Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Fordorsia]

chambering a round and than going out control

Again, this isn't possible. It would only fire the one shot.

why didn't people just install a magazine cutoff?

Because safeties were a thing

[Theodosiya]

Want to talk about military funeral. How do you guys did it?

In Theodosiya, well, a straight copy of Russian-Ukrainian one.

[Rhodesialund]

Puz approves

[Fordorsia]

Want to talk about military funeral. How do you guys did it?

In Theodosiya, well, a straight copy of Russian-Ukrainian one.

Thrown in a ditch, as is tradition

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Want to talk about military funeral. How do you guys did it?

In Theodosiya, well, a straight copy of Russian-Ukrainian one.

The funerary service will take place at the cathedral or state sanctioned location of the next of kin's choosing. Alternatively the dead will be interred in the Cimetière de la garde in the capital of Tours. If possible the dead's platoon will perform the service, if not a representative of the parent branch of the soldier shall be assigned detail. The pall bearer is an officer in high uniform. There are 10 additional casket bearers and 3 color guard, one flying the national flag of Francia, the 2nd carrying the flag of the deceased's parent branch. The third shall present the folded flag to the next of kin at the closing of the funerary procession. The deceased shall be placed on an elevated surface, after which the casket bearers and observing platoon shall remain at parade rest while a one minute silence is observed. After which the officer will call to attention, and then salute, while Aux Morts is sounded. During Aux Morts the flag shall be removed from the casket and folded. Upon the closing of Aux Morts any religious rites shall be issued, the body interred, and the flag presented.

[Cerma]

eugenics in the vein i discussed is ultimately an amoral tool, since it can equally apply to democratic armies who want to prevent wars or conduct punitive expeditions, like USA, and imperialist armies who want to kill everyone else around them and plunder their resources, like Rome; it would be beneficial for either to apply principles of science towards improving its genetic stockpile, just like it would be beneficial to teach everyone how to read, or everyone to be patriotic, etc.

Ultimately, what would be the ideal national eugenics program that doesn't involve Action T4 levels of coercion and, well, death?

What does the future of gene enhancements and etc. appear to be for the West(and the rest of the world)?

[Purpelia]

eugenics in the vein i discussed is ultimately an amoral tool, since it can equally apply to democratic armies who want to prevent wars or conduct punitive expeditions, like USA, and imperialist armies who want to kill everyone else around them and plunder their resources, like Rome; it would be beneficial for either to apply principles of science towards improving its genetic stockpile, just like it would be beneficial to teach everyone how to read, or everyone to be patriotic, etc.

Ultimately, what would be the ideal national eugenics program that doesn't involve Action T4 levels of coercion and, well, death?

What does the future of gene enhancements and etc. appear to be for the West(and the rest of the world)?

The future in the west is that we do nothing because we are too squeamish and moralistic to make use of the tools science provides us with. So by the end of the century we get overtaken by the amoral asian uberman.

[Gallia-]

eugenics in the vein i discussed is ultimately an amoral tool, since it can equally apply to democratic armies who want to prevent wars or conduct punitive expeditions, like USA, and imperialist armies who want to kill everyone else around them and plunder their resources, like Rome; it would be beneficial for either to apply principles of science towards improving its genetic stockpile, just like it would be beneficial to teach everyone how to read, or everyone to be patriotic, etc.

Ultimately, what would be the ideal national eugenics program that doesn't involve Action T4 levels of coercion and, well, death?

aktion t4 is always a possibility with national eugenics systems becoming too enthusiastic and having gene corps soldiers just shoot natural birthed people dead in the streets and maybe the only thing you can do to prevent is to not do it (obviously), to restrict eugenics programs (cf. human embryonic research bans), or to not have eugenics at all (no one takes this seriously); so it is maybe possible that naturally birthed people will be pushed out of society coercively (perhaps ghettos in the nicer places, perhaps death camps in the less nice places) by the gene people who were made in a factory...

...that, of course, would require that human gene editing be anything more than a sperm bank gimmick to attract more dried up old women who are regretful about not having kids in their youth

which is all CRISPR promises atm tbh

and given that we are slowly reaching the limits of science (the law of diminishing returns strikes hard, fast, and deep!) for ~reasons~, it's probably where it will stop, because it's very difficult to see anyone inventing an artificial womb in the next few decades or whatever for moral reasons, let alone the technological hurdles that would need to be met

aaanyway the ideal eugenics program is the national health service, because it provides a solid basis for addressing the population through central control, through things like embryo selection, sterilization family planning, state-managed (or at least regulated) genetic banks, and abortions, etc.

it would also provide a firm basis for the mechanization of birth towards furthering the goals of the nation, which would ensure that a nation/economy has an ample supply of good workers in the future, thus completing the cradle-to-graduation cycle of producing productive, patriotic workers who take their citizenship seriously and happily contribute to the commonwealth

if only that is how it will turn out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

unfortunately, given how unstable the modern western economies are (cf. "gig economy"), the west is pretty much at the point where it's got to take what it's getting, since it doesn't have the luxury of being able to choose who breeds and who doesn't, at least not anymore, precisely due to the victory of financial capitalism over productive capitalism in the 1970s and the subsequent globalization of the economy, and due to evolutionary psychology's role in ensuring that humans simply do not breed when they are wealthy/the future is unstable/society as a whole becomes mechanized/there's no time for kids when both spouses are working or in higher ed./whatever

pick a reason i suppose because no one actually knows why the demographic transition happened (which is why it is such a ~mystery~)

so anyway pensions or something...

---

you could deliberately cultivate a culture that cuts the average lifespan from the current ~80 years down to about 65-70 years, which would be enough to ensure that at least half the old people die before they become too much of a burden on the welfare system, or you could raise retirement age while there's still a majority of youthful folks (haha fat chance) to ~79-80 or whatever the national life expectancy is

the key is to keep healthy, able-bodied and able-minded people in the workforce as long as possible
this is why the retirement age, historically, has been equivalent to the average life expectancy; so about 50% of people can never make it to retirement and drain the social welfare net dry

but the system is broken because people are spending too much on healthcare (at least in the USA; which is a non-productive enterprise outside birth, as the healthcare system is specifically so taxpayers can keep working, rather than producing anything of value itself) and living too long, well past retirement age (the OECD average life expectancy is 80) and thus pensions need to spend well past the pocketbook of the western nations

this is a pensions crisis in action

there are a few ways to deal with it that i can think of off the top of my head:

1) increase the amount going into pensions accounts to pay for future retirees, which is impractical in the long-term if we are asymptotically approaching 0 taxpayers, which appears to be the case since most mechanized countries have a below replacement rate birth rate
2) reform the pension system by increasing retirement age to ~80, importing skilled youths, encouraging births (ha!) among newer generations through natalist policy, etc.
3) cut pensions down successively for each generation, to extend the length of pensions accounts and prevent their immediate collapse, but again this is not sustainable because it doesn't address the worker:retiree ratio
4) cut down on "back-end" population growth, which is the modern reason for population growth in a sub-replacement civilization, by encouraging habits that reduce lifespan (smoking, for instance) or cutting down on investment in medical care and funding, which will push the life expectancy down closer to the retirement age
5) industrial "death camps"/retirement villages/ghettos where you're shuffled off to upon retirement, where olds are sent to live a life of misery with no pensions and no medical care, and die of dementia, in order to refocus resources on the youthful and productive elements of society; so basically being told "fornicate thyself and shuffle off this mortal coil" by the rest of society
6) delete pensions accounts entirely and foist onto retirees the mercies of globalized capitalism and free trade

all of these are infeasible for a variety of reasons, with the most common being that old people are the largest demographic that votes, by far (and increasing in both proportion and absolute size!), and thus most likely to cock block attempts to reform the pensions system via non-coercive means, but portions of each, excepting 4 and 5, are being used by western economies as a sort of slapdash bandage on a gaping wound

4, 5, and 6 may be feasible in authoritarian states like russia and the PRC

my personal preference is for a combination of #2 and #4 because increasing the retirement age is the simplest and easiest method of dealing with a pensions crisis, but it's also the hardest to get through legislation lmao; there's also issues with an aging workforce and mental health/cognizance (cf. senility) that would make it hard to integrate 80 year olds into the labour force, while a lifespan anywhere between 65-70 is basically middle aged

so basically the best idea for dealing with pensions crisis (imo) is "bring back smoking", "steady state natalism", and "raise the retirement age"

living a long time is overrated anyway

the reality is that if western countries do anything at all, they'll probably try all of those methods (and more) in a messy solution that looks like it was cooked up in a term limit's time (because it would be!)

---

but to bring this back around: if you mechanize/expropriate reproduction you've solved demographics and you've solved the greatest threat to western civilization since hitlerism (hint: it's the demographic crisis)

so it's kind of like faster-than-light/time travel for economics, but probably not as difficult, unless you want to talk about pointless morals (i mean, you could use CRISPR to make everyone dumb i guess, if you really, really, REALLY wanted an orwellian doom state or something ruled by oligarchs lording over a mass of lumpenproles/neo-serfs and cyber-fiefdoms [aka russia])

in which case it's probably as much a hard sell to certain groups (holding certain morals [because of certain events in western history]) as faster-than-light travel is a hard sell to mother nature

What does the future of gene enhancements and etc. appear to be for the West(and the rest of the world)?

who_knows? maybe ~they~ will be able to print α++ supermen with CRISPR modification of embryos and IVF? but probably not since CRISPR only promises to be a gimmick, like McLarens and private jets, with no serious effects on the wider economy

well, unless you're in aquaculture or agriculture or any other food business, then CRISPR is t i t a n i c

the bleakest future for the west right now seems to be a slow crumbling of society due to lack of taxpayers and increasingly aging population (which ends with the victory of authoritarianism [aka PRC] over liberal democracy)
at best, we're seeing the end of the golden age of human civilization and returning to medieval-style cosmopolitanism and economic stagnation (which ends with all extant societies exploding in a post-rome on a global scale)

the former is called "extinction" and the latter is called "neo-medievalism"

invert those for the long-term view? maybe theyre the same thing?

but both are bad

[NeuPolska]

Neo-medievalism > Extinction though

[Gallia-]

the point is that both lead to extinction, one just does it faster and with fewer flags

im probably just going to start replying to the inevitable "was hitler right?" convo with "search my posts" in the future

it's boring repeating myself

[NeuPolska]

the point is that both lead to extinction, one just does it faster and with fewer flags

im probably just going to start replying to the inevitable "was hitler right?" convo with "search my posts" in the future

it's boring repeating myself

I understand that, but at least with neo-medievalism we go out fighting

[Gallia-]

the point is that both lead to extinction, one just does it faster and with fewer flags

im probably just going to start replying to the inevitable "was hitler right?" convo with "search my posts" in the future

it's boring repeating myself

I understand that, but at least with neo-medievalism we go out fighting

because a bunch of de facto city-states can economically and scientifically outproduce the current mechanized civilizations

oh wait they cant

[Fordorsia]

Are we talking about sparta being a dumb city state again?

[NeuPolska]

I understand that, but at least with neo-medievalism we go out fighting

because a bunch of de facto city-states can economically and scientifically outproduce the current mechanized civilizations

oh wait they cant

Ok but why does it even matter

[Gallia-]

because a bunch of de facto city-states can economically and scientifically outproduce the current mechanized civilizations

oh wait they cant

Ok but why does it even matter

thinking like this is exactly why we're headed to extinction

anyway you will care if you live long enough to never have a pension, or to be consigned to a ghetto, or flyover country, when the western welfare states collapse

economically dynamic areas like silicon valley will likely evict all olds (at least until they're told to stop) in order to free up space for more young people to drive what meager economic growth can be gathered and we all slowly die from an increasing pool of increasingly powerful retirees

the people with futures will, hopefully, smother the people without one before that happens, but that seems very unlikely given that the people without futures are perfectly ok at throwing away the futures of their children

so retirement age remains 65, medicare and pensions run out, at least until the grey horde votes for more resources to be allocated to themselves while the dependency ratio climbs ever higher

p. repugnant imo and a good (perhaps only?) reason to tell olds to fornicate thyself and shuffle off this mortal coil; hunter-s-thompson_was_right

so i suspect that millennials will simply stand by and watch (despite being a current majority demographic bloc, they are far less homogeneous than olds and thus less likely to coordinate their votes for issues, or vote at all) as old people increasingly vote against things like cutting pensions, raising retirement age, and pushing down costs of education; because those resources used in preparing for the future are better spent on fuel, medicare, and their pension stipends

[Western Pacific Territories]

To be honest this reminds me of a quote I heard a former mercenary say awhile ago. To paraphrase:

"I have no doubt that the Westphalian concept of a state will in the future likely see a diminished role or become extinct entirely. I also have no doubt that as time goes on you will start seeing the introduction of more and more mercenary groups back into the world again. The last 200-300 years have been peculiar in human history, as this is one of the few periods of time where a completely state-run military without mercenaries was the norm. I suppose that as time goes on and mercenaries are utilized more and more we will see a return to the 'norm', so to speak."

[Fordorsia]

Mercs have still been common in third world countries, but they'll never make a comeback with advanced technology and democracies being so dominant. Mercs just aren't useful anymore outside of shitholes having civil wars and African warlords wanting to go kill some other warlord. Organized professional mercenary groups got replaced for a reason.

[Western Pacific Territories]

Mercs have still been common in third world countries, but they'll never make a comeback with advanced technology and democracies being so dominant. Mercs just aren't useful anymore outside of shitholes having civil wars and African warlords wanting to go kill some other warlord. Organized professional mercenary groups got replaced for a reason.

IMO the main reasons mercs are coming back is for that exact reason. Why get your armed troops involved to stop a repeat of the Rwandan Genocide when you can have a group of guys with guns do it for you? Though you will need to expend cash of course.

[Cosparia]

Random question time.

Given that all of the safety problems on open bolt SMG's like the MP40 boil down to the gun accidentally chambering a round and than going out control as a result

Like Ford and I have said, unless you have a Sputter Gun (no, seriously, google it), then the bolt would catch on the sear after the first shot. It wouldn't go "out of control" like you imagine; it would go *BANG*, put a hole in something, and stop.

why didn't people just install a magazine cutoff? It strikes me that this would be the perfect safety mechanism for guns of that type. But nobody did that.

From what I've read, the early bolt-action rifles of World War I had such a feature. Nobody seemed to use it in practice, and the nations eventually stopped putting them in their rifles as a cost-cutting measure.

I would imagine that it would add unnecessary cost and complexity to a weapon intended for mass production, and would probably make the weapon itself slightly heavier; it might sound negligible, but ounces = pounds and pounds = pains. Plus, it's a whole lot easier to either A) train them not to insert a magazine if you don't need it, B) install/use a feature that locks the bolt closed, or if you absolutely must use an open-bolt design, C) use one that doesn't have a bolt handle in the first place, like an M3A1 Grease Gun.

[NeuPolska]

Ok but why does it even matter

thinking like this is exactly why we're headed to extinction

anyway you will care if you live long enough to never have a pension, or to be consigned to a ghetto, or flyover country, when the western welfare states collapse

the people with futures will, hopefully, smother the people without one before that happens, but that seems very unlikely given that the people without futures are perfectly ok at throwing away the futures of their children

p. repugnant imo and a good (perhaps only?) reason to tell olds to fornicate thyself and shuffle off this mortal coil

so i suspect that millennials will simply stand by and watch (despite being a current majority demographic bloc, they are far less homogeneous than olds and thus less likely to coordinate their votes for issues, or vote at all) as old people increasingly vote against things like cutting pensions, raising retirement age, and pushing down costs of education

And what am I supposed to do about that? I'd rather the human species not go extinct but I'm not going to be changing the attitudes of every single human I come in contact with

[Fordorsia]

Mercs have still been common in third world countries, but they'll never make a comeback with advanced technology and democracies being so dominant. Mercs just aren't useful anymore outside of shitholes having civil wars and African warlords wanting to go kill some other warlord. Organized professional mercenary groups got replaced for a reason.

IMO the main reasons mercs are coming back is for that exact reason. Why get your armed troops involved to stop a repeat of the Rwandan Genocide when you can have a group of guys with guns do it for you? Though you will need to expend cash of course.

Probably not becoming more common and instead just being covered more. As I said, mercs have always been in and around shitholes.

[Gallia-]

Magazine cutoffs only make sense if you never bother to learn trigonometry. In which case future warfare is just linear battles of formations of troops who volley fire from a kilometer (or more) out in close order formation. At close range, the squares disperse into skirmishers. However, if someone learns trigonometry, then those close order formations get shredded by shrapnel shells and high explosive fired from 10 km away, which forces the squares to disperse into small units at all times.

Thus, the birth of the modern infantry squad.

[Fordorsia]

Wouldn't cut offs make more sense for skirmishing? I mean that's why they were on bolt action rifles, for when you're taking pot shots at the enemy. Got any examples of anyone use bolt action rifles for volley fire?

[Gallia-]

Wouldn't cut offs make more sense for skirmishing?

No.

I mean that's why they were on bolt action rifles, for when you're taking pot shots at the enemy.

They were on bolt action rifles so troops wouldn't expend all their ammunition at once. The idea is that an infantry square fires from several kilometers at the enemy in close order formation, projecting so many bullets that firing multiple times rapidly is pointless: the square will be decimated with each volley. Once you have closed to close range and one side attempts to break another, then troops as skirmishers will lift the magazine cutoff and instantly have rapid fire rounds for defeating a cavalry or infantry charge; which by necessity demands the concentration of force to be successful.

The advent of trigonometry simply mean that troops had to act as skirmishers at all times, rather than only when within close range of the enemy, because they will make a tempting target for mortars or field guns, period. Of course, when out of sight of the enemy you can close order march to your heart's content and be safe in the fact that you're not going to be bombed by mortars or field guns, for the most part. And then tanks appeared.

It took a while (like, a few weeks) and a lot of corpses (literally like a million people) for this to sink in, but shades of it was visible in the Boer War, or even the American Civil War.

Got any examples of anyone use bolt action rifles for volley fire?

No. It was obsolete as far back as the Boer War, where air observers in conjunction with a field gun managed to conduct the first indirect fire counter-battery mission. That said, it might have occurred in the high mobility high speed fluid non-linear battlefield future warfare comprised of meeting engagements made necessary by the revolution in military affairs in 1914. I don't know enough about it to answer that.

[Cerma]

-snip-

So it would appear the Final Solution to upcoming pension troubles is to purge the elderly(kindly if your a democratic country I suppose). RIP


And I guess to bring the question back around to 'Infantry Discussion', has there ever been an any interest/study undertaken by anyone on what would be practical Uber Soldaten, involving said principles of eugenics/genetic engineering?

Or is that all sci-fi shenanigans?