MAIN MILITARY WEAPON OF YOUR COUNTRY (MK. II) P2

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Because they have great cutting and chopping properties which are a swell thing to have against a lightly armored opponent. Add the swords serration is for imitation and the Spartas put slight amounts of serration on there kopises for ripping properties. I would also recommend the Glaudius and the kilik.

They're also not particularly multi-use in combat. So, they're out. I think I'm gonna go with a straight double-edge sword, since they pretty strongly resemble knights already.

TBH double edged swords don't offer much advantage in MT. You're not going to be getting into a sword duel where you have to parry or anything, you will probably just draw your sword, lop off someone's arm and get on with your life.

[New Korongo]

how about a two bladded sword, the bottom blade non-serrated and the top serrated

[Indeos]

They're also not particularly multi-use in combat. So, they're out. I think I'm gonna go with a straight double-edge sword, since they pretty strongly resemble knights already.

TBH double edged swords don't offer much advantage in MT. You're not going to be getting into a sword duel where you have to parry or anything, you will probably just draw your sword, lop off someone's arm and get on with your life.

Not in Indeos. Swords are more common weapons than anything else, and a large fraction of the population are accomplished swordsmen. (I said MT because that is the actual tech level despite my being FanT, and Alt had assumed PT.)

@Kor: A bit too big, and you couldn't really wear it. That sort of thing would need to be carried everywhere.

[Interstellar Britannia]

They're also not particularly multi-use in combat. So, they're out. I think I'm gonna go with a straight double-edge sword, since they pretty strongly resemble knights already.

TBH double edged swords don't offer much advantage in MT. You're not going to be getting into a sword duel where you have to parry or anything, you will probably just draw your sword, lop off someone's arm and get on with your life.

Double edged swords are much easier to use then single edged, as you do not require to twist the weapon on a backstroke making it more suitable to amateurs which are far more likely in the modern day and age.

[Interstellar Britannia]

how about a two bladded sword, the bottom blade non-serrated and the top serrated

Retarded weapon is retarded

[New Korongo]

how about a two bladded sword, the bottom blade non-serrated and the top serrated

Retarded weapon is retarded

not bladed, i meany edged, sorry for the confusion

[Indeos]

TBH double edged swords don't offer much advantage in MT. You're not going to be getting into a sword duel where you have to parry or anything, you will probably just draw your sword, lop off someone's arm and get on with your life.

Double edged swords are much easier to use then single edged, as you do not require to twist the weapon on a backstroke making it more suitable to amateurs which are likely to use them in a military.

That's a negligible advantage, since the unit in question is a guard unit for the Czar. If I pick single, they'll have trained to be experts with single-edged swords.

@Kor: Eh, not really worth it. Serration is pretty useless in combat, and they aren't gonna need a utility weapon.

Hmmm... How about a short spear, like the iklwa?

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Agreed. That's why I used the example of a 'hardass'. You know, someone who maybe has killed someone, or someone who does use violence to settle disputes, as opposed to two 'average' people. On Killing and On Combat ought to be required reading before RPing on NS.

The guilt associated with killing is a modern phenomenon. In times where violence is a daily occurance, such as the Dark ages or a zombie apocalypses, where the survivors spend every day shooting what are very much humans in everything but sentience, relying upon people to not shoot first and ask questions second is a bit of a stretch.

Except it's innate human psychology, not a "modern phenomenon". It is not guilt, it is natural human instinct to not want to kill each other. Yes, the instinct can be overridden, but most modern people would have overwhelming amounts of difficulty engaging a target that threatened them.

Read On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Some 30% of misses during WWII on both sides were very much intentional, and a majority of soldiers never fired their weapons, and it wasn't until Vietnam that we started using human targets to create conditioned murderers for the Western militaries, except now we're not seeing too little killing, we're seeing too much.

Now, 90% of soldiers fire their weapons in combat and aim to kill, and being trained for the specific purpose kinda fucks your psyche up a lot, which means more suicides and more PTSD among modern military service members.

[Interstellar Britannia]

Double edged swords are much easier to use then single edged, as you do not require to twist the weapon on a backstroke making it more suitable to amateurs which are likely to use them in a military.

That's a negligible advantage, since the unit in question is a guard unit for the Czar. If I pick single, they'll have trained to be experts with single-edged swords.

@Kor: Eh, not really worth it. Serration is pretty useless in combat, and they aren't gonna need a utility weapon.

Hmmm... How about a short spear, like the iklwa?

All straight swords should be double edged, as there really is not reason to do so otherwise, even sabres typically had a few inches of the reverse edge sharpened for those quick backhands. Serrated edges are mostly useless as the capacity to saw isn't widely used in combat.

Short spears are great, they are the reason bayonets have frequently defeated master swordsmen throughout the orient

[Indeos]

That's a negligible advantage, since the unit in question is a guard unit for the Czar. If I pick single, they'll have trained to be experts with single-edged swords.

@Kor: Eh, not really worth it. Serration is pretty useless in combat, and they aren't gonna need a utility weapon.

Hmmm... How about a short spear, like the iklwa?

All straight swords should be double edged, as there really is not reason to do so otherwise, even sabres typically had a few inches of the reverse edge sharpened for those quick backhands. Serrated edges are mostly useless as the capacity to saw isn't widely used in combat.

Short spears are great, they are the reason bayonets have frequently defeated master swordsmen throughout the orient

I might just use an iklwa-like spear in place of a sword, then.

[Interstellar Britannia]

The guilt associated with killing is a modern phenomenon. In times where violence is a daily occurance, such as the Dark ages or a zombie apocalypses, where the survivors spend every day shooting what are very much humans in everything but sentience, relying upon people to not shoot first and ask questions second is a bit of a stretch.

Except it's innate human psychology, not a "modern phenomenon". It is not guilt, it is natural human instinct to not want to kill each other. Yes, the instinct can be overridden, but most modern people would have overwhelming amounts of difficulty engaging a target that threatened them.

Read On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Some 30% of misses during WWII on both sides were very much intentional, and a majority of soldiers never fired their weapons, and it wasn't until Vietnam that we started using human targets to create conditioned murderers for the Western militaries, except now we're not seeing too little killing, we're seeing too much.

Now, 90% of soldiers fire their weapons in combat and aim to kill, and being trained for the specific purpose kinda fucks your psyche up a lot, which means more suicides and more PTSD among modern military service members.

"On Killing" is a terrible book, the author spends most of his time grasping at straws trying to give the impression that humans are reluctant to kill. Claiming pikes were adopted because of long range, which is pretty absurd. While his analysis on the cost of killing on ones mentality is accurate, I am more apt to believe that everyone has the inherent instinct and willingness to kill, and are just chickenshit of the police or being killed themselves to act on their impulses.

Riots and rebellions are an example of the capacity within ordinary civilians to commit acts of violence for little reason or sense, so long as they see no repercussions for their activities.

The low numbers of people shooting each other in any war are not so much a moral framework, but rather the base survival instinct. Why expose yourself to the enemy to shoot with your rifle, when you can instead hide in your trench and be safe.

In Korea and Vietnam, against wholly inferior enemies with much less suppressive fire, we naturally see a largely tendency of soldiers to expose themselves and shoot. Training quality has degraded, not improved since then.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

TBH double edged swords don't offer much advantage in MT. You're not going to be getting into a sword duel where you have to parry or anything, you will probably just draw your sword, lop off someone's arm and get on with your life.

Not in Indeos. Swords are more common weapons than anything else, and a large fraction of the population are accomplished swordsmen. (I said MT because that is the actual tech level despite my being FanT, and Alt had assumed PT.)

@Kor: A bit too big, and you couldn't really wear it. That sort of thing would need to be carried everywhere.

Except your soldiers probably wouldn't be fighting each other, they will be fighting guys with bayonets and knives, or in some people's cases a stock.

[Indeos]

Not in Indeos. Swords are more common weapons than anything else, and a large fraction of the population are accomplished swordsmen. (I said MT because that is the actual tech level despite my being FanT, and Alt had assumed PT.)

@Kor: A bit too big, and you couldn't really wear it. That sort of thing would need to be carried everywhere.

Except your soldiers probably wouldn't be fighting each other, they will be fighting guys with bayonets and knives, or in some people's cases a stock.

They won't be fighting too much at all, honestly. What's your opinion on something similar to the iklwa?
Also, those won't help too much against shield-bearing nobles in magic-enhanced plate armor.

[New Korongo]

or in some people's cases a stock.

Retractable stock bayonet

It would hurt if it extended while aiming

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

or in some people's cases a stock.

Retractable stock bayonet

It would hurt if it extended while aiming

I meant countries that are too stupid to give their soldiers melee weapons.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Except it's innate human psychology, not a "modern phenomenon". It is not guilt, it is natural human instinct to not want to kill each other. Yes, the instinct can be overridden, but most modern people would have overwhelming amounts of difficulty engaging a target that threatened them.

Read On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Some 30% of misses during WWII on both sides were very much intentional, and a majority of soldiers never fired their weapons, and it wasn't until Vietnam that we started using human targets to create conditioned murderers for the Western militaries, except now we're not seeing too little killing, we're seeing too much.

Now, 90% of soldiers fire their weapons in combat and aim to kill, and being trained for the specific purpose kinda fucks your psyche up a lot, which means more suicides and more PTSD among modern military service members.

"On Killing" is a terrible book, the author spends most of his time grasping at straws trying to give the impression that humans are reluctant to kill. Claiming pikes were adopted because of long range, which is pretty absurd. While his analysis on the cost of killing on ones mentality is accurate, I am more apt to believe that everyone has the inherent instinct and willingness to kill, and are just chickenshit of the police or being killed themselves to act on their impulses.

Riots and rebellions are an example of the capacity within ordinary civilians to commit acts of violence for little reason or sense, so long as they see no repercussions for their activities.

The low numbers of people shooting each other in any war are not so much a moral framework, but rather the base survival instinct. Why expose yourself to the enemy to shoot with your rifle, when you can instead hide in your trench and be safe.

In Korea and Vietnam, against wholly inferior enemies with much less suppressive fire, we naturally see a largely tendency of soldiers to expose themselves and shoot. Training quality has degraded, not improved since then.

source?

for any of this.

especially lolin @ "training quality has degraded" cuz you were totally in WWII and know

[Sino-Japanese Empire]

I actually think the Snap-Up-Break-Out is part of Basic when you're in a grid-lock tumble for control of your rifle. @ Stocks

[Interstellar Britannia]

Retractable stock bayonet

It would hurt if it extended while aiming

I meant countries that are too stupid to give their soldiers melee weapons.

It isn't really stupid. You can generally run faster then anyone with a melee weapon, especially if they had to run beforehand to get to you in the first place.

Bayonet charges rarely caused casualties because the opponent usually ran before they could stab anyone. Very few people are willing to stick around when people with knives are coming after you, and the few that do and generally cut down by weight of numbers.

[Sino-Japanese Empire]

Sup WW1, where Bayonet Charges were seen to be ridiculous even though they were the primary way of taking ground. Why is this?

Machine Guns Tear Up Idiots With Knives.

Ask the Japanese.

THIS IS COMING FROM THE MOST IRONIC POSTER EVER.

[Interstellar Britannia]

"On Killing" is a terrible book, the author spends most of his time grasping at straws trying to give the impression that humans are reluctant to kill. Claiming pikes were adopted because of long range, which is pretty absurd. While his analysis on the cost of killing on ones mentality is accurate, I am more apt to believe that everyone has the inherent instinct and willingness to kill, and are just chickenshit of the police or being killed themselves to act on their impulses.

Riots and rebellions are an example of the capacity within ordinary civilians to commit acts of violence for little reason or sense, so long as they see no repercussions for their activities.

The low numbers of people shooting each other in any war are not so much a moral framework, but rather the base survival instinct. Why expose yourself to the enemy to shoot with your rifle, when you can instead hide in your trench and be safe.

In Korea and Vietnam, against wholly inferior enemies with much less suppressive fire, we naturally see a largely tendency of soldiers to expose themselves and shoot. Training quality has degraded, not improved since then.

source?

for any of this.

especially lolin @ "training quality has degraded" cuz you were totally in WWII and know

The Book itself

And training has degraded since we abolished flogging as a means of discipline.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

source?

for any of this.

especially lolin @ "training quality has degraded" cuz you were totally in WWII and know

The Book itself 8)

And training has degraded since we abolished flogging as a means of discipline.

1) Fair enough.

2) w/e nn

w/e

[XiphosLand]

And training has degraded since we abolished flogging as a means of discipline.

You, sir, have won. Starship Trooper nations should be more commonplace.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

I meant countries that are too stupid to give their soldiers melee weapons.

It isn't really stupid. You can generally run faster then anyone with a melee weapon, especially if they had to run beforehand to get to you in the first place.

Bayonet charges rarely caused casualties because the opponent usually ran before they could stab anyone. Very few people are willing to stick around when people with knives are coming after you, and the few that do and generally cut down by weight of numbers.

A bayonet or knife isn't heavy, and if they do slow you down you have bigger things to worry about than getting engaged in CQB, like collapsing from exhaustion because you can't carry an extra knife.

Also, they are weapons as last resort that are used more often than most people believe, although they are generally used on a small scale, such as a soldier whose magazine is empty stabbing an enemy to death with a bayonet. Also, IIRC the British had a couple bayonet charges in Afghanistan.

[Indeos]

I'm just gonna re-ask, opinions on the iklwa in place of a sword?

[Interstellar Britannia]

Sup WW1, where Bayonet Charges were seen to be ridiculous even though they were the primary way of taking ground. Why is this?

Machine Guns Tear Up Idiots With Knives.

Ask the Japanese.

THIS IS COMING FROM THE MOST IRONIC POSTER EVER.

Bayonets were successful even in the Western Front of WWI in that they usually always took the first line of trenches.

The problem in WWI was the fact that an enemy counterattack, with bayonets I might add, would easily push back the weakened enemy forces who have not even dug in and are out range of friendly artillery, and then successively attack their now vulnerable forward trenches.

This is why by 1916 armies would only field minimal forces in the forward trench under the impression that it will surely be lost, but a high proportion of machineguns in order to cause as much damage as possible for the counterattack.

Japanese attacks were initially successful when they followed doctrine and utilised their excellent LMGs that were organic to each squadron, light artillery, and aerial support to overwhelm the enemy in night assaults. They failed when they lacked support, were starving, outnumbered, and were largely displays of suicide then organised offensives.