Thread 63966398

>average Napoleonic War era soldier was a 5'5" gigamanlet
>let's give him a 5 foot long musket with a 20" bayonet
Who the fuck thought this was a reasonable idea?
>average WW1/WW2 soldier was still 5'5"
>let's give him a bolt action rifle with a 25" barrel and a 17" bayonet
How the fuck did these cunts even aim a rifle which was longer than them? It's not like they were doing volley fire in square formations, individual marksmanship and manoeuvre warfare was a requirement in all of the major campaigns
>average height soldier during the Cold War is still only 5'7"
>let's give him a FAL with a 21" barrel

>>63966398 (OP)
big bullet longah barrel more bettah

because

Mej back then could charge at enemy fire full of volleys using only thwie bayonets and win

>>63966398 (OP)
It's easy to fall into the trap of range trumping everything else without consideration to other battlefield variables. Just look at the navy.

because short is objectively worse if you value performance.

But then Clapistan military had to perform police action for ~20 years and a lot of young burgers grew up with carbines in their hands.

>>63966398 (OP)
>who the fuck thought this was a reasonable idea
Every soldier who didn't want to be ridden down by cavalry and butchered, anon. The fully-realized flintlock musket with bayonet was the weapon that replaced both the pike and arquebus of the prior era. The gun has to be long enough to deter cavalry when in formation. As for caliber, muskets were smaller in bore than the earlier heavy arquebuses, around .70 caliber rather than almost 1 caliber in diameter. You needed a big projectile to make the most of the black powder charge, maximizing energy wherever possible.

>>63966398 (OP)
Is OP from an alternate universe where carbines have not existed for centuries or is he just a faggot?

>>63966739
>kar98k
>carbine
>23" barrel
yeah still gigantic
>Lee Enfield No.5 Mk 1 "Jungle Carbine"
>20" barrel
Literal broomstick levels of long

>>63966398 (OP)
>Why did it take so long for short barrels and intermediate calibres to become popular?
because they are really really stupid
>>63966398 (OP)
>>let's give him a bolt action rifle with a 25" barrel and a 17" bayonet
That's because the eprson with the longer reach wins in a bayonet fight. Why do retarded pricks liek OPalways assme that people in the ww1 era or napleonic era were stupid just because OP is

>>63966403
I hope for your sake that's shit b8 beacuse otherwise you are in the box marked stupids
>>63966600
based and wise

>>63966398 (OP)
>How the fuck did these cunts even aim a rifle which was longer than them?
Dense and strong muscles and hands?
Generally grip strength and strength overall has declined sharply in the past 50 years amongst men globally.
We were a lot closer to the monkey a few decades ago than we are now apparently.

>>63966919
As with everything else its less a total decline and more a split.gymbros/pyschos/rednecks ext might be stronger than ever due to them having access to modern equipment and nutrition while conversely you have more total pussies. Same thing with obesity, once you account for age and race it hasn't changed for whites since 1985, an how much is that to guys on vitamin S?

>>63966398 (OP)
I'm confused at why you think height matters this much for handling a rifle

>>63966398 (OP)
>aim a rifle
They were smoothbore muskets, not rifles. Standard loads were buckshot or buck-and-ball. They didn't even have sights.

>>63966495
>because short is objectively worse if you value performance
the shorter length has almost no affect on velocity or accuracy (what there is of it in a smoothbore musket). Meanwhile the shorter barrel length makes loading faster. But you do lose reach when it comes to sticking things with the bayonet unless you want to carry around a 4-ft-long bayonet to put on the 16-inch barrel on your musket.

>>63966398 (OP)
the length of barrels correlates heavily with the need to stab a nigga

>>63966868
>50% of deaths in WW1 caused by artillery
>trenches were hundreds of metres apart with soldiers from opposing armies taking pot shots at each other all day
>trench assaults and close combat famously done primarily with grenades, shovels, and later submachineguns like the MP18

>>63966398 (OP)
it's like inertia and retards. The napolian stuff makes sense, they wanted long muskets because longer guns work better with black powder, more time for the powder to burn, longer bayonet for holding off horses and bayonet fighting and a longer musket makes it easier to get the front out in front of the guy ahead of you when you fire in ranks so you didn't burn or deafen him. They wanted all the power they could get because horses
>WWI
they were still firing in lines and were worried about horses leading up to the war. the bongs actually adopted a longer bayonet specifically because they were worried about the nazi reach being longer
>WWII and the FAL
really no excuse for using long barreled .30 cals at that point other than they were too poor to replace the guns for WWII and for WWII and the cold war they wanted one round they could use in both rifles and machine guns for logistics

>>63966495
>t. no gunz
even with a FAL or a WWI/WWII rifle they weren't regularly hitting each other beyond 300 yards

>>63966919
they also weren't holding the guns up for extended periods of time to aim since they were single shots and didn't have very good sights. you do also see, at least with like shootzen shooters, stances similar to modern high power stances where they used the curved buttplate and their left hip to carry a lot of the load

>>63967218
black powder loads benefit from longer barrels, or at least guys at the time thought they did, see kentucky long rifles and button mag lever guns with extra long barrels

>>63967343
yeah, it sounds retarded, but going into the war most battlefield deaths from 1866 to 1913 were via rifle fire because canon tech didn't catch up with rifle tech until WWI. Go look at most of the conflicts after the civil war but before WWI, it's literally Napoleonic era stand in a line and fire tactics using indirect fire and single loading with magazine cutoffs. .30-40 krag is basically the same as .303 bong and after the spanish Ameircan war and boar war both the US and bongs were seething about 7mm mauser, hence the US adopting the .30-03 and later .30-06 and 1903 and the bongs trying to get the 1914 enfield with some new round.
They weren't retards, they were just erroneously expecting WWI to go the same way as every other conflict since the frogs invented smokeless powder

>>63967702
Skill issue

>>63968719
>just hit what you can't see

>>63967722
>black powder loads benefit from longer barrels
No more than smokeless loads do.
>guys at the time thought they did
This is probably true, but they didn't have electronic chronographs so their fuddlore was especially suspect. They also thought that the longer barrels meant more accuracy, and that the longer sight radius was much more important than it really is. They also thought that ultra-tiny rear notches and front blades also improved accuracy significantly. All fuddlore.

>>63971395
BP is so much lower velo than smokeless I'd think the longer barrels are needed

>>63966495
t. someone who is also mad about the spear

>>63971427
You'd think wrongly if you did. Black powder (a) has a much lower detonation velocity than smokeless powder and (b) doesn't react well to having the chamber be larger diameter than the bore (in case you were wondering why BP cartridges didn't really do the whole bottleneck thing), so the longer barrel length just doesn't really do much for velocity. Cutting a .577 rifle musket down from a 39" barrel to 16" only drops the velocity by about 100fps. It's not nothing, but it's not much. Which is why when they wanted to improve "stoppin powah" they went to a bigger bullet.

>>63971505
so then why were the kentucky long rifles so fucking long? Why were there so many long as fuck lever guns, to the point where they started to evolve into half/button mag with 24 inch barrel, not unlike a shotgun, style guns once the injuns were defeated?

>>63971562
because of fuddlore. longer barrels do improve velocity, just not very much. longer barrels do improve sighting radius which helps with accuracy, just not very much. also fun fact, roughly 4/5ths of the kentucky "rifles" were in fact smoothbores. This is born out by surviving examples as well as the sales receipts from period gunsmiths.

>>63971631
weird. I knew about fowling pieces/trade guns but I thought the kentucky guns were rifled

>>63971657
Some were. Most weren't. They all looked the part though. For a long time people just assumed the rifling near the muzzle was just worn out from the ramrod and cleaning, once we had good bore scopes and could examine deeper we found out that nope, they just didn't have any rifling at all, not even a hint. Then people went back through the surviving sales records from that era, and found that they really were mostly smoothbores.
>>63971631
Rifling was extremely time consuming, doing a simple (by modern standards) 2-groove barrel would nearly double the price of the gun. Meanwhile a tightly patched round ball was very nearly as accurate as a rifle out to about 75 yds, which was pretty much the effective range of a .40ish round ball anyway due to the utterly shit ballistic coefficient of said ball.

>>63967735
>conflict since the frogs invented smokeless powder
But they didn't. Germans did (or German-Swiss) with guncotton. The Bongs then improved on it. Poudre B was made by the French, yes but for the Lebel Rifle, but wasn't the first smokeless powder for weapons. The Bongs didn't like it or guncotton (after exploding several of their factories) so invented Cordite. There was also Ballistite by Noble. Which the Bongs then improved on and Noble tried to sue but lost because he didn't use specific terms and words.

So true smokeless powder was German unless you wanna say Noble invented it first with 'dynamite'. The particular formulation of Poudre B was also modified by pretty much every state anyway.

>>63971672
wow. good post
>>63971699
frogs had the first smokeless rifle, nazis were too busy inventing trannies at the time.

>>63967735
>>63967343
>>63966398 (OP)
Because musket ruled the battlefield and big bullet longah barrel more bettah.
WWI artillery slaughter and trench warfare caught everyone by surprise.

>>63971699
Germans did not.
The Austrians were the first to use guncotton firearms with the Lorenz. They did not use a powder. Until Poudre B there was no other widespread use of nitrocellulose as it was considered too unstable.

>>63971395
>they didn't have electronic chronographs
No they had mechanical ones, and they were very accurate.
They weren't stupid and from the 18th century on there was a lot of very scientific testing done.
Now if we're talking America, fuddlore and guesstimation ruled supreme. They didn't have a school of musketry until after their civil war when actual muskets were well obsolete.

>>63971672
Maybe the accuracy of smoothbores improves with longer barrels.

>>63966398 (OP)
I have googled a bit, early black powders (that is through most of the 18th century) were burning slower than later recipes and benefitted more from longer barrels.

>>63971672
>.40ish round ball
Muskets are more like 600-700.

>>63971505
>BP cartridges didn't really do the whole bottleneck thing
The Martini-Henry, the Gras, the Mauser 1871, the Vetterli 1870, used bottlenecked cartridges. The angle isn't as pronounced as in smokeless, but it's quite visible.

>>63976312
.303 started off as a BP cartridge. 1850 fps IIRC.

They weren't faggots and had strong hands and strong bodies from a lifetime of labor. Pound for pound they were magnitudes stronger than you, zoomer.

>>63967735
>canon tech didn't catch up with rifle tech until WWI.
That happened earlier, we have reports from the Franco-Prussian War about artillery units single handedly destroying infantry formations.
>When the head of the column became visible over the hill, our trial shots reached it at a range of 1900 paces, and my guns opened rapid fire.
>The enemy's infantry was enveloped in the thick smoke which the shells made as they burst. But after a very short time we saw the red trousers of the masses which were approaching us through the cloud. I stopped the fire. A trial shot was fired at 1700 paces range; this was to show us the point up to which we should let them advance before reopening the rapid fire; we did the same for the ranges of 1500, 1300, 1100, and 900 paces.
In spite of the horrible devastation which the shells caused in their ranks, these brave troops continued to advance. But at 900 paces the effect of our fire was too deadly for them; they turned short and fled; we hurled shells after them as long as we could see them.

>Go look at most of the conflicts after the civil war but before WWI it's literally Napoleonic era stand in a line and fire
That is overly reductive and thus inherently wrong. They not only did way more complex stuff than that it also changed quite often.
>the Germans reluctantly accepted the principle of dispersion. It became strictly forbidden for troops to be exposed to enemy fire in closed formations at ranges under 1500 meters. German troops now advanced in loose, widely spaced lines where the individual made ill possible use of cover.
>Swarms of skirmishers advanced in alternating rushes, supporting each other by fire. The new methods reduced casualties, but how much the German success was due to their superior method ot to a poorer quality of French soldier was questioned.

>>63966600
Imagine being there.
Imagine knowing your only job is to hold the pointy stick.
Imagine understanding the only reason you aren't being ran down is not because of your pointy stick, but because the man running the horse does not want to be poked by not the two guys besides you who he will also run through, but the two guys beside them.

Now thank your god of choice for carbines, artillery, air support, and drones.

>>63971662
Source. Souuuurrrccceeee.

>>63978661
168cm Iroha-kun wa Jinken ga Nai by komezawa

>>63966398 (OP)
Because back in the day there weren't as much buildings and stuff in Europe. Most of the important areas were still mainly large open fields, so capabilities on range were way more important. It wasn't until after WW2 that European cities became the concrete wasteland they now are, where the longes clear sight range you have is 300m.
Also single shot muskets take a longer time to reload and so when the enemy comes near, the gun with it's bayonet becomes a spear, and no matter how large the soldier is, the longest spear wins.

>>63978884
Oh not what I expected. Why did I expect a comedy manga.

>>63979602
I have no clue. Imo that style basically screamed porn.

>>63976889
They weren't able to do indirect fire, the bongs didn't try indirect fire until the 1890s.
>4am post
yeah, you're a no gunz yuro

>>63966398 (OP)
Short barrels are cool. But we must return to long barrels. They are based. WE NEED MORE VELOCITY.

>>63979765
>They weren't able to do indirect fire,
You know, ignoring that mortars were a thing since the early 17th century and used to shoot behind fortifications, so what? That doesn't change shit.
Military tactics after the acw changed often and the militaries of the time had a pretty good idea of how WW1 would look like.
Whether or not they were able to use indirect before the 1890s has no bearing on it.
>no gunz
Which too has no relevance aside from maybe being a worthless attempt not to engage with any argument I make.
Were talking about history here, the amount of people on this board that served in a 19th century is, hopefully, nonexistent and the amount of people that fired period accurate cannons of that time will be marginally larger.
It does not change the quotes about the Franco-Prussian War.

>>63979949
so you admit you are a no gunz, got it. thanks

>>63966398 (OP)
Soldiers usually have low IQ.
A bigger weapon makes it harder to lose them.

>>63972838
What's the source of your image? It seems like it would be an interesting read.

height doesn't have anything to do with strength, there are manlets build like dwarves with broad shoulders.

>>63967069
testosterone levels are in an all time low since they are recorded and show a clear decline. Only the most based retards who take test can out strength our manlet but high test ancestors.

>>63978884
wtf its gay porn?!

>>63980553
the title of the paper is at the top of the image

>>63978641
>image knowing your only job is to sit in the trench

>>63966398 (OP)
I've always wanted to make a really low caliber musket, like a 22 or 25, that could handle a huge proportional load of BP to play around at the speed limits of the propellant.
An old reloading manual I read once said that the record for any black powder shot was 2400 fps, well past the point of diminishing returns.

Mach 2 round ball squirrel gun to play around with.

>>63988716
check out Kentucky long rifles or shootzen guns, they had long barrels and comparatively small calibers, I think the shootzen ones are really small caliber

>>63979805
some of us have returned to musketmaxxing already but the trend must continue to grow

>>63966398 (OP)
5.56 is dogshit (100% wars it fought it lost) and short barrels are dumb too.

>>63995908
what are you sliding?

>>63995941
Poor bait

I just assume shorter barreled rifles are becoming more popular because of the increasing amount of urban warfare and door to door combat

>>63966398 (OP)
>>average WW1/WW2 soldier was still 5'5"
Anon, the average German soldier was 6 feet, it's why the G3 has such a length of pull, its measurements were based on WWII averages.

>>64004448
I mean, kind of how the STG-44 developed, as a counter to red army Oops all SMGs battalions in Stalingrad

>>63967702
>>63967722
>>63971427
>>63971562
>>63971657
WTF? All mods need to be murdered.

>>64006271
Yeah, really weird amount of deleted posts. Some are obvious spam, but many are decent posts that contributed to the discussion.
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/63966398

>>64006271
>>64006351
yeah

>>64006351
>>64007050
The guy was probably just banned.

>>64007783
shalom janny

>>63966398 (OP)
They weren't shooting point targets in a lot of cases. They were shooting formations which could be engaged at longer ranges. In various 19th century conflicts, outranging the other guy's small arms was often important. Sometimes rifles outranged yesteryear's field artillery, which made the difference.

Why does someone keep necro bumping this thread and then deleting his bump post?

>>63967218
In modern firearms the shorter barrel has less affect but in muskets that's not true, black powder is much slower burning than modern powders
Black powder pistols usually have huge fireballs because the barrel length isn't long enough to make use of the powder and that greatly affects velocity

>>63966398 (OP)
Also, the material science wasn't there. The USN actually experimented with this with the 6mm Lee Navy, and they had a hard time making ammo that passed QC in the 1890s.

>>63971436
Isn't it actually a piece of shit though

>>63972838
>WWI artillery slaughter and trench warfare caught everyone by surprise.
Did trench warfare only catch on during WW1 because machine guns were still primitive during the Franco Prussian war?

>>63976889
>>the Germans reluctantly accepted the principle of dispersion. It became strictly forbidden for troops to be exposed to enemy fire in closed formations at ranges under 1500 meters. German troops now advanced in loose, widely spaced lines where the individual made ill possible use of cover.
Lmao I assume 'reluctantly' here refers to the brass and not the rank-and-file?

>>Swarms of skirmishers advanced in alternating rushes, supporting each other by fire. The new methods reduced casualties, but how much the German success was due to their superior method ot to a poorer quality of French soldier was questioned.
Which do you think? Also what text(s) are you citing?

>>64013168
I think a big part is they didn't want to drag the guns around like custard had gatling guns but didn't want to drag them to little bighorn

>>64013197
Well that's the thing isn't it? Mass trench warfare being the response to highly portable machine guns which made attacking anything just plainly more difficult.

>>63966398 (OP)
Along with the other reasons mentioned the weapons were really long to facilitate firing in ranks. You don’t want to muzzle of the guy behind you’s musket going off right over or behind your head.

>>64013168
No, it happened in the Russo-Japanese war, especially the integration of effective indirect artillery fire.

It was just kinda ignored as "lol dumb slavs" and the attention was focused on the naval battles, especially Tsushima.

>>64013263
>No, it happened in the Russo-Japanese war, especially the integration of effective indirect artillery fire.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mukden
>610,000 combat participants and 164,000 combatant casualties
>The Japanese side alone fired 20.11 million rifle and machine gun rounds and 279,394 artillery shells in just over ten days of fighting (yet the Russians still fired more), matching the ammunition consumption of the German army in the entire 191-day Franco-Prussian War[9] and more than the British had fired during the entire Second Boer War.
Wow.

>>63966398 (OP)
Black powder burned slower than modern powders. It took a while for doctrine to catch up.

>>64014231
>Black powder burned slower than modern powders
Incorrect. blackpowder burns much faster than smokeless, but blackpowder generates much less heat& pressure than smokeless

>>64013263
It also happened in the Mexican Civil war right before WW1 but everyone went, lol dumb spics

>>64014242
Oh. I feel silly now.

>>64013924
Russians slaughtered numerically superior Japanese and inflicted higher deaths on the Japanese. Japan suffered more dead and Japan outnumbered the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nanshan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Port_Arthur

Are you doing this just to see how long you can keep a thread up before a janny notices

>>63966398 (OP)
>Who the fuck thought this was a reasonable idea?

Black powder ballistics require longer barrels

>>63980558
A difference in height, within normal ranges, simply represents scale. E.g. the average 6 foot tall man is a slightly scaled up version of the average 5’9” man. So yeah, it does confer strength. I am aware that there exist tall weaklings and short strongmen, but on the whole, taller = stronger. I don’t think this is true pound for pound though, I think manlets win in this regard. Like their mass/volume will go down by the cube of some multiplier but their strength will only go down by the square of it.

>>64004448
And theyre lighter, far easier to manipulate, and with a center of gravity in a more desireable place closer to the shooter. Just way easier, less taxing to use.

I assume, ofc, never shot anything longer than 16”, don’t even want to.

>>63966398 (OP)
because until WW1, and even a bit during it, riflemen also had to double as pikemen against calvary charges

>>64020223
why do you keep bumping this thread?

>>64013256
questions

>>63979602
yeah bro what the hell that was clearly porn

>>63978884
thanks for the new fetish. literal dehumanization over height. pretty gud.

>>63966398 (OP)
Technology and doctrine (to say nothing of advances in one effecting the other) hadn’t conspired to make such a development viable until the mid-20th C. On the tech side, small bore, high velocity small arms require adequate metallurgy for containing greater pressure and resist wear, the mfg capability to make fast enough twist rifling to stabilize high velocity projectiles in short barrels, the ability to make jacketed projectiles to ensure the bullet can withstand those twist rates, and smokeless powder to prevent your small bore getting fouled up in short order + achieve adequate velocities to ensure adequate velocity out of shorter barrels and provide adequate terminal ballistics despite the small caliber. Even if those and probably more are achieved, you still have institutional inertia to overcome to implement the whole package and doctrinal necessity making it desirable to do so. Other anons have already covered a lot of the doctrinal reasons behind why infantry rifles were so long for centuries.

>>63966398 (OP)
Two reasons. The first was that round ball muskets were horrendously innacurate, as you already know - until the Minnie Ball and its much more stabilized flight, the only method by which arms manufacturers had to increase accuracy was to make the barrel longer.

The other issue is that up until WW1, people were still engaging in fire-by-rank combat, so many of the armies of the time did not favor shorter carbines because there was a serious chance you might accidentally shoot the rank in front of you in the back, by trying to fire over their shoulder while they reload, and having the bullet drift off course (Which was not uncommon).

>>64013168
It was well known before that and I'm ignoring the century long tradition of trenches in siege warfare here. It just wasn't as valuable in the field until breechloaders and more modern artillery entered the field. Until that point a charge against entrenched musketeers was viable.
At least by the Crimean War they were becoming more common and the Russo-Turkish war caught everyone's attention when it came to the value of trenches.
>Russian artillery proved ineffective against the entrenchments , even after 24-pounders were brought in from the siege park. >Their infantry, therefore, was forced to attack without the benefit of an effective preparation. The Russian attacks were started at great distances, and, since the skirmish line, the two lines of company columns, and frequently the reserve started at almost the same time at short interval, there was a persistent tendency to intermix.
>The result was similar to the Prussian experience with company columns in the wars of 1866 and 1870» under fire the columns disintegrated into swarms of skirmishers. As the assaulting infantry rarely fired, the power of the Russian assault lay in the bayonet charge. The Turkish defenders answered by expending ammunition in great quantities from the moment the Russian attack formations entered rifle range. Instances were recorded where individual Turkish troops expended 500 rounds in a single action, and it was not unusual for 200 to 300 empty cartridges to he found by the side of a dead defender.
>t. Thilo von Trotha, Tactical Studies on the Battles around Plevna, 207-210.

>>64013263
>>64014310
Military tacticians at that time were well aware of how valuable trenches were for the defender. It's why the germans pushed so hard in the first year and were willing to go through belgium. The advantage trenches conferred tot the defender were considered to be too great to allow the enemy to entrench.

>>64025709
I honestly consider it pretty meh, I just recognized the pic.

>200 yd engagement in the crowded streets of Fallujah is the exact same as half a mile of open territory across no-man's land
I miss when underage noguns were b& on site

>>64025709
>new
>implying mandatory sissy/femboy hypno for manlets hasn't been around for years now
Lurk moar desu

How come autoloading rifles were not used in world war 1? You’d think that the entire world would adopt them right as they’re mature enough for military use, which they were. Autoloading pistols existed at that time (we used the 1911), but service rifles were still manual action. What gives?

>>64030440
>round ball muskets were horrendously innacurate
They did minute of man at point blank range. Given the uncorrected eye problems, lack of training, and how accurate your range estimation has to be to not send a Minie ball overhead of into the dirt the ranges at which line infantry engaged in the ACW weren't dramatically greater than Waterloo. The main game changer was the near universal adoption of 12-pounders as field artillery.

>>64033697
Every major nation developed them before WW1 started but they had tons of issues. Reliability tended to be shit, quite a few were complicated and expensive to manufacture and most would shit the bed if they got anywhere near dirt.
Some like the Mauser M1916 were solely used in the air forces before MGs became common there because the risk of getting dirty was way lower.

>>64033697
>they’re mature enough for military use
They weren't. The material science wasn't quite there, and the pressures and temperatures of a full-power rifle cartridge are a different beast than a .32acp where you can use straight blowback. It also didn't help that a lot of the guns were using rimmed cartridges.

You can look at the autoloader trials of the 20s and 30s to see how hard it is to do. And honestly, autoloaders don't improve squad firepower as much as a good LMG.

>>64033697
there were no autoloading rifles in 1914 that were cheap and robust enough to be used in war, especially when you consider the rifles rounds they were using at the time. plus yurop was full of poorfag retards

>>64033715
>Given the uncorrected eye problems
myopia is a modern issue. people back then didn't have that shit because they didn't stay inside and read all the time. there's documentation for boomer eye and attempts to correct boomer eye going back thousands of years but myopia only starts showing up in relatively modern history

>>64034972
>myopia is a modern issue
Man I wish I had your confidence.
>The difference between the near-sighted and far-sighted people was noted already by Aristotle.[160] Graeco-Roman physician Galen first used the term "myopia" (from Greek words "myein" meaning "to close or shut" and "ops" (gen. opos) meaning "eye") for near-sightedness.[160]
>The first spectacles for correcting myopia were invented by a German cardinal in the year 1451.[161] Johannes Kepler in his Clarification of Ophthalmic Dioptrics (1604) first demonstrated that myopia was due to the incident light focusing in front of the retina. Kepler also showed that myopia could be corrected by concave lenses.[160]
>In 1632, Vopiscus Fortunatus Plempius examined a myopic eye and confirmed that myopia was due to a lengthening of its axial diameter.[162]

>>64035113
now read further down the wikipedia article to environmental concerns and the myopia rates from 1940 to present day. it's a modern issue, not a historical one. boomer eye is a normal historical issue most people delt with but myopia is very much a modern plague brought on by people staying indoors and reading shit too close to their eyes when they were kids. a bunch of chinamen countries are passing laws requiring schools to send the kids outside for x hours a day to combat myopia

>>64034972
Just because myopia has increased, didn't mean that the portion of troops with myopia, asigmatism, etc in the 19th century was trivial.

You're just asserting some imaginary gigachad past, but when guys like Hess go look at ACW smalls arms fire, you have a lot of bad shooting for a variety of reasons.

>>64035156
>>64035113
>>64033715
I'm not imagining some "giga chad past"
>Among children, it affects 1% of rural Nepalese, 4% of South Africans, 12% of people in the US, and 37% in some large Chinese cities.[2][3] In China the proportion of girls is slightly higher than boys.[24] Rates have increased since the 1950s.[23] Uncorrected myopia is one of the most common causes of vision impairment globally along with cataracts, macular degeneration, and vitamin A deficiency.[23][25][26][27]
myopia is very much a modern illness less likely to affect people in the past who spent more time outdoors and less time in the dark inside reading up close
>People, and children especially, who spend more time doing physical exercise and outdoor play, have lower rates of myopia,[55][54][56][57][41]
vitamin A deficiency probably had a greater effect on vision issues for older populations than myopia because people back then couldn't read and spent more time outside in the sun

>>64035187
>vitamin A deficiency probably had a greater effect on vision issues for older populations than myopia because people back then couldn't read and spent more time outside in the sun
So there were a bunch of uncorrected vision problems in the 19th century that would have effected their marksmanship now?

>>64035206
>So there were a bunch of uncorrected vision problems in the 19th century that would have effected their marksmanship now?
nope. vitamin A deficiency causes night blindness and for it to be bad enough to cause day issues someone who is vitamin A deficient would also be anemic, more prone to infection and possibly just straight up fucking blind. IE probably not fit for military service in the first place
basically you are a gay blind retard who has myopia because you don't touch grass

>>64033749
>>64033781
>>64034963
That’s my mistake. It did occur to me after I posted that “wait, self loading rifles were not ready for Primetime, why did I think/say they would be?”. I don’t even think non-potato-digger gas operation existed back then.

It’s just a little wild to think that pistols and SMGs were way ahead of infantry rifles - the principal fighting implement - back then.

M1903 - bolt action, 5 rounds
M1911 - self-loading, 7 rounds
Thompson - self-loading, up to 100 rounds

>>64036419
it's not that shocking. in the 1800s the henry and colt dragoon were both able to fire multiple rounds but the first repeater in .45-70 was the marlin 1881.
It's both harder to make a gun that is capable of firing a full rifle round and most militaries didn't want it because they didn't want the extra expense both in terms of the gun itself and ammunition expenditures

>>64036524
This, the difference from pistol to rifle and black powder to smokeless was big. Well and the economic cost.
Afaik extraction with full size rounds was considered one of the reasons why the Luger rifle never got adopted, although no one knows for sure.

>>63966398 (OP)
Black powder is slower burning and less reliable, so you want a longer barrel for complete combustion. Also better manufacturing and alloys has allowed for a higher chamber pressure and faster burning powders.

>>63971395
>black powder loads benefit from longer barrels
>No more than smokeless loads do.
Old timey black powder is less reliable, less consistent, and was exposed more to moisture. To use higher chamber pressures in shorter barrels you need finer, faster burning powder. At a lower reliability you run a higher risk of misfires and barrel bursting overpressure. Also loose black powder charges are measured by the rifleman, meaning some loads will be hotter or anemic.

Use a longer barrel and larger grain size and you have a safer, more reliable weapon. Modern brass cartridges are well sealed and modern smokeless powder is milled to a precise grain size.

>>64030440
>shorter carbines because there was a serious chance you might accidentally shoot the rank in front of you in the back, by trying to fire over their shoulder while they reload, and having the bullet drift off course
Would it not be more about having the forward ranks behind the blast of the muzzle rather than the bullet? Blast is dangerous at short range.

>>63967339
But you still don't want to touch them with a ten-foot pole.

Kek.

>>64051519
What about an eleven foot pole?

>>63978641
>Now thank your god of choice for carbines, artillery, air support, and drones.
Yeah Anon it's so much better to just be instantly vaporized by a drone/artillery with zero warning or ability to respond. Modern warfare is more horrific than ever before. At least the man with a point stick has a decent chance of survival if he holds the pointy stick right, meanwhile the modern soldier has zero agency.

>>63966398 (OP)
1. Until the trench lines really set in calvary chargers were a dangerous threat to any infantry formation. Having a couple guys with pikes to ward off the nutjobs swinging a sword charging you was very helpful as the rest of the group shot them. Having the longer pointy stick in the age of muzzle loading rifles was also very helpful if you were insane enough to actually get in a bayonet fight.
2. Fire by rank also benefits from a longer barrel so you don't accidentally brain the guy in the next rank.
3. Early powders benefited a lot from those longer barrels and their longer sight radius just as they do today

>>63966403
shoots harder, simple as

>>63966398 (OP)
Line warfare succeeded Pike and Shot after the invention of the bayonet, now everyone has a pike and musket instead of half and half

OP is not a critical thinker

>>64033697
>How come autoloading rifles were not used in world war 1?
They were. The frogs built around 90k RSCs (including factory-standard 1918s, as opposed to converted 1917s). It's just that idiot generals still had the retarded idea that giving the average infantryman a self-loading rifle was a waste of ammo. Had frog generals been less retarded (and frogland less crazy poorfag after the war), they could've kept improving the design, instead of reverting to bolt-actions.

>>63971662
This makes me seethe every time it’s posted

>>64058183
Put on the fucking dress manlet

>>64058208
I’m a lanklet faggot and jealous of manlets though

>>64057083
he's been bumping this thread from page 10 for a month now

>>63971662
im sorry for being short

>>64060148
Please put on the dress, “sir”. It’s for your own good.

>>63966495
>tallest roman soldier

>>64058256
serendipity

>>64046904
indeed

>>64056679
?

>>63966495
It would be neat if healthy people like him made children together so we could have a actual dwarf race.

>>64071957
dwarve or dwarf

>>63966398 (OP)
Because in those days the guns needed to be able to perform double-duty as an anti-cavalry polearm. Shorter barrels started appearing after WW1 when cavalry was becoming obsolete.

>>63966398 (OP)
Muskets used to have super long barrels because they used black powder. it simply wasn't feasible to use small caliber projectiles or short barrels
>but why did they use long barreled rifles in smokeless powder weapons
institutional inertia. military procurement boomers are generally hyperfocused on service weapon ballistics and are unwilling to compromise or adopt a weapon that does "less damage" than the previous weapon.
there was literally nothing preventing people from making a 5.56 equivalent cartridge in the fucking 1890's, it was just a case of nobody realizing it was something they wanted

In the age of shot, reloading times were the main issue because mass produced rifles were for volley fire. Firing at ranks of enemies, you might hit an arm, leg, or shoot one person through another. A .50cal musket ball is no joke and took no longer to reload.

Right through the black powder period, the muzzle velocity of rounds was very low (by modern standards) so a lighter bullet would have hit like a .22

Then you get to early cartridges, and carbine rifles did catch on very quickly. All you cowboy repeaters, falling block rifles, shotguns, a lot were carbine length. Why not smaller? Nobody was in a vehicle, in a home, there was no driver to reduce muzzle energy.
In terms of caliber, I suspect most civilian rifles were for large game, so people were all used to shooting fud before enlisting, and whether or not you could kill a horse was still a relevant consideration.

By ww1, effective range was important. Smaller calibre isn't useful in campaigns, it's only valuable for assaults. Assault rifles. Campaigns were often fairly static, trench based, so you could fire as slowly as you liked and didn't have to carry ammo. And when you made an assault it was in waves, where the main issue was simply jumping into the enemies trench, and rifles were often just used as spears.

The assault rifle would have actually lost you the battle in many periods

>>64071957
Not trying to be an asshole, but "dwarfism" is a birth defect, an unstable mutation that is not consistent.

For example, he could marry and bang another "dwarf" chick, but their kids could be 7ft tall for one or two generations and then their great grandchild has the "dwarfism" they have.

>>63966398 (OP)
Purely psychological and social factors.

Note that I am not claiming that smaller, shorter guns aren't more effective overall in a war.
This has nothing to do with the dynamic, however.

Back in these days, a man was supposed to rise to the occasion.
Something is hard? Something is difficult? Overcome it.
The rifle is long and holding it up requires more strength, holding it steady requires more practice?
Well then, become strong, and practice.
The idea that a gun would be too heavy, too long, and too difficult to wield didn't even enter peoples mind.
It was the task of the soldier to rise to the occasion.
We're now a much weaker society, mentally, than back then. It is ok now for men to be weak, effeminate, to admit that weakness, to EMBRACE it, to not even make excuses for it, no, to make it what you are: WEAK.
This has lead to broad social decline, which is visible all around us.
It has lead to niggers roaming free, women voting, children being castrated and turned into "women", and rule of the jews so strong they do not even try to hide it anymore.
And you wonder why the fuck it has become the default to make guns smaller and smaller and easier to use?
It is the degradation of manhood, obviously.

The M16 was the first ubiquitous gun to use significant amounts of plastic.
Plastics and the VOC they emit have dumpstered male testosterone.

COINCIDENCE? I think not. The very chemicals leaking from the M16 handguard, grip and stock into your skin are the very chemicals which made accept it. Ironic.

>>63966398 (OP)
Rifling wasn't really able to be done reliably and consistently at an affordable cost until the late 19th century. Longer barrels were the only way known to improve accuracy in smooth bore weaponry.
Even then, military tactics did not just update overnight. Hell, one of the first wars where both sides were using rifled barrel long guns was the US civil war and they were still using tactics that relied on smooth bore musket fire. Mainly northern forces, the Confederate soldiers had been using rifled barrels for long range hunting for a few years and didn't go through standard military training nowhere near as much which resulted in the average Southern soldier typically killing Union soldiers at longer distances because they weren't taught not to fight that way. This explained the early gains from the Confederacy in the conflict and they started doing worse as time went on (for a lot of reasons) and changing their tactics to more formal tactics was a contributing factor.

Honestly, having a drastically outnumbered and under supplied side in a conflict fight on the terms of the more advantaged army is just asking to get your shit kicked in.

>>64074770
yes

>>64074554
>there was literally nothing preventing people from making a 5.56 equivalent cartridge in the fucking 1890's,
horses were still an issue until the mass adoption of the machine gun and constantina, or however you spell it, wire. I don't trust .223 out of a single shot or bolt gun to reliably kill an horse

>>64074738
>A .50cal musket ball is no joke and took no longer to reload.
weren't muskets bigger than .50 cal because they had to kill horses?

>>63966398 (OP)
The decline of general infantry rifle performance coincided with the maturation of military radio.
Within the civilian context a kill is a bullet on a bullseye and nothing else but the way rifles are used in the military context is totally different. M4 Carbine shooting M855 has a max acceptable MOA of 5 which sounds horrible but is pretty in line with military rifle accuracy. This is because the biggest killers on the battlefield are not bullets but explosives. Hand grenades to mortars to tank shells to 155mm to JDAMs.
While the rifle is not completely useless it is no longer the singular absolute dominating factor that it used to be. This makes it more of a tool to help deliver fire support.
Combine with Suppress and Maneuver.
Suppress and Maneuver is used because every gaggle of retards led by a semi-experienced NCO can pull it off. Suppress the enemy to prevent their Maneuver, Maneuver when enemy is Suppressed.
You hit the enemy and they die.
You suppress the enemy until you can call fire support.
You Maneuver into a position so superior it doesn't matter what you shoot them with.
In this context a larger volume of accurate enough fire is more important than power per shot.

>>64078819
>weren't muskets bigger than .50 cal because they had to kill horses?
"Musket" started out as a term to describe super-heavy arquebus that were fired from a support (basically man-portable wall guns) but the term was was used for muzzle-loading longarms all the way until in the 19th century.

Assuming that you're talking about muskets in the older sense of the word, they were certainly bigger than .50 and often by a lot. Most arquebus were somewhere between .45 and 1 cal. but it wasn't uncommon for muskets to have bore diameters of 2+ inches.

>>63966398 (OP)
yes

>>64078819
no

>>63966398 (OP)
powder burn was inefficient and took a fair bit of the barrel to burn before desired velocity was achieved

also a longer barrel was easier to keep dry because of the grime inside caught a lot of the dew before collecting deeper inside, so they cleaned it less

why do we have like three threads up that are weeks old and aren't anywhere near reaching bump limit?

>>64081352
see >>64058497

>>64081352
We're currently either serving as an AI test bed, experiencing a really terrible attempt by gookmoot/mods to simulate activity via post bots, or there's an extremely gay contest by offsite shitters.

>>64081352
what's the third thread? I know there is the barrel length one and the muzzle loader one

>>64079289
What did you say?

>>63966495
>5'7

>>63966398 (OP)
yes

>>63966398 (OP)
How is this thread even still up?

What happened to /k/

>>64082878
there's the headlock one also. I guess you could also include the /k/ wiki thread but that's producing actual content and isn't some shutin faggot desperately keeping his thread from being slid with one-word bumps ever 10-12 hours

>>64086913
some faggot keeps necrobumping this thread, the musket thread, and several others, see >>64086967 and he's mostly doing it by posting replies that are just post numbers with no text and deleting it. if you go to an archive there are like 80 deleted posts for this thread of just bumps with no text other than a post number

>>63967204
buckbroken

>>63966398 (OP)
Lmao you pathetic barrellets never fail to make me laugh with your "SBR" threads. Face it, most rifles will be infinitely more effective than your sad pistols will ever be. You are shooting mall ninja 7.62x39, get over it larpers

>>64056639
>meanwhile the modern soldier has zero agency.
It's not true.
Read "it's all quite in the Western front ". How veterans had whole different level of survival comparing to fresh recruits on supposedly mechanical slaughter by artillery WWI front.
Perception of Russian Ukrainian war is distorted by both sides grinding frontline troops to death with no dismiss. If you survive round 1 you just die in round 2-3-4-5 etc. There is no escape. Good troops die, just latter. But in drones wars there dozens things soldier can do right to massively increase his chances of survival.

>>64074770
>Longer barrels were the only way known to improve accuracy in smooth bore weaponry.
Length of barrel had no effect I. Smooth bore. They deviate off target because of Magnus effect (and you didn't know that before my post) and barrel length for does nothing to Magnus effect. Increase of caliber mildly helps.

>>63976255
kentucky/pennsylvania long rifles (both rifled and smoothbore) aren't though, which was the class of weapon that post was about.

>>64011859
>that greatly affects velocity
It doesn't though, because the blast speed of black powder is quite slow. It just doesn't have the oompfh to move the bullet quickly, no matter how long the barrel is.

>>63966398 (OP)
>5 foot, five inches.
You're insane, 5 foot 8 or 10

>>64013168
Machine guns get all the glory but primary changes were artillery.
WWI is when indirect artillery fire hit mainstream. Before artillery fired direct fire at targets you can see from gun position, artillery batwrris were generally located on crests of the hills ro long line of sights and range of fire. But if you sn see enemy enemy can see you and target you artillery positions with their own artillery and rifle fire (thus pressure to turn infantry rifle into micro canon with ladders sights, no firing at 2000 meters targets was absolutely real). So meta was "big battalions still win". Enemy has cannons? Whatever bring more canons and suppress enemy artillery with your fire than push infantry forward (also infantry rifle was adding it's weight inro distance fire combat, during Boers wars it was routine when mousers rifles infantry suppressed artillery batteries).

But technical progress of telephone created new tactics first widely used by Japanese in 1904-1905 war. Artillery was located behind terrain, behind hills, or recers slopes, on crests was only located artillery observers they run telephone line back to artillery battery. Artillery fired at targets guns didn't see and guns themselves wer invisible to return fire.
It turned meta upside-down. OP. Can't be countered. You have more guns doesn't matter. Where do you fire? You don't see enemy. Artillery is behind hill, and artillery observers are small l, easily hidden and you can quickly construction solid fortifications to protect them for artillery fire.
You send big battalions of infantry forward and they all get slaughtered by artillery shrapnel fire from guns nobody sees from guns they cant be suppressed. It win Japanese war but nobody paid any serious attention (lol asian retards fighting).
And that artillery progress created WWI stalemate meta.

>>64101841
And I should add that drone meta is artillery WWI 2.0 meta. Drones have qualities of artillery. They hit targets when drone teams stay back hidden and protected. And drones fixed Achilles Heel of artillery: tanks. Inderect artillery fire is no good against tanks and other AFVs. Real Anti tank weapons were direct fire in the past. And that allowes of tactics "big battalions forward" to win. Because direct fire weapons are visible to return fire.
You just send more tanks into attack and in direct fire exchange your bigger numbers win.

With inderect weapons drones meta ta ks are countered too. They move forward only to be easily killed by drones without any chance to see enemy and fire at them. Just like WWI infantry that marched into shrapnel fire over no mans land.

>>64102644
>this retarded thread has been up for a month now
Bumpfagging should be a ban worthy offense

>>64079289
Go back to /pol/.

>>63966398 (OP)
>>let's give him a 5 foot long musket with a 20" bayonet
So it bypasses his fellow soldiers head in the front rank facilitating massed volley fire
>>63966398 (OP)
>It's not like they were doing volley fire
stopped reading right there that is exacly what they were doing

>>64079289
Futher to that artillery always mattered even in small guns like 4lbders that moved with company sized elements, these were by far the most effective weapon on the battlefield, they had the opposite effect causinng the enemy to try and disperse formation as theyw ere more effective on close formation, thus also reducinng the enemies ability to deliver massed folley fire effectively..

TLDR 18th Century and Napoleonic warfare tactics and weapons were highly evolved, worked out to the last detail and muskets and their use wre employed with great intelligence and respect for what was optimal
>>64103288
His post was good yours is offtopic and facetious

>>63976825
What was their nutrition like?
You guys tend to leave that out for some reason.

>>64098523
>"SBR" threads
the main reason this is sub-retarded is the sheer quantity of money *in gov taxes and compliance* alone, to end up with something that isn't even select fire. It's not even hilarious
then there's "PCCs" which is another order of magnitude, retarded (and also, are not select fire for the thousands $$$ poured into them)
Yet giga-threads with hundreds of pictures and pokemon-accesory discussions about the proper flash hider
I can't even

>>64013168
It was used extensively in the American civil war. Trench warfare is used when neither side has an overwhelming advantage

>>64013168
The Petersburg mine explosion in the civil war was the biggest man made explosion ever until ww1>>64035113

>>64035113
Myopia is caused by reading to close.

>>63966398 (OP)
Longer rifle means more precise at longer range, meaning back in napoleonic times it meant shooting the other guy before he shot you. Then when you put a bayonet on it, it translated into stabbing the other guy before he stabbed you.

This only really changed when fighting moved more into cities and jungles/forests and rate of fire changed priority from range and precision to volume and weight.

>>63966398 (OP)
So you’re saying I’m tall by soldier standards?

Put your mind back.
>Smokeless powder had been in wide-spread use for less than 60 years when ww2 ended.
>Smokeless powder opened up entirely now avenues for firearms that had been limited by Black powder
>institutional and industrial internia slows things down (you need a long barrel and big bullet to get the most out of BP, you need a long barrel and Big bullet to make the most out of the new smokeless.
>The advent of smokeless had generals thinking that riflemen would make artillery unnecessary because now they could shoot over kilometers
>thinking was still based around mass formations and controlled fire, the individual solider wasn't expected to think
Look at any comparative technologies and you will see it went though many changes before you get the refined products we have today
>what we're they thinking when they designed the first cars? Why didn't they use the design we use now

>>63966398 (OP)
> why did they give extra long rifles and bayonets to soldiers at a time where byonet warfare was still very common
we may never know

>>64114012
>>64123922
/thread

>>63966398 (OP)
below a certain size black powder pellets become uncontrollably powder and not pellets. Which is a problem because then the burn rate is similarly unknown and dependent on things like ramming, partial burn etc. So there is a lower bound on BP burn time. Long barrels help incrementally. Allow slower more regulated powder, more of it, all burnt etc.

>>64130820
Stop fucking bumpfagging

>my remington 760 thread gets instadeleted with no warning or ban or anything
>this thread is still up

>>64058183
You seethe over scenarios somebody else made up in their head and put on paper?

>>64122787
>Longer rifle means more precise at longer range
no they are smoothbore muskets not rifles and are not more accurate because of longer barrels, the muskets are long so when fired with a front and rear rank they extend past the heads of the front rank aqnd yes, so they are more useful with bayonets fitted.

>>63966398 (OP)
Blackpowder has a low acceleration rate so even what would nowadays be an absurd length adds to the overall burn efficiency and velocity
Blackpowder wasn't great a lot of the time and it hadn't always been stored right so it didn't always ignite properly, since a longer barrel has a longer burn time there is a longer period of time for all of the powder to ignite
Bullets weren't always great either, a longer dwell time increases deformation uniformity resulting in better terminal ballistics

>>64100902
what
are you retarded
do you think it's just the burning of the powder pushing the bullet forward like it's a fucking rocket?
how are you on /k/ but lack a basic understand of how fucking firearms work?

>>63967204

Baker Rifle
Had sights my man.

Not sure where you are getting your info.

>>64130826
He never will

>>64102650
We can do something about it

>>64103288
kys

>>63966398 (OP)
die

>>63966403
true

>>63966416
dumb frogposter

>>63966419
where range does in fact trump other variables, great example

>>63966495
>Clapistan
>bait pic
disregarded

>>63966600
>ridden down
run down. to be run down

>>63966739
he's a faggot

>>63966755
>i-it's not a carbine if its length hurts my feelings

>>63966868
>the box marked stupids

>>63966919
cite a source that isn't weighted toward the explosion of the third world population

>>63967069
nutrition has only improved

>>63967076
he's being bullied by his top about his reenactment kink

>>63967204
he doesn't know the difference or why rifles are called rifles

>>63967218
so, worse

>>63967339
they used a hard R back then

>>63967343
comparing different eras
big gay

>>63968719
kwab

>>63971395
cool story

>>63971436
polearm

>>63971505
knower

>>63971631
he doesn't care about the distinction

>>63971662
now do women

>>63971672
what was the performance delta between rifled and smoothbore examples of the same model?

>>63971699
nobel

>>63971715
then everyone clapped

>>63972838
neat

>>63975141
the gun and its development pilled

>>63976000
Imagine this OP sent back to that era. He would be crying and pissing and shidding over how hard everything was for brainlets

>>63976029
maybe there's a pink unicorn

>>63976069
thanks google

>>63976255
wrong gun

>>63976312
what is the noncentral fallacy

>>63976369
yup

>>63976825
based, so fucking zased

>>63976889
i wonder why all his posts are deleted

>>63978641
no thanks
i'm calling in a jdam from my hot pocket shack instead

>>63978661
hentai brother

>>63978884
every japanese publication is some boku no pika pika commiezawa sounding ass thing

>>63978952
Sieging strongholds was the focus of warfare for centuries

>>63979602
good cover
very convincing

>>63979701
he knew what he was doing

>>63979805
nah

>>63979949
>no reply
jej

>>63980531
usually lmao

>>63980553
same

>>63980558
true

>>63980666
environmental factors and digits

>>63983943
the purpose of a grunt has always been to exist as a warm body at the last mile of a logistics train that actually wins the war

>>63988716
do it

>>63989062
"millennial musket" is a horribly cringe name though

>>63995908
both a faggot and a retard

>>63995941
F for effort

>>63996485
he didn't even include a mutt reference

>>64004448
solved by bombs

>>64004551
now do russia

>>64004579
fuddlore

>>64006271
it was justified

>>64006351
hindsight is 9/11

>>64007783
and still evading

>>64009123
aim for the fat cunt with a sword

>>64011859
the fireball is what makes them cool

>>64012138
i thought it was the barrels

>>64013137
aren't you?

>>64013168
no

>>64013196
>no sauce

>>64013197
he was exceptionally lazy and incompetent though, not the rule

>>64013227
artillery was the bigger factor

>>64013256
EEEEEE

>>64013263
WW1 alpha test

>>64013924
it was a based retard affair

>>64014231
saying things is fun

>>64014242
fact checked by true felons

>>64014310
nothing about that war mattered because of the location

>>64014461
such is life

>>64018353
we've been abandoned to this fate

>>64018688
he's a nogunz

>>64020223
suicide is a good option for you

>>64020709
>A difference in height, within normal ranges, simply represents scale.
This is not true. Proportions and leverages differ significantly by height. Strongmen who are giants with short guy proportions are exceptionally rare.

>>64020715
why not?

>>64020722
after too

>>64020970
congenital terminal gay

>>64022031
die in a fire

>>64023147
reasons

>>64025709
shad to see

>>64028872
Jacketed projectiles took a lot longer than technologically necessary

>>64030440
"drift" wasn't nearly that big of a problem

>>64030511
it's funny how the natural endgame of formations is dispersion but nobody wants to accept this

>>64033263
pining for the fjords
yearning for a habbo raid

>>64033276
only for the cute ones anon

>>64033697
cmon man

>>64033715
this

>>64033749
>covers your M1916 in castor oil

>>64033781
hatcher has good info on this

>>64035113
kepler was a pretty cool dude

>>64035156
yet another deleted post

>>64035206
golden rice was a crime against the western world. indians can see their computer screens now

>>64036419
They were ahead because of the cartridge size, almost entirely.

>>64038009
it should have been

>>64046895
remember to salute and tip your local metallurgist

>>64046904
grain size isn't nearly as important as uniformity

>>64047213
no, this wasn't practiced

>>64051519
one prefers not to touch them at all

>>64056606
Ideal length is 13+

>>64056639
>Modern warfare is more horrific than ever before.
Yeah but the *thought* of tac nukes and fighting through CBRN was supa scawwy and arguably the peak of war is hell posting

>>64056679
>if you were insane enough to actually get in a bayonet fight
It happened frequently at the culmination of battles

>>64056738
zinc and arginine bro

>>64057074
poor man's pike

>>64057083
true, he's a degen

>>64057113
they should have given them to me

>>64058183
ywnbacaff

>>64058208
it's not a fucking dress til at least 9pm. have some decorum. dayfucking like some chronically unemployed savage...

>>64058256
this is ppanon isn't it

>>64060148
never apologize for being fuckable

>>64060220
>please
ngmi. show, don't tell.

>>64064743
whitest too

>>64071957
dwarves don't work like that, sadly

>>64074532
the combination weapons that preceded the guns in question were shorter though

>>64074554
so much this

>>64074738
If it takes minutes / tens of minutes either way, you might as well boremaxx

>>64074753
we'll have gene editing for it by then, but yeah

>>64074757
I hope you wrote this with chatgpt

>>64074770
mid-19th in germany

>>64079289
Rifles were never the "singular absolute dominating factor"

>>64079599
>in french

>>64081344
hey i wonder if anyone said this yet

>>64081352
one debased retard with nothing better to do

>>64081358
very informative stuff

>>64081364
>experiencing a really terrible attempt by gookmoot/mods to simulate activity
Are you the guy who complains about "engagement" threads? The site hack should have taught you that your entire model of how 4chan works behind the scenes is wrong. The staff barely even register the content of the website. They're completely checked out and they would never put in the blood and sweat to prop up the boards.
>AI
one faggot who clicks a button to quote, a captcha box, and "post" followed by selecting the post with 4chanx to delete after a minute. It's that simple.

>>64084852
hollywood 5'7" (4'1")

>>64086913
it's ok, i'm here now

>>64086967
the wiki thread has an obvious mandate

>>64098523
nobody is shooting 7.62x39

>>64098814
>it's all quite in the Western front
amazing use of language

>>64098827
>(and you didn't know that before my post)
hahahaha holy shit

>>64100875
Jamie, pull up the adult literacy stats

>>64100902
dude what

>>64101510
nah

>>64101841
>>64101855
>And I should add that drone meta is artillery WWI 2.0 meta
You really should have led with that

>>64114012
what if it's not bait? what if it's truly his unvarnished, dogbrained, underage b& understanding of history? what then

>>64147196
got you

>>64146460
you can can these "zoomers"

>>64101841
>And that artillery progress created WWI stalemate meta.
WW1 stalemate is overstated
stalemate was already broken at the end of 1916, when germans were forced to give up on any hope of winning to losing slow enough that the allies would get tired

the frontline was progressively shrinking and the germans decided to an armistice right as the allies were about to enter germany, so they could claim that they were never invaded in WW1 (because they gave up)

both sides had effectively found ways to end the stalemate and use artillery superiority to overcome trenches
but the allies with their superior stocks of manpower and material were the ones to actually sieze that

Bless the king driving up the post count and getting this artificially long-lived thread to bump limit. Get fucked necrotard lmfao

>>64151024
i second this notion

necrotard should scratch his eyes out

>>63966398 (OP)
Man I miss being a teenager and reading Garry James' articles on milsurp

>>64004551
>Anon, the average German soldier was 6 feet
Post your source of this information

>>64011859
>black powder is much slower burning than modern powders
No, it's an explosive.

>>64014231
You are incorrect but go ahead keep repeating that bullshit

>>64046895
You've never burned black and smokeless powder before

>>63966403
This was basically the logic until after WWII when they finally realized that it was pointless to equip everyone with gigantic rifles that have an effective range further than the human eye can even see in a time before weapon mounted optics were a common thing.

>>64151024
np