Infantry Discussion Thread 6: True Korea Edition

[Themiclesia]

Should I require soldiers to make their own uniform according to a template issued to them?

Why? I can understand requiring them to supply/source it themselves but to literally sew it themselves, that just seems a bit weird. Unless there is soem deep cultural thing about using stuff made with your own hands, using sewing as a means to teach meditation/humbleness or there is some ritual attached I really don't see forcing nobles to literally sew thier own cloths as being a worthwhile approach. Plus how do you enforce that the soldier himself does ther seamtress work and doesn't hand it off to his wife/household employee/local seamtress?

Ah, I mean replacement uniforms. This only comes in handy when you're camping somewhere in the wild, and you need to be able to patch up your uniform in an acceptable way when required. This stops the commanding officer from becoming the unit seamstress.

[Aqizithiuda]

Why? I can understand requiring them to supply/source it themselves but to literally sew it themselves, that just seems a bit weird. Unless there is soem deep cultural thing about using stuff made with your own hands, using sewing as a means to teach meditation/humbleness or there is some ritual attached I really don't see forcing nobles to literally sew thier own cloths as being a worthwhile approach. Plus how do you enforce that the soldier himself does ther seamtress work and doesn't hand it off to his wife/household employee/local seamtress?

Ah, I mean replacement uniforms. This only comes in handy when you're camping somewhere in the wild, and you need to be able to patch up your uniform in an acceptable way when required. This stops the commanding officer from becoming the unit seamstress.

Why would the CO be the seamstress when a) the soldiers should be able to it themselves anyway and b) there are going to be plenty of cooks/whores/wives who can do it for them?

[The Great Nation of Dan]

Ah, I mean replacement uniforms. This only comes in handy when you're camping somewhere in the wild, and you need to be able to patch up your uniform in an acceptable way when required. This stops the commanding officer from becoming the unit seamstress.

Why would the CO be the seamstress when a) the soldiers should be able to it themselves anyway and b) there are going to be plenty of cooks/whores/wives who can do it for them?

I believe our friend is trying to address the problem of long baggage trains and camp followers. Eliminating their need and creating an early form of manuever warfare. Something if true would be highly admirable if put into more detail.

[Aqizithiuda]

Why would the CO be the seamstress when a) the soldiers should be able to it themselves anyway and b) there are going to be plenty of cooks/whores/wives who can do it for them?

I believe our friend is trying to address the problem of long baggage trains and camp followers. Eliminating their need and creating an early form of manuever warfare. Something if true would be highly admirable if put into more detail.

You can cut it down to a certain point, but you're always going to have a long train. The Romans seem to have had at least two baggage trains: one for a light marching order (basically just the mules and camp servants) and the one which carried the artillery, most of the supplies, the loot, etc. With the first you can move very rapidly, but if you go too far in front of the second you'll starve or have to spend a lot of time foraging, which will slow you down. Also, the further away you get from it the greater the chance that it will be attacked or plundered by someone, even if they aren't the enemy you're fighting. There will also inevitably be the camp followers and merchants who follow behind to sell their wares or buy loot, even if they aren't part of either baggage column. If you're in one spot for long enough, they'll catch up and set up shop outside your camp, within a reasonable distance.

[United RussoAsia]

*strategic bookmark*

[Arkandros]

@Archangel: is that side fed or bullpup?

Both, if we're being strictly technical.

My question was more whether rounds went in behind the grip and it had some weird, proprietary forward eject or it just had no ejection port at all, because I'm stupid sometimes. Now that I look at it, I realize it could also be downward-ejecting behind the grip (because potentially lolhueg bolt travel) or left-hand feed, right-hand eject.

[Themiclesia]

Ah, I mean replacement uniforms. This only comes in handy when you're camping somewhere in the wild, and you need to be able to patch up your uniform in an acceptable way when required. This stops the commanding officer from becoming the unit seamstress.

Why would the CO be the seamstress when a) the soldiers should be able to it themselves anyway and b) there are going to be plenty of cooks/whores/wives who can do it for them?

I don't think I've explained myself fully. The system in place mandates that the soldiers bring their own uniforms when called to report to service and upkeep such uniforms during service. Thus, soldiers would usually bring spare fabrics that match the fabrics used to produce the uniform in the first place. Likewise, our soldiers are also responsible for their own food, drink, and transport. Since most of our units are chariot units, they could afford to bring a few boxes of materials personally. So, no cooks/whores/wives at all.

[Themiclesia]

I believe our friend is trying to address the problem of long baggage trains and camp followers. Eliminating their need and creating an early form of manuever warfare. Something if true would be highly admirable if put into more detail.

You can cut it down to a certain point, but you're always going to have a long train. The Romans seem to have had at least two baggage trains: one for a light marching order (basically just the mules and camp servants) and the one which carried the artillery, most of the supplies, the loot, etc. With the first you can move very rapidly, but if you go too far in front of the second you'll starve or have to spend a lot of time foraging, which will slow you down. Also, the further away you get from it the greater the chance that it will be attacked or plundered by someone, even if they aren't the enemy you're fighting. There will also inevitably be the camp followers and merchants who follow behind to sell their wares or buy loot, even if they aren't part of either baggage column. If you're in one spot for long enough, they'll catch up and set up shop outside your camp, within a reasonable distance.

Most of our units are actually chariots, which enables them to carry their own mini-caravans, which can hold their personal effects that they choose to bring. The scenario is that soldiers would travel on their chariots, pulled by 2 or 4 horses, behind which chariot would be attached a small wagon, on which is placed their luggage cases. Those cases contain the soldier's food, drinking water, clothes, money (if travelling through market towns), games, and anything they want to bring. Another configuration that eliminates the need for wagons is for two soldiers to stand on the same chariot, while the horses of a second is attached to the first. The second chariot then serves as a luggage van.

[Themiclesia]

Why would the CO be the seamstress when a) the soldiers should be able to it themselves anyway and b) there are going to be plenty of cooks/whores/wives who can do it for them?

I believe our friend is trying to address the problem of long baggage trains and camp followers. Eliminating their need and creating an early form of manuever warfare. Something if true would be highly admirable if put into more detail.

Manoeuvre warfare is just the word I'm looking for.

[Aqizithiuda]

Why would the CO be the seamstress when a) the soldiers should be able to it themselves anyway and b) there are going to be plenty of cooks/whores/wives who can do it for them?

I don't think I've explained myself fully. The system in place mandates that the soldiers bring their own uniforms when called to report to service and upkeep such uniforms during service. Thus, soldiers would usually bring spare fabrics that match the fabrics used to produce the uniform in the first place. Likewise, our soldiers are also responsible for their own food, drink, and transport. Since most of our units are chariot units, they could afford to bring a few boxes of materials personally. So, no cooks/whores/wives at all.

Most of our units are actually chariots, which enables them to carry their own mini-caravans, which can hold their personal effects that they choose to bring. The scenario is that soldiers would travel on their chariots, pulled by 2 or 4 horses, behind which chariot would be attached a small wagon, on which is placed their luggage cases. Those cases contain the soldier's food, drinking water, clothes, money (if travelling through market towns), games, and anything they want to bring. Another configuration that eliminates the need for wagons is for two soldiers to stand on the same chariot, while the horses of a second is attached to the first. The second chariot then serves as a luggage van.

Even in 800 BCE, this is not a good idea. It seriously restricts where you can go and what proportion of the population you can call up. I also suspect that the chariots are going to be quite large and heavy if they are to carry all this equipment, which means reduced tactical mobility. A mixed force consisting of light chariots and foot soldiers will have significantly better flexibility, even with a baggage train.

[Themiclesia]

I don't think I've explained myself fully. The system in place mandates that the soldiers bring their own uniforms when called to report to service and upkeep such uniforms during service. Thus, soldiers would usually bring spare fabrics that match the fabrics used to produce the uniform in the first place. Likewise, our soldiers are also responsible for their own food, drink, and transport. Since most of our units are chariot units, they could afford to bring a few boxes of materials personally. So, no cooks/whores/wives at all.

Most of our units are actually chariots, which enables them to carry their own mini-caravans, which can hold their personal effects that they choose to bring. The scenario is that soldiers would travel on their chariots, pulled by 2 or 4 horses, behind which chariot would be attached a small wagon, on which is placed their luggage cases. Those cases contain the soldier's food, drinking water, clothes, money (if travelling through market towns), games, and anything they want to bring. Another configuration that eliminates the need for wagons is for two soldiers to stand on the same chariot, while the horses of a second is attached to the first. The second chariot then serves as a luggage van.

Even in 800 BCE, this is not a good idea. It seriously restricts where you can go and what proportion of the population you can call up. I also suspect that the chariots are going to be quite large and heavy if they are to carry all this equipment, which means reduced tactical mobility. A mixed force consisting of light chariots and foot soldiers will have significantly better flexibility, even with a baggage train.

That would be unfortunately true if this configuration is used against an unknown enemy, but those uncertainties are absent in most battles in which Themiclesia's many states are involved. Most battles are predetermined events arranged prior to engagement. Battles are a recognized means for the arbitration of certain types of disputes, and hence they are regulated by consensus in what types of equipment and armament may or may not be used. Since it is known that the opposing side will in all probability play according to the rules, one's own side has little incentive to call up more soldiers than required. Participation in battle is restricted to the nobility at this point, due to social and economic reasons (horses and chariots are expensive etc.). We're looking at a ratio of 1 chariot to 4 or 5 persons overall, so for a typical, state vs. state engagement, 500 chariots is considered sizeable. That force is comprised of about 2000 to 2500 soldiers, perhaps with another 200 to 500 of other, non-combat personnel.

The word "combat" is not a very good term to describe the style of battle predominant in interstate warfare. Most of the casualty is effected by arrow shot at a distance, and hand-to-hand combat is very uncommon, since chariots don't target soldiers that have fallen off their own chariots.

[Aqizithiuda]

Even in 800 BCE, this is not a good idea. It seriously restricts where you can go and what proportion of the population you can call up. I also suspect that the chariots are going to be quite large and heavy if they are to carry all this equipment, which means reduced tactical mobility. A mixed force consisting of light chariots and foot soldiers will have significantly better flexibility, even with a baggage train.

That would be unfortunately true if this configuration is used against an unknown enemy, but those uncertainties are absent in most battles in which Themiclesia's many states are involved. Most battles are predetermined events arranged prior to engagement. Battles are a recognized means for the arbitration of certain types of disputes, and hence they are regulated by consensus in what types of equipment and armament may or may not be used. Since it is known that the opposing side will in all probability play according to the rules, one's own side has little incentive to call up more soldiers than required. Participation in battle is restricted to the nobility at this point, due to social and economic reasons (horses and chariots are expensive etc.). We're looking at a ratio of 1 chariot to 4 or 5 persons overall, so for a typical, state vs. state engagement, 500 chariots is considered sizeable. That force is comprised of about 2000 to 2500 soldiers, perhaps with another 200 to 500 of other, non-combat personnel.

The word "combat" is not a very good term to describe the style of battle predominant in interstate warfare. Most of the casualty is effected by arrow shot at a distance, and hand-to-hand combat is very uncommon, since chariots don't target soldiers that have fallen off their own chariots.

I really, really want to make a nation and start a war with you now, just for the lulz of seeing your country struggle to handle a new style of battle.

[Arkandros]

That would be unfortunately true if this configuration is used against an unknown enemy, but those uncertainties are absent in most battles in which Themiclesia's many states are involved. Most battles are predetermined events arranged prior to engagement. Battles are a recognized means for the arbitration of certain types of disputes, and hence they are regulated by consensus in what types of equipment and armament may or may not be used. Since it is known that the opposing side will in all probability play according to the rules, one's own side has little incentive to call up more soldiers than required. Participation in battle is restricted to the nobility at this point, due to social and economic reasons (horses and chariots are expensive etc.). We're looking at a ratio of 1 chariot to 4 or 5 persons overall, so for a typical, state vs. state engagement, 500 chariots is considered sizeable. That force is comprised of about 2000 to 2500 soldiers, perhaps with another 200 to 500 of other, non-combat personnel.

The word "combat" is not a very good term to describe the style of battle predominant in interstate warfare. Most of the casualty is effected by arrow shot at a distance, and hand-to-hand combat is very uncommon, since chariots don't target soldiers that have fallen off their own chariots.

I really, really want to make a nation and start a war with you now, just for the lulz of seeing your country struggle to handle a new style of battle.

Pikemen. Pikemen everywhere.
Also, have a thing I made.
http://img05.deviantart.net/e0a2/i/2015/108/c/0/mk17_battle_rifle_by_arkandros-d8q8dgs.jpg

[Themiclesia]

That would be unfortunately true if this configuration is used against an unknown enemy, but those uncertainties are absent in most battles in which Themiclesia's many states are involved. Most battles are predetermined events arranged prior to engagement. Battles are a recognized means for the arbitration of certain types of disputes, and hence they are regulated by consensus in what types of equipment and armament may or may not be used. Since it is known that the opposing side will in all probability play according to the rules, one's own side has little incentive to call up more soldiers than required. Participation in battle is restricted to the nobility at this point, due to social and economic reasons (horses and chariots are expensive etc.). We're looking at a ratio of 1 chariot to 4 or 5 persons overall, so for a typical, state vs. state engagement, 500 chariots is considered sizeable. That force is comprised of about 2000 to 2500 soldiers, perhaps with another 200 to 500 of other, non-combat personnel.

The word "combat" is not a very good term to describe the style of battle predominant in interstate warfare. Most of the casualty is effected by arrow shot at a distance, and hand-to-hand combat is very uncommon, since chariots don't target soldiers that have fallen off their own chariots.

I really, really want to make a nation and start a war with you now, just for the lulz of seeing your country struggle to handle a new style of battle.

Ah, unfortunately I'm not taking RPs ATM. Exams.

And also, the above is usually limited to interstate warfare. For conflicts on the borders (i.e. Themiclesia's states against other peoples) we do eschew some of these assumptions and provide a more varied force.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I really, really want to make a nation and start a war with you now, just for the lulz of seeing your country struggle to handle a new style of battle.

Pikemen. Pikemen everywhere.
Also, have a thing I made.
http://img05.deviantart.net/e0a2/i/2015/108/c/0/mk17_battle_rifle_by_arkandros-d8q8dgs.jpg

The sights don't line up.

And the stock...

[Arkandros]

Pikemen. Pikemen everywhere.
Also, have a thing I made.
http://img05.deviantart.net/e0a2/i/2015/108/c/0/mk17_battle_rifle_by_arkandros-d8q8dgs.jpg

The sights don't line up.

And the stock...

Which sight do you think sits too high? They're both hidden behind other pieces of metal, so I can't really tell.
Also, what issue do you have with the stock? That it's not in line with the barrel, or that it is proportionally tiny? Because looking at it now... Damn.
Edit: I went back to look at the sights, and they look like they would line up. I must be missing something.

[EsToVnIa]

Anti-Armor Section (Óptareykjálíðs*)

Squad A
Section Leader - Sgt.; Ak 3, 40mm grenade launcher, short-range communication device
Gunner - Pfc. CBJ-MS, Rbk 140 (Aérospatiale-Matra MMP)
Assistant - Pte/Pvt. CBJ-MS, Binoculars
Gunner - Pfc. CBJ-MS, Rbk 140 (Aérospatiale-Matra MMP)
Assistant - Pte/Pvt. CBJ-MS, Binoculars
Squad B
Squad Leader - Cpl/Jr.Sgt.; Ak 3, 40mm grenade launcher, short-range communication device
Gunner - Pfc. CBJ-MS, Rbk 140 (Aérospatiale-Matra MMP)
Assistant - Pvt./Pte. CBJ-MS, Binoculars
Gunner - Pfc. CBJ-MS, Rbk 140 (Aérospatiale-Matra MMP)
Assistant - Pte/Pvt. CBJ-MS, Binoculars
Squad C (Sisu Pasi)
Driver - Pte/Pvt.; CBJ-MS
Commander - Cp./Jr.Sgt.; CBJ-MS

*Sorry Tule D:

[Yukonastan]

I really, really want to make a nation and start a war with you now, just for the lulz of seeing your country struggle to handle a new style of battle.

Pikemen. Pikemen everywhere.
Also, have a thing I made.
http://img05.deviantart.net/e0a2/i/2015/108/c/0/mk17_battle_rifle_by_arkandros-d8q8dgs.jpg

Cut at least twelve cm off of the bbl, drop the stock down by 2 and make it a fixed A2 style, and the thing that weirds people out wrt sights is your mixing of AR sights and AK ones. (Oh, move your handlesight forward.)

[Themiclesia]

I believe our friend is trying to address the problem of long baggage trains and camp followers. Eliminating their need and creating an early form of manuever warfare. Something if true would be highly admirable if put into more detail.

You can cut it down to a certain point, but you're always going to have a long train. The Romans seem to have had at least two baggage trains: one for a light marching order (basically just the mules and camp servants) and the one which carried the artillery, most of the supplies, the loot, etc. With the first you can move very rapidly, but if you go too far in front of the second you'll starve or have to spend a lot of time foraging, which will slow you down. Also, the further away you get from it the greater the chance that it will be attacked or plundered by someone, even if they aren't the enemy you're fighting. There will also inevitably be the camp followers and merchants who follow behind to sell their wares or buy loot, even if they aren't part of either baggage column. If you're in one spot for long enough, they'll catch up and set up shop outside your camp, within a reasonable distance.

For starters we won't loot: that's detrimental to any state's reputation.

[EsToVnIa]

Looting is like how pre-17th century armies got 95% of its supplies

[The Great Nation of Dan]

Looting is like how pre-17th century armies got 95% of its supplies

That's how my army plans on getting roughly 20% of it's food, water, and petrol while on the field.

[Themiclesia]

Looting is like how pre-17th century armies got 95% of its supplies

Looting doesn't increase the total quantity of supplies. People realize that in my nation. And looting gives the state ill repute.

[EsToVnIa]

Looting is like how pre-17th century armies got 95% of its supplies

Looting doesn't increase the total quantity of supplies. People realize that in my nation. And looting gives the state ill repute.

Reputation is a rather odd thing to think about in the 9th century BC

[Themiclesia]

Looting doesn't increase the total quantity of supplies. People realize that in my nation. And looting gives the state ill repute.

Reputation is a rather odd thing to think about in the 9th century BC

Not at all. We're a nation of hundreds of states, sometimes in alliance and other times in war. It's important to maintain a reputation so as to make future alliances possible, and to garner support from neutral states.

[Gallia-]

Reputation is a rather odd thing to think about in the 9th century BC

Not at all. We're a nation of hundreds of states, sometimes in alliance and other times in war. It's important to maintain a reputation so as to make future alliances possible, and to garner support from neutral states.

Looting, rape, and slavery are all commonplace practices at the time.

It would be ill reputable to do otherwise.