The NS Infantry Discussion Thread, Model 4

[Gallia-]

Since when is the Vietnam war among the most bloody conflicts in world history?

Since 1973.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Clearly we should buy Padnak a machete.


A machete blade is fairly dull and not very stabby.

Take a note from this cautionary tale.

Since when is the Vietnam war among the most bloody conflicts in world history?

Since 1973.

Sassy~

[Bezombia]

dis gon be gud, beno getting slammed by a summer kiddie who obviously knows sooooo much more.

Which "barrer firty calibre" rifle are you referring to?

M82A1, M82A2, M82A3?
M95?
M99?
XM107?
M107A1?

Which one?

Beano was (and to extent still is) a "summer kiddie"

?

Even if we look at documented facts, that's wrong. I first arrived in NS in late October, long after the summer was over.

[Fordorsia]

Since when is the Vietnam war among the most bloody conflicts in world history?

(Of course, Vietnam is famous for the restrictive SOPs the Americans operated under.)

I don't know, since it's estimated to having nearly 4,000,000 casualties maybe?

[Allanea]

Since when is the Vietnam war among the most bloody conflicts in world history?

Since 1973.

It's not even in the top 20.

[New Tsavon]

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

Yeah, just look at how quickly the fall of Rome, the Hundred Years' War, the Napoleonic Wars and the Vietnam War all ended, and they're all amongst the most bloody conflicts in history. Aiming to cause your opponent as much death and misery as possible for no other reason than "it's how warriors are supposed to do it" is retarded and only makes things worse in the long run.

You're missing the point here.

Purp actually got it, though. Cruelty ≠ bloodshed. A war without a whole lot of bloodshed but extraordinary cruelty can happen, as can the inverse. Also, Vietnam was hardly one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history. You'd have been better off using either world war as an example.

[Allanea]

So you are arguing that had the allies applied less violence to the Axis, they would have won sooner?

[Purpelia]

So you are arguing that had the allies applied less violence to the Axis, they would have won sooner?

I think he is arguing that if they had applied more violence, as in say used mass gas attacks against cities, atomic bombings all round (alt history, go with it) etc. they would have folded sooner.

[Gallia-]

Since 1973.

It's not even in the top 20.

How do we define "most bloody"? What is the cutoff?

Top 50?

Top 100?

Vietnam probably lands squarely in the latter if not the former. How many thousands or tens of thousands of armed conflicts has mankind fought in its history?

[New Tsavon]

So you are arguing that had the allies applied less violence to the Axis, they would have won sooner?

No such thing.

I was simply stating, due to the greater bloodshed in either conflict, they'd have made better examples than Vietnam.

[Fordorsia]

Yeah, just look at how quickly the fall of Rome, the Hundred Years' War, the Napoleonic Wars and the Vietnam War all ended, and they're all amongst the most bloody conflicts in history. Aiming to cause your opponent as much death and misery as possible for no other reason than "it's how warriors are supposed to do it" is retarded and only makes things worse in the long run.

You're missing the point here.

Purp actually got it, though. Cruelty ≠ bloodshed. A war without a whole lot of bloodshed but extraordinary cruelty can happen, as can the inverse. Also, Vietnam was hardly one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history. You'd have been better off using either world war as an example.

No, I wouldn't of been. Vietnam lasted 20 years and cost millions of lives. By war's standards, both World Wars were over really quickly, but the consequences of both were massive.
I used those wars as examples as they all lasted a long ass time, cost a shit load of lives and caused massive suffering to pretty much everyone involved, contrary to what Sherman's quote claimed would happen if you try your very best to fuck the enemy as much as possible.

[Bezombia]

Since 1973.

It's not even in the top 20.

Actually, it is. In fact, it's #19.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... death_toll

[Allanea]

You're missing the point here.

Purp actually got it, though. Cruelty ≠ bloodshed. A war without a whole lot of bloodshed but extraordinary cruelty can happen, as can the inverse. Also, Vietnam was hardly one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history. You'd have been better off using either world war as an example.

No, I wouldn't of been. Vietnam lasted 20 years and cost millions of lives. By war's standards, both World Wars were over really quickly, but the consequences of both were massive.
I used those wars as examples as they all lasted a long ass time, cost a shit load of lives and caused massive suffering to pretty much everyone involved, contrary to what Sherman's quote claimed would happen if you try your very best to fuck the enemy as much as possible.

And again. What possible strategy could the Allies have adopted in 1939 or 1941 to finish the war sooner, which was within their technological reach in the time period, (i.e. not guided weapons or nukes), and at a meaningfully smaller amount of casualties?

[Bezombia]

No, I wouldn't of been. Vietnam lasted 20 years and cost millions of lives. By war's standards, both World Wars were over really quickly, but the consequences of both were massive.
I used those wars as examples as they all lasted a long ass time, cost a shit load of lives and caused massive suffering to pretty much everyone involved, contrary to what Sherman's quote claimed would happen if you try your very best to fuck the enemy as much as possible.

And again. What possible strategy could the Allies have adopted in 1939 or 1941 to finish the war sooner, which was within their technological reach in the time period, (i.e. not guided weapons or nukes), and at a meaningfully smaller amount of casualties?

peace

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

You're missing the point here.

Purp actually got it, though. Cruelty ≠ bloodshed. A war without a whole lot of bloodshed but extraordinary cruelty can happen, as can the inverse. Also, Vietnam was hardly one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history. You'd have been better off using either world war as an example.

No, I wouldn't of been. Vietnam lasted 20 years and cost millions of lives. By war's standards, both World Wars were over really quickly, but the consequences of both were massive.
I used those wars as examples as they all lasted a long ass time, cost a shit load of lives and caused massive suffering to pretty much everyone involved, contrary to what Sherman's quote claimed would happen if you try your very best to fuck the enemy as much as possible.

There was no plan for victory in Vietnam.

[Allanea]

On the contrary. Ho Chi Minh and his allies had a plan for victory, and they won.

[Fordorsia]

No, I wouldn't of been. Vietnam lasted 20 years and cost millions of lives. By war's standards, both World Wars were over really quickly, but the consequences of both were massive.
I used those wars as examples as they all lasted a long ass time, cost a shit load of lives and caused massive suffering to pretty much everyone involved, contrary to what Sherman's quote claimed would happen if you try your very best to fuck the enemy as much as possible.

And again. What possible strategy could the Allies have adopted in 1939 or 1941 to finish the war sooner, which was within their technological reach in the time period, (i.e. not guided weapons or nukes), and at a meaningfully smaller amount of casualties?

I don't know. I'm not talking about how real conflicts could have ended sooner. All I was trying to say is that Ulfr is a psycho for having such a sick and evil view on warfare, wanting to cause misery and suffering to as many people as possible just because "muh warrior spirit".

[Allanea]

I think it's clear that Ulfr's statement was semi parodic.

But he is right to the extent that there is no evidence that a real-world military ever adopted the 'wound-not-kill' doctrine as a basis for small arms developement.

You want a round that is as likely as possible to stop a man's involvement in the fight against you. The more likely is a round to stop an opponent, the more likely it is to kill him.

There is not some zone of effectiveness in which a rifle round has a serious likelihood of stopping an opponent but not killing him.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

I don't know. I'm not talking about how real conflicts could have ended sooner. All I was trying to say is that Ulfr is a psycho for having such a sick and evil view on warfare, wanting to cause misery and suffering to as many people as possible just because "muh warrior spirit".

I see what you're getting at Ford, but I think you're taking this a squick too seriously.

---

Wasn't the 'wound-not-kill' doctrine one of the driving forces behind M16 and 5,56mm NATO development?

[Allanea]

I believe this is not backed up by evidence (I may be wrong).

The chief point was that far more 5.56mm NATO could be carried by an individual soldier than 7.62 NATO.

[New Tsavon]

I don't know. I'm not talking about how real conflicts could have ended sooner. All I was trying to say is that Ulfr is a psycho for having such a sick and evil view on warfare, wanting to cause misery and suffering to as many people as possible just because "muh warrior spirit".

Was that really needed?

In any case, it sounds like you're taking NS too seriously. Which is never a good thing.

Wasn't the 'wound-not-kill' doctrine one of the driving forces behind M16 and 5,56mm NATO development?

No, it had too do with the higher "volume of fire" and suppression ability of a lighter, more carryable round.

[Seripheap]

Uniform:
Main Battle Tank: M60 TANK
Main Apc: BTR 60
Main Fighter: F4 Phantom
Main Battle Rifle: AKM
Main Side Arm: Browning HI Power

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

I believe this is not backed up by evidence (I may be wrong).

The chief point was that far more 5.56mm NATO could be carried by an individual soldier than 7.62 NATO.

I could be wrong too. It's been a while since I read up on the 5,56mm, and I really don't plan to, given that it's 2AM here. I do remember ammunition weight being a driving factor though.

[Fordorsia]

I think it's clear that Ulfr's statement was semi parodic.

But he is right to the extent that there is no evidence that a real-world military ever adopted the 'wound-not-kill' doctrine as a basis for small arms developement.

You want a round that is as likely as possible to stop a man's involvement in the fight against you. The more likely is a round to stop an opponent, the more likely it is to kill him.

There is not some zone of effectiveness in which a rifle round has a serious likelihood of stopping an opponent but not killing him.

Not really. Talk with him and ask about his views, and he'll no doubt share his mindset that he would go out of his way to murder wounded soldiers who are no threat.

I'm absolutely fine with developing weapons that kill people more efficiently, just as long as they don't get less-accurate or precise in their roles, like missiles and rockets and shit. What I'm not in favour of is the murder and destruction of anything back where the enemy's soldiers come from just because "they deserve to die because enemy".

[Bezombia]

Wasn't the 'wound-not-kill' doctrine one of the driving forces behind M16 and 5,56mm NATO development?

No. The driving forces were that the AKs the Vietnamese were using was out-shooting the M14 and that soldiers were dying over it. The whole "low recoil in full auto" was way higher of a priority then the "we have TOO MANY JOULES" factor, which was more of a suppletory evidence then a driving reason.


Source: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA050268 (WARNING: It's a download link, I couldn't actually find anywhere where this was being hosted online)