Historical, Alternate History, Modern Era or Future Tech, Weapons, Vehicles, Equipment and Tactics

@Matt II

Actually, because armor was effectively useless against bullets and the bayonet made musketeers effectively spearmen in close combat cavalry really couldn't face infantry head on.

This is not to say cavalry was useless, they simply didn't win with a head on charge. There's a reason why the Charge of the Light Brigade is a tragic story. On the other hand, the mobility of cavalry allowed them to apply force precisely when needed.

edited 30th Nov '15 7:57:30 AM by Belisaurius

History disagrees, at Omdurman the 21st Lancers (400 strong), drove off some 2,500 dervishes. Muskets weren't really effective, they reloaded too slowly for the most part, and the smoke from a massed firing obscured the infantry's view for precious moments. Also, muskets with bayonets are not as good as pikes, their reach is not even two metres, which means that only the front two ranks have any effect.

No, the rifle and later the machine gun is what killed cavalry as an effective force, not muzzle-loading smooth-bores.

Mind you, that was pitting the 19th century Sudanese against the British at their zenith. Not a fair comparison.

It was pitting cavalry against post-pike infantry.

it was also a battle involving rifles and machine guns.

Machine guns only on the British side IIRC, or at least not against the lancers. It also proved the point that even at that late a date cavalry was still situationally useful.

I was only arguing that they wernt decisive. Obviously they were useful, or they would not have existed.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

cavalry was always useful even if only for their mobility. Infantry might take minutes to act while horsemen can commit to a fight in seconds. Alexander's tactics would never have worked if not for his excellent cavalry.

They played a pivotal role at the battle of Mars-la-Tour, albeit at a high cost.

A sort of superhero world I am building only really has one or two functional changes to it's laws of reality to allow for weapons tech and everything. First off is that the Square Cube law isn't a big concern for large devices, it's not a big concern.

The next is a radioactive crystalline substance that upon enough exposure will either give you superpowers or radiation poisoning that when refined is a high energy fuel that can be used to power advanced jet fighters, or powered armor. As in actual flying Power Armor.

I get the feeling with this stuff it could be theoretically used to make very fancy energy weapons.

I've got to laugh at that. Please, before you embarrass yourself further, go and read up on what the term Scientific Law actually means.

edited 5th Dec '15 1:17:58 AM by MattII

Yes, changes to such a fundamental property — it's not even a law of physics, it's basic maths — would pretty much break physics as we know them.

Also, it would make bugs enormous.

edited 4th Dec '15 10:22:04 AM by Aetol

Worldbuilding is fun, writing is a chore

Which is as good a reason as I can think of to keep it.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

@Echoing Silence, there are really only four fundamental scientific laws, or as they're better known, the four fundamental forces. Gravity, electromagnetism, strong atomic force, weak atomic force. If I wanted to be fully up-to-date, I'd say there are three, with electroweak force bridging electromagnetism and the weak atomic force but that's a bit more complex than I need for this explanation.

Everything else we know about modern physics, including the square-cube law, are merely extrapolations of these four fundamental forces and their various interactions.

yey

Enh it's mostly just a fun idea anyways. Wondered if I should post it here or somewhere else, no idea really. I don't visit the Worldbuilding thread much anymore.

Also wouldn't future tech weapons and vehicles already go into the Sci-Fi Weapons and Vehicles Thread?

Also I did not exactly know that. Learn something new, thanks for informing me.

edited 5th Dec '15 11:43:16 AM by EchoingSilence

This also means that by changing either of them, you're taking out one-quarter of reality as we know it. I wouldn't recommend it.

Worldbuilding is fun, writing is a chore

Alright then. I will probably just make a world building post about said world.

Didn't know where else to put it for weapons tech. And I probably worded it wrong.

edited 5th Dec '15 3:03:38 PM by EchoingSilence

Echoing Silence, posting on one of the two fantasy threads is always a safe bet. Try this one or this one.

Alright thank you. I won't let this happen again.

So should I "Wrong Thread" my post?

Except the square-cube law is a mathematical constant, not a physical law, so it is in fact independent of the forces.

Apparently not yet...

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Echoing silence, it's okay. Feel free to post in whichever forum you feel comfortable in.

Thanks for the feedback everybody. Just a few more questions.

How much of an advantage would footmen armed with full plate mail have over footmen with exactly the same armament minus the plate mail? What if both groups are armed only with long swords and shields? How would different types of plate mail fare?

Even with the unarmored side using murder strokes I would imagine that the armored side would have a pretty big advantage as the unarmored group has found themselves in this situation without any dedicated anti armor weapons, what ratio would you need to have it be a match?

edited 15th Dec '15 8:50:42 PM by matti23

Depends how big the shields are. if they're not big the armoured guys can try going in low, hacking at the enemy's shins.

They have kite shields which are 85cm tall and 53cm wide at the top. The longsword is 120 cm.

edited 16th Dec '15 5:18:30 AM by matti23

A lot of it comes down to what kind of weapons they have. Typical swords and spears aren't going to do much against full plate but a good halberd, poleaxe, or war pick would even things up. Otherwise, you'd need something like three times the unarmored men to mob the armored soldiers. Probably more with morale issues of having the first few ranks inevitably cut down.