Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding
I was specifically asking for a historical example of a successful deployment of pikemen versus a TL6 force.
|
Quote:
|
Yes, they used all the guns they could get. At no point did they say, "Hey, we don't need guns. Let's just form up a 16th century line of battle instead and assault their fortifications!
|
well that doesn't exist. Because pike is the wrong low tech unit to use.
They grabbed the guns they could, but they also relied heavily on their melee weapons. The guns were used to make the enemy cautious. The Zulu had about 1 gun per 10 men. At Iswanda they outmaneuvered the British and then charged, and won the battle through superior concentration of force and sticking their repeating riffle foes with spears.
The Apache and Maori had more guns, but they constantly sought to engage at close range, were they had the advantage. The greatest defeat of the british in new zealand happened when the Maori tricked the attacking force into charging one of their forts, and then emerged with hiding places into close combat.
Quote:
|
Although I don't think that I can think of any examples of paratroopers who use a simpler rifle than the same force's line units, either.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth
It does matter when the question being presented is whether disciplined troops with Low Tech melee weapons might be the preferred approach!
|
Where has that claim been made?
Dan Howard has stated that melee weapons are a good choice against "crude firearms", implying muzzle-loading arms. This is historically well attested. See the Manchu conquest of china, the tactics of the Swedish empire, and Napoleonic cavalry. And if you can't sustain your fire, you may as well be using muzzle loading arms.
The more general statement has been made that a less equipped force with superior training will defeat a better equipped force. This is a general military statement, and most of my posts have been in defense of this statement.
melee troops against repeating riffles with sufficient ammo is really hard to pull off, and I have only commented on that situation when specifically asked. Its hard to do, but its been done. I recommend caution, outnumbering your foe, choosing a battle ground with a lot of cover, and spending a lot of time making him shoot wildly to run out his ammunition.
If you can't outnumber your foe, and he has access to large numbers of cartridge rounds, you've been economically defeated.