Was this the most moronic "strategy" in military history? They just slowly walk to their deaths
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Was this the most retarded "strategy" in military history? They just slowly walk to their deaths
There must have been a reason for it. The reload times on those old muskets were fricking long, like you might get off one shot a minute so you better make sure you don't miss.
It was more like 3 a minute with a musket
>It was more like 3 a minute with a musket
One shot per minute, maybe two on better days
NOW THAT'S SOLDIERIN'
>one shot a minute
thats not soldiering.
reason was arrogance
>World war 1
Literally like 300 years after the subject of the thread. Brainlet
in WW2 most countries in europe were fighting the same way they had been for 500 years.
>Countries in Europe fought with bows and arrows, polearms, and heavy cavalry in ww2
They didn't tell me this in history class
These morons conquered the world and dunked your ancestors into oblivion
OP btfo
>conquered the world and
Excect South America, all of Europe, 95% of Asia.
Hardly the world, dumb goof
>25% of land area and 20% of worlds population
Pretty impressive states, considering the core population size. Close enough to call it world domination, especially compared to their contemporaries
>Excect South America
Very surface level reading. If you were a Brazilian or Argentinian in the 19th century you wouldn't deny that you were conquered by the British, they built your railroads and owned your government's.
They could just blockade any country at any part of the world. Brits ruled the seas
Pic rel. Their global reach was out of scale compared to any other country
There's not too much reason to control the entire world directly, once you've got the largest share of it you can just throw around you weight forcing anyone to do what you want (mainly forcing entry for free trade so British exports could dominate local markets)
>The Unbonged Chad
In the age of blossoming international commerce, ruling the seas is ruling the world. Hence america's billion aircraft carriers
And now look at the state of them lmao
Dunno about brits but Republicans in america have not reduced the federal deficit by even a single penny in well over 40 years. Tell me about the brits.
Dude shut the frick up no one cares. You've posted this multiple times in this thread
>No one cares about debt or defect
Tell that to the Republicans who claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, dumb homosexual.
You're the dumb homosexual dragging unrelated lolbert ramblings into the thread, getting ignored, and then just autistically repeating it.
Fricking sperg.
Dude, when did Republicans last reduce the federal deficit? It has been well over 40 years. Dude, bro.
No one cares you turbo sperg. Holy shit, did you just discover lolbertarianism? Take your autism to /misc/, maybe they'll give a shit
> no one cares about being fiscally responsible
speak for yourself homosexual. The top most deficit reducing presidents are all Democratic.
>>no one cares about being fiscally responsible
>speak for yourself homosexual. The top most deficit reducing presidents are all Democratic.
Rothbard opposed Israel thoughever
still voting gop because they lower my taxes and dems want to ban guns and raise my taxes
>Black powder is actually stronger than modern gunpowder iirc
it isn't. smokeless allows for higher pressure curves. A musket might have more energy than some pistols today, but something like 30-06 has way more energy than a musket ball
a .45-70 was a black powder round adopted by the us in 1873, not sure how it would end up in aus in 1879
b. smokeless powder wasn't invented until 1886 with the lebel and wasn't in civilian rounds until 1894 or 1895. I think there were smokeless pistols in 1894, but the first smokeless civilian round was the .30-30 in 1895. so smokeless really doesn't go with cowboys.
c. I think that armor was for shrapnel/if the bullet hit something and broke and then hit the the armor. no way that stops .30-06 ap at combat ranges, normal armor in 2023 won't stop 30-06 ap
>a .45-70 was a black powder round adopted by the us in 1873, not sure how it would end up in aus in 1879
Yeah I also get messed up with the brief period that we had actual widespread use of contained black powder cartridges before smokeless powder. I'm pretty lacking in expertise on that specific transitional period.
>I think that armor was for shrapnel
Primarily
>if the bullet hit something and broke and then hit the the armor. no way that stops .30-06 ap at combat ranges
I wouldn't think so, at least not normally. But then there are pic related as well. And those stahlhelms which could have an extra quarter inch or so of armor added to the front.
>normal armor in 2023 won't stop 30-06 ap
Guess that depends on your definition of "normal"
I can’t tell if this is ChatGPT or an extremely dedicated schizo.
japan was the only non colonized asian country if you knew history and spain shit all over south america and they're way more moronic than brits.
no, it made sense for the british to use it since they had the biggest land army in the world at the time
But when people started trying out other strategies (hit and run and ambushes) this started to suck really bad
High IQ shitposting
Heavy cavalry charges would frick up any formation
This was answered by returning to huge groups of pikemen
Horsemen started just running in a circle around them firing pistols
This was answered with the Tercio that had both pikes and muskets
In the 30 years war the swedes got the idea to get a shit ton of mobile cannons and decimate these pike and shot formations
The line infantry was the best solution. You could spread out enough to not have the whole group destroyed by a cannonball and also had all your men close enough together to fight off cavalry with their bayonets.
The only reason this tactic became obsolete was the development of semi-automatic rifles and later machine guns in the mid 1800s
Someone's read Voltaire.
it became obsolete by the civil war when they made the miniball and everyone had rifled muskets. It's just everyone was a moron and had to do what napolian did which resulted in those line infantry shootings getting comically farther and farther apart and way more men dying.
Also machine guns predate semi auto rifles. The Maxim was in 1884 and the gatling gun was 1861.
The first semi auto rifle to get large scale military adoption was the Fusil Automatique Modèle 1917 in 1917 and the first semi auto to get universal adoption by a military was the M1 Garand in the USA in 1936 (or like 1942 when the marines actually got them).
I think you mean repeaters, but lever guns were never really adopted on a large scale and the first largely adopted repeating bolt action was the Vetterli in 1869
I'm a cat
Actually pretty well stated.
>Heavy cavalry charges would frick up any formation
>This was answered by returning to huge groups of pikemen
>Horsemen started just running in a circle around them firing pistols
>This was answered with the Tercio that had both pikes and muskets
>In the 30 years war the swedes got the idea to get a shit ton of mobile cannons and decimate these pike and shot formations
>The line infantry was the best solution. You could spread out enough to not have the whole group destroyed by a cannonball and also had all your men close enough together to fight off cavalry with their bayonets.
>The only reason this tactic became obsolete was the development of semi-automatic rifles and later machine guns in the mid 1800s
The patrician post.
You forget that the pistols and muskets at that time(30 years war) where extremly inaccurate and probably had an effective range of 30-50 meter. Unless you are in tight formation and can fire huge volleys.
Maybe I am confused, what period are we talking about? Are we talking victorian era or early 1600? Or the 1700s?
>I get my history from Reddit headlines
play in traffic
>Hit and run and ambushes
It's called guerilla warfare you fricking idiot and it wasn't new. Stop posting if you have zero knowledge about the topic
It was called that in the peninsular war, yeah. Absolutely anachronistic term to even THINK about using before that date. You should be ashamed of yourself. Get the frick off the blue boards, scum.
>But when people started trying out other strategies (hit and run and ambushes) this started to suck really bad
The terrain mattered. You can't do guerilla tactics in an open field.
just hide under the grass
>You can't do guerilla tactics in an open field.
Tell that to the Taliban wew lad
They did it in caves
what the frick do you think the 95th rifles did? you absolutely could do that during the revolutionary war and the napolianic wars by having skirmishers with rifles vs someone's musket line
>since they had the biggest land army in the world at the time
Painfully innacurate.
The British Army was notably small throughout the entire Imperial Era, hence why Germany didn’t give a shit about invading Belgium in WW1.
>broadly grouping a set of dates 200 years apart just so you can obesely type "painfully inaccurate"
go back to /k/ moron, some of us on Cinemaphile actually know history
Aside from the main line soldiers they litterally had "Hit and run" Units during the Napoleonic wars to do shit like bait the other countries line into sending volleys.
bongs didn't have a big land army compared to the yuros
it was to stop horse charges and because it was hard to coordinate all those men otherwise with no radios as well as to concentrate fire. It wasn't that bad for getting a bunch of dudes killed until that french homosexual Minié invented the miniball, which allowed soldiers to shoot accurately with rifled muskets from way further away and made the musket fire cause way more casualties than it did before the US civil war.
Literally the opposite, Anglos had the biggest navy but a very small army. That’s why whenever they fought on the continent they always had the French, Germans or Russians do the heavy lifting for them. Typically Waterloo:80% of the army was German.
The British army was relatively small because they were the only country in Europe to primarily use volunteers. It was man for man the best army due to higher standards of training and equipment, but it also had a crippling weakness of incompetent officers being able to buy their way as high as colonel and generals having to ‘tard wrangle Parliament
>But when people started trying out other strategies (hit and run and ambushes) this started to suck really bad
Britain was one of the first European powers to develop skirmishing regiments (mainly to counter the Injun mercenaries the French hired during the 7 Years War, then to counter the American militias)
Line infantry didn't fail against skirmishers because they're for 2 completely different contexts, guerilla attacks do a lot of damage against an unprepared moving column but they're pretty fricking useless against lines of infantry on a battlefield
The tactic Sweden used, which for a time oviously worked really well, was called "walk them down". The infantry litterly walked twoards the enemy and no matter the amount of casualties they would advance untill they where very close. Shoot once and then draw steel(or as in many cases, use the rifle as a melee weapon) and charge. This was very demoralizing for the enemy and the swedish troops where very well trained in this sort of combat.
I am not familiar with cavalry tactics or any other tactics besides this doctrine for the infantry. All I know is that we had good cavalry. The Hakkapeliitta units from Finland(then part of Sweden) are worth mentioning because of their reputiation.
Some people would maybe ask how it is possible for someone to mentally be capable of marching twoards musket fire and cananballs and not even hesitate one step. One explination might be the theological/philosophical sentiments at the time, in Sweden anyways. The idea is that God has already decided if you are going to die in that battle or not. Therefore there is nothing you can do to change it. If that is the case, then you have no reason to be afraid because it is out of your hands anways. Thus removing fear, doubt etc etc. Your job is to march them down and the rest is up to God.
They needed time to figure out the new meta. The redditors of the era looked at the past medieval warfare books and said 'You have to follow the meta. We fight in lines to maintain order. We can't route.' But george washington and the chad american revolutionary forces said "We're going to break the meta." See Mel Gibson's film The Patriot for a documentary on this.
I think the declare a war on a country significantly smaller and poorer than you and hardly take any land after 16 months strategy is the most moronic
Infantry lines actually worked extremely well for hundreds of years. And imperial powers, European or otherwise, used it to handily subjugate lesser nations. Lines usually covered each other's advance, its not like it was one block walking towards the enemy getting mowed down (and remember that the maximum effective range of the muskets arming both sides was quite low)
It was only when offensive firepower, with automatic weapons, long range rifles, rapid fire artillery, etc, vastly surpassed the meager mobility of infantry lines, that trench warfare finally took over, as standing in the open or was suicide.
funny thing. Long range rifles became a thing in like the 1850s/1860sish and granted most of the conflicts between the civil war and WWI were minor or colonial affairs, but since long range rifles were developed before long range artillery for the 60 years between the civil war and WWI most combat casualties (as in hurt in combat not sickness or starvation) were from rifle fire because dudes were shooting at each other from like a KM away using the volley sights
why do you keep making these threads is it a fetish?
Because people keep responding to it. The snake must eat its tail
I imagine shills paid off a janny to drum up interest in 19th century warfare ahead of Ridley Scott’s Napoleon. newbies will call me a schizo, but anyone who browses Cinemaphile regularly know this shit happens constantly.
Isn’t Napoleon like 1700s or something?
All I know is he doomed 50,000 japanese to the machine guns in the Russo war Becuase the cult of the offensive was still alive and strong, and no one learned the lesson till 2/3 of the way through the great war
napolian was after the revolutionary war but before the civil war and basically everyone studied him as meta for nearly the next 100 years even though tech passed up his tactics within 30 years
“Trust the experts”
1880s edition
Stop believing movies. They were not just blocks of infantry closing position on each other. There was field artillery, infantry skirmishers and cavalry. They used flanking tactics and took advantage of terrain. Generally speaking field battles at that time involved initiating skirmishes between enemy lines while trying to maneuver into artillery superiority while flanking with your musket infantry. It was also common to lay field fortifications like barbedwire or sandbag walls. There were a dizzying number of specialized troops at that time, especially among cavalry. There were dragoons, lancers, grenadiers, shock troops, artillerymen, musketeers, the list goes on. Warfare was extremely fluid and victory mostly relied on having access to key information regarding terrain and especially your opponents locations. Combat before radio communication was extremely chaotic and Napoleonic era warfare was intensely complex in its logistical execution.
Question:
Why the frick did armor vanish during this period?
I don't think armor would protect to well against bullets. It would also have been important for a rifleman to have good visibility and mobility.
Wtf do you mean chest plates are modern knight armor
Some types of soldiers still used breastplates, such as heavy cavalry, but generally speaking the onslaught of cannons and muskets made armor useless for many types of soldiers.
With rifles and cannons, armor became pretty much useless and it was better to be able to move around freely. It became reduced to body plates and helmets, some protection against the most important parts but even today it's not perfect, and body plates can only get hot a couple of times before they're useless. Whereas with swords and other melee weapons, it's almost assured that you're going to get hot a few times, and therefore you want to be armored up so you can take a few swings, with guns it's simply better to avoid getting shot.
Guns got too good. By 1650-1700 pikeman would just get mowed down.
Euros fielded armor right up until it was a waste of time and money. They would have kept using it if it worked. I mean think about it, why wouldn't they use armor in a war if it worked?
Pikemen became obsolete because of effective bayonets. It became a waste to spend manpower on solely defending against cavalry when instead they could also be firing a musket while still being effective against cavalry.
No it's more field artillery and muskets got too good and the titepacked pike formations became suicidal.
Absolutely not seeing as those tight formations were still used against cavalry
Those formations are ad hoc to fight calvary or else suicidal.
You can look at the British wars in India as an example of tight formations being death when the enemy has proper artillery. The Brits got absolutely annulated by Indian rockets until they loosened up.
No. You're being moronic. They didn't get into a tight formation when under fire and they didn't spread out when being charged.
Age of Discovery type armies (post Terico square) presented tight musket formations in order to concentrate firepower in much the same way pikeman presented tight formations to present an impenetrable sea of pointy death sticks.
When the Brits were in India fighting Indians who had access to rocket propelled field artillery they initially lost those wars because they would try to present tightly packed formations to bring to bear a lot of fire, only to in turn present themselves as easy targets for the rockets.
You would in this time period present yourself as tightly as possible when facing off firearm vs firearm, because it concentrates your offensive firepower. A formation with 3 people per square foot is going to deliver more lead to the enemy than a formation of 1 person per square foot. It's pretty simple math.
Can you read? Infantry used a variety of formations, mainly line formations for firing and under fire, and also tight formations to defend against cavalry. My god you are an idiot.
You're the one who can't read since you apparently struggle with understanding what "ad hoc" means.
It's not ad hoc and that doesn't negate the fact that tight formations were used, moron. If the enemy cavalry is engaging, then the enemy isn't firing on you. That's when anti-cavalry formations are used. Hurr fricking durr.
You don't understand how undynamic a formation is once the shooting starts.
It's one think to walk into battle with a loose checkerboard formation because you know the Maharaja is going to rain rockets on you. Now try reorganizing those formations once you're committed.
This isn't academic. This isn't speculative on my part. This is a real world example of how the Brits lost one war and won the next.
You fricking moron. Everything you're saying is contrary to history. You keep bringing up one battle that doesn't even apply to the discussion. You literally said
>When the Brits were in India fighting Indians who had access to rocket propelled field artillery they initially lost those wars because they would try to present tightly packed formations to bring to bear a lot of fire, only to in turn present themselves as easy targets for the rockets.
That has nothing to do with this conversation. This isn't about using tight formations against fire. It's about tight formations against cavalry. And when they were attacked by cavalry, they were not under fire because the opposing army does not fire on their cavalry. Fricking hell you dumb frick. You could read history books all day and never once comprehend what you're actually reding.
there are bong tactics from the martini henry era that the british muzzle loader youtuber talks about where the bongs trained to set up different lines and formations depending on what they were doing. Musket with bayonet gives you more flexibility in order to do multiple things vs pikes which were just anti horse at that point.
Some armies did but in general anything that stopped your infantry having extra firepower was all detrimental. Equipping 10 guys with shield walls and armour was not effective against 100 guys with firearms and and a few canon.
cause armor didn't do dick vs a musket or cannon so it wasn't worth it
cartridges are much smaller and lower mass than musketballs
>cartridges are much smaller and lower mass than musketballs
That gives them better penetrative power, not worse. Musket balls are slow as frick comparatively. It's like trying to say .45 penetrates better than 9mm.
that armor weights 100 fricking pounds. It would be impractical to have all the soldiers wear it and they would still get fricked by cannon fire.
That armor resisted actual bullets, it doesn't take nearly as much to resist musket balls. You could have guys with just the cuirass but as I pointed out here
it would still be too heavy and expensive.
>resisted bullets from a specific range, a thing most anons are not aware of.
normy fricks didn't get a thin skin of metal, we didn't matter enough.
>we didn't matter as much
a thing you pointed out but I failed to point out. Frick me, I phrased that poorly.
I actually wrote that but felt like it was taking up too much of the focus and I removed it. Obviously protecting them didn't matter, the British used the meatgrinder of war to get rid of the dregs of their society. But across all armies I think the main concerns were mobility, cost, and uniformity (no one would have been able to pump out enough cuirasses). Plus all that effort on cuirasses could be spent on more cannons and guns, since they had no shortage of bodies to throw around.
Calvary units would wear breastplates, but they deflected shots at best. They would sometimes stack 3-5 additional ones to try to actually stop a bullet, which is something you can only really do on a horse because of mobility issues. Black powder is actually stronger than modern gunpowder iirc so it's not like it was easy to shrug off a hit from a musket. Those things were basically inaccurate 50 cals for a few hundred feet before drag caught the ball.
A large, slow moving projectile wreaks havoc on flesh but is pretty shit at penetration https://youtu.be/ZOVJoS80pAA?t=36
>And how're your legs, Ned?
The real answer is that it wasn't suited to the demands of warfare. Armor could absolutely be made that would resist musketball. The problem is that such armor would be fairly heavy and as such greatly restrict the mobility and effective endurance of the wearer. And it would be prohibitively expensive. Plus a significant amount of their body would still be exposed to fire, and even if it saved the wearer it might still render them combat ineffective.
Heavy cavalry which didn't have to worry about moving all over the battlefield on foot did wear armor.
Though I have to wonder why we didn't see more commanders that had a breastplate they would wear. Perhaps it was a morale concern.
You still think there was a war?
You think they want solders to live in industrial era?
Babylon wages war on Babylon,
Babylon vanquishes the evil of Babylon,
Babylon falls and Babylon rises,
The wars aren't real but the genocides of your people are,
How they massacre you like cattle!
How God weeps for your misguided souls!
Their merchants did trade,Their leader wore their cross, Are you truly so blinded by the Serpent's propaganda?
Where did their scientists go?
You question where the bodies went, where do we put ours?
The head bites the tail, in death they are born.
You had units that still wore three quarters plate in the English civil war in the layer half of the 1600s, but in general it wasn't very cost-effective. Also, mass produced munitions grade plate is of lesser quality than tailored harnesses that wealthy man-at-arms wore.
>Why the frick did armor vanish during this period?
Armour is heavy and expensive and mostly useless against canon and musket shot.
You used armor for quite some time actually. It is not until rather late until you stopped using melee weapons in war. You rarley had enough ammo for more than a few rounds and even if you had, the enemy is charging with their melee because they might only be able to supply enough for 1-2 shots. Furthermore. If you are cavalry then you need some kind of armor because cavalry and anti cav also used melee weapons. I am not sure if the infantry used any protection. Maybe they needed the metal for something else more crucial.
>my face when Cinemaphile, Cinemaphile, or Cinemaphile try to lecture me on basic tactics
Particularly Cinemaphile is pretty bad, lotgh has done some permanent damage to the braintrust of that board.
"Light infantry", the ones who attacked out of formation, hid behind trees and rocks, were the most experienced soldiers, and most loyal.
The biggest killer of infantry were calvary. You had to stay in formation to rebuff calvary charges which were always preset.
SIR! YOU HAVE TO LOOK OUT! THE BRITISH ARE PLAYING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC!
the entire point was to show your army's morale
some people would die on both sides but the real loser would be who is routed first and forced to give up the position
until like... the 1940s... French doctrine was still that the military's élan, it's spirit, would overcome any numerical, technological, or tactical disadvantage
Regarding WW1 we say "lions led by donkeys." Seems fitting throughout history for us.
It wasn't any dumber than "trench" warfare. Where you sit around waiting for your death until someone blows a whistle, then you run into machine gun fire.
Because it was highly efficient. Muskets were very innacurate so the best way to hit your target was to line up your soldiers in a row and fire forwards. When in a volley formation the British were able to butcher dozens of men rapidly
Back in the day muskets were notoriously inaccurate, which is why you would see them used for duels. However if you have enough of them pointing in the same direction you can be rest assured you will cut something down. Hence formations like this were like tanks in the way they moved and had to be organized.
>this thread gets made
>dozens of "history buff" morons spew their youtube and wikipedia "knowledge"
every time. lmfao
Not a single accurate post in the whole thread, as usual
I bonk this history buff’s wife everytime he goes to his meetup.
I know we have this thread every other day, but once again:
>British empire conquors the world with this strategy
>moron no bodies with no military or historical knowledge think it's "moronic"
Gee I wonder how one could explain this phenomenon
>british conquered the world
bongs learned vitamin c prevented scurvy and then proceeded to not share this info with anyone and that is how they conquered the world. That and fighting 3rd worlders and largely staying out of major yuro action when they could because lol island
This is true, but the continental powers in Europe who actually DID fight land wars also did this. I mean, Napoleons whole thing was basically this and LOL CANNONS GO BOOM
Don’t forget constantly playing sides on the continent and preventing any major power from achieving hegemony over Europe
White people are dumb.
Republicans have not reduced the federal deficit in well over 40 years, but they are still fiscally responsible, what does strategy mean?
>Muh national debt
Truly the biggest dweebs in American discourse.
only way to reduce the deficit is to starve the beast
What were they shooting him with? it says like 1890s, but that could have been with handguns or a pistol caliber carbine like an 1873. A musket would have more energy and more penetrative power than a handgun round at the time because it would be a bigger projectile with a lot more powder behind it. muskets were designed to fell horses, handguns weren't and at that time they still would have been black powder. Plus again, cannons would tear those frickers up
>What were they shooting him with?
The group were sent by train specifically to engage Ned Kelly's gang, and was composed of seven regular troopers under Superintendent Hare, five Queensland Aboriginal Troopers under sub-Inspector O'Connor, four journalists and several other civilians. You'd have to look into their typical armament, I certainly don't know what Australian Bush Police would have when they were expecting combat. I don't know if they had .45-70s or other repeater carbines. We do know that the sergeant that blasted Kelly in the thighs had a shotgun, which I would think has superior penetrative power than a musket at closer ranges, but that might only be with more modern loads.
> I don't know if they had .45-70s or other repeater carbines.
there were no repeating rifles in .45-70 until 1881 and wiki said this happened in 1879. I don't think the marlin 1881 even sold well so it wasn't until 1886 that Winchester put out their much more widely available .45-70.
>We do know that the sergeant that blasted Kelly in the thighs had a shotgun, which I would think has superior penetrative power than a musket at closer ranges, but that might only be with more modern loads.
smokeless powder wasn't invented until 1886, so no, a black powder shotgun in 1879 would have been the same as a black powder shotgun in 1779, which is to say less energy per ball than a musket ball would have been
I guess you're right, I thought Kelly was more firmly placed in the prime wild west period with cartridges and smokeless powder.
Though there are still examples of similar armor made to contest with rifles
Only pussies wear armour
Thread made me think of this, rip Trevor
>Was this the most moronic "strategy" in military history?
Have you ever seen what "strategy" was used in WWI trenches assaults? It was basically this, just under machine gun fire
Or hell just look at the "strategy" used now in Ukraine lmao, people are still charging to their death TODAY
Dude bro, have you seen the last time Republicans reduced the federal deficit? Have you seen the last time Democrats reduced the federal deficit? Have you seen the last time either Republicans or Democrats last reduced the debt? Do you know there is a difference between debt and deficit? Lol.
Before rifling massed fire > unmassed fire. The Carolean's were one of the most renowned groups of the time and their whole tactic was to walk in closer than usual, shoot once, and start stabbing
That was due to always being outnumbered by the enemy. If the Swedish shock and awe tactic didn't manage to break the enemy formation, they usually lost. It was high risk/high reward.
Yeah they were heavily specialized on that and also having very mobile and accurate artillery to prep the battlefield. Their swords were also a couple of inches longer than the enemy so they could outrange them when they came hand to hand. Very interesting doctrine.
Its just that wev been having this thread for 15 fricking years now
>every thread in the catalog is Star Wars or off-topic
Janny on duty based af
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redmond_Barry
wtf
Rules of engagement.
Ahem