Any military thread quickly derails into military equipment.

It's true. If you make a military IJBM it probably won't last two pages before it derails into discussing military machinery, excluding political derails. This just amuses me so much.

Can you really blame us?

-folds arms-

Notice it's in IJAM not IJBM?

Well, that's really the most interesting and least depressing part, so it stands to reason.

^^Yes, I did. I was just saying it in a somewhat silly manner... and I didn't feel the need to put next to it.

Then it should have been

-folds arms and looks down at you with disdain disapprovingly-

When in doubt, go over the top.

Well think about it. The tools to wage war are far cooler than the politics behind it.

Take the F-22. Nobody cares the politics why around here. We all just care that it can literally run rings around any 4th or 5th generation jet fighter, fire a buttload of air to air missiles in quick succession and remain hidden from radar while doing so. It's so cool how it works and performs.

Basically a Mary Sue with wings and missiles. Only this time we don't care that it's a Mary Sue.

edited 30th Sep '10 12:46:33 PM by MajorTom

A real world Mary Sue, a force to be reckoned with.

It's because military equipment is awesome and mostly inoffensive, and thus can't be strawmanned away as easily as the politics involving a military engagement, tactics, or training. All of which can be made controversial.

Happens in real life as well. We (about 7 of my friends and I) started talking about war and such. About 1 and a half hours later, we were probably on the CIA's watchlist because of the amount of weapons we had discussed in a public place.

Technology Porn at its finest.

Fucking love it.

I actually find the strategy and poltics and tactics much coler then just hearing the stat wank aobut how fast it can go. But then again I'm not the normal troper.

Well, strategy, tactics, and operations are partly decided by equipment as well. Take the evolution from the Franco-Prussian War to WWI to WWII, for instance.

I actually just spent my Civil War history class in a discussion about how the main reason for the high death toll in that war was that evolution of battle tactics didn't keep up with advances in technology.

Battlefield medicine (or the lack thereof) didn't help matters much, either.

True true. The majority of deaths were actually from disease, not battlefield action.

^I think this had more to do with it.

Against other infantry their tactics would've been better replaced by skirmishing lines, but mounted calvary could've broken through that like tissue paper.

The real high tech weapons, repeaters, gatlings, quick loading cannons, weren't widespread or light enough for more modern tactics to work better in all situations.

A lot of them, but than Stonewall and what's his face, the guy from Fort Pillow, they would've had huge advantages.

It is still true, though, that the longer-range, faster-loading rifles that existed during the civil war made Napoleonic-style infantry charges pretty much useless. And considering that many Civil War generals were big scholars of Napoleonic tactics...

It made charges by infantry useless yes, but since for the most part they were single shot, calvary's effictiveness was reduced to nill agianst massed fire, but not against disperesed soliders.

Commanders felt that being covered against all possiblities was better than saving lives at the cost of victories. Or repeaters.

Also, IIRC, trenches weren't yet popularized and artillery was still at roughly-Napoleonic levels. I can't remember if they were mainly breech-loader or muzzleloading, smoothbore or rifled.

Percussion locks were the rule of the day, with mine balls in pre-poured cartridges. Some Southerners had to make do with really old models.

This is a good list.

Psh. You neanderthals and your bullets. Chemical and biological weapons are the way to go.

Those take time, and are often best delivered via projectiles, especially chemical weapons.

You think that nerve-gas will get itself to the enemy lines?

Oh jeeze, we really walked into that one, didn't we?

"and what's his face, the guy from Fort Pillow,"

Nathan B. Forrest.