Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Civil War Infantry Tactics

Or why Greg is ignorant.

The Civil War In4: Infantry Tactics from Civil War Trust on Vimeo.

And while we're at it, your enemy will have the modern equivalent if you are dumb enough to take on a modern military:

The Civil War In4: Artillery from Civil War Trust on Vimeo.

But, I expect more dumb comments from the ignorentia. Pickett's charge mean anything to you, Greg, or are you too ignorant? Come on, Greg, show us how little you know about US history.

24 comments:

  1. Ever heard of the Viet Cong? Or the Mujahidin? Minutemen? "Modern" armies can and have been defeated - and will continue to be; it can be done. If an insurgency force is dumb enough to assault 100,000 army across an open field ala Gettysburg then yeah it will probably fail. Sticking w/ assassination, sabotage, and endless politicking yields better results.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What the hell are you talking about, Dave?

      Delete
    2. Really Mike?

      You refuse to acknowledge that the "little guy" can win. It does not happen every time but it does happen. The U.K. & the U.S.A. have lost wars. People thought a bunch of redneck colonials could not beat the most powerful land & sea force at the time - but now you make it seem like the U.S. DoD has never been beaten when it was just 2 generations ago. In the words of a guy who is kinda famous right now: "Yes, we can!"

      Delete
    3. Laci posted a video to show that the government will be using really big weapons. David named resistance groups that fought big, powerful, and technologically sophisticated armies and won. How is that hard to follow?

      Delete
  2. Laci, what the fuck are you going on about? You always want to argue with me, even when you're saying essentially the same thing I'm saying.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Re the first video: Why does this show that Greg is ignorant? I didn't see anything there that contradicted anything he said. He talked about how the majority of troops were fighting in lines, and how sharpshooters were specialists and were greatly outnumbered by standard infantrymen.

    As for the video, it oversimplified some thing--for instance, it said that in previous wars, your enemy might get one or two shots off at you, but the civil war guns were so much faster to reload because of mine balls.

    The advantage of the Mine ball was that it allowed you to use a rifle and reload it as fast as a musket, whereas older rifles had to have the bullet crammed down through the rifling, which made them much slower to shoot than smooth bore muskets.

    Using rifles would give your volleys added range, maybe allowing a couple more volleys before the bayonet charge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As four your second comment and taunt, yes, if our government becomes tyrannical and a civil war starts, the government would have modern artillery. How would that be useful to them when dealing with people fighting a guerrilla war, living among their own population?

    That artillery would either be of as limited utility as it has been in the sandbox (maybe less) or the government would have to go full tyrant and use that artillery the way Assad has been doing.

    Don't worry, Laci, we know that you're fine with the second--you love Sherman, and you love to threaten us with Nukes. You probably think that if you Nuke Atlanta, Charlotte, and the major cities in Texas, you'll cow all the rednecks into submission.

    So go on your way, you bloodthirsty bastard. You'll probably think we're ignorant when we reply to you, but you'll be too clever to show up and try to argue why we're ignorant--why you say we don't know history. Why do I say too clever? Because every time you try to explain history, you illustrate your own failure to understand it. It would be sad if it weren't so damn funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "if our government becomes tyrannical and a civil war starts"

      Stop making me laugh, I'm trying to be serious like you guys.

      Delete
    2. "I'm trying to be serious like you guys."

      Damned lie.


      What you're doing is trying to scoff and force the debate into a direction you desire. As bad as it is normally, it's really out of place here: Here, Laci brought up a hypothetical civil war and stated that it would be over in minutes--I challenged that, and you're making fun of Me for debating Laci on his notion of a potential conflict.

      As for the other times that you tell us that a fight could never happen--I'm sure Qaddafi and Assad thought the same thing a few years back. Mubarak too. These things happen periodically in history. Sometimes the insurgents are good guys, sometimes they're bad guys, and many times they're a mix like in Syria.

      There's nothing magical about our country or our government that would prevent us from ever suffering another civil war or attempted revolution.

      Delete
    3. What's the lie? I'm absolutely serious when I say you guys are self-aggrandizing fantasy dwellers who keep talking about government tyranny and how you'll fight it.

      Why don't Australia and England have concentration camps and mass arrests? They've had the gun control which precedes those things, right? Why does the US have a worse situation than those two countries as far as civil liberties being eroded? We still have our gun rights, which, I thought were supposed to prevent that.

      Delete
    4. Mikeb, if the English and Australians accept the risk involved in handing over more and more power to their governments, so be it. Those are their countries, not mine. If you invite a rattlesnake into your home, it might not bite you. It might satisfy itself with rodents and leave you alone. But as Tennessean has pointed out to you, the serpent in England has demanded more and more of the house as its own area.

      America chose a long time ago to take a different path. I just insist that we stay on it.

      Delete
    5. I explained what I meant, and what did you do? You stopped scoffing, but continued the attempt, which I had pointed out, to distract from our attempted discussion with Laci and change the topic.

      However, since Laci doesn't discuss things, I suppose we can go along with your new direction, though first, I'd like to pose the question:

      What do you think of Laci's trigger happy comments about how effective artillery and Nukes would be against an insurrection? Do you agree with him that such would be appropriate tactics?

      And don't tell me that Pooch doesn't think they'd be appropriate. He keeps making these statements, and he never even takes the time to cover them with the "it's a joke" excuse.

      Now, on to your question: True, they haven't started liquidating their populations. We haven't said that that would be the only form tyranny would take, or that it would happen quickly. The problem is that disarming people leaves them without means to resist if the government in power, or a later government, does start doing such things.

      If a nuke were lit off in England, suddenly driving masses of people into the anti-immigrant parties, and they started rounding up Muslims, or all Asians and Arabs just to be safe, what could those people do? Have solidarity marches against armed men? As uplifting as the final scene in V may be, that's not how such incidents generally go down.

      Finally, regarding your repeated statement that we have fewer civil liberties here than the Brits do, I repeat my challenge to explain yourself--please elaborate.

      Delete
  5. Thanks, guys. Laci's heard all of this many times, but he's so mulishly ignorant that he has to keep making inane comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg,

      That's an insult to mules.

      Frankly, Laci's willful ignorance is so striking that I'd think he was a troll like E.N. if I didn't know better.

      Sadly, he's not alone. There are so many lawyers, judges, and legislators that are this willfully ignorant, on both this and other topics, that that is why we are in such a rotten condition with our legislative and judicial systems.

      Delete
    2. True, that about mules. Regarding the willful ignorance of many, that's exactly why we have a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

      Delete
  6. Laci, enough, please. Do you take the time to actually consider the words you spout? You present this stuff as if it supports your position. The reality though, as Tennessean has pointed out, is that even the sources you've chosen support Greg's comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's new? He did the same thing when he went digging into Blackstone a few weeks back. It's really getting pitiful.

      Delete
  7. Texas Colt carryMay 9, 2013 at 6:59 PM

    About the possibility of a armed revolution, civil war or what ever term you want to use, it is a real possibility. Can the civilians repel a standing or advancing military of the government? I would have to say yes. But not just from shear numbers, Mike, but from the equipment that is in the hands of civilians. No, I am not referring to the ARs or AKs or other "assault" weapons that have military features or "look alikes". I am talking about real fully functional military weapons of war belonging to real civilians. And the population of those weapons and the people that have them are vast numbers, vast. And they are legal to boot.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=uCppmoZiXUY

    Mike, I was there, I saw, I believe and understand. The sample given in this video, should you decide to observe it, is but a small example of some of the civilian armaments in this country.

    This is what the government is worried about, the start of civilian arms control start with the simple gun owner but their sights are on this portion of gun owners that have done nothing wrong, EVER, with their toys and just have fun punching holes in thick armor barrels a mile a way.

    This small group, and other groups around the US stand for a real problem IF there ever were to be an armed uprising. Tactics have changed since the civil war, lessons learned and the civilian force would fight like those in the Viet Nam war did, to who we lost.

    The arms here are not counted in the estimated 3.5 to 4 billion commonly held firearms in this country. These are set apart, they are NFA LEGAL arms on a different list. The government knows full well who has what in this respect, but they do not want the public to know that a common person that has enough cash, time and will to invest in these CAN actually own them. And no, when I asked, none of those individuals will give them up. The government knows this as well. That would cause a firestorm that would touch off many other storms as well.

    I don't think that you, Mike or Laci or doggone fully understand what kind of fire you guys are playing with. Neither does a bunch of those leftists grabbers understand the scope of the will of gun owners at any level of the guns owned out there.

    Look at this as well,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=By_u5kmvq9o

    Lots of well trained kids as well. I would dare go up against this 13 year old girl, NO WAY! Would you? Would a cop? Would a grabber?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right--that is interesting. A good example of how Americans will do what they want, no matter how often a few in this country yammer about safety and control.

      Delete
    2. Texas Colt carryMay 9, 2013 at 10:02 PM

      Lol, I said "billion". I meant million. My bad.

      Delete
    3. Excellent post, Colt.

      Delete
    4. Self-aggrandizing lunacy is what it is.

      Delete
    5. Texas Colt carryMay 13, 2013 at 4:02 PM

      What are you afraid of Mike?

      Delete