Infantry Discussion Thread 6: True Korea Edition

[Spirit of Hope]

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.

Just about correct from my experience.

I still say the crossbow is superior if you have the technology for it.

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.

I would love to see a Middle ages or classical army take several key locations in three months. Outside of massively outnumbering your opponent it would take months to capture even one strategically important location, if not years. Even crude fortifications are easy to build but hard to capture. Sieges take time, as does moving your forces into position to begin the siege.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

And not a single .276 was picspammed that page.

[Themiclesia]

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.

Haven't we been talking about 800 B.C.E.?

Edit: It really depends on what does "if my country comes under attack" means. Most of the posts that I made here unless otherwise stated apply only to interstate warfare: that's the ceremonial sort characterized by Coffur. At this point our regional canon states that Themiclesia is the most advanced and richest country, so the several cultures surrounding us don't have comparable weaponry and strategy to compete with us.

[Aqizithiuda]

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

Arrows have never really been the main killing arm, anyway. They're there mostly to harass and break up enemy formations. If they happen to hit an unarmoured body part or injure unarmoured troops, then so much the better.

And I think you're really underestimating how good archers can get how quickly when clout shooting is involve.

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.

Just about correct from my experience.

I still say the crossbow is superior if you have the technology for it.

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.

I would love to see a Middle ages or classical army take several key locations in three months. Outside of massively outnumbering your opponent it would take months to capture even one strategically important location, if not years. Even crude fortifications are easy to build but hard to capture. Sieges take time, as does moving your forces into position to begin the siege.

Preferably one of those Chinese pistol crossbows. Those things are awesome.

[EsToVnIa]

Convince me why I shouldn't issue a PKP to every soldier

[Laywenrania]

Convince me why I shouldn't issue a PKP to every soldier

You can't issue RPG-29s to every soldier then

[Fordorsia]

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.

Just about correct from my experience.

I still say the crossbow is superior if you have the technology for it.

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.

I would love to see a Middle ages or classical army take several key locations in three months. Outside of massively outnumbering your opponent it would take months to capture even one strategically important location, if not years. Even crude fortifications are easy to build but hard to capture. Sieges take time, as does moving your forces into position to begin the siege.

Huge amounts of coastline, ports, towns. Not everything was walled off, even if it was valuable. Remember that it would be several days or a few weeks after an invasion is reported that further away populations begin mustering. They would then need to travel wherever they're needed. If your aim isn't to get as many bodies to throw at the invasion as possible with little regard to training, it will take a lot longer than three months for you to do anything about an invasion unless you have a large, organized army already, which I don't think was common in the Middle Ages.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Convince me why I shouldn't issue a PKP to every soldier

See that's the thing though. You should issue a PKP to every soldier.

[The Great Nation of Dan]

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.

Haven't we been talking about 800 B.C.E.?

Having a noble only army is only good when facing other armies made up of nobles. Your nation would have to be extremely isolated and focus in Champion Warfare or the battle/duel of major heroes and political figures. In terms of facing against a foreign forces your army is going to be forced into fighting extremely slow and complicated fortress and constant siege defense in order to stand for more than a few months.

Also most warfare during the early copper age and before the adoption of decisive warfare often just spent time throw spears or shoot arrows from as far as they could get.

[EsToVnIa]

Convince me why I shouldn't issue a PKP to every soldier

You can't issue RPG-29s to every soldier then

You make a convincing argument

[Korva]

split the baby: RPK and RPG-26 to every soldier

[Aqizithiuda]

Just about correct from my experience.

I still say the crossbow is superior if you have the technology for it.


I would love to see a Middle ages or classical army take several key locations in three months. Outside of massively outnumbering your opponent it would take months to capture even one strategically important location, if not years. Even crude fortifications are easy to build but hard to capture. Sieges take time, as does moving your forces into position to begin the siege.

Huge amounts of coastline, ports, towns. Not everything was walled off, even if it was valuable. Remember that it would be several days or a few weeks after an invasion is reported that further away populations begin mustering. They would then need to travel wherever they're needed. If your aim isn't to get as many bodies to throw at the invasion as possible with little regard to training, it will take a lot longer than three months for you to do anything about an invasion unless you have a large, organized army already, which I don't think was common in the Middle Ages.

Everything that isn't walled off isn't important, at least not strategically.

And you did have a standing army. It consisted of nobles and their retainers, and it could mobilise much faster than you seem to think.

[Bezombia]

split the baby: RPK and RPG-26 to every soldier

PKP with RPG-26 underbarrel

[Fordorsia]

I still say the crossbow is superior if you have the technology for it.

Depends on what you mean by superior. They have incredible draw weights, but that energy is wasted due to the small prods and draw length. They are easier to use, but generally more expensive. I'd only have garrissons use them, since rate of fire isn't as much of an issue in a siege.

[Korva]

split the baby: RPK and RPG-26 to every soldier

PKP with RPG-26 underbarrel

SPG-9 with Kord underbarrel

[Themiclesia]

Haven't we been talking about 800 B.C.E.?

Having a noble only army is only good when facing other armies made up of nobles. Your nation would have to be extremely isolated and focus in Champion Warfare or the battle/duel of major heroes and political figures. In terms of facing against a foreign forces your army is going to be forced into fighting extremely slow and complicated fortress and constant siege defense in order to stand for more than a few months.

Also most warfare during the early copper age and before the adoption of decisive warfare often just spent time throw spears or shoot arrows from as far as they could get.

The concept is that no state would be able to get away with any outlandish conduct. There are about 400~500 states during this period, and it does one state no good to conquer 1 using prohibited means and turn another 498 against you. Of course, against other peoples that don't abide by our standards all such formalities are off and we do everything necessary to keep hostile forces away.

I also think I mentioned sometime before that hand-to-hand combat is exceedingly rare in our battles. Chariots would try to knock each others' drivers from their stations, but soldiers wouldn't engage on foot. Most of the casualty would be effected by arrowfire and/or falling off mounts.

[Rhoderberg]

Is there any reason for having all your soldiers be charioteers, or are you just being special?

Also, considering what you've said about your nation, how did you avoid getting steamrolled by any neighboring countries with military's that aren't pants on head retarded?

[Fordorsia]

Having a noble only army is only good when facing other armies made up of nobles. Your nation would have to be extremely isolated and focus in Champion Warfare or the battle/duel of major heroes and political figures. In terms of facing against a foreign forces your army is going to be forced into fighting extremely slow and complicated fortress and constant siege defense in order to stand for more than a few months.

Also most warfare during the early copper age and before the adoption of decisive warfare often just spent time throw spears or shoot arrows from as far as they could get.

The concept is that no state would be able to get away with any outlandish conduct. There are about 400~500 states during this period, and it does one state no good to conquer 1 using prohibited means and turn another 498 against you. Of course, against other peoples that don't abide by our standards all such formalities are off and we do everything necessary to keep hostile forces away.

I also think I mentioned sometime before that hand-to-hand combat is exceedingly rare in our battles. Chariots would try to knock each others' drivers from their stations, but soldiers wouldn't engage on foot. Most of the casualty would be effected by arrowfire and/or falling off mounts.

I'm not sure I know of any battles where archers won it by themselves. Usually, one army routes because of mass panick and lack of communication brought about by the other enemy pushing them back and surrounding them with spears and shields. Two armies sitting back just shooting arrows until one leaves is the worst tactic ever, since your casualty rates are certain to be just as bad as theirs.

Also if a rider was pulled off their horse, they would then be stabbed to death on the floor. This is unless they aren't simply stabbed off the horse or chariot, since that's usually what happenes when you foolishly charge into stationary infantry on a horse. The fall is the least likely thing that will kill them.

[Korva]

Is there any reason for having all your soldiers be charioteers, or are you just being special?

Also, considering what you've said about your nation, how did you avoid getting steamrolled by any neighboring countries with military's that aren't pants on head retarded?

it is just ritual combat between his own people

against normal nations they would presumably act normal

[Themiclesia]

Is there any reason for having all your soldiers be charioteers, or are you just being special?

Also, considering what you've said about your nation, how did you avoid getting steamrolled by any neighboring countries with military's that aren't pants on head retarded?

Because we are in the bronze age and they're chalcolithic at best. Knowledge is strictly contained for both commercial and military interests. States may be embattled, but they're still identified as "one of us".

[Themiclesia]

Is there any reason for having all your soldiers be charioteers, or are you just being special?

Also, considering what you've said about your nation, how did you avoid getting steamrolled by any neighboring countries with military's that aren't pants on head retarded?

it is just ritual combat between his own people

against normal nations they would presumably act normal

Korva = my saviour.

[Themiclesia]

The concept is that no state would be able to get away with any outlandish conduct. There are about 400~500 states during this period, and it does one state no good to conquer 1 using prohibited means and turn another 498 against you. Of course, against other peoples that don't abide by our standards all such formalities are off and we do everything necessary to keep hostile forces away.

I also think I mentioned sometime before that hand-to-hand combat is exceedingly rare in our battles. Chariots would try to knock each others' drivers from their stations, but soldiers wouldn't engage on foot. Most of the casualty would be effected by arrowfire and/or falling off mounts.

I'm not sure I know of any battles where archers won it by themselves. Usually, one army routes because of mass panick and lack of communication brought about by the other enemy pushing them back and surrounding them with spears and shields. Two armies sitting back just shooting arrows until one leaves is the worst tactic ever, since your casualty rates are certain to be just as bad as theirs.

Also if a rider was pulled off their horse, they would then be stabbed to death on the floor. This is unless they aren't simply stabbed off the horse or chariot, since that's usually what happenes when you foolishly charge into stationary infantry on a horse. The fall is the least likely thing that will kill them.

Ah, but nobody is on the horses. We aren't equine people by any stretch of mind, which is why we need chariots. Battle involves 2 elements: shooting when at a distance, and poking with polearms closer up. Additionally, many battles would be supervised by a neutral third party, who may set standards as to what constitutes victory and defeat to prevent unnecessary casualty.

[Rhoderberg]

Is there any reason for having all your soldiers be charioteers, or are you just being special?

Also, considering what you've said about your nation, how did you avoid getting steamrolled by any neighboring countries with military's that aren't pants on head retarded?

it is just ritual combat between his own people

against normal nations they would presumably act normal

That makes sense I guess.

You say that, but I've seen no evidence of any proper military organization. Of course, anything before the age of pike and shot isn't really my cup of tea, so to speak.

Because we are in the bronze age and they're chalcolithic at best. Knowledge is strictly contained for both commercial and military interests. States may be embattled, but they're still identified as "one of us".

Oh, so you're mysteriously more advanced than all of your neighbors, then?

How are you going to manage to avoid the spread of such information if your "nation" is five hundred-odd warring states? You can't honestly tell me that all five hundred leaders got together and agreed to not give away the secrets of how to add tin to bronze.

Edit: Considering the above, how in all hell was your country ever unified?

[Fordorsia]

I'm not sure I know of any battles where archers won it by themselves. Usually, one army routes because of mass panick and lack of communication brought about by the other enemy pushing them back and surrounding them with spears and shields. Two armies sitting back just shooting arrows until one leaves is the worst tactic ever, since your casualty rates are certain to be just as bad as theirs.

Also if a rider was pulled off their horse, they would then be stabbed to death on the floor. This is unless they aren't simply stabbed off the horse or chariot, since that's usually what happenes when you foolishly charge into stationary infantry on a horse. The fall is the least likely thing that will kill them.

Ah, but nobody is on the horses. We aren't equine people by any stretch of mind, which is why we need chariots. Battle involves 2 elements: shooting when at a distance, and poking with polearms closer up. Additionally, many battles would be supervised by a neutral third party, who may set standards as to what constitutes victory and defeat to prevent unnecessary casualty.

So it's basically just a duel involving thousands of people? Organized duels have strict rules, enforceable because there are only two people taking part. I'd love to see officials try to keep thousands of soldiers in line when they're clearly angry enough to kill each other.

[Aqizithiuda]

Is there any reason for having all your soldiers be charioteers, or are you just being special?

Also, considering what you've said about your nation, how did you avoid getting steamrolled by any neighboring countries with military's that aren't pants on head retarded?

Because we are in the bronze age and they're chalcolithic at best. Knowledge is strictly contained for both commercial and military interests. States may be embattled, but they're still identified as "one of us".

And no one outside has ever learned how to make bronze and given the "secret" to your neighbours, or at least sold them some weapons? Because, if 13th century Australian Aboriginals can have steel swords, then your neighbours will somehow get a hold of some bronze weapons.