01-09-2018, 09:46 AM | #131 | ||||
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
I expect that 1900 infantry was usually deployed spaced six or so feet from each other in an engagement, perhaps closer if a charging foe was expected to reach them and engage in melee (be that folks without many guns or a european bayonet rush). Cavalry I expect would stay within shouting distance of the entire unit. Quote:
My argument is that wastelanders won't know that, and they won't be able to get their hands on machine guns, and depending on the exact setting, the kind of ammo they need to stop the charges Quote:
Quote:
The running out of someone else's economy is a good point. Eventually you've got to switch over to producing your own stuff. Which probably makes building big stable polities that much harder.
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one! |
||||
01-09-2018, 10:27 AM | #132 | ||||||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway the point being if you have an effective range of 300 yards you don't need to be standing 6ft part to concentrate fire. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However cover hoping to close range is quite hard for cavalry who are rather big and noticeable, especially as they have to then form up for the charge Quote:
Yep, certainly in defence where at last you don't have to send all your people long distance and you enemy is coming to your population centres Yep, stability of supply is a big thing (and it's also why even today in a global marketplace countries tend to get a bit prickly about being dependent on sources of essential supplies outside their direct control) |
||||||
01-09-2018, 01:42 PM | #133 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
A semi-auto or even to some extent a revolver is enormously superior to earlier pistols, and can largely replace a melee weapon in the way earlier pistols really could not.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
01-09-2018, 01:52 PM | #134 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison |
|
01-09-2018, 01:56 PM | #135 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison |
|
01-09-2018, 02:11 PM | #136 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
OK basic scenario using nice round figures and arbitrary but relative spacing to make the point: 10 riders riding at a line of 10 infantry with rifles. The 10 infantry are standing in a straight line in the open 10 yards apart from each other. Now the riders could ride 10 yards apart and have one rider hit one infantry man in a line of contact along the whole 90 yard frontage, in a series of 1 on 1 fights. Where each individual rifle man is firing at their individual oncoming horseman, but each horseman slams into their respective infantry man if they reach them. Or the horseman could bunch up more say one every 3 yards and have 10 of them hit 3 or 4 infantryman. Now that's great concentration of force at the point of impact, and well those 3 or 4 infantry are pretty much done if the cavalry make it to them. But of course since modern rifles have an effective range way over 90 yards those cavalry will still be facing incoming fire from the entire infantry force as they ride in to do this (some of whom will be firing without having a horseman bearing down on them). I.e the infantry line is still able to apply all it's force even though the cavalry have concentrated there's, because they can project their force with enough range to do. So in that scenario the cavalry (minus those who got stopped by 10 rifles worth of fire on the way there) punch through the line. Now as I said earlier what do they do then? They are not in contact with any infantry, so they are out of range* so they have to reform, reposition and charge again (best course of action try and work their way up the line). But all the time they do this those infantry are still projecting force on them. Now that's with equal forces of 10 each, only of course cavalry tend not to enjoy equal numbers when facing infantry so in reality that more likely to be 10 infantry and 5 cavalry. *if they have pistols than they have a bit more range than if they only have melee weapons, but just adjust the distancing, either way rifles out range pistols, and your still basically talking about a fire fight between rifles and pistols likely with the rifles having superior numbers. (and you and your horse are a bigger target) A couple of other slight issues with those horsemen bunching up. Riding in close formation and having a horse/rider go down form enemy fore can take another with them. Similarly a shot against a densely packed group that misses its first target is more likely to hit another than in a more dispersed group) Quote:
And of course there's the point that you have to get pretty close to use them (especially if you are on the back of a galloping or cantering horse). Thing is given that pistols and cavalry already had a long history together before the C20th, and there were efforts to keep cavalry as an attacking force in the C20th, and some C20th cavalry certainly had pistols, and still there's no history of C20th cavalry regularly charging infantry and winning by dint of using pistols over sabre or otherwise. I'm pretty comfortable in suggesting C20th pistols were not a significant factor that either we or the militarises of the first half of the C20th overlooked, Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-09-2018 at 03:14 PM. |
||
01-09-2018, 02:30 PM | #137 | |||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|||
01-09-2018, 02:56 PM | #138 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Charging into a loosely dispersed force might be a breakthrough, but it also might be an ambush. Being in the middle of the enemy's line is also the same as being surrounded. The difference really is can they maintain order and turn your ground into dying ground.
Last edited by sir_pudding; 01-09-2018 at 06:34 PM. |
01-09-2018, 03:04 PM | #139 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Basically you are not going to see the benefit of concentrating your force on a single point of the line if the line (with it's much longer range) has already shot you to pieces or degraded your force by the time you get there. Especially as cavalry often start off being outnumbered to begin with! *for instance replace that scenario with 10 infantry shooting at 10 infantry all with equal range where you have 10 concentrate to shoot at 3 or 4 , and only get shot at by those 3 or 4 in response while the other 6 or 7 are out of range. The situation changes radically even though the same concentration in terms of bunching and contact is in effect. Because concentration is about effective engagement range of projecting force. And if you enemy has a much greater engagement range for projecting force on you it's really really hard to arrange a concentration of force. Quote:
It was the very next sentence in the post... Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-09-2018 at 03:19 PM. |
||
01-09-2018, 03:20 PM | #140 | ||||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: Logistically Viable Weapons AtE
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You might as well point out how hard it is for a horseman at the gallop to deliver over-the-horizon fire support. World War I trench raiders were fond of pistols, submachine guns, grenades, and even melee weapons. All of those were vastly inferior in effective range to the ubiquitous bolt-action rifles... Which was going into a comparison of performance at range. If that's what you're worried about, shooting from a horse and shooting a pistol are both so obviously wrong as to need no discussion, but that's not what shock troops are chiefly concerned with...
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|