 murderer, that's about 0,000023% of the adult population, and 0,0011% of that 172 000 person who has some predisposition towards "aggressive psychopathic personality".
- From that 280 113 crimes many (about 13-14 000 in 2015) are assaults (not exactly assault but it's the closest juristical term) which tells me that even when enraged people rather choose to beat up others over killing them.

However with this and the other stuff you wrote you highlighted an important thing. I cannot expect Bernd to accept the premise just like that and while it wasn't my intention I'll write or more like copypaste some proofs.


Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 13:52:27 [Preview] No. 8956 del
>>8954
My original thought which flowered from the soil of the book is about the warfare of the medieval Europe or rather the changes of it. So for my purpose the contents of the book is very fit.


Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 14:02:00 [Preview] No. 8957 del
>>8952
>>8955
Also I think (I hope) most of us don't have first hand experience on killing so our perception how it get done is influenced by the depictions of popular culture (movies, books, comics, other products of art).


Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 14:43:50 [Preview] No. 8958 del
Intradesting. I think we discussed it on old /kc/ tho.


Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 14:58:17 [Preview] No. 8959 del
>>8955
There is one thing: it isn't easy to kill someone, especially if you have no weapons. And even with knife it isn't easy as may look. People are sturdy creatures, and you can easily stop being in affect while being in fight, and everyone will live. Beating, for example. easily gets your anger off in few minutes.

Being good in classic hand-to-hand combat also requires training, that is why in Medieval times warrior class wasn't numerous, and there often was shortage of proper soldiers while general population was large. When guns appeared, everything changed. I think it is mostly technical thing.

>>8957
>Also I think (I hope) most of us don't have first hand experience on killing

I almost killed one person in self-defense situation when I was kid. Maybe he even died later, I don't know results. I clearly remember that I didn't care about severity of my actions when I did this and didn't had any moral block. I was very affected and didn't control myself (although I had no choice).


Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 15:53:52 [Preview] No. 8960 del
>>8950
>He starts with the observation that most men has a natural resistance to kill (only 2% of men - those who have "predisposition toward aggressive psychopathic personality" - can go on killing without becoming a nervous wreck). This resistance is so high that even at times that our life is directly threatened (like others shoot at us) still difficult to overcome it.
Pretty sure this only exists in-group. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the westerner, who also exhibits pathological altruism regardless of group-affiliation as well, i somehow psychologically impaired compared to other races, not having a mechanism to tell a difference between "us" and "them".


Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 17:06:10 [Preview] No. 8961 del
>>8958
Yes, we discussed it briefly, however back then I just recommended after reading a few paragraph as it had some unusual hence interesting points. We didn't have much talk on it. Now I've an ulterior motive as ultimately I'd like to present some of my ideas and I need to explain some stuff explained in that book.
Also I hoped it would give us some topic to seriously discuss.

>>8959
There are some factors which enables us to kill (as I mentioned in OP) and I'll present them in time. But basically most of these are just the same: somehow denying the humanity of the victim. For example police officers can rely on moral distance to rationalize a killing of theirs: they are on the side of the law, the criminal is an outlaw and this makes the criminal less then a human bean for them, so it's not that big of a problem if they die. Self defense also gives us justification and makes it easier to cross the line - the attacker violates the societies moral so this makes him less then human.

It's very good you mentioned knife and training. Both are topics in the book.
Have you, Bernds, know that Roman legionaries were trained and conditioned to use the point of their gladius? The officers shunned slashing with the sword as it gave shittier results then stabbing. If you slash a person on his torso while it makes a nasty cut the ribcage shields the important organs while the stabbing can reach those. In a battle a stab in the torso will most probably lethal. However soldiers of all epochs tend not to stab so legionaries had to be forced to stab with training and with the encouragement of their superiors in battle.
You probably notices however that bayonets tend not to have a sharp edge also the first bayonets were nothing more than a round metal rod with a pointy end. The reason is the soldiers resistance to stabbing and prefering the edge of a weapon in fight and this forced to soldiers to use their bayonets as their superiors wanted them to. In theory at least because it was extremely rare that a bayonet charge resulted in stabbing contest. Most of the time one side or the other fled but when the charge ended with a fight the soldiers turned their rifle and used the butt of it as a club despite the fact that stabbing would be more productive.
This is all because men will choose the less lethal option.

Nevertheless I'm glad that you don't live a life as a child child-killer.

>>8960
>Pretty sure this only exists in-group.
Nope. Of course it's easier to deny the humanity of an outsider. Tribe names comes to my mind when the meaning of the name of my tribe is human but the other tribe is something else (like food).
I think good to have the sense of "us" and "them". But it's even better if one can look over it and judge things on different basis but still can apply it on demand.


Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 18:10:17 [Preview] No. 8962 del
>>8961
>Nope. Of course it's easier to deny the humanity of an outsider.
That's a very Eurocentric view of the matter, through the eyes and instincts of an European. Non-Europeans automatically don't view foreigners as humans.


Bernd 07/16/2017 (Sun) 21:34:54 [Preview] No. 8963 del
>>8962
>Non-Europeans automatically don't view foreigners as humans.

same as e*ropeans


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 04:38:39 [Preview] No. 8964 del
(694.87 KB 747x898 1497393257462.png)
>>8961
Napolean said to his Dragoons as they passed in review, "The tip, the tip!" This was to remind them to stab. During the Napoleonic Wars it was found that a slahed man would return to the front after 3 months, with a low percentage of fatalities, but a stabbed man had a very high chance of being killed and if only wounded, would be wounded much longer. General Patton designed a straight cavalry sword, the last sword adopted by the US Army, that was exclusively for thrusting. The best dagger was the long and slender stabbing short-swords of rennisance Italy, because you coyld get the vital organs and not get stopped by the ribcage. Stabbing is superior. This was even learned by the Japanese although they had a curved Katana. The curve, like the Cossack sabers, was to enable a cut on horseback. On foot the use of spears in hand-to-hand combat was more common than swords, and of course they used bows and arrows a lot. Swords were expensive and knives had a short range. I kbow I've ranted here but the point is that stabbing has been the preferred way to fight by most countries over history. Hell, those Wolly Mammoths weren't clubbed of slashed to death, because primitive people used spears to stab them with great effect. Stabbing is the preferred way to use a blade.

Now for the motivation part, that is probably easier than I said earlier, if you have the right genes for it. If you read the book then you have Operant and Pavlonian conditioning. Just practice, practice, practice, and you will have no problem doing what needs to be done. You will then just not think about it and rely on your training. In WW2 they had lousy rates of participation because they didn't have enough time to practice. Often they got one week of rifle training before being sent to the front, and shot less than 400 rounds of ammo in training.


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 05:11:43 [Preview] No. 8965 del
>>8962
That's an interesting claim and it needs some form a validation. I might guess what you think about tho. I've a longer reply addressing some points but it's morning, and probably I'll arrive to those anyway by going through the proofs Grossman presents in his book.
However I can say: maybe so, but pretty much this >>8963 as we don't talk about the typical sample of a modern westerners you mentioned here >>8960 and taking dehumanizing into practice and start to kill is a different matter then simply think others as not a human.
Also there will be other examples of denying humanity and it's largely different what you would think it really means.

>>8964
>I kbow I've ranted here
It's /kc/ this is the place for long winded ramblings on topics only a handful of people would be interested.

I wondered about the katana if it was made on purpose a slashing weapon so when they defeat unarmored peasants (the intended use) the workforce would remain more intact with crazy but more easily healing wounds which impairs less but scares the peasants more (basically a tool of posturing to submit the enemy for longer periods).


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 17:28:47 [Preview] No. 8970 del
>>8965
Kevin B. MacDonald talks a lot about it, the uniqueness of European culture of indiscriminate help and compassion towards any human.
He also explains pretty well why we jews are superior, greenly with envy.


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 17:37:41 [Preview] No. 8971 del
>>8965
Katana is designed as a slashing weapon because of poor quality of Japanese iron ore and process of manufacturing, where steel of different hardness is layered to give a hard but brittle edge on a softer bulkier back. When a sword cools down, the back contracts more than the blade, giving the sword curvature. This wasn't necessary in, say, Chinese swords, due to higher ore quality, and they are generally straight.

There are, however, other weapons that are much more obviously made for slashing and crowd control of unarmoured opponents (i.e. peasants); the southern Indian urumi, made of very soft steel and extremely long, basically a cross between a whip and a sword.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=uZ0Nc2kHba4 [Embed]
https://youtube.com/watch?v=eMAsCuDFSUI [Embed]


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 17:50:46 [Preview] No. 8972 del
(93.22 KB 736x466 butt.jpg)
Now I'm gonna post about that Prussian experiment I mentioned then ramble a bit. Let's start with a quote from the book:
"John Keegan and Richard Holmes in their book Soldiers tell us of a Prussian experiment in the late 1700s in which an infantry battalion fired smoothbore muskets at a target one hundred feet long by six feet high, representing an enemy unit, which resulted in 25 percent hits at 225 yards, 40 percent hits at 150 yards, and 60 percent hits at 75 yards. This represented the potential killing power of such a unit."
This experiment shows how accurate were these rifles (well muskets, they weren't rifled) in the trained hand of the Prussian line infantry. A musketman of the era could fire 4-5 shots per minute, but let's say just 4. This would mean a unit consisting of 200 men was capable of inflicting 480 casualties per minute from about 70-75 metres. This also means they could have obliterated a same sized unit under 30 seconds. Battles should have concluded in an minutes.


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 17:51:46 [Preview] No. 8973 del
(242.78 KB 900x604 einsiedel-6-l.jpg)
>>8972
Cont.
Let's review a battle of the Napoleonic Wars and do a bit of counting. I tried to search for one optimal but on such short notice I had to compromise a bit. Still sounds all right for the purpose.
Battle of Eylau in 1807
This is a battle between the French and Russians (with a smaller Prussian contingent).
Why is it ideal for us? It's a middle sized battle, both sides are largely the same and the losses are quite high. It took the most part of two days, let's say 20 hours in all with longer periods when line infantry engaged each other.
Why isn't ideal? The weather can be blamed to counter my argument, as a snowstorm made fighting and targeting harder then usual. But the high number of casualties still speak of efficiency, also there wouldn't be any battle if their marshalls didn't think the weather adequate for fighting.
The two sides fielded 75-75 000 men. Now let's take a closer look on the French side.
They employed 32 line infantry regiments, about 1000 men each (or more), that's about 32 000 riflemen fighting like the Prussian experiment supposed. There were other types of infantry of course but their role could differ (like picketing, skirmishing, leading assaults against fortified posotions etc.) so they don't count now.
The French caused 20 000 casualities (dead and wounded) in all if we are generous 15 000 if we aren't. Let's say we are. Very few people surrendered during this particular battle however we don't know about the fate of some but let's make things simpler and assume all dead and wounded. So 20 000 it is.
The losses were caused by the three arms: infantry, cavalry, artillery. The field artillery was the most effective in that era basically they were the precursor of machine gun teams both in usage (for example grapeshot from point blank range can be seen as a parallel of impact of a machine gun) and in efficiency. While I would estimate the cavalry the least efficient in inflicting losses (in battle but during chase or harrassing it's a different story) but this particular battle had seen some of the greatest cavalry charge of the era resulting in some nice figting against infantry and between cavalry units. Probably with high losses.
So how much could these 32 000 brave young soldiers kill or wound? I'm gonna be very generous (and lazy) and say 10 000 (I hope this will keep the counting easy). How much were line infatry from these 10 000 who could die the way the Prussian experiments supposed? How much were other types of infanty, cavalry and artillery gunner? Oh no I won't go there. I won't calculating the uncalculatable, let's just estimate 8000 dead line infantrymen for the kicks.
How long these engagements took between infantry units? Sadly, no idea. There's no timetable of the battle available. Surely they don't stand there loading and firing through the whole 20 hours. Let's say lowly 5 hours. All the other were cavalry fights, arillery bombardment, marching up and down, charging and retreating, picking noses.
Summary: 32 000 soldiers inflicted 8000 casualties in 5 hours.


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 17:52:11 [Preview] No. 8974 del
(229.69 KB 905x626 Rava2.jpg)
>>8973
Cont.
Let's count!
This means that 32 000 soldiers inflicted 27 casualties in a minute.
This means that a unit of 200 soldiers (like in the Prussian experiment) inflicted 0,16 losses in a minute when they should have kill or wound:
- 1250 times that many from 220 m;
- 2000 times that many from about 150 m;
- 3000 times that many from 70-75 m.
But what if the line infantry's participatoin were much shorter? What if their combined fighting time is only 1 hour.
Then:
32 000 soldiers inflicted 135 casualities in a minute.
Which means a unit of 200 soldiers inflicted 0,85 casualities per minute but they should have kill or wound:
- 235 times that many from 220 m;
- 376 times that many from about 150 m;
- 564 times that many from 70-75 m.
The difference is still unexplainably huge.
This is prime example of inefficient fireing.

And the explanation of the otherwise unexplainable difference is: most soldiers just postured (loaded, shouted, pretended to fire, ducked, covered etc.) while didn't actually fight, and most of those who fired on the enemy misfired on purpose.


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 19:46:22 [Preview] No. 8982 del
>>8973
>>8974
Terrible argument based on not understanding how fighting works. Anyone who has ever done as much as play paintball knows why this doesn't work: because troops in combat will not present themselves fully to the opponent, minimising the options for successful firing. If we go back to paintball (which I have played about half a dozen times with different groups of people), an 8v8 fight should end in about 15 seconds easily, however, from my experience most games took about 5-10 minutes. Amounting to a factor of 20-40. Take into account that paintball fields are generally arranged for dynamic play, and that mistakes don't cost a life.
Fortifications can also easily and quickly be mocked up, as everyone who has watched livestreams of protests in Kiev (holy fuck it's been three and a half years already?) knows.


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 19:49:17 [Preview] No. 8983 del
>>8982
But line infantry fought precisely that way. Right up to times of the American Civil War. They stood straight, shoulder to shoulder in lines and fired at each other from few dozen meters.


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 19:50:03 [Preview] No. 8984 del
>>8982
Similarly, one might compare performance of basketball players in pre-game throw routines to actual in-game performance, arguing that basketball players don't seem to be playing seriously as based on their practice accuracy, game scores should be in 500-500 range.


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 19:50:51 [Preview] No. 8985 del
>>8971
I heard/read about the quality (or rather the lack of it) of the Japanese iron they had to use for their swords. The shitty iron card is usually played against weaboos raving about the sword of the gods, the katana. However it's overplayed now into memetic level. Probably because the people of the internet all right, people in general can only think in extremes. Bipolar world.
Of course most katanas as all the swords all around the word were just a hunk of sharpened steel and not much more. However lots of other products of the weaponsmiths all around a workd were better quality from mediocre to excellent one could find any kind.
The accentuating the brittleness of the hard steel is also overplayed. From the talks one could gather it was porcelain. It's the same when "bushcrafters" and other "experts" babbling about the steel of different knives and why to choose which. It literally hurts.
Also this ore quality sounds dubious. There could be difference between ore and ore but after they're transformed into iron bars how can anyone say that there's a difference between the Fe atoms forming those bars? Two Fe atoms cannot be different else one of them wouldn't be Fe. So a bunch of Fe atoms cannot be different from another bunch of Fe atoms. There could be difference in coal quantity but to making steel one should add more C into the mix anyway.
But why I don't see your post a good argument is this: assuming Japanese couldn't shape their steel into whatever shape they wanted is just wrong. Just imagine a swordsmith and his apprentice conversation in the 8-9th century of Japan:
- Hey let's make a sword!
- All right, master!
- I've a great idea, here's how we're gonna do it.
- But master we already know how to make swords.
- No, my idea is genious! Shut you mouth and bring me the file-grease instead!
...
...
- This furnace is fucking hot.
- Shut up, you lazy bastard and work harder!
- Yes, master!
...
...
- Oh shit, master! The blade become curved. It doesn't supposed to be that way! Our previous swords were all straight. This new technique fucked us over.
- Oh well. I cannot let my genious idea vanish. We will force everyone to use it by telling the people how straight swords are gay and then we'll make curved swords for a thousand years until they go out of fashion.
No. They perfectly knew what they were doing. They needed curved swords for some reason and this need led to inventing a technique which gave them curved swords.


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 19:58:59 [Preview] No. 8986 del
>>8983
Also the length of their musket and the way how it had to be loaded (through the muzzle and not from behind) forced them to use it standing straight.


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 20:00:32 [Preview] No. 8987 del
>>8985
>There could be difference between ore and ore but after they're transformed into iron bars how can anyone say that there's a difference between the Fe atoms forming those bars? Two Fe atoms cannot be different else one of them wouldn't be Fe. So a bunch of Fe atoms cannot be different from another bunch of Fe atoms. There could be difference in coal quantity but to making steel one should add more C into the mix anyway.
Hardly even close to the actual reality of metallurgy.
There are two important issues: 1) iron ore often contains other metals (chromium, vanadium, etc) which cannot easily be distilled away in the refining process (even in binary mixtures result would be an eutectic mixture, not pure Fe), and secondly, carbon itself forms an alloy with iron, again making the whole system much more complicated.
Also, iron undergoes several phase transitions when cooling down from melt to room temperature. At each phase transition there is an abrupt change in mechanical properties of the metal; it is what leads to tension present in final product. By finetuning composition, one can change temperatures at which those phase transitions occur, or even access hidden phases that aren't possible with pure iron or binary steel.
In any case, I'd assume swords gradually got more curved with time; that there was no phase transition from straight to curved blade. At first, they'd work hard to try to make it straight; later on, slightly curved became the norm and nobody worried about curvature anymore since it isn't too bad.


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 21:44:39 [Preview] No. 8989 del
>>8985
>There could be difference between ore and ore but after they're transformed into iron bars how can anyone say that there's a difference between the Fe atoms forming those bars?

Oh, this is very serious question. German in >>8987 said mostly true things, although different phases not really related to internal tensions as is, it is mostly about crystallic structure, size of grain etc.

Using term "iron" is incorrect, it is all about steel. Steel is actually an alloy, where iron and carbon are required, and other elements, even in small amounts, can do very serious shift in properties. And processing method, temperatures, speed of cooling/heating, time etc - all this can change property of metal seriously.

This was known in past, but not fully, so smiths often got best results by luck and intuition.

t. metallurgy pro


Bernd 07/17/2017 (Mon) 22:27:21 [Preview] No. 8990 del
>>8989
>although different phases not really related to internal tensions as is, it is mostly about crystallic structure, size of grain etc.
Indeed – I meant to point out (but didn't explain it properly) that when a phase transition occurs, it doesn't occur through entire block of metal at the same time, so for a while you get tension between pieces that suddenly don't match anymore.


Bernd 07/18/2017 (Tue) 00:10:20 [Preview] No. 8994 del
>>8982
>Terrible argument based on not understanding how fighting works
>>8983
>But line infantry fought precisely that way.

understanding.jpeg


Bernd 07/18/2017 (Tue) 00:28:56 [Preview] No. 8995 del
>>8994
Well, it would seem that line infantry fought the wrong way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Bernd 07/18/2017 (Tue) 05:39:21 [Preview] No. 8998 del
>>8995
It wasn't wrong as you can see it was pretty safe business considering. Well up until cannons started peppering them.
For the minds of the rulers like Friedrich the Great or Napoleon and the generals of the era the musket infantry was just pikemen with extremely long pikes. They thought them as such and used them as such. This is why the musketeers took over the place of the pikemen in the pike and shot formations (after the adaptation of bayonet), pikes are nice but we can reach farther with muskets.
The evolution of the artillery and the appearance of rapid firing infantry weapons were the cause which forced the infantry behind cover, barricades and finally into trenches.

>>8987
>swords gradually got more curved with time
This would be right if we could see how the Japanese swords evolved from straight to the point when it's a circle. But there's no such pattern. If you pick a decade and hoard all the swords made in that decade you would see curvatures of all degree. Swordsmiths shaped their swords as they preferred.


Bernd 07/18/2017 (Tue) 17:07:44 [Preview] No. 9001 del
For the record:

>>8998
Here under the
>rapid firing infantry weapons
I did not just mean machine guns, but simple rifles with magazines which compared to muzzle loading muskets can be considered as rapid.

>>8987
I'm familiar with metallurgy on that level I just don't feel the need to overcomplicate my replies to topics which derails the continuity of the thread.


Bernd 07/18/2017 (Tue) 17:16:26 [Preview] No. 9002 del
Let's go on with some quotes as I promised. Posted images are just illustrations, no other purpose.

Ardant du Picq became one of the first to document the common tendency of soldiers to fire harmlessly into the air simply for the sake of firing. Du Picq made one of the first thorough investigations into the nature of combat with a questionnaire distributed to French officers in the 1860s. One officer's response to du Picq stated quite frankly that "a good many soldiers fired into the air at long distances," while another observed that "a certain number of our soldiers fired almost in the air, without aiming, seeming to want to stun themselves, to become drunk on rifle fire during this gripping crisis."

Lieutenant George Roupell encountered this same phenomenon while commanding a British platoon in World War I. He stated that the only way he could stop his men from firing into the air was to draw his sword and walk down the trench, "beating the men on the backside and, as I got their attention, telling them to fire low.

The easiest way of pretending to fight or posturing is to fire toward the enemy but just a little bit high.


Bernd 07/18/2017 (Tue) 17:20:27 [Preview] No. 9003 del
[Paddy] ''Griffith notes:
Even in the noted "slaughter pens" at Bloody Lane, Marye's Heights, Kennesaw, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor an attacking unit could not only come very close to the defending line, but it could also stay there for hours — and indeed for days — at a time. Civil War musketry did not therefore possess the power to kill large numbers of men, even in very dense formations, at long range. At short range it could and did kill large numbers, but not very quickly.''
Also Grossman adds:
''Griffith estimates that the average musket fire from a Napoleonic
or Civil War regiment firing at an exposed enemy regiment at
an average range of thirty yards, would usually result in hitting
only one or two men per minute!''
Our previous count fits to his observation more or less. A regiment is about 1000 men, five times more then our 200 which killed 0,16 in a minute. Multiply this and we get 0,8 men per minute. However our closest distance was 70-75 m, Griffith calculated with about 30 (which I think would be the closest range, the next step would be a "Fit bayonets!" order and a charge). Let's say on that range our 200 would kill double amount: 0,32. Then 1000 would kill (or wound actually) 1,6 which a rough equivalent of 1-2 men per minute.

Bad visibility but on even closer range:
Sometimes the fire was completely harmless, as Benjamin McIntyre observed in his firsthand account of a totally bloodless nighttime firefight at Vicksburg in 1863. "It seems strange . . . ," wrote McIntyre, "that a company of men can fire volley after volley at a like number of men at not over a distance of fifteen steps and not cause a single casualty. Yet such was the facts in this instance." The musketry of the black-powder era was not always so ineffective, but over and over again the average comes out to only one or two men hit per minute with musketry.


Bernd 07/18/2017 (Tue) 17:27:08 [Preview] No. 9004 del
Some hit rate:
Richard Holmes, in his superb book Acts of War, examines the hit rates of soldiers in a variety of historical battles. At Rorkes Drift in 1897 a small group of British soldiers were surrounded and vastly outnumbered by the Zulu. Firing volley after volley into the massed enemy ranks at point-blank range, it seems as if no round could have possibly missed, and even a 50 percent hit rate would seem to be low. But Holmes estimates that in actuality approximately thirteen rounds were fired for each hit.

In the same way, General Crook's men fired 25,000 rounds at Rosebud Creek on June 16, 1876, causing 99 casualties among the Indians, or 252 rounds per hit.

And in the French defense from fortified positions during the Battle of Wissembourg, in 1870, the French, shooting at German soldiers advancing across open fields, fired 48,000 rounds to hit 404 Germans, for a hit ratio of 1 hit per 119 rounds fired.

And the trend can be found in the firefights of Vietnam, when more than fifty thousand bullets were fired for every enemy soldier killed. " One of the things that amazed me," stated Douglas Graham, a medic with the First Marine Division in Vietnam, who had to crawl out under enemy and friendly fire to aid wounded soldiers, "is how many bullets can be fired during a firefight without anyone getting hurt."
There's an endnote here which says that this 50 000 bullets were fired from automatic weapons, much of these was used to suppress the enemy or as recon probes. Also crew-served weapons, like machine guns are add much to this tally. The more noteworthy part is the observation of the quoted medic.

Feel free to add your radishes.


Bernd 07/19/2017 (Wed) 17:52:15 [Preview] No. 9020 del
This is how real niggaz fought. In packed mass on the open field firing at each other from few dozen steps.

https://youtu.be/boImKf5625o?t=185
https://youtu.be/ng3WOK_e94k?t=2371



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply