NationStates

"this is part of your normal healing process"

-Viyk, on war

Tantō bayonet or normal knife one? Or is it a matter of taste?

dumbla uses a pointy spear bayonet like m7

Spike bayonet is best for bayoneting but 99% of the time you will not be bayoneting so you may as well use a knife.

Sevvania wrote:but 99% of the time you will not be bayoneting

not with that attitude

Spade bayonet, obviously.

Serves many purposes that way.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Tantō bayonet or normal knife one? Or is it a matter of taste?

No bayonet. Issue soldiers a multi-tool. The multi-tool will be more useful than a bayonet.

nah

an actual knife is better than some cheap ass leatherman for things you use a knife for

making it a bayonet is trivial

Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?

Aristocrats make no better or worse officers than any other population group with the same amount of training.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?

Of course. Infantry officers should be promoted from the ranks and come from London or Yorkshire (depending on if you prefer the books or TV timeline) , although some exception can be made for the loyal sons of gentry/middle class families riven by Royal succession issues.

If were going to be determining soldier career paths based on factors out of their control a better solution would be to base it on geography and education. Assuming one has a universal conscription system a simple three tier system would work nicely: Primary School graduates become regular enlisted, Secondary School graduates NCOs, and Tertiary/University Graduates Officers. Upon being initially conscripted soldiers will start off as Infantry first but upon completing initial service their role afterward will change depending on the path they take. Those who choose to become Hoplites(Long Term Reservist) will if living in Rural Areas be converted to Cavalry provided an allotment of land along with a horse to that effect. Hoplites deriving from Urban populations instead should be maintained as Infantry alongside certain auxiliary populations(Tribals, Freedman) and persons deriving from interior mountain and wetland regions. Those who choose to become Legionaries(Professionals) will instead be slated for the Artillery and Capital/Republican Guard; though a few will be allotted for specialist roles in units comprising the former two mentioned(Infantry, Cavalry). Naval personnel will derive from coastal populations in general when possible regardless of whether they are Urban or Rural. The previous 3 tier educational ranking system will still apply.

Much Superior

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?

Some do, some don't.

In general, an officer should be:

1: There by his own volition. He should not be "forced" into the position, because if even he doesn't want to be there, the enlisted underneath him likely won't either.
2: Educated. Most of an officer's work is off the battlefield and demands knowledge and understanding of policies and military law.
3: Genuinely interested in serving the interests of his allegiance. There's a continent called South America whose history is largely defined by officers who were there for personal gain rather than serving their nation.
4: Historically literate. Other commanders learned plenty of lessons that we don't have to live through again.

Generally speaking, an aristocrat will have an easier time meeting these. They are less likely to be conscripted due to their wealth, they are most likely well-educated, and therefore, most likely historically literate. 3 is a wash, though.

Crookfur wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?

Of course. Infantry officers should be promoted from the ranks and come from London or Yorkshire (depending on if you prefer the books or TV timeline) , although some exception can be made for the loyal sons of gentry/middle class families riven by Royal succession issues.

lancaster out

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do aristocrats make bad infantry officers?

Depends. Some do, some don't, but it is, in general, a bad idea to promote people based on social status as opposed to skill.

Do war brides love their husbands more than regular military wives on average?

New Visayan Islands wrote:Hypothetically, would it be feasible to mount an anti-materiel rifle on a pintle mount of say, a Humvee? The idea crossed my mind when I was building up a worksheet that contained the TO&E of a Visayan Infantry Brigade.

Yes, however this is USUALLY done so soldiers can fire from the vehicle, such as with snipers on the back of the vehicle. It's not uncommon to be able to mount a gun to the vehicle but quickly dismount with it, like with the M249 or even the .50 BMG sniper rifle, so it gives a better platform to fire from, but that a soldier can use it on foot once they dismount. However, it's better to mount an anti-tank missile like a TOW missile or a cannon for serious anti-tank work, as an anti-tank missile is far superior at armor penetration than an anti-tank rifle is, and fully automatic versions of weapons that use anti-tank rifle rounds are only marginally heavier, but provide a lot more firepower and a lot more options. The 14.5mm or .50 BMG machine guns have the largest part of the weight taken up by the barrel and ammunition, and so the idea of a rifle providing an option when mounted on a vehicle is not bad, but is questionable as a main weapon, at best. Frankly, a 57mm cannon or something, or 76mm or 90mm anti-tank gun makes more sense if you are going with precision fire over volume of fire; it will actually penetrate the side armor of a tank and be far more powerful in general, as well as provide a larger area of effect with explosive rounds. A 20mm anti-tank rifle is usually about the same as a 20mm machine gun.

Basically, the only use is to be convenient for soldiers before they dismount. The other is a hostage situation where stabilization on a mobile tripod may matter and precision accuracy is needed.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do war brides love their husbands more than regular military wives on average?

It depends on what planet they are from. If they are from Vianea-X39 then, they are known to be more gentle and kind, but if they are from Graknar... let's just say, they have a uh, reputation, and so my answer would be probably no. For the Verons, it depends on the era.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do war brides love their husbands more than regular military wives on average?

I'm not aware of any empirical study on the matter but I'd argue it is possible. However, it is equally likely that they are simply opportunistic and seeking some sort of personal security and stability during an inherently insecure and unstable point in time.

Do polyandrous societies produce bad infantrymen?

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do polyandrous societies produce bad infantrymen?

Why would it?

Ormata wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do polyandrous societies produce bad infantrymen?

Why would it?

1. Decline of social solidarity
2. Emasculation being enshrined in culture.

The bravest warrior cultures either had multiple teenage (including 16,17 or 18 year old) monogamous wives or were somewhat gay.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Ormata wrote:
Why would it?

1. Decline of social solidarity
2. Emasculation being enshrined in culture.

The bravest warrior cultures either had multiple teenage (including 16,17 or 18 year old) monogamous wives or were somewhat gay.

I just can't even with this. Why is this your fetish lol.

I feel like my face is melting. But, it doesn't really matter, the main problem with polyamory is that you won't have enough wives/husbands for everyone unless you have a broadly different male-to-female ratio, and so it won't end up working out well. In theory, 33% men and 66% woman would mean men could have two wives, vs. a 50-50 society, but this sort of thing doesn't really happen all that often. So it's a logistics hassle not really a matter of warrior skill.

The best warrior societies had a broad range of things, but what made them effective more than anything was training, and in the right ways. The spartans were a bit over the top and focused on arbitrary things, but the reason they were so successful was training, and training in the right way. Similarly, Navy Seals are extremely effective, but, they came from society at large, and didn't need to be raised from the age of 6 as a super soldier. The real impact is training and how you train, what you train on etc. and strategies and tactics, as well as equipment, and not really how many wives they have. In theory, a broad assortment of people is better as it provides a lot of perspectives and skillsets, which is useful for a large military. If everyone is interchangeable cogs you run in to the issue of sharing the same weaknesses and strengths, and so you can be too easily defeated by various exploits. Like with the Irish potato famine, the fact all the potatoes were too similiar to each other let to the spread of disease, as it raced across Ireland, since they all have potatoes of roughly the same strain. And so, if you have too much the same, you get areas of weakness you can't compensate for, and then boom. Versatility is key on the battlefield.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:

Ormata wrote:
Why would it?

1. Decline of social solidarity
2. Emasculation being enshrined in culture.

The bravest warrior cultures either had multiple teenage (including 16,17 or 18 year old) monogamous wives or were somewhat gay.

Two questions. First, why are you so fascinated with marital and reproductive norms and their impacts on military effectiveness? Second, why would you assume that military effectiveness depends upon a hardy masculinity.

To actually discuss the question itself, your points are, in fact, not points at all. We see polyandry practised, at least historically, on most every continent. The Maasi tribe in Africa, the Aleuts in North America, the Britons in Europe, the Sherpas, Hiphalites, and Gilyaks in Asia, the Kanak and Marquesans of Oceania, and the Bororo of South America. As of 2008, there are places in modern Tibet where 90% of the families are polyandrous.

In religious terms, Polyandry appears in the Mahabharata, where Draupadi married the five Pandava brothers. When this decision is challenged by Kunti, Yudhishthira, one of the brothers, cites two other similar groupings. These are Gautam-clan Jatila, married to the seven Saptarishis, and Pracheti, married to 10 brothers. There are also several pre-Islamic Arab religions which practised polyandry. More recently, Polyandry was a rare occurrence within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as the Mormons.

There is little evidence to be found that polyandry would result in emasculation being present within the culture. Rather, it could be seen as continuation of the traditional masculine role as protector and provider. A woman with multiple husbands could be viewed as far better off than a woman with one husband or several women who share the same husband. This depends, of course, largely upon the societal pressures of the group in question.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:1. Decline of social solidarity
2. Emasculation being enshrined in culture.

The bravest warrior cultures either had multiple teenage (including 16,17 or 18 year old) monogamous wives or were somewhat gay.

Two questions. First, why are you so fascinated with marital and reproductive norms and their impacts on military effectiveness? Second, why would you assume that military effectiveness depends upon a hardy masculinity.

Demography is literal life and death of societies/population groups and because the latter is more or less true. Effective militaries are generally masculine organizations. Ineffective ones are feminine organizations.

Islam isn't exactly a winner in demography though (neither is the West, but c'est la vie) and despite being masculine it's only really effective at waging underground campaigns that involve a large amount of oblique attacks through political channels and craft produced ordnance, where Arab armies are highly effective at defeating Westerners consistently and decisively. The US Army somehow doesn't fear the Asiatic infantryman despite being consistently having its ass handed to it on a silver platter by everyone from Iraqis to Afghans to Vietnamese to Chinese tho.

Polyandry is a loser's strategy though. The only societies which were polyandrous were conquered by their neighbors (Nepal, Tibet, Inuit groups, a few Polynesian societies) or collapsed internally with no outside pressures. They have never really been effective at defeating neighboring empires, and this goes back to ancient pre-history.

Historically the most effective and socially capable (in terms of GDP growth, wealth creation, conquest of neighbors, protection of borders, scientific invention, birth rates, etc. etc.) societies have been monogamous, although monogamy is somewhat rare among societies absolutely it is dominant in terms of absolute population. Most people were sired by parents in monogamous relationships because monogamous societies from ancient China to medieval Europe to modern America have demolished their competitors for the most part.

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do polyandrous societies produce bad infantrymen?

>Tibet
>Eskimos
>Untouchables

Maybe.

Or maybe polyandrous societies are just weak men.