maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:35 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 695 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 70  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:35 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7880
Reputation points: 17300
abradley wrote:


I got the answer right away but then I've had to deal with people reading statistics wrong for quite during bit of my short adult life. That and it is my *job* to see potential systematic errors.

And I knew the answer too so I didn't need to invent it but retrieve it.

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:36 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7880
Reputation points: 17300


Watch at point 1:20 and you see the entire right side of the British infantry entirely collapsing.

Now, they weren't meant to collapse.

The actors were Soviet troops and they knew it was a fake cavalry charge that was going to turn away from them.

But despite several takes they always routed.

So the director had to go with the right flank entirely collapsing.


This with modern ordinary horses and soldiers who are told that they're filming a movie and that it's a fake cavalry charge by their comrades.

Now, how often did infantry break at the last minute when faced with a real cavalry charge? Think in terms - special breeds of war horses bred for war and desensitized charging in at full speed. That's the perfect time to call up the old theory "all cavalry will break up on the last second if you simply hold still". And then the war horses actually don't stop but are cut down and fall down at full speed mowing several men with their hulk that is flung into the ranks.

And does the "I didn't sign up for this shit" ever hit the thoughts of the infantry receiving such an attack?

Hence why cavalry was used for as long as it was, even after there were no real war horses.

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:02 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 16197
Reputation points: 13228
Kameolontti wrote:


Watch at point 1:20 and you see the entire right side of the British infantry entirely collapsing.

Now, they weren't meant to collapse.

The actors were Soviet troops and they knew it was a fake cavalry charge that was going to turn away from them.

But despite several takes they always routed.

So the director had to go with the right flank entirely collapsing.


This with modern ordinary horses and soldiers who are told that they're filming a movie and that it's a fake cavalry charge by their comrades.

Now, how often did infantry break at the last minute when faced with a real cavalry charge? Think in terms - special breeds of war horses bred for war and desensitized charging in at full speed. That's the perfect time to call up the old theory "all cavalry will break up on the last second if you simply hold still". And then the war horses actually don't stop but are cut down and fall down at full speed mowing several men with their hulk that is flung into the ranks.

And does the "I didn't sign up for this shit" ever hit the thoughts of the infantry receiving such an attack?

Hence why cavalry was used for as long as it was, even after there were no real war horses.
Interesting, but the squares didn't collapse at Waterloo.
Plus:
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stirling_Bridge
The small bridge was only broad enough to allow two horsemen to cross abreast, but offered the safest river crossing as the Forth widened to the east and the marshland of Flanders Moss lay to the west.[4] The Scots waited as the English knights and infantry made their slow progress across the bridge on the morning of 11 September. It would have taken several hours for the entire English army to cross.[3]

Wallace and Moray waited, according to the Chronicle of Hemingburgh, until "as many of the enemy had come over as they believed they could overcome". When a substantial number of the troops had crossed (possibly about 2,000)[5] the attack was ordered. The Scots spearmen came down from the high ground in rapid advance and fended off a charge by the English heavy cavalry before counterattacking the English infantry. They gained control of the east side of the bridge, and cut off the chance of English reinforcements to cross. Caught on the low ground in the loop of the river with no chance of relief or of retreat, most of the outnumbered English on the east side were probably killed. A few hundred may have escaped by swimming across the river.[6]
And IIRC at the battle of Tours the Franks used spears to turn back the Moors.

_________________
“Political Language… is Designed to Make Lies Sound Truthful… and to Give an Appearance of Solidity to Pure Wind.” — George Orwell


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 2:18 am 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:23 pm
Posts: 5965
Reputation points: 1780
Quote:
I got the answer right away but then I've had to deal with people reading statistics wrong for quite during bit of my short adult life. That and it is my *job* to see potential systematic errors.

And I knew the answer too so I didn't need to invent it but retrieve it.



This is similar to an operations research study in WWII related to the best utilization of armor plates on bombers.

The scientists gathered enormous quantities of data from previous raids by examining returning bombers and tabulated a chart with the areas of bombers that got hit most often. Then, the initial reaction was to propose the addition of armor plates on these places.

Then a more careful look at the data showed the bias of the sample (returning airplanes: thus planes that survived) and the problem of missing the places in bombers that were hit and led to the loss of the airplanes.

Thus, with this type of thinking it was decided that the places that were hit most often (according to the data gathered from the surviving planes) should NOT be places of additional armor protection. If anything, the data showed that these places were actually the less vulnerable in the aircraft's structure and could absorb a lot of damage without leading frequently to the loss of the damaged bomber!

_________________
I have blocked mdhiel and will do the same to any person who may decide to alter my quotes in the future
(see thread viewtopic.php?f=5&p=273210#p273210)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:07 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 16197
Reputation points: 13228
To continue with the Brodie


Think I saw a critique this Video by another poster, trying to find it now.

_________________
“Political Language… is Designed to Make Lies Sound Truthful… and to Give an Appearance of Solidity to Pure Wind.” — George Orwell


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:14 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7880
Reputation points: 17300
abradley wrote:
Kameolontti wrote:


Watch at point 1:20 and you see the entire right side of the British infantry entirely collapsing.

Now, they weren't meant to collapse.

The actors were Soviet troops and they knew it was a fake cavalry charge that was going to turn away from them.

But despite several takes they always routed.

So the director had to go with the right flank entirely collapsing.


This with modern ordinary horses and soldiers who are told that they're filming a movie and that it's a fake cavalry charge by their comrades.

Now, how often did infantry break at the last minute when faced with a real cavalry charge? Think in terms - special breeds of war horses bred for war and desensitized charging in at full speed. That's the perfect time to call up the old theory "all cavalry will break up on the last second if you simply hold still". And then the war horses actually don't stop but are cut down and fall down at full speed mowing several men with their hulk that is flung into the ranks.

And does the "I didn't sign up for this shit" ever hit the thoughts of the infantry receiving such an attack?

Hence why cavalry was used for as long as it was, even after there were no real war horses.
Interesting, but the squares didn't collapse at Waterloo.


Yes I know - but merely pointing out to the effect on morale that cavalry has. They truly were a shock weapon.
In my opinion I'd rather give credit to infantry that can stand a cavalry charge than mock the cavalry.

abradley wrote:
Plus:
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stirling_Bridge
The small bridge was only broad enough to allow two horsemen to cross abreast, but offered the safest river crossing as the Forth widened to the east and the marshland of Flanders Moss lay to the west.[4] The Scots waited as the English knights and infantry made their slow progress across the bridge on the morning of 11 September. It would have taken several hours for the entire English army to cross.[3]

Wallace and Moray waited, according to the Chronicle of Hemingburgh, until "as many of the enemy had come over as they believed they could overcome". When a substantial number of the troops had crossed (possibly about 2,000)[5] the attack was ordered. The Scots spearmen came down from the high ground in rapid advance and fended off a charge by the English heavy cavalry before counterattacking the English infantry. They gained control of the east side of the bridge, and cut off the chance of English reinforcements to cross. Caught on the low ground in the loop of the river with no chance of relief or of retreat, most of the outnumbered English on the east side were probably killed. A few hundred may have escaped by swimming across the river.[6]
And IIRC at the battle of Tours the Franks used spears to turn back the Moors.


I am not arguing against the efficiency of pikes.

If I was making any points they were

1) Cavalry causes shock and terror in the infantry that faces it
2) Pre-conscription proper war horses bred for war were different kinds of beasts than procured farm animals
3) Even pikemen need discipline to hold their ground
4) Comparing Napoleonic era cavalry to knights of high medieval era is ridiculous yet one sees the aforementioned being used as general example of cavalry's efficiency

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:59 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20875
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 15552
Cavalry charge could be fearsome to any infantry formation not trained or equipped and also mentally prepared to meet it.

Speaker in this video was a US Lt in a cavalry troop that charged a Japanese MG and rifle company and drove them off.



Short summary for those who have not read the book Lt. Ramsey's War.


_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:35 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 16197
Reputation points: 13228
Kameolontti wrote:
I am not arguing against the efficiency of pikes.

If I was making any points they were

1) Cavalry causes shock and terror in the infantry that faces it
2) Pre-conscription proper war horses bred for war were different kinds of beasts than procured farm animals
3) Even pikemen need discipline to hold their ground
4) Comparing Napoleonic era cavalry to knights of high medieval era is ridiculous yet one sees the aforementioned being used as general example of cavalry's efficiency
Item's

1. Agree, that's why police use mounted police for crowd control.

2. Not sure that's correct, IIRC Knights and their mounts spent most their time training for battle, jousting, ect.

3. Don't think the Scots were a disciplined bunch, they still ain't.

4. Napoleonic calvary was facing muskets and bayonets, rather than pointed sticks.

What are we disagreeing about anyway? :)

_________________
“Political Language… is Designed to Make Lies Sound Truthful… and to Give an Appearance of Solidity to Pure Wind.” — George Orwell


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:54 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7880
Reputation points: 17300
abradley wrote:
Kameolontti wrote:
I am not arguing against the efficiency of pikes.

If I was making any points they were

1) Cavalry causes shock and terror in the infantry that faces it
2) Pre-conscription proper war horses bred for war were different kinds of beasts than procured farm animals
3) Even pikemen need discipline to hold their ground
4) Comparing Napoleonic era cavalry to knights of high medieval era is ridiculous yet one sees the aforementioned being used as general example of cavalry's efficiency
Item's

1. Agree, that's why police use mounted police for crowd control.

2. Not sure that's correct, IIRC Knights and their mounts spent most their time training for battle, jousting, ect.

3. Don't think the Scots were a disciplined bunch, they still ain't.

4. Napoleonic calvary was facing muskets and bayonets, rather than pointed sticks.

What are we disagreeing about anyway? :)


I guess we aren't disagreeing, I've just been seeing too many people recently claim that no cavalry unit ever charges into infantry that hold their ground because "horses are unable to do so". Then they throw in some 19th century cavalry unit that bought their horses from farms and was torn apart by rifle & bayonet infantry not as anecdote but as universal example of how all cavalry break their charge when facing determined infantry.

Cavalry had already changed quite a bit over the 400 years leading to 19th century.

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 8:25 pm 
Online
Sergeant Major

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 10446
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 14677
Quote:
... why desert camo? It looks like you live in forested region like me. ...


Well, here in Kansas we have the "warm" season ... and the "cool" season ...

Here I am with 3 tan rifles in Central Kansas in March ...

Image

On my land, last winter ...

Image

...

So half the time ... tan is good ... the other half of the time green is good ...

Black is never good ... shiny is never good ...

If things ever got "hot" around here ... I would add more multi-color as made sense for the conditions ... right now ... solid tan works for night time (not black, not shiny) and works for the cool half of the year during day time (not black, not shiny) ... and even sort of works in the warm season ... (not black ... not shiny) ... if I had to pick one color to go with to balance across all conditions ... it would probably be a slightly darker than medium grey ... but I haven't graduated to that level yet ...
Absence of a "black pole" works well ... even in the day critters don't realize I have a rifle ... whereas when I have a black rifle, like the Turkey's will move away ... yet when I do not have black rifle they ignore me ...

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 695 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 70  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group