OT Kinetic Energy Weapons

ote:

on could wipe out an entire medieval army.

would probably surround them, dig ditches and throw up walls the the riflem en couldn't

lattened or had starved to death.

rmed with tolerably modern rifles. Modern armies don't show up one platoon at a time.

, and a range of tactical situations.

WW1 taught those fools that you can't mass troops against automatic weapons positions. There end up being so many KIA on the field the advancing troop s can't continue towards the objective. There's a lot to be said for having weapons with 10x the range of the opposing force too.

There can be all kinds of complicating factors that affect the success when outnumbered - numbers aren't everything, but they are definitely important. The general principle is always to limit the number of opponents that can attack at one time.

But yes, reality is rarely like the movies (or computer games).

Medieval armies varied hugely in weapons, training and tactics. There are all manner of historical examples of examples where one side totally outclassed the other, regardless of numerical differences. (Actually, the same thing applies to ancient armies and modern armies, not just the ones in the middle.)

The result is boredom. I guess in the international movie market, violent cartoons sell. Some cultures wouldn't understand or tolerate our concept of romantic comedy, or bare ankles. All the superheroes are pretty well covered.

Nobody can punch that fast without video processing.

That Caradine guy, who did the Kung Fu TV series, said that when it was done, he had learned nothing about martial arts.

People's tastes vary. What you call boredom, others call entertainment

- and vice versa.

Have you actually watched the film? Do you know anything about Wing Chun? Have you studied it at all? (I have. I've only done a little Wing Chun - my martial art experience is mainly with karate, judo and tai chi.)

Of course the fight sequences in the film are choreographed. It shows them from their most exciting perspective, and the right person always wins in the fights. But extraordinarily rapid punching is a characteristic of Wing Chun.

(The story in the film wavers a fair bit from the life of Ip Man - it's based on his life, not a documentary, and in particular it exaggerates the relevance of the fights with the Japanese.)

I am not familiar with that series. But I certainly don't disagree with you that most "martial arts" in films and series are highly unrealistic. But then, most "martial arts" people train is highly unrealistic in terms of effectiveness for fighting.

--------------------------------------

" Backwards junk" is what fills the inside your head - f****it.

You asinine post has not one tiny thing to do with mine - it is a massive troll.

F*ck off.

...... Phil

Some were better at it than others. The English knew how to position their long-bowmen for maximum effect - although at Poitiers they do=id have to move them around a bit before they could hit the horses rather than the armoured men sitting on the horses.

toon could wipe out an entire medieval army.

y would probably surround them, dig ditches and throw up walls the the rifl emen couldn't shoot through, then bombard them with trenchbuts until they were either flattened or had starved to death.

armed with tolerably modern rifles. Modern armies don't show up one platoo n at a time.

ns, and a range of tactical situations.

ns positions.

Quite a few of the fools took a long time to learn the lesson. Sir John Mon ash is idolised in Australia as a WW1 general who finally managed to work o ut how to deal with entrenched machine guns, but only when he had some prim itive tanks to play with.

ontinue towards the objective. There's a lot to be said for having weapons with 10x the range of the opposing force too.

Long range weapons aren't all that helpful if the enemy is dug in - if you can't see them, you can't shoot them. You can still drop artillery shells o n them, but it pays to drop them where there are people to get damaged by t hem.

Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Place a grenade (of the period) on the end of your arrow,

It worked for Rambo !

latoon could wipe out an entire medieval army.

rmy would probably surround them, dig ditches and throw up walls the the ri flemen couldn't shoot through, then bombard them with trenchbuts until they were either flattened or had starved to death.

ps armed with tolerably modern rifles. Modern armies don't show up one plat oon at a time.

pons, and a range of tactical situations.

pons positions.

onash is idolised in Australia as a WW1 general who finally managed to work out how to deal with entrenched machine guns, but only when he had some pr imitive tanks to play with.

continue towards the objective. There's a lot to be said for having weapons with 10x the range of the opposing force too.

u can't see them, you can't shoot them. You can still drop artillery shells on them, but it pays to drop them where there are people to get damaged by them.

Long range weapons are extremely important when a large number is massed ag ainst you. It gives you time to cut them all down before they get you withi n range of their weapons.

Any medieval army organized for an attack in a way conventional for the day would be cut to shreds by a WW2 era infantry platoon, without assistance f rom artillery or the air.

David Brown wrote in news:rvj7lg$ta5$2@dont- email.me:

That helo pilot was surprised as hell for the few seconds he had left. :-)

Richard Crenna sure appreciated it... err... Trautman.

No one is interested in using sticks as projectiles, the video and everything mentioned within it was pathetic. Airhead medievalists run amuck.

platoon could wipe out an entire medieval army.

army would probably surround them, dig ditches and throw up walls the the riflemen couldn't shoot through, then bombard them with trenchbuts until th ey were either flattened or had starved to death.

oops armed with tolerably modern rifles. Modern armies don't show up one pl atoon at a time.

eapons, and a range of tactical situations.

eapons positions.

Monash is idolised in Australia as a WW1 general who finally managed to wo rk out how to deal with entrenched machine guns, but only when he had some primitive tanks to play with.

t continue towards the objective. There's a lot to be said for having weapo ns with 10x the range of the opposing force too.

you can't see them, you can't shoot them. You can still drop artillery shel ls on them, but it pays to drop them where there are people to get damaged by them.

against you. It gives you time to cut them all down before they get you wit hin range of their weapons.

If you can see where they are. Wellington was fond of reverse slopes. If yo u mass your troops on the other side of a hill the enemy can't see them or shoot at them

ay would be cut to shreds by a WW2 era infantry platoon, without assistance from artillery or the air.

So they'd have given up on that attack long before they were all cut to shr eds, and worked out how to get at the platoon without offering them any eas y targets. Sneaking up on them in the middle of the night and cutting their throats might work. The Japanese did a bit of that in New Guinea in WW2. T hey had perfectly good guns, but they are noisy.

If you have a big enough numerical advantage you can be a bit cruder.

In that battle some 20,000 Zulu killed off some 1300 British troops out of a force consisting of 1,800 British, colonial and native troops and perhaps 400 civilians (rather more than a platoon), and utterly defeated them.

The Zulu lost between some 1000 and 3000 killed.

Hush, hush. Rambo was fighting arm-in-arm with Al-Quaeda and was calling them holy warriors. Not the best example nowadays, I'm afraid.

"Then the US" they should add.

Best regards, Piotr

Not a real problem for a properly trained GRU officer:

;-)))

Or they settle in cash.

Best regards, Piotr

e:

te:

ry platoon could wipe out an entire medieval army.

al army would probably surround them, dig ditches and throw up walls the th e riflemen couldn't shoot through, then bombard them with trenchbuts until they were either flattened or had starved to death.

troops armed with tolerably modern rifles. Modern armies don't show up one platoon at a time.

weapons, and a range of tactical situations.

weapons positions.

hn Monash is idolised in Australia as a WW1 general who finally managed to work out how to deal with entrenched machine guns, but only when he had som e primitive tanks to play with.

n't continue towards the objective. There's a lot to be said for having wea pons with 10x the range of the opposing force too.

f you can't see them, you can't shoot them. You can still drop artillery sh ells on them, but it pays to drop them where there are people to get damage d by them.

d against you. It gives you time to cut them all down before they get you w ithin range of their weapons.

you mass your troops on the other side of a hill the enemy can't see them o r shoot at them

Is late 18th/early 19th century the Middle Ages?

day would be cut to shreds by a WW2 era infantry platoon, without assistan ce from artillery or the air.

hreds, and worked out how to get at the platoon without offering them any e asy targets. Sneaking up on them in the middle of the night and cutting the ir throats might work. The Japanese did a bit of that in New Guinea in WW2. They had perfectly good guns, but they are noisy.

I doubt it. They would have scattered and run, possibly killing their leade rship.

f a force consisting of 1,800 British, colonial and native troops and perha ps 400 civilians (rather more than a platoon), and utterly defeated them.

British mismanaged their defense.

Yes. Watch the film Zulu. One of my favorites.

Some brainless, autistic pile of human garbage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

=========================

The physics is what is interesting.

F*ck off to hell, you vile, retarded, nasty piece of ASD f***ed s*it.

....... Phil