Ridiculous things your military does

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Military parades include presentation with ceremonial weapons. Hot pink howitzers, mirror-studed tanks, rainbow-strapped rifles and very phallic missiles.

Saint-Sebastian drill sergeant?

[Glacieum]

When assaulting small areas with low amounts of security, troops will be sent in armed with longbows, crossbows, and swords, because they are lighter, cheaper, and they also tend to drive the enemy into a panic (I mean, obviously someone fighting with such outdated weapons must be pretty skilled to use them against modern weapons.)

[Rain Rangers]

Amerikians........
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

What terrifies me is I should've seen this coming! I mean the Republican Guard DOES do a Banzai-quasi charge whilst bellowing "Forward the United States!"

i mean guns for medium to range fighting and swords and knives for close range fighting

[Charlotina]

We have sparing rings on each of our battle ships. And we host monthly tournaments where our men fight each other.

Numerous modern militaries do that. Units competing against one another, in a friendly and sportsmanlike competition, can be a healthy exercise.

[Amerikians]

When assaulting small areas with low amounts of security, troops will be sent in armed with longbows, crossbows, and swords, because they are lighter, cheaper, and they also tend to drive the enemy into a panic (I mean, obviously someone fighting with such outdated weapons must be pretty skilled to use them against modern weapons.)

-Amerikan troops start laughing, open fire on Glacieum forces with few losses and a couple injuries.-

Swords are bloody heavy.

Crossbows are bloody heavy. Unless they're modern composite.

Bows aren't heavy but require strength.

All three require a LIFETIME of training and should not be used lightly.

[Amerikians]

What terrifies me is I should've seen this coming! I mean the Republican Guard DOES do a Banzai-quasi charge whilst bellowing "Forward the United States!"

i mean guns for medium to range fighting and swords and knives for close range fighting

Firearms are the primary armament in the modern era for a reason. The distances between armies has grown substantially over the eons. Swords and Knives may be good for C&C still sure; but my shotgun just disemboweled you. I respect your unwillingness to relinquish martial weaponry however.

[Charlotina]

All three require a LIFETIME of training and should not be used lightly.

Crossbows can be learned effectively in much less time than a bow. That was one reason why they were so popular, back in the Middle Ages. They were like the AK-47 of their era.

Having said that, they should not see general use on the modern battlefield. I could see Special Operations Forces making good use of them in some scenarios, but really, that's it.

[Amerikians]

All three require a LIFETIME of training and should not be used lightly.

Crossbows can be learned effectively in much less time than a bow. That was one reason why they were so popular, back in the Middle Ages. They were like the AK-47 of their era.

Having said that, they should not see general use on the modern battlefield. I could see Special Operations Forces making good use of them in some scenarios, but really, that's it.

The life time of training comes from having to constantly be able to pull the arm back on that taunt prick thing. I have a Thai Crossbow; I have to sit down and use my bloody legs to pull the thing taunt. AK-47 of their day? No. Crossbows were popular but bows were more common because crossbows were expensive 'complex' and took a hell of a lot of effort to manufacture and use.

[Kyraina]

uses every ally planed and ally tank from ww2 to mordern times

[Amerikians]

uses every ally planed and ally tank from ww2 to mordern times

Logistical. Nightmare.

[Rain Rangers]

i mean guns for medium to range fighting and swords and knives for close range fighting

Firearms are the primary armament in the modern era for a reason. The distances between armies has grown substantially over the eons. Swords and Knives may be good for C&C still sure; but my shotgun just disemboweled you. I respect your unwillingness to relinquish martial weaponry however.

thank and thats just special ops loadout sort of

[Charlotina]

The life time of training comes from having to constantly be able to pull the arm back on that taunt prick thing. I have a Thai Crossbow; I have to sit down and use my bloody legs to pull the thing taunt. AK-47 of their day? No. Crossbows were popular but bows were more common because crossbows were expensive 'complex' and took a hell of a lot of effort to manufacture and use.

Light enough crosbows could be prepared relatively quickly, using a foot to steady it, but without sitting down, although you did have to be a very healthy person to do it. That really shouldn't be a major problem in a military organization, should it?

If you need something more substantial than a light crossbow on the modern battlefield, just use a gun, for God's sake.

I know of the expense issue. That's why I've always regarded it as ludicrous that bowmen, of any sort, were so poorly regarded in many Medieval European armies. Yeah, maybe it's true they're not too expensive to train, but look at the investment in their equipment alone. Losing that much stuff, it's expensive.

[Rain Rangers]

uses every ally planed and ally tank from ww2 to mordern times

Logistical. Nightmare.

i agree but thats alot of stuff to take out

[Charlotina]

Logistical. Nightmare.

i agree but thats alot of stuff to take out

He doesn't mean he has that many tanks and planes, but that he has that many variants. Also, there comes a point where numbers cease to be enough.

[Amerikians]

Logistical. Nightmare.

i agree but thats alot of stuff to take out

Two for the price of one, mate. The original M-1 Abrams with all of it's crappy systems and computer problems and it's 105mm shell can annihilate an M-4 Sherman AND the T-34 right behind it. It's not that much to take out once you consider the advancement in armament, armor and power projection.

[Amerikians]

i agree but thats alot of stuff to take out

He doesn't mean he has that many tanks and planes, but that he has that many variants. Also, there comes a point where numbers cease to be enough.

Unfortunately not true. Sheer Weight of Numbers will always win over a smaller more elitely trained and supplied force. Not because their better; because the more elite force will run out of men before they do.

[Charlotina]

Unfortunately not true. Sheer Weight of Numbers will always win over a smaller more elitely trained and supplied force. Not because their better; because the more elite force will run out of men before they do.

If the disparity in numbers is great enough, sure. It isn't always, as the Ashanti and the Zulu learned against the British.

[Amerikians]

Unfortunately not true. Sheer Weight of Numbers will always win over a smaller more elitely trained and supplied force. Not because their better; because the more elite force will run out of men before they do.

If the disparity in numbers is great enough, sure. It isn't always, as the Ashanti and the Zulu learned against the British.

Lets not forget they were going up against the people who were second in discipline only to Prussia. When the guy simply will not move no matter what, your advantage vanishes.

[Amerikians]

Unfortunately not true. Sheer Weight of Numbers will always win over a smaller more elitely trained and supplied force. Not because their better; because the more elite force will run out of men before they do.

Only if you bring artillery into the mix

Ah yes, Artillery; the ultimate in force equalization.

[Charlotina]

If the disparity in numbers is great enough, sure. It isn't always, as the Ashanti and the Zulu learned against the British.

Lets not forget they were going up against the people who were second in discipline only to Prussia. When the guy simply will not move no matter what, your advantage vanishes.

True enough, but technology, and a lack of sufficient Weight of Numbers, also had something to do with it.

[Amerikians]

Lets not forget they were going up against the people who were second in discipline only to Prussia. When the guy simply will not move no matter what, your advantage vanishes.

True enough, but technology, and a lack of sufficient Weight of Numbers, also had something to do with it.

Indeed; though in fairness to the Zulu, Shaka assured they were catching up fast a hell in technology.

[Amerikians]

Ah yes, Artillery; the ultimate in force equalization.

Still didn't help the Indians though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Assaye

Indeed; again I point you to discipline however. In the words of some Yank. "It makes small numbers formidable, ----" Something something because I sadly forget the rest.

[Radictistan]

Didn't the Marathas place their artillery in a way that meant it was blocked by the advancing infantry, rendering it largely ineffective after the opening salvoes?

[Amerikians]

Didn't the Marathas place their artillery in a way that meant it was blocked by the advancing infantry, rendering it largely ineffective after the opening salvoes?

Yeah pretty much. In other words "Oh My God...That was fucking retarded."

[Amerikians]

Indeed; again I point you to discipline however. In the words of some Yank. "It makes small numbers formidable, ----" Something something because I sadly forget the rest.

Not so much discipline as morale. Redcoats weren't particularly disciplined considering it was made up of the absolute vermin of Britain that gave even poor Wellesy the fits at points, when they looted and plundered instead of advanced, and shot their own officers.

Oh the humanity. Laaaawl. Best Army of Napoleonic Europe was made of butchers and thieves. -Rofls.-