Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

Shock effect is always a significant force multiplier and a volley of gunfire is a pretty great way to do that.

[Arx]

Yeah, post-calibre firearms are pretty much just better (hence crossbows not seeing much use on the modern field of battle). Pre-calibre it's a little stickier, because either reloading or ammunition manufacture becomes more complicated.

[mainiac]

UMP Cruiser versus Serenity?

[Kot]

A) Its tech level is, generally speaking, crappy. They have huge-ass battleship, that use chemical guns. Loaded by crew. Sure, they go to space, but a lot of their weapons tech suddenly seems late 19th century. And they have a lot of ships, sure, but they sucks so much they're going to get mowed down like zulus facing a Maxim.

They also have Lances which are supersized Lasers, Plasma Macrocannons (kinda like Star Wars blasters but better), and their torpedoes can cause massive warp rifts capable of sucking half of battleship in. There are also Nova Cannons which accelerates a huge projectile at fraction of speed of light (which is apparently fast enough to travel "tens of thousands of kilometers" in a "fraction of second"... fucking fractions, but I am in fact pretty sure that Imperium doesn't lack range) which then explodes at predetermined distance... and it's apparently capable of causing a "blast zone the size of a small planet", which I am sceptical of, but it's proven that it's completly capable of completly destroying a cruiser which is around 5-6 kilometers in Warhammer 40k terms.

B) It cannot use its human wave tactic in space easily. The Imperium doesn't have the STCs for all ships, and doesn't have the high tech manufacturing capability to produce lots of them. Especially if they need to produce more ships than the enemy produce missiles (see 1).

Except they can. Places like Port Maw and Mars shit out starships at daily rate and the only reason they never have enough of them is because they keep utilizing starship wave tactics. Agreed, they lost a bunch of STCs for their stuff so a lot of versions are rare special snowflakes, but they have enough "regular" STCs to make ships out of.
And that's forgetting the fact that when it comes to making ships, Mechanicus are way more likely to actually modify shit and make new versions.

C) The Empire is largely holding out because all its enemies are bunch of disgusting Xenos. If you're a governor of some backass world faced with an Ork or Tyranid invasion, your choices are fight and win or die. If you're face by a relatively humane human regime, which will let you have your planetary autonomy and stop sacrificing your citizens to the Emperor, you're much more likely to surrender. Hell, I'd expect half of the Empire to be in various kind of rebellions after a couple years of fight against Star Wars/ Star Trek/ Honorverse / Most of the other.

There were factions who acted like your regular Star Wars/Star Trek/Honorverse/Whatever guys, with being happy utopian shits. Half of Great Crusade and things like Macharian Crusade is about Imperium bashing some happy hippie shits who though they can be less Grimdark and most of people from Imperial side didin't even think about that it would be better life, and those who did were usually way too devoted anyways. Your life may be better, but Imperium has thousands of years of indoctrination...
Not to mention that bulk of people don't actually live anywhere close to bad conditions, the healthcare is fucking great, technology is better than it is now and while you have to work on a farm or in a factory for your whole life and Imperium will take half of what you make while the Planetary Governor will take the rest, and you could get conscripted and send to other side of Galaxy to die in war against some horrible xenos and there is a priest with huge sword that makes you pray to the Emperor, but as long as you play by the rules it's not that bad.
Shame if you're a free thinker, though.

[Tack]

So before the invention of guns, are pikes still the game-winner of the battlefield?
I imagine in forester areas you'd prefer the better skirmishing potential of the Romans, but on plains I'm assuming it's a non-contest.


Also the stuff I've heard about a thicket of upraised spears being partial cover against arrows... Malarkey, or plausible?

[Parsely]

Do they have more of an effect on enemies that are familiar with them? Frightening Aztec I get, but European soldiers?

Yes, being shot at is still scary even if you know how guns work. Maybe ESPECIALLY if you know how guns work, because you're highly aware of what the enemy is doing and oh god they just finished reloading... *bang* *wince* Oh I'm alive! Better shoot back.

Combat is extremely, EXTREMELY STRESSFUL. Men often simply loaded their muskets without firing them in order to please their officers. Once you're on the line, the individual man begins to feel alone, and becomes concerned only with the safety of his own life.

Von Angeli described the fight for Baumersdorf in 1809 between the Austrians and the French 57th Line Regiment: "One exchanged musketry at very close range. The enormous din, as wave upon wave of musketry constantly erupted ...is completely beyond the imagination. Evrything, even the thunder of the numerous cannon, seemed insignificant amid the raging storm of the so-called smallarms."

Not related to musket combat but relevant:

During WW2 approx. 500.000 men were discharged from USA Army for psychiatric reasons. This is said that 101 psychiatric casualties per 1.000 men per year were recorded in the First Army (USA) in Europe. Source: Kellet - "Combat motivation" p 272

The importance of getting the first volley and making it as effective as possible has been reinforced over and over. The reason you hear of this is because in practice it was so damaging to the enemy that often engagements were over within a single volley.

Sergeant Wheeler of the British 51st Regiment of Foot at Waterloo: "There were nearly a hundred of them, all cuirassiers. ... We saw them coming and were prepared, we opened our fire, the work was done in an instant. ... One other was saved by Cpt. Ross from being put to death by some of the Brunswickers."

Cpt. Ross: "There were 12 horses and 8 cuirassiers killed on this occassion..." The remainder were dispersed.

So before the invention of guns, are pikes still the game-winner of the battlefield?
I imagine in forester areas you'd prefer the better skirmishing potential of the Romans, but on plains I'm assuming it's a non-contest.

Also the stuff I've heard about a thicket of upraised spears being partial cover against arrows... Malarkey, or plausible?

Any kind of spear is your go-to weapon for any era up until the 18th century when firearms really began dominating the battlefield. They're simply excellent weapons for being cheap and easy to use. A peasant will be much happier with a spear to keep his enemy at a distance than with a sword, which is a much more personal weapon.

Arrows could be deflected but there's still plenty chance they could hit someone and hurt them even after they've bounced off a spear shaft. Don't leave your shields and gambesons at home.

[Erkki]

So before the invention of guns, are pikes still the game-winner of the battlefield?
I imagine in forester areas you'd prefer the better skirmishing potential of the Romans, but on plains I'm assuming it's a non-contest.


Also the stuff I've heard about a thicket of upraised spears being partial cover against arrows... Malarkey, or plausible?

The warhammer of course, havent you played DF?

Armored cavalry often decided battles, pikes, pole arms, bow and crossbow for infantry worked well for decades. Combined arms. Many armies in Europe used pikes to protect muskets all the way to early 18th century.

Do they have more of an effect on enemies that are familiar with them? Frightening Aztec I get, but European soldiers?

Yes, being shot at is still scary even if you know how guns work. Maybe ESPECIALLY if you know how guns work, because you're highly aware of what the enemy is doing and oh god they just finished reloading... *bang* *wince* Oh I'm alive! Better shoot back.

Combat is extremely, EXTREMELY STRESSFUL. Men often simply loaded their muskets without firing them in order to please their officers. Once you're on the line, the individual man begins to feel alone, and becomes concerned only with the safety of his own life.

Yeah I think even in WW2 the estimated figure for US troops who didnt shoot or wouldnt aim at all was around 50%. That improved a lot in the following decades by refining training.

[Culise]

Yeah, post-calibre firearms are pretty much just better (hence crossbows not seeing much use on the modern field of battle). Pre-calibre it's a little stickier, because either reloading or ammunition manufacture becomes more complicated.

My apologies, but I'm slightly puzzled by one thing.  What do you mean by "post-calibre"?  Is calibre not simply a measurement of the internal diameter of the barrel?  Are you referring to standardization of calibers in gun design? 

But, one fun fact: one of the advantages of early firearms was that ammunition was simple as all get-out compared to the alternatives.  You could literally load rocks into some early cannons, and musket balls were literally just a round ball of lead.  You didn't even need to get the size all that close to the actual caliber of the gun, as long as you were close enough that it would drop into the barrel during loading.  Contrast this with arrows or bolts, the former of which in particular required a proper expert fletcher.  Gunpowder was more expensive, but still could be mixed up in bulk at a specialized mill; the rise of the arquebus is tied not only to metallurgy and refinements in design, and not only its effectiveness, but also the ability to churn out corned gunpowder (for those readers following along, gunpowder mixed in a liquid to avoid explosions which resulted in a paste called mill cakes, then reduced to pellets called corns by analogy to cereal crops) like...err, hotcakes.  Bullets don't really start to resemble those of the modern day even in shape alone until the 19th century, the Minié being the most famous, as far as I'm aware from my admittedly quite limited knowledge. 

EDIT: Trimmed a bit at the top, leaving only my question to Arx.

That said, regarding pikes as top dog, don't underestimate cavalry on the battlefield.  Heavy cavalry would rip apart unprotected soldiers or formations that weren't in order (people always cite Agincourt or more rarely the Golden Spurs, but never Patay, and before they adapted, knights in the Western European tradition proved devastating in the Levant - when it reached the battlefield - where tradition favored light cavalry in a secondary role).  Light cavalry were your eyes and ears on the battlefield, as well as skirmishers to harass the foe.  Once you routed an enemy, too, cavalry was your key instrument to make sure they didn't simply reform ranks an hour or two down the road, as its superior mobility allowed you to run down foot soldiers.  Spears in good order could stop a cavalry charge cold, but all too often, the point of the heavy cavalry was combined arms - other forces, such as other foot soldiers or archers, were utilized to disrupt the enemy's formation, then cavalry exploited the gap.

[Sheb]

Sure, but, would the psychological effect of early firearms be be that much stronger than with bows/crossbows?

Also, another questions: would medieval bowmen fire volleys as seen in every fantsy movie ever, or just shoot as fast as they can?

[mainiac]

Not related to musket combat but relevant:

During WW2 approx. 500.000 men were discharged from USA Army for psychiatric reasons. This is said that 101 psychiatric casualties per 1.000 men per year were recorded in the First Army (USA) in Europe. Source: Kellet - "Combat motivation" p 272

To put that in context, only about 900,000 men served in frontline combat units (i.e. rifle companies not artillery companies).  After 30 days of combat almost any soldier would be too worn out to fight.

The Germans had a similar practice (rotating the exhausted men to non combat roles for the rest of the war).  I dont know about the other Europeans but I bet they did.  The Japanese used some really fucked up public executions to try to desensitize their soldiers to violence and make them immune.

Sure, but, would the psychological effect of early firearms be be that much stronger than with bows/crossbows?

It probably wouldn't matter, most soldiers wouldn't face death enough time to become psychological casualties until industrial gunpowder.

[Arx]

Yeah, post-calibre firearms are pretty much just better (hence crossbows not seeing much use on the modern field of battle). Pre-calibre it's a little stickier, because either reloading or ammunition manufacture becomes more complicated.

My apologies, but I'm slightly puzzled by one thing.  What do you mean by "post-calibre"?  Is calibre not simply a measurement of the internal diameter of the barrel?  Are you referring to standardization of calibers in gun design? 

At some point, a gun referred to as the caliver was developed/the arquebus was refined into the caliver. And yep, it had a standard calibre, hence the name.

[Parsely]

Sure, but, would the psychological effect of early firearms be be that much stronger than with bows/crossbows?

Also, another questions: would medieval bowmen fire volleys as seen in every fantsy movie ever, or just shoot as fast as they can?

Didn't I just answer this question? Guns have a much stronger psychological effect because of the noise they make. It's well established how utterly nerve wracking the sound of artillery and gunfire is. Part of the reason volley fire was so common is because a rank of 100 people firing all at the same time is much louder than 100 people firing as fast as they can.

They did fire in volleys. Again, a hundred arrows peppering your formation at the same time has a much more noticeable effect. 1 man falling here or there is not going to cause the enemy's formation to break. 20 or 30 falling in seconds is going to make people reconsider their options. It's always been more about letting the enemy know that they're in danger than actually killing them, in order to encourage them to flee. Most battles ended with the opposing army breaking and running, or if they were encircled, surrendering. It's very rare that people fight to the last man.

People don't want to die. All land warfare is based on exploiting the knowledge that your enemy does not want to die.

Edit:
The other thing I want to stress is that there is always a reason why people did things the way they did at the time. Fighting with muskets by formation was done for a reason. I think everyone here, by now, understands why people stood in lines and shot at each other for hundreds of years, and it was because it was the most effective way of fighting at the time, while keeping in mind that there is always another reform on the horizon.

[Jopax]

@Culise

I'd say it was more that switching to firearms meant shifting most of the investment into the equipment side of things, compared to the previous stuff which was simpler to make but required a lot more training and knowledge to use properly. And replacing equipment is much cheaper and quicker on the whole when compared to a soldier. Also losing a guy doesn't mean losing the bigger part of the unit, as in, you just pick the gun up and give it to someone else with not much loss in the quality of soldier, not something that can be said about the bow and arrow (less so about the crossbow because it's kind of an intermediate step between the two).

Also about the point Gunin is making, Lindybeige has a video somewhat related to that, mostly in how battle fatigue is a rather new concept when it comes to wars, partly because of the introduction of firearms (and in part due to the change in society and general value of human life).

[Erkki]

Theres also the thing that using the long musket, that may have a bayonet too, takes quite a lot of space within a tight formation, and it is quickest to reload when standing. Its also slow to reload while moving. For the firepower and cohesion of the formation(against charges and cavalry) it was best to fire a volley and let the first row run to the rear to reload or let back rows overtake the ones that shot. Infantry formations could take a lot of space, the more muskets and bayonets per unit of line width the better. Fights between formations were often concluded in a bayonet charge after one or two volleys, and cavalry charges remained very lethal up to late 19th century, so formations remained very relevant.

What finally killed colorful uniforms and funny hats were the combination of rifling, the cartridge and and magazine which resulted in the repeating rifle; massive increase of firepower and its reach for every infantryman. In the 1860s, before smokeless powder or jacketed bullets even.

[Parsely]

Also about the point Gunin is making, Lindybeige has a video somewhat related to that, mostly in how battle fatigue is a rather new concept when it comes to wars, partly because of the introduction of firearms (and in part due to the change in society and general value of human life).

Yes. I was thinking of exactly that video while I was writing that.