View Single Post
Old 01-04-2018, 06:11 PM   #28
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
well that doesn't exist. Because pike is the wrong low tech unit to use.
Then why should the OP's warlord train pikemen?
Quote:
The difference isn't in the riffle, as I made clear. Its machine guns, tanks, and artillery. The riffle, and particularly the TL6 world war ii bolt-action riffle is not a great weapon compared to the machines that surround it.
I can't think of an example of a airborne MG or tank that is simpler than the equivalent either. Often they are more sophisticated, because they are advanced lighter models.
Quote:
Where has that claim been made?
Post #2.
Quote:
Dan Howard has stated that melee weapons are a good choice against "crude firearms", implying muzzle-loading arms.
No, he advocated training pikemen, with cavalry (not sure if he meant horse or armor) and sniper support in a scenario where bolt-action rifles and insurgent assault rifles were the available options for "crude firearms". I suppose he could have meant the PanEuro Ogre Mk. I, but I am pretty sure he meant the renniasance formation.
Quote:
This is historically well attested. See the Manchu conquest of china,
They used guns.
Quote:
the tactics of the Swedish empire,
During the 30 years war? They made extensive use of guns too. Adolphus thought the cavalcade was stupid horse-circus foolery, he didn't think that guns were.
Quote:
and Napoleonic cavalry.
Napoleonic Cavalry typically had pistols or carbines, and Marshal Ney discovered exactly how bad things can get when charging massed fire at Waterloo, besides.

Also none of these cases describe anything like a massive TL difference, or suggest any good outcomes if you want to form up pike squares against Lord Humongous or the Boneyard Master.

Quote:
The more general statement has been made that. a less equipped force with superior training will defeat a better equipped force.
Sure this can be true. It isn't a fact. there are plenty of examples of supposedly "elite" troops getting destroyed by ordinary line troops with more money, more guys, and better equipment. Notably the Maori, Zulu, and Apache all lost.
Quote:
This is a general military statement, and most of my posts have been in defense of this statement.
Okay. That's fine. I only dispute the word "will" there. However this general possibility doesn't carry over well to the specific case of forming pike squares to fight guys with basically M14s.
Quote:
melee troops against repeating riffles with sufficient ammo is really hard to pull off,
Well, yes. Which is why I thought Dan's suggestion was a little out there and asked him to clarify.
Quote:
and I have only commented on that situation when specifically asked.
That isn't the question though.

The question was "How does this warlord arm his guys? Bolt-action rifles or the TRW LMR?" Dan's answer was "pikes, cavalry and snipers" which seems like a non sequitur.

Last edited by sir_pudding; 01-04-2018 at 06:24 PM.
sir_pudding is offline