Thread 18090210

Crazy how warfare just straight up did not change for thousands of years
>the spartins at thermapoli
fling shot with their slings and then charge with their spears
>the romans
throw javalins then charge with their spears
>napolien
fire off a few musket rounds and then charge with bayonets
you basically don't see a change until indirect artillery fire is invented for the first world war

>>18090210 (OP)
>cavalry
>cannons
>incendiary shells

>>18090219
>>cavalry
ancient egyptions had cavs. there's some story about romans fighting with their javelins as spears due to fighting against horses
>>cannons
rifles had greater effective range than cannons until the civil war. and before that, if you wanted to use the cannons you had to make sure you didn't get raped by the cavs
>>incendiary shells
first used in WWI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_ammunition

>>18090237
Incendiary shells were used by naval warships in the 19th century and marked a critical turning point in ship design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paixhans_gun

>>18090242
>Shell 30 kg (66 lb) shell
yeah, I'm sure those were used an awful lot in land battles that didn't tale place at major forts

>>18090264
>land warfare is the only warfare
Naval forces have been the ultimate power projection for centuries.

So let me get this straight..

>60CE jews get pissed that they were being ruled by gentiles and start a war
>Rome absolutely demolishes jews and flattens their holy temple
>Romans rebuild a new temple dedicated to Jupiter to further the humiliation
>Immediately after this jews shills a cult explicitly targeted to Romans and Greeks
>This jewish religion tells Romans that..
>they should believe Roman gods are evil
>they should forgive their enemies and let them win
>they should treat jews as divine people and worship a rabbi
>they should rebuild the third temple if they want to receive heaven

Unbelievable. Is this the most obvious psyop in history lmao.

>>18090353
lmao what?
>>18090339
yeah I'm sure op is describing naval warfare

>chainmail
>stirrups
>gunpowder
>plate armor
>improvements in metal working that made larger more complex swords possible
>crossbows
>better horse breeding that created bigger, stronger, faster animals
>increasingly elaborate castles

Roman legions in 400 were way more advanced than they had been in Caesar’s time. There is always advancement.

>>18090427
>There is always advancement.

>>18090431
>going from crappy spears to gun powder artillery is somehow a diminishing return

KWAB

>>18090454
No, it's to address specifically your claim that "there is always advancement".

>>18090210 (OP)
Wtf are you talking about anon your own examples already show massive technological gaps
>slings
>javelin
>muskets
Do you think they're all the same just because they charge? What about logistics, scale, tactics and strategies?

>>18090457
>changing the subject after you got BTFO

>>18090496
it's still fundamentally
>line your dudes up in a formation
>fling projectiles
>charge with pointy metal

>>18090506
I literally quoted that part in my first post but you do you

>>18090496
Modern soldiers still charge from time to time. There was a bayonet charge in the second Iraq war. There has been hand to hand combat in Ukraine. Some American operator in Afghanistan killed a Taliban fighter with a fuckin MRE spoon

>>18090511
Your post is bad and you should feel bad.
Dilate

>>18090513
Take your meds

>>18090512
>There was a bayonet charge in the second Iraq war.
yeah by fucking bongs. I don't think the M7 even has a bayonet lug. the IAR27 and the hk416 don't have bayonet lugs. the M4 only has them because we haven't replaced all the M4s, but more modern M4 uppers that some units have delete the bayonet lug

>>18090517
YWNBAW

>>18090210 (OP)
Bayonet and cavalry charges were gradually phased out in the second half of the 1800s. By the Second Boer War in 1899 pretty much all the key technology for WW1 was there on a much smaller scale.

>>18090602
muh charge up san juan hill
they didn't do indirect fire in the spanish American war and only used it sparingly in the boer war. hell, the bongaloids were still seething about sharp shooters and developed 7mm bongistani but never used it basically stopped caring about the 1914 enfield because small arms rifle ranges became irrelevant during WWI. I think the only thing they bothered to do was to make that MKVIIIz which was really just a projectile change to the normal .303 bong round they used
anyway that still doesn't change my point of the bayonet charges lasting forever

>>18090210 (OP)
Congrats, this is the new dumbest thread I have ever seen on /his/, it is quite an achievement.

>>18090874
congrats on being a tranny and eating human shit

>>18090358
Op said warefare. He should have specified only land warefare

>>18091032
the op post only mentioned land warfare.
learn to fucking read

>>18090210 (OP)
Actually, in the medieval Middle East, warfare was entirely dominated by light cavalry, with Infantry almost entirely absent.

>>18090210 (OP)
Spartans had serfs/skirmisher units do that, the heavy infantry didn't fling shit around
Different from pre-Marian Romans that threw a javelin or two before charging themselves in

>>18091108
no one cares about the history of third world countries

>>18091315
It's also true of many Eastern European countries during the middle ages. Lithuania was also a cavalry dominant nation.

>>18091347
see>>18091315

>>18090642
America skimped on most state of the art military technology in their war. Brits didn’t. Bayonet charges simply don’t work when indirect fire with high explosive shells, smokeless repeating rifles, and machine guns are present on the battlefield in sufficient numbers.

>>18091043
>Crazy how warfare just straight up did not change for thousands of years
Maybe you should learn how to read. Again op plainly says "warefare" not land warefare.

>>18091434
both the US and the bongs had smokeless repeaters, the Krag and the enfield. .30-40 krag is basically the exact same round in terms of bullet weight and velocity as .303 bongaloid.
bongs also really did not use that much indirect fire during the boer war because the generals thought it was unmanly and that the artillery was going to flee without them
>>18091528
all the examples were land, retardo

>>18090874
That can't possibly be true

>>18091586
Yes and? Still only said warefare not land warefare. Ships have changed monumentally through the ages and they are equally if not more important than armies on land

>>18091586
The majority of us soldiers had springfields still. The battle of San Juan hill was fought almost entirely with them.

>>18091963
you are ESL and retarded
>>18092024
>The majority of us soldiers had springfields still.
>in 1898 during the spanish American war the majority of Americans has 1903 springfields, a gun that wouldn't be developed or adopted for 5 more years
yuropean education
>inb4 I meant xyz
if you meant the 1873, we call those trapdoor springfields and they were used, but not the primary gun and if you mean the 1892-1899 everyone calls those Krags, they were the primary gun. When you just say
>springfield
with no other modifier on it it means the 1903

>>18090210 (OP)
crazy how your a retard

>>18090431
your describing a logarithmic relationship. what's happening irl is exponential, the complete opposite. retard.

>>18092906
>your
you're a retard and esl

>>18090237
>rifles had greater effective range than cannons
True, but they were using muskets

> if you wanted to use the cannons
Cannon were Napoleons weapon of choice see the royalist uprising 1795 AD

Then most efficient way to kill someone is the good old way, walk up to them and stab them in the guts. Everybody could do it so they needed no training.

>>18093023
>Then most efficient way to kill someone is the good old way, walk up to them and stab them in the guts.
bayonets weren't a major cause of casualties

>>18093029
>bayonets weren't a major cause of casualties
But you could win a battle with a bayonet charge

>>18093088
yeah, because when you did a bayonet charge one side would break. it was extremely rare for bayonet charges to actually result in bayonet fighting

>>18092916
>yes yes it will always be exponential, there will always be an advancement

>>18092708
Nigga you know what I mean

>>18094023
the only real difference between the krag and the smle is the retarded loading system for the krag, but it's not like that was a unique krag thing. the frogs went into WWI with the lebel which has an even worse magazine than the krag. like the label is cool for being the first smokeless repeater, holy shit are lebel's shitty. not only are they impossible to charger load (the krag has the same issue) but the actual mag is made out of like fucking foil and is incredibly easy to damage, to the point where ethiopeans who later got the rifles would convert them to single shots because they would break the mag tubes.
actually idk if enfileds had the clip chargers on them during the boer war. if the enfields couldn't take stripper clips they would literally be identical to the krag because .30-40 krag and .303 bong are both functionally identical rounds

>>18094164
I’m talking about trapdoors in the Spanish American war. Krags were ok but only like half the soldiers had them. Teddy Roosevelt actually had to directly petition the government to make sure the rough riders had them.

>>18094258
then why didn't you say trapdoors to start with
pretty humiliating for the spanish to get btfo'd by single shot bp rifles