Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Reikin]

Chicken is a bad meat.

For MREs they good

[Austrasien]

Chicken is a bad meat.

Wrong.

[Tule]

Chicken is a bad meat.

It is a great meat. It is inexpensive, has a low carbon footprint, it's is extremely versatile and it's healthy.

[Gallia-]

Chicken is a bad meat.

Wrong.

What did "they" do to you to make you say these things? Where is the real "Viyk"?

has a low carbon footprint,

Proof of its badness when you need to dredge out this "benefit". The crumbling case of "chicken" against the forces of "hamburger" and "tuna steak" is a sad one. Sadly chicken is universally ethnically compatible while "beef"/"pork" are not for frankly arbitrary reasons (ok well pork might have had parasites in 1300 BCE/30 BC/900 AD or something) and "tuna" is going extinct in a couple decades from overfishing. RIP mightiest of meats. You will say "chicken is great" when your alternatives are "tilapia" or "plankton/algae meat protein substitute" I guess. I'd still take "A. maxima infused spinach/banana/coconut milk/cucumber smoothie with granola and raisins" over "chicken salad". Truly the darkest of futures even worse than the hypothetical death of democracy. No hamburger. No tuna steak. No bacon (except "turkey bacon" which is atrocious). No salmon. Just chicken as far as the eye can see. And algae farms.

Nutritious.
Cheap.
Low environmental impact.

...boring...bland..."eugh".

At least algae farms make you feel like you're living in the depressing Blade Runner-esque future we deserve instead of just mid-2000s Shanghai though.

---

Top three best meats:

1) Tuna
2) Beef
3) Pork

All Gallan military rations include smoked mussels, oyster, clam, or a slab of tuna or smoked salmon. Because Galla is heavy metal. As in biomagnification. But not really because Galla runs on military-industrial tuna fish/salmon/trout farms.

[Free-Don]

TBH I like tilapia when smoked or grilled. I've used them in aquaponic systems and they generally seem to be good fish for farming and commercial use all around. I might write up a system of MREs that make use of tilapia based fish paste and sauces as a condiment to increase general taste palate for foods but with a relatively less cost. It would work pretty well with some algae farms and seaweed farms depending on the type.

[Unified Trebonia]

My Military is so weird. I use MT weapons even though I’m FT.

EDIT: Referring to army infantrymen

[Manokan Republic]

Depleted uranium should not be used for individual armor. Do you really want anything radioactive right up against your soldiers? Polyester and cotton can tear, not much you can do to make it “impossible to tear.” Titanium is also stupidly heavy and doesn’t offer enough protection to be worth the weight. Even if it did, your soldiers would be so fatigued and tired that they’d be unable to march, run, or manuever with much effectiveness. And then they get blown to pieces by artillery and you just lost a fuckton of money that you wanted to spend on all this expensive heavy-ass metal, and now have to pay life insurance for all the men that just died because they were overencumbered.

That’s also a lot of equipment to carry. 300 rounds of ammunition for rifle alone is excessive in terms of weight. 180-210 is about the standard combat load in the US Army and most world armies, I’d imagine.

Also coffee comes in MREs so you don’t need to bring extra coffee, and MREs also have heaters so no need for a pocket stove.

Depleted uranium is only weakly radioactive, so it is less harmful than sea water or even granite. The main issue is weight. 300 rounds is actually normal, or 10 magazines, and is only 10 pounds, vs. about 6-7 pounds for 180-210 rounds, so an extra 3 pounds is not excessive in terms of weight. Some machine gunners, such as with the M249, carry up to 1000 rounds or more, and that's nearly 30 pounds, so weight is not as much of an issue when it comes to ammunition differences of less than 100 rounds, and typically 20-30 pounds of ammunition is the maximum one might carry. 3000 rounds or something would be excessive, but not 300.

Extra tea and coffee, perhaps more likely tea, are often carried by soldiers, as well as things like gator aide packs and Jello powder. You are right however in that titanium is not a magical form of armor that provides great protection, however.

[Manokan Republic]

All of which are why the Satsumo rebellion was so incredibly successful.

Oh wait, it wasn't.

By this period, modern weapons like Gatling guns had already been in use, as well as things like lever actions and revolvers. They also had superior number sand logistics, and the Satsuma rebellion resulted in a final battle after they rebelling forces had lost gun powder where they charged the enemy with nothing but melee weapons. As far as it goes, despite having only 25,000 men vs. 100,000 men, they inflicted more casualties on their enemies, losing 10,000 men vs. 15,000 of their enemies. So in actuality, they killed more of their enemies than themselves; had they had superior numbers, they may have even won. But the culture of the time was in favor of the modern technology.

Napolean's army obviously was not equipped with Gatling guns, revolvers, lever actions and other such repeating firearms, and also wasn't well armored and didn't have extensive training in hand-to-hand combat, so the Samurai fighting the Satsuma Rebellion had more of an advantage than Napolean's forces would have. Bear in mind also that Japan had downsized it's military from the 1600's and onwards and took an isolationist stance, which stagnated and even reversed their technological capabilities, meaning they weren't as effective as they were previously.

[The Manticoran Empire]

All of which are why the Satsumo rebellion was so incredibly successful.

Oh wait, it wasn't.

By this period, modern weapons like Gatling guns had already been in use, as well as things like lever actions and revolvers. They also had superior number sand logistics, and the Satsuma rebellion resulted in a final battle after they rebelling forces had lost gun powder where they charged the enemy with nothing but melee weapons. As far as it goes, despite having only 25,000 men vs. 100,000 men, they inflicted more casualties on their enemies, losing 10,000 men vs. 15,000 of their enemies. So in actuality, they killed more of their enemies than themselves; had they had superior numbers, they may have even won. But the culture of the time was in favor of the modern technology.

Napolean's army obviously was not equipped with Gatling guns, revolvers, lever actions and other such repeating firearms, and also wasn't well armored and didn't have extensive training in hand-to-hand combat, so the Samurai fighting the Satsuma Rebellion had more of an advantage than Napolean's forces would have. Bear in mind also that Japan had downsized it's military from the 1600's and onwards and took an isolationist stance, which stagnated and even reversed their technological capabilities, meaning they weren't as effective as they were previously.

Regardless, the Samurai would not stand a chance.

[TimberWolves]

Top three best meats:

1) Tuna
2) Beef
3) Pork

This is fact.

[Manokan Republic]

A musket had a range of approximately 70-100 yards, vs. a bow and arrow at about 300-600 yards, with a Yuumi or Mongol bow, both of which the Japanese used. A bow and arrow could be fired once every 4 -8 seconds with relatively little difficulty, compared to about once every 20 with a musket at top speed. Finally bows and arrows were more accurate in the hands of a skilled user, and samurai were trained from the age of 6 to shoot accurately, compared to usually only a few years for a musketeer, who landed about 1 in 300 to 1 in 800 shots. Bows were also better at piercing armor, meaning that if the enemy was wearing armor, a sharpened point would do better than a round ball, especially at long ranges as musket balls were not aerodynamic. In short a bow and arrow would shoot out to further ranes, shoot faster, and shoot more accurately, resulting in far more casualties than muskets. This is just one of the reason why the settlers had so much trouble with native Americans, despite 95% of them dying off from the plague and smallpox and their incredibly small numbers in comparison. Jefferson even recommended using bows and arrows, but this wasn't possible at the time due to poor training.

The poor handling characteristics of a musket vs. an actual spear or sword is also rather lacking, meaning it's unwieldy and would be hard to use, on top of having poor metallurgy for such a bayonet. That's before you get in to it's performance against armor which, would be severely lacking, and as samurai were armored over most of their body, and so the ability for poorly made spears to get through it would have been lacking, even on a charge. Swords were not as widely used in combat other than with stabbing due to their poor performance against armor, but against unarmored or lightly armored troops, a sword could cut through them with ease. Considering that Napoleans troops rarely wore full body armor, I'm doubtful they could stand up against a sword.

Boi stahp.

I'm Korean and I know about Japanese musketry from the 1500's. I also know about their archery and how they didn't really use it at all. With well over 1/3rd of all Japanese forces landing on Korea during the Imujin Wars being musketeers and more than 5/7ths of the rest of the Japanese invading force being pikemen and polearm soldiers. Most soldiers wore a thick padded coat and pants with occasional bits of square metal to form a basic and cheap lamellar armor.

Korea by comparison didn't develop matchlocks or handheld weapons beyond gun with rockets inside of them and small handgonnes. Instead the bulk of their fighting force was made from mounted archers and local archer and skirmisher groups. Korean bows were in many way superior to Japanese Yumi. With longer draw length (40-45 inches vs 37-43 inches), shorter package (50 inches total length), higher historically stated pull strengths (70+ lbs. vs 50-65 lbs.), and could fold up and be worn as either as a hat or on the belt before shooting. Most soldiers wore a thick multi-layer coats with occasional padding, and occasional bits of metal to form either basic scale armor or lamellar armor on the cheap side.

Ultimately the Koreans were curbed stomped until the doctrine for land artillery and field artillery usage, the production of muskets and rocket system picked up, and support from china arrived with even more muskets.

There are many accounts of military referring to bows as useless as wood cover, thick leather helmets, cloth wrap headcovers, and metal helmets were capable of making them useless at greater ranges by both sides.

Typically the Yumi was a 80-150 pound bow, not a 70 pound bow, and used really large armor piercing arrows. I'm having a hard time finding a source on the Korean bow, but most seem to between 50-70 pounds and rather small, which was likely the case at the time due to the lower prevalence of armor unlike the japanese who specifically needed power to get through armor, and the fact korean bows are extremely flexible and small. The japanese bow was also unusually long, usually over 7 feet long, and japanese archers were trained to fire it from horses by holding it sieways. The size of the bow, combined with it's poundage, made it unusually powerful, something achieved based on the way they drew the bow, with the entire hand instead of two fingers, and an asymmetric pull so the draw didn't have to be as far back. This allowed the poundage to be higher and allows for a stronger grip, as the shoulder and arm joints begin to twist at odd angles with lots of force behind them on too long of a draw.

Samurai made up about 10% of the population, and were usually trained from a young age, starting at 6. So they were career soldiers, like knights. Given the raw volume of the number of samurai, most of the soldiers in combat were samurai, although Ashigaru made up larger percentages during the Korean invasion specifically as they needed more manpower. Perhaps even over half were Ashigaru. In general, bows were used in tandem with muskets, and typically samurai were all armed with multiple muskets, bows and arrows, and various other weapons like spears and swords, and would simply abandon the musket when it came time to charge.

[Manokan Republic]

By this period, modern weapons like Gatling guns had already been in use, as well as things like lever actions and revolvers. They also had superior number sand logistics, and the Satsuma rebellion resulted in a final battle after they rebelling forces had lost gun powder where they charged the enemy with nothing but melee weapons. As far as it goes, despite having only 25,000 men vs. 100,000 men, they inflicted more casualties on their enemies, losing 10,000 men vs. 15,000 of their enemies. So in actuality, they killed more of their enemies than themselves; had they had superior numbers, they may have even won. But the culture of the time was in favor of the modern technology.

Napoleon's army obviously was not equipped with Gatling guns, revolvers, lever actions and other such repeating firearms, and also wasn't well armored and didn't have extensive training in hand-to-hand combat, so the Samurai fighting the Satsuma Rebellion had more of an advantage than Napolean's forces would have. Bear in mind also that Japan had downsized it's military from the 1600's and onwards and took an isolationist stance, which stagnated and even reversed their technological capabilities, meaning they weren't as effective as they were previously.

Regardless, the Samurai would not stand a chance.

Napoleon's forces didn't wear armor at the time, and likely would have been easily cut down by the Japanese arrows, muskets, spears, and swords, as well as by things like grenades. Japanese armor could not only stop musket rounds, but also swords and spears and other such weapons, and the best weapon an officer might have at the time is a very thin saber and a pistol, neither of which would stand a good chance against Japanese armor. A musket's bayonet probably would pale in comparison to a well made spear or sword, and likely couldn't get through the Japanese armor due to the poor metallurgy. Their bows and arrows shot faster, had 4 times the range, and generally were more accurate than muskets, and Japanese soldiers were much better equipped in regards to melee combat, which was more decisive in battle than muskets.

On the front of muskets themselves, the Japanese could shoot out to 1000 yards vs. about 100 for Napoleonic forces at the time, used bigger more powerful rounds designed for getting through armor, and used lacquer boxes which not only served as armor to stop musket rounds, but also blocked out the rain, served as a mounting point for better accuracy, and deflected smoke, which meant the Japanese arquebus could shoot more than a few rounds before the accuracy dropped off to nothing.


Napoleon's big advantage was artillery and cavalry, and every single Samurai was a cavalry soldier and japanese artillery had developed long before Napoleon's era. The Hwacha, which they got from the koreans for example, could fire hundreds of arrow on the enemy in a single go, and they could rain arrows down at the enemy from over 1000 yards and take out entire line's of men with ease. The japanese were more fond of smaller, infantry based mortar weapons which were smaller versions of the Hwacha, meaning a field of men could blanket the enemy with arrows instead of one big weapon. They had at least the same range as Napoleon's cannon, and their average musket did, meaning the main range and cavalry advantages of Napoleon would effectively be moot. In close quarters, the Samurai would quickly decimate napoleon's forces, having superior training, weapons and armor making them able to more or less likely quickly cut through their defenses. In reality the japanese probably would cut through Napoleon's forces relatively easily, the only question is the strategy and artillery. Napolean was a big fan of grape shot to take out large volumes of infantry, but this would be far less effective against the japanese who were well armored against light threats like shrapnel or small musket rounds, and could stop full powered musket rounds at a distance. With that in mind, it's hard to find a point where Napoleon's men would have any advantage.

[Purpelia]

The best weapon an infantry officer at the time might have is hist regiment of infantry armed with muskets and bayonets that can easily massacre massed 16th century grade infantry. And if that somehow proves not to be enough there are still cannon, of which Napoleon in particular was very fond off. And that's before we get into the simple fact that Napoleonic armies were big. Very big. Even if the Japanese overrun one portion of the front can they ever reliably bring enough people to bear not to just be surrounded and shot to pieces?

[NeuPolska]

Depleted uranium should not be used for individual armor. Do you really want anything radioactive right up against your soldiers? Polyester and cotton can tear, not much you can do to make it “impossible to tear.” Titanium is also stupidly heavy and doesn’t offer enough protection to be worth the weight. Even if it did, your soldiers would be so fatigued and tired that they’d be unable to march, run, or manuever with much effectiveness. And then they get blown to pieces by artillery and you just lost a fuckton of money that you wanted to spend on all this expensive heavy-ass metal, and now have to pay life insurance for all the men that just died because they were overencumbered.

That’s also a lot of equipment to carry. 300 rounds of ammunition for rifle alone is excessive in terms of weight. 180-210 is about the standard combat load in the US Army and most world armies, I’d imagine.

Also coffee comes in MREs so you don’t need to bring extra coffee, and MREs also have heaters so no need for a pocket stove.

Depleted uranium is only weakly radioactive, so it is less harmful than sea water or even granite. The main issue is weight. 300 rounds is actually normal, or 10 magazines, and is only 10 pounds, vs. about 6-7 pounds for 180-210 rounds, so an extra 3 pounds is not excessive in terms of weight. Some machine gunners, such as with the M249, carry up to 1000 rounds or more, and that's nearly 30 pounds, so weight is not as much of an issue when it comes to ammunition differences of less than 100 rounds, and typically 20-30 pounds of ammunition is the maximum one might carry. 3000 rounds or something would be excessive, but not 300.

Extra tea and coffee, perhaps more likely tea, are often carried by soldiers, as well as things like gator aide packs and Jello powder. You are right however in that titanium is not a magical form of armor that provides great protection, however.

Oi you ever go rucking homeboi

300 rounds is not normal, I literally got my facts straight from the infantrymen that trained me.

[Gallia-]

The basic load is seven 30-round magazines or three 200-round boxes and two 100-round bags. METT-T determines any modifications.

[NeuPolska]

The basic load is seven 30-round magazines or three 200-round boxes and two 100-round bags. METT-T determines any modifications.

Yes

[Vyzhva]

How would a country sharing great similarities with North Korea fare if it adopted a gun policy similar to that of Switzerland?

[Gallia-]

It wouldn't do that.

[Vyzhva]

It wouldn't do that.

I'm thinking hypothetically here.

[Reikin]

Depleted uranium is only weakly radioactive, so it is less harmful than sea water or even granite. The main issue is weight. 300 rounds is actually normal, or 10 magazines, and is only 10 pounds, vs. about 6-7 pounds for 180-210 rounds, so an extra 3 pounds is not excessive in terms of weight. Some machine gunners, such as with the M249, carry up to 1000 rounds or more, and that's nearly 30 pounds, so weight is not as much of an issue when it comes to ammunition differences of less than 100 rounds, and typically 20-30 pounds of ammunition is the maximum one might carry. 3000 rounds or something would be excessive, but not 300.

Extra tea and coffee, perhaps more likely tea, are often carried by soldiers, as well as things like gator aide packs and Jello powder. You are right however in that titanium is not a magical form of armor that provides great protection, however.

Oi you ever go rucking homeboi

300 rounds is not normal, I literally got my facts straight from the infantrymen that trained me.

I only did 300 rounds for my soldiers to differ a little, but yeah, 300 is too much, unless you have some kind of reduced carry weight system like in Reikin.

[Crookfur]

How would a country sharing great similarities with North Korea fare if it adopted a gun policy similar to that of Switzerland?

It very quickly wouldn't be like north Korea and instead descend into something closer to warlord era China possibly even Afghanistan or current iraq/syria.

Ie lots of small local/tribal groups and warlords with a rump of a central government trying to hold on in the face of a now armed and likly quite angry and desperate populance.

[Gallia-]

It wouldn't do that.

I'm thinking hypothetically here.

North Korea doesn't do what Switzerland does because North Korea requires centralized control over weapons to function.

If you gave them guns, they would leave, and you wouldn't be able to stop them. RIP entire nation.

[Vyzhva]

I'm thinking hypothetically here.

North Korea doesn't do what Switzerland does because North Korea requires centralized control over weapons to function.

If you gave them guns, they would leave, and you wouldn't be able to stop them. RIP entire nation.

What about the indoctrinated populace?

[Gallia-]

If South Korea invaded North Korea tomorrow, its biggest worry would be the millions of people swarming the DMZ trying to escape, not super hard mega men fighting for the Kims.

The "flood of refugees" is also why South Korea put so many machine guns and mines on the border. :^)

[Reikin]

Depleted uranium is only weakly radioactive, so it is less harmful than sea water or even granite. The main issue is weight. 300 rounds is actually normal, or 10 magazines, and is only 10 pounds, vs. about 6-7 pounds for 180-210 rounds, so an extra 3 pounds is not excessive in terms of weight. Some machine gunners, such as with the M249, carry up to 1000 rounds or more, and that's nearly 30 pounds, so weight is not as much of an issue when it comes to ammunition differences of less than 100 rounds, and typically 20-30 pounds of ammunition is the maximum one might carry. 3000 rounds or something would be excessive, but not 300.

Extra tea and coffee, perhaps more likely tea, are often carried by soldiers, as well as things like gator aide packs and Jello powder. You are right however in that titanium is not a magical form of armor that provides great protection, however.

Oi you ever go rucking homeboi

300 rounds is not normal, I literally got my facts straight from the infantrymen that trained me.

rucking, what a great past-time, especially with full gear through the mountains in 90 degree weather! *flashbacks*