|
Quote:
|
|
Somewhat true, but you can learn some stuff with common sense.
|
except pretty much most of the stuff you are saying is flat out wrong...
|
Quote:
|
|
Let me just ask you the question: Would you rather wear steel/iron or bamboo/leather if you were getting shot with arrows?
|
bamboo/leather. agility is added, and so is thermal regulation. furthermore, not even steel could stop a longbow arrow at the forces they are shot at.
|
Quote:
|
|
I would definitely use the steel, and the samurai were wiped out because of their poor choice in armor.
|
wrong again. the samurai were not wiped out because of poor armor choice. they were wiped out because their age disappeared-- samurai, like knights, were often decended of aristocracy, and like knights, had to pay for their own weapons, armor, and the like.
when industrialization came along and made it easy and cheap to build guns for the masses, the samurai were no match for a cheaper, larger, and more effective army.
that's why the samurai--and knights-- vanished, not because of poor armor.
|
Quote:
|
|
If you think it's hard to swing a sword, but easy to use a firearm, you need to seriously consider what you are saying.
|
i didn't say it was hard to swing a sword. i said it was hard to use a sword effectively. as for a firearm, although training is used to teach people how to load and how not to kill oneself with it, it's very easy to teach one how to kill others with it. point, pull trigger. whereas with a sword, one has to learn swing, parry, dodge, etc.
|
Quote:
|
|
Primitive barbarians used swords, not guns.
|
for obvious reasons-- guns were expensive in the past-- and barbarians, obviously, could not afford such weaponry.
|
Quote:
|
|
Watch the movie "Attila" if you want to know about the Huns/Mongols.
|
of course, since hollywood movies are so accurate... i guess all my research in university libraries and national geographic magazines is utterly worthless when compared against hollywood...
|
Quote:
|
|
The Chinese did use number tactics when the Japanese fought them in WWII.
|
actually, no. the chinese government was split into two factions. the communists under mao did not have the army strength to challenge the japanese army mano a mano-- and thus, they used guerilla warfare, and often won.
the nationalist government under chiang also did not have the training nor the strength to face the japanese army mano a mano-- but they did anyway, and lost.
|
Quote:
|
|
Today, China is among the best equipped armies in the world and Japan is spending money trying to develop gundams or robots or other garbage.
|
no, again, you show your ignorance here. japan is not spending money trying to build gundams and robots. much of their small budget in the military goes to conventional arms, and designing regular jet fighters and regular tanks and regular materiel.
|
Quote:
|
|
If you think the Vietcong tried to use small groups of forces, you need to research the Tet offensive. Accounts of US soldiers talked about hundreds of them surrounding them and killing them 1 by 1, almost mocking them. The Vietnamese soldiers had cheap homemade rifles and we had M-16 rifles. It was an even match because their strength was their numbers. In the later years of Vietnam, they started to use more swarm tactics and less guerilla warfare.
|
look. by the time the tet offensive came around, the united states had already lost a lot of its strength to the guerilla warfare that the vietnamese engaged in. the tet offensive, figuratively speaking, was only the straw that broke the camel's back.
if you knew anything about vietnam, you'd also know that the tet offensive was more successful psychologically than militarily-- the viet cong lost 85000 of their troops, and failed to capture most of the cities they launched their offensives against.
you would also know that the vietcong were unable to utilize their "swarm" tactics to any good use, and only outnumbered the americans by the fact that they were fighting on their home turf, whereas the us was not-- it was shipping its troops over.
|
Quote:
|
|
I wasn't in Vietnam, but I do know a lot about it from TV.
|
because tv knows all, and tv is god, right?
|
Quote:
|
|
And if they did care about their soldiers, they would have been using M-16s or AK-47s. They used some cheap rifles, and were releatively poorly equipped. There were just so many of them they could beat us with inferior equipment.
|
a gun is a gun. you hit someone with it, you can kill them. do you honestly think that the us government really cared about their soldiers?
|
Quote:
|
|
And I thought steel was made through the Bessemer process, done by this Scottish guy. India is the birthplace of the "peace movement", and I doubt they would make steel swords with a process that they didn't invent!
|
again, your ignorance: before ghandi, the indian nation had a history that had two major military empires on the subcontinent, the mughals and the moguls. naturally, these military empires would need weapons-- and so they forged steel.
|
Quote:
|
|
And, if these longbowmen or riders with bows are as elite as you say they are, then less-than-straight arrows would not happen- trained soldiers shoot straight.
|
trained soldiers with guns shoot straight. trained soldiers with bows shoot up. why? distance. learn physics you'll understand why.
|
Quote:
|
|
A stray arrow might kill a soldier occasionally, but that doesn't mean it makes armor very cost effective.
|
you do realize in many european wars, the reason why britain won so often was because they could train many many longbowmen cheaply and effectively that they could turn the skies black with arrows-- preventing knights from even coming close to where they were.
|
Quote:
|
|
I'm still convinced of the Mongols outnumbering the enemy. How else could they defeat the Roman army? With training?
|
funny, the roman empire fell in ad414... the mongol empire didn't arise until ad1206...
|
Quote:
|
|
There was a discussion in OT about the barbarians that invaded Rome. A Roman historian said that over 700,000 Huns under Attila destroyed Rome. And they knew that they would lose a lot of people because they weren't as well trained as the Romans, but they outnumbered them.
|
huns may be asians, but they are not east asians. wtf does that have to do with korea?
