Infantry Discussion Thread 6: True Korea Edition

[Themiclesia]

But clothing can still get damaged (by a piercing arrow perhaps) in the meantime.

You are away for a week, are you honestly not going to take spares and if one set get damaged just put a spare set on and wait till you get home to get it repaired?

Doign repairs to clothing in the feild or on the campaign trail is pretty much only concern if you are goign to be away for months.

As i said unless there is some cultural or ritual significance in in repairing your own cloths it simply won't happen in the "armys" and "conflcits" you describe.

Of course one hopes that clothing isn't damaged, but it's good to have the skills to do so if indeed the clothing is damaged.

[Crookfur]

You are away for a week, are you honestly not going to take spares and if one set get damaged just put a spare set on and wait till you get home to get it repaired?

Doign repairs to clothing in the feild or on the campaign trail is pretty much only concern if you are goign to be away for months.

As i said unless there is some cultural or ritual significance in in repairing your own cloths it simply won't happen in the "armys" and "conflcits" you describe.

Of course one hopes that clothing isn't damaged, but it's good to have the skills to do so if indeed the clothing is damaged.

Whislt it might be ncie to have is it at all realistic for your nobles train as seamstress's on the off chance that thier clothing get dmaaged on the battle feild and they forgot to pack thier second set of robes?

No, no it isn't unless there is some really bloody strong cultural reason why nobles would learn a skill that they have very little practical use for.

[Themiclesia]

Of course one hopes that clothing isn't damaged, but it's good to have the skills to do so if indeed the clothing is damaged.

Whislt it might be ncie to have is it at all realistic for your nobles train as seamstress's on the off chance that thier clothing get dmaaged on the battle feild and they forgot to pack thier second set of robes?

No, no it isn't unless there is some really bloody strong cultural reason why nobles would learn a skill that they have very little practical use for.

There's a very realistic chance for multiple sets of clothing to be damaged on the battlefield.

[Fordorsia]

Of course one hopes that clothing isn't damaged, but it's good to have the skills to do so if indeed the clothing is damaged.

Whislt it might be ncie to have is it at all realistic for your nobles train as seamstress's on the off chance that thier clothing get dmaaged on the battle feild and they forgot to pack thier second set of robes?

No, no it isn't unless there is some really bloody strong cultural reason why nobles would learn a skill that they have very little practical use for.

It would be common sense for a fighter to know how to do minor repairs on clothes and armour. Most nobles weren't lazy, incompetent assholes so I have no doubt the majority of them could at least patch up a hole. They learned skills first hand just like the peasants they marched and fought with.

[Arkandros]

Th barrel is hilariously long, even for the average postwar BR. Cut it down.

As for the receiver, go the notAK/notG3 stamped route, and as many have said, EYE RELIEF is a thing. Move your carry handle forward. And look at the stock.

@Crookfur The upper receiver of the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle is an aluminium extrusion, iirc. Not plastic.

Got around to fiddling with it. changes made: shortened barrel, solid stock, change in sights (flip up sights aren't final, more a placeholder until I decide what to use), modification of charging handle, modification of lower portion of the upper. Without further ado, the Mk.17E1 Battle Rifle. What's next on the "to fix" list?
I personally think the stock still looks funky and needs to be brought more in line with the bore axis. The angled back end of the rifle keeps throwing me off.
As for how it's made: The upper and lower separate like any AR pattern rifle, held together by three pins. The upper is two pieces of stamped metal, the upper "U" and a lower plate welded together. I figure that would be an easy enough workaround to have the aesthetics of a monolithic upper without the technology required to make one.

[Themiclesia]

Whislt it might be ncie to have is it at all realistic for your nobles train as seamstress's on the off chance that thier clothing get dmaaged on the battle feild and they forgot to pack thier second set of robes?

No, no it isn't unless there is some really bloody strong cultural reason why nobles would learn a skill that they have very little practical use for.

It would be common sense for a fighter to know how to do minor repairs on clothes and armour. Most nobles weren't lazy, incompetent assholes so I have no doubt the majority of them could at least patch up a hole. They learned skills first hand just like the peasants they marched and fought with.

Peasants can't fight. They don't have the skills to fight properly and to fund their equipment. If they were rich enough to fund their equipment, they'd rather spend it elsewhere. The gentlemen and noblemen fight as part of their duty, not as a job.

[Fordorsia]

It would be common sense for a fighter to know how to do minor repairs on clothes and armour. Most nobles weren't lazy, incompetent assholes so I have no doubt the majority of them could at least patch up a hole. They learned skills first hand just like the peasants they marched and fought with.

Peasants can't fight. They don't have the skills to fight properly and to fund their equipment. If they were rich enough to fund their equipment, they'd rather spend it elsewhere. The gentlemen and noblemen fight as part of their duty, not as a job.

Since recorded history began, armies have been made up mostly of poor people.

[Bezombia]

Peasants can't fight. They don't have the skills to fight properly and to fund their equipment. If they were rich enough to fund their equipment, they'd rather spend it elsewhere. The gentlemen and noblemen fight as part of their duty, not as a job.

Since recorded history began, armies have been made up mostly of poor people.

That's not remotely true.

[Fordorsia]

Since recorded history began, armies have been made up mostly of poor people.

That's not remotely true.

Obviously not every army ever was mostly peasants, but it generally was the case. Most people who chose to fight did so because it was the best choice for them. Compared to those who signed up because they were poor, the number of people who signed up though they were wealthy would be miniscule.

[Themiclesia]

Peasants can't fight. They don't have the skills to fight properly and to fund their equipment. If they were rich enough to fund their equipment, they'd rather spend it elsewhere. The gentlemen and noblemen fight as part of their duty, not as a job.

Since recorded history began, armies have been made up mostly of poor people.

I'd handwave the historical economics, though I do make a point in my canon to say that most of my population at that point were subsistence farmers who can't spare the time to go to battle. Besides, they have better things to do than tend their horses and oil their chariots, which are otherwise of no use until battle.

[Bezombia]

That's not remotely true.

Obviously not every army ever was mostly peasants, but it generally was the case. Most people who chose to fight did so because it was the best choice for them. Compared to those who signed up because they were poor, the number of people who signed up though they were wealthy would be miniscule.

That's still not remotely true. "Joining the army because your poor" only became a thing in the late 17th century. Before that, armies were almost entirely composed of nobleman and feudal lords - poor people were usually indentured serfs who couldn't leave the farms they worked on long enough to join a military.

[Fordorsia]

Obviously not every army ever was mostly peasants, but it generally was the case. Most people who chose to fight did so because it was the best choice for them. Compared to those who signed up because they were poor, the number of people who signed up though they were wealthy would be miniscule.

That's still not remotely true. "Joining the army because your poor" only became a thing in the late 17th century. Before that, armies were almost entirely composed of nobleman and feudal lords - poor people were usually indentured serfs who couldn't leave the farms they worked on long enough to join a military.

Because noblemen and lords number in the hundreds of thousands at any one time. Joining the army because you're poor has been a thing for as long as armies have been a thing.

[Rhoderberg]

Ford, they didn't join the army because they were poor, they were poor and happened to get conscripted into the aforementioned army.

[Puzikas]

A lot of Armies consisted of individuals who were simply part of a clan/family of people in quite a few cultures.

Though yeah:
>Be 1203
>Be serf as fuck
>nomoney
>can't read
>land is actually swamp
>Suddenly idea
>Join army
>Will probably get food
>the raping and the pillaging will be fun
>Die of plauge anyways

[Arkandros]

Obviously not every army ever was mostly peasants, but it generally was the case. Most people who chose to fight did so because it was the best choice for them. Compared to those who signed up because they were poor, the number of people who signed up though they were wealthy would be miniscule.

That's still not remotely true. "Joining the army because your poor" only became a thing in the late 17th century. Before that, armies were almost entirely composed of nobleman and feudal lords - poor people were usually indentured serfs who couldn't leave the farms they worked on long enough to join a military.

Egypt: soldiers recruited from the general populace.
Xia (the first dynasty) China and warring states period: soldiers recruited from the general populace.
Early Romans: soldiers recruited from the general populace.
Huns: the general populace is entirely made up of soldiers.
I can provide more if you like, but these are some of the more well known societies to use farmers as infantry.
Also, any nation that has ever used bow and arrow volleys has used conscripts (with the notable exception of the English longbowmen). It takes a lot of skill to hit a target with a bow and arrow, but very little skill to fire in the generally correct direction on command.

[New Visegrad]

Ford, they didn't join the army because they were poor, they were poor and happened to get conscripted into the aforementioned army.

IIRC armies mostly tended to be formed of the serfs who worked the noble in question's land. A condition of getting to use the land was that if the noble was dishonourably insulted by that cad Sir Preston, you had to take your pitchfork or your spear or your rusty sword and fight for your lord. Obviously this didn't really work on rich people because they could afford their own land and nobody could tell them what to do (except the king, if the region had one at the time).
Poor people being unable to fight because of farming is partially true, but during certain times of the year they could happily leave their fields. They needed to be back for the harvest though, which is why sieges and long campaigns were a pain in the ass.

[Aqizithiuda]

The idea that armies were mostly formed from poor people is at once correct and incorrect. It all depend son a huge variety of factors, such as the nature of the war, what other wars are going on at the time, as well as on the time period. The Classical Greeks and the early Roman Republic fielded armies drawn mostly from the middle class, but all had positions for the poorer, who could afford only to be a "light armed" soldier. On the other hand, the bulk of the armies in Achaemenid Empire were probably levies, although how poor it's hard to determine due to the lack of records. However, in late Anglo-Saxon England, all free men were required to own arms, and for every five hides of land a village was required to field a soldier to a specific specification. In the Carolingian Empire, we find records of clubs being replaced by the bow among the poorest class as part of their required equipment. Certainly, as the period progressed, there was less and less need for levies, but early on they were often used to make up the numbers/as irregular forces/to provide missile support while the nobility and their retainers did the bulk of the actual fighting and killing.

[Themiclesia]

Egypt: soldiers recruited from the general populace.
Xia (the first dynasty) China and warring states period: soldiers recruited from the general populace.
Early Romans: soldiers recruited from the general populace.
Huns: the general populace is entirely made up of soldiers.
I can provide more if you like, but these are some of the more well known societies to use farmers as infantry.
Also, any nation that has ever used bow and arrow volleys has used conscripts (with the notable exception of the English longbowmen). It takes a lot of skill to hit a target with a bow and arrow, but very little skill to fire in the generally correct direction on command.

Archery is a general passtime in our nation, so people get lots of practise.

All of the above are true, but not particularly to any of them. The Hsia Dynasty in China is too remote to have a meaningful understanding of military policy at present. Besides, soldiers in China are called 士, "gentlemen"; they are not part of the peasantry.

[Fordorsia]

Egypt: soldiers recruited from the general populace.
Xia (the first dynasty) China and warring states period: soldiers recruited from the general populace.
Early Romans: soldiers recruited from the general populace.
Huns: the general populace is entirely made up of soldiers.
I can provide more if you like, but these are some of the more well known societies to use farmers as infantry.
Also, any nation that has ever used bow and arrow volleys has used conscripts (with the notable exception of the English longbowmen). It takes a lot of skill to hit a target with a bow and arrow, but very little skill to fire in the generally correct direction on command.

Archery is a general passtime in our nation, so people get lots of practise.

Eh, you can practice archery as a hobby a lot, but that won't help too much when you're suddenly drafted. It takes a long ass time to get good with a warbow, so you'd likely get drafted as a spearman since that's far easier to use and cheaper to get, and properly trained archers would do their thing.

[Themiclesia]

Archery is a general passtime in our nation, so people get lots of practise.

Eh, you can practice archery as a hobby a lot, but that won't help too much when you're suddenly drafted. It takes a long ass time to get good with a warbow, so you'd likely get drafted as a spearman since that's far easier to use and cheaper to get, and properly trained archers would do their thing.

I don't think I've mentioned drafting... ?

[Fordorsia]

Eh, you can practice archery as a hobby a lot, but that won't help too much when you're suddenly drafted. It takes a long ass time to get good with a warbow, so you'd likely get drafted as a spearman since that's far easier to use and cheaper to get, and properly trained archers would do their thing.

I don't think I've mentioned drafting... ?

If you're using bows, then you're in a very different time than now. If your country came under attack, large amounts of people would be drafted, or at least have no other option but to join up.

Either way, archery practice as a hobby only goes so far, but not far enough to really help in warfare. Unless of course you're actually raising most people in your nation to know how to use warbows, in which case that's not all that believable, given the vast amount of bows and arrows that would require.

[Aqizithiuda]

Archery is a general passtime in our nation, so people get lots of practise.

Eh, you can practice archery as a hobby a lot, but that won't help too much when you're suddenly drafted. It takes a long ass time to get good with a warbow, so you'd likely get drafted as a spearman since that's far easier to use and cheaper to get, and properly trained archers would do their thing.

It takes two days to get a group of beginners moderately competent with massed archery, and most warbows up until at least the 3rd or 4th century AD were in the 60-90lb range. Even later, someone could be trained up to use a 100lb bow within three months (the standard period for training in the Roman Legions) according to what I've seen some members of the archery community post.

[EsToVnIa]

It always dissolves into talking about medieval stuff whenever Ford is involved

[Yukonastan]

Th barrel is hilariously long, even for the average postwar BR. Cut it down.

As for the receiver, go the notAK/notG3 stamped route, and as many have said, EYE RELIEF is a thing. Move your carry handle forward. And look at the stock.

@Crookfur The upper receiver of the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle is an aluminium extrusion, iirc. Not plastic.

Got around to fiddling with it. changes made: shortened barrel, solid stock, change in sights (flip up sights aren't final, more a placeholder until I decide what to use), modification of charging handle, modification of lower portion of the upper. Without further ado, the Mk.17E1 Battle Rifle. What's next on the "to fix" list?
I personally think the stock still looks funky and needs to be brought more in line with the bore axis. The angled back end of the rifle keeps throwing me off.
As for how it's made: The upper and lower separate like any AR pattern rifle, held together by three pins. The upper is two pieces of stamped metal, the upper "U" and a lower plate welded together. I figure that would be an easy enough workaround to have the aesthetics of a monolithic upper without the technology required to make one.

Yeah, but it is the rear end of an LMG. Just for fun what you should do is build a BR based offof the Mk46 receiver.

[Fordorsia]

Eh, you can practice archery as a hobby a lot, but that won't help too much when you're suddenly drafted. It takes a long ass time to get good with a warbow, so you'd likely get drafted as a spearman since that's far easier to use and cheaper to get, and properly trained archers would do their thing.

It takes two days to get a group of beginners moderately competent with massed archery, and most warbows up until at least the 3rd or 4th century AD were in the 60-90lb range. Even later, someone could be trained up to use a 100lb bow within three months (the standard period for training in the Roman Legions) according to what I've seen some members of the archery community post.

That's true, but in those three months an invading army could take several key locations. In the Middle Ages, pretty much every soldier had at least a gambeson and a helmet, so those relatively slow arrows with bad aim wouldn't be the biggest issue to worry about when you're part of an invasion force. Probably why real archers were valued so much and why invasions seems to be successful so often.

When ancient civilizations were invaded, most of them didn't have to desperately create an army using their farmers. They had standing armies always ready to react, so training new recruits wasn't much of a worry unless things have really gone down the shitter.

It always dissolves into talking about medieval stuff whenever Ford is involved

Quiet you, I didn't start it