531
Anon studies history
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
531 points (97.3% liked)
Greentext
4281 readers
711 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well written and all.
However I'd like to point out that even modern warfare, despite how much it's changed (take for instance rather basic troops having access to small drones to drop grenades with into foxholes and trenches), kinda the basics remain: you have men advance to a position by any means necessary.
Since, idk, thousands of years ago when first actually organised militaries appeared, the basics — or "the game", if you will — has been very much the same, but the technology changes "the meta."
When I was sitting lessons in the army in 2009, most of us were wondering why we needed to drill such basic strategies and tactics, and why would they ever matter, because the enemy has thousands of nukes. The lieutenant explained rather well how despite modern weaponry and technology, a lot of the basics of war are still very much the majority of it.
Like for example the Gatling gun made this strategy quite bad, but the Gatling gun wasn't instantly everywhere. It's not like with videogames where the whole game is patched and everyone has to use the new meta because everyone has the same rules. Unlike in real life, where the "meta" changes slowly and not everywhere all at once.
And where one reliable thing is that in war things like new tech can't always be relied upon.
Wars are just so futile nowadays. I get that global cooperation was a practical impossibility even just 50 years ago, but nowadays it really isn't. Case in point, I have no idea which country's army you the reader thought of when I said "army." With probability, American, but I actually talked about the Finnish one.
I've also veered quite far from the original point. Here, have some Doctor Who as compensation:
The Doctor: Because it's not a game, Kate. This is a scale model of war. Every war ever fought right there in front of you. Because it's always the same. When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know who's children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken! How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill until everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning -- sit down and talk! Listen to me, listen. I just -- I just want you to think. Do you know what thinking is? It's just a fancy word for changing your mind.
Case in point, the Germans had an automatic "rifle" if you still (machine/Gatling gun), before the allies in WW2. Guns of the era were far more accurate than the muskets used during older conflicts like the American civil war, but were far from automatic; to my best understanding of it, most were barely semi-automatic and had very limited magazine capacity, often only a handful of round at most. This was a massive step up from the single shot muskets used in previous battles but would not stand up to modern versions of the same which are often more accurate, can fire at much faster rates, and can have a lot more ammunition per magazine.
Looking at schematics of current era rifles, the designs seem so primative compared to the intericacies of other common modern items, like computers and smartphones, but still, even this level of technological advancement was far out of reach of the people from that era. The technology really took off when we started using jacketed self contained rounds, which were easily changed out by mechanisms rather than having to do so by hand (such as with a revolver versus a more modern semi automatic pistol).
I understand why firearms are kept so primative compared to our current level of technology, since they are required to have a high level of reliability and resilience to interference, maintaining a fairly simple mechanism rather than a more complex electronic firing mechanic is preferable. So called "gas powered" weapons have been proven to be effective, reliable and resilient.
I know that more complex systems are used in weapons like missiles and drones to great effect, at the cost of reliability, more or less. The fact is, if you lose a drone or missile which has been launched or controlled many hundreds or thousands of miles away, you've only lost equipment. That's not ideal, but it's better than losing your personnel who represent hundreds or thousands of hours of training, and cannot be replaced on an assembly line. Simply put, human assets are a limited resource in any conflict, so the fewer losses to manpower, the better the outcome regardless of all other factors, since a new drone or missile can be created in a week or a month (even six months or more) which is less time than it takes to make a new person, allow them to develop to the point where they can capably hold and fire a weapon, then train them.... A process that can take upwards of 20 years or more.
In previous eras of battle, there was no choice but to put lives on the line for battle. No alternatives existed, and in the cases of field battle, alternatives still don't exist for man to man combat.
I appreciate the quotes from the doctor. It's nice to see them in the wild. I personally don't believe armed conflict can accomplish anything productive, and should only be used against those who will use it against you (aka, for defense). In the current era, we have the technology to discuss and resolve conflicts without violence, whether through peace talks via telepresence, or over more common communication technology, there's few places where communication isn't possible. Every effort should be made to solve things diplomatically, and only failing that, should force ever be considered.
We're at a point in warfare where we can seriously damage the survivability of humans on Earth, and doing so through warfare seems like a foolish thing to do. Especially if the reason for such conflict is something as idiotic as land ownership or material goods. Global trade has made such things unnecessary. We should be focused on moving forward to an era of peace and cooperation, since society is no longer bound by the trappings of the old empires, where food and land scarcity was significant and having more airable land was critical to survival. We should be pooling resources to bring better living to all peoples of the world. Yet, some are still stuck in the old ways of grabbing power by any means necessary.
And I'm off topic again. Oh well, it is what it is. Maybe some day we will learn that we don't have to fight eachother for the ability to survive.
I think you're referring to the MG 42, which was feared by the allies. as it had such a massive firerate, and despite being inaccurate, was still pretty effective, and definitely demoralising. The Stuka divebomber sound we all know is there solely for the purpose of scaring people. The planes had "Jericho Trumpets" to make the terrifying sound. So the Nazis aren't unfamiliar with terror tactics. With that I'm trying to point out that while the MG 42 was effective and feared, it was pretty much effective because it was feared, not because it was somehow technology the allies didn't have.
The Allies had for instance, the Vickers K gun, capable of similar and higher rpm. The MG 42 suited the strategies of the Germans, but not so much for the Allies, so similar guns weren't really used by infantry, despite the tech being there. They had some of those on planes to protect bombers from fighters. For that, a really high rpm and some inaccuracy is great.
Well, one is electronics, and the other is firearms. You're really comparing the complexity, yes, but the guns being somewhat simple don't make them primitive. Some of them are actually pretty astonishing feats of engineering. Putting together some metal in a way that you can then blow up the metal contraption in a way that doesn't break the contraption but propels a projectile at something. And doing it so well you can use it literally thousands of times before even having to mend the contraption.
But yeah, it is inane that we still focus so much time on this completely inane business of firearms. There's really no need, if we can all be adults and just not shoot each other. I'll much rather focus on the information technology. It can be weaponised as well, if need be, but it isn't so inherent to it's nature.
Well, I mean, sometimes "gas powered weapons" do actually mean weapons propelled by pressurised gas, not explosives. Eg air-rifles. Which sound like kids weapons, but are far from it, and were actually used in war since the earliest firearms. Here's The Girardoni air rifle from 1779. A repeating air rifle with a 20 shot cartridge. It had a manually pumped reservoir that gave the gun the power to shoot 30 shots effective at a 125 yards (114m). 50 caliber balls, at about 600 fps (152 m/s) muzzle velocity. Proved too difficult to manufacture the reservoirs and required extensive training as it wasn't a common weapon. Would've had better technology, but economics and lack of training prevented it from becoming "meta".
That very much depends, tbh. Of course the troops are priceless, but... also, they aren't. Sure yeah, a person becoming a person takes a long time, but training a person to hold a gun and fire isn't too hard. During war, some equipment definitely are more expensive than some people. Which is why some people only get two weeks of basic training and the bare necessities, while others get to fly hundred million dollar planes. The training of those guys, now that's expensive, because you need the equipment to train them with. To train a frontline grunt, you just need the gun they're gonna be shooting with. And some good boots.
However, just pushing grunts out, as a strategy, isn't really a good one long term. Case in point; Russian orcs.
Which kinda brings me back to the point that the game is the same underneath, try to get boots on the ground in a place you wish to rule over or something. The tools change. When the tools are lost, tactics devolve.
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” ― Albert Einstein