tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2668577041425925534.post3316003434342773952..comments2023-12-13T10:49:00.529+00:00Comments on The Axis Of Naughtiness: Hallo, hooray. There's a price to pay...Dr Vesuviushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05255420207375021875noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2668577041425925534.post-21725718359777910542011-10-19T08:08:01.019+01:002011-10-19T08:08:01.019+01:00I think you only have to look at the American Civi...I think you only have to look at the American Civil war to see the impact of the rifled barrel. Not so much for the fire rate (I think this was before cartidged bullets) but the range and accuracy that these 'new' weapons offered. You just didn't need to get close to the enemy to be effective.<br /><br />This pushed the engagement distance much further out and made necessary the use of trenches. And then came the howitzer as the icing on the cake. And I can't see how this was ever effective other than murdering troops, they just didn't know what to do to break the dead-lock.<br /><br />Maybe it was a mix of fire-rate and accuracy that caused it, but nobody could argue that a very effective way of avoiding it was championed by the German army as it rolled out into Poland, France, Russia etc...<br /><br />So maybe that's the answer to your zombie problem,.... superiour air power with your highly mobile mixed attack force.<br /><br />If you let the bean counter within you take over you'll be limiting yourself to only dozen darts, and ask yourself the question, "what's the most successful soldiers weapon to date", then see if Nerf do something similar. (Oooh, looks like you did!!... job done.)r1ckatkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07239009024542589231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2668577041425925534.post-58890861948135877692011-10-19T07:43:13.209+01:002011-10-19T07:43:13.209+01:00>The real problem with single shot rifles is th...>The real problem with single shot rifles is that<br />> it promotes a stalemate trench warefare<br />> approach. Firing rate is far to slow for<br />> anything other than slow progression. Was WWI<br />> not enough of a lesson?<br /><br />Actually, old boy, I believe the opposite to be true. Higher rates of fire favour static defensive positions. Think about it. In Napoleonic times, a unit attacking an enemy position might take 2-3 rounds of fire from the defenders while they close to contact. There's still a significant chance that enough lads will survive the defensive fire to have a bit of a scrap to drive the defenders back.<br />Things don't change much through the first half of the 19th century, as long as the standard infantry weapon requires powder, ball and wadding to be loaded separately for each shot. When you get single-shot cartridge rifles come in which are much quicker to reload, the defenders can fire 2-3 times more often, making it that much harder to close to contact (the film "Zulu" gives the perfect example of this, including some great shots clearly showing the loading and firing sequence of the Martini Henry rifle.<br />Roll forward another twenty years to when clip-fed magazine rifles start to be issued. Now each defender can empty his five round magazine in almost as many seconds. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute It now becomes almost impossible for attacking infantry to effectively close in enough numbers to push back the enemy, leading to static defensive positions being king. Add in machine-guns and there you have WWI.<br /><br />As for the 19th century generals being stuck-in-the-mud reactionaries for resisting innovation, that's the common view. But my point is that we may be judging them over harshly, seeing how I found myself following the same train of thought over the Nerf gun ammo.Dr Vesuviushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05255420207375021875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2668577041425925534.post-65991164339996118492011-10-18T13:06:16.801+01:002011-10-18T13:06:16.801+01:00It's an odd contradiction when you think about...It's an odd contradiction when you think about it,.. the generals say automatic weapons just aren't sporting or gentlemanly, yet they considered the rank and file to be basic scum. <br /><br />I'd put the reason to stick with single shot rifles was more down to resistant to change and fears that these thick soldiers would burn through their ammo in no time at all. (Clearly they underestimated their troops.)<br /><br />This of course ignores the basic rule of self preservation that states if you need bullets to help stay alive (and you haven't got many), then you use them wisely.<br /><br />The real problem with single shot rifles is that it promotes a stalemate trench warefare approach. Firing rate is far to slow for anything other than slow progression. Was WWI not enough of a lesson?<br /><br />And so stood the problem until Hitler's generals (handicapped by the Treaty of Versailles) were forced to rethink the situation. If you've got a huge border but only 100,000 to defend it then it naturally pushes you towards a highly mobile army. But that only works if everything could keep up with the tanks! Clearly the troops couldn't be mucking about with the single shot foot soldier mularky, they had to get in quick, get the job done and keep up.<br /><br />The Nerf gun sounds fun, we have a couple in our house that convert to hold Nintendo Wii remotes for shooting games. But under the 'First Day Convention' all darts have been confiscated after the missus was shot in the mouth only 5 minutes after they'd been removed from their boxes. Occasionally I allow them to play with one dart under controlled conditions, but generally they're banned.<br /><br />I'd allow more flexibility but Saul (my oldest) has and always will be a grass, and then I'd be in trouble with the missus.<br /><br />So,.. zombie hunting..... you gonna write your name on all your darts?r1ckatkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07239009024542589231noreply@blogger.com