e7b6d4a4   
   From: trminlxGARBAGE@bitstreamnet.com   
      
   In article <51f64020.0311140436.4c770f29@posting.google.com>,   
    u01mzb@abdn.ac.uk (FixinDixon) wrote:   
      
   > >   
   > > I would guess it's meant to be "extraordinarily profound" in the sense   
   > > that it led to big changes.  It could easily be argued that the   
   > > development of automatic weapons was the biggest factor in the evolution   
   > > of infantry in the 20th century.   
   >   
   > A) Guns aren't pretty, cool or elegant.  IMO, they are cold, blunt and   
   > about as subtle as a sweaty man's BO.  The machine-gun is a pet hate   
   > of mine.   
   > B) The role of the General Infantry man has not changed since 1914,   
   > when most of them were still using rifles.  Granted the machine gun   
   > was present in WW1, but not at a GI level.  Tactically, the GI is   
   > still used as a seizing force, used to obtain positions, manoever   
   > where vehicles can't etc.  The loci of wars have changed (thankfully   
   > we no longer grind men to dust in trenches), but IMO the GI   
   > him/herself has not changed.   
      
   I'll agree that the machine gun is cold, blunt and unsubtle. You can   
   hate them all you want, I won't stop you. But that doesn't mean you can   
   ignore it's effects on the battlefield.   
      
   What the machine gun did is drastically changed how wars were fought and   
   how generals conducted them. It was responsible for causing trench   
   warfare .. which in turn lead to chemical warfare.   
      
   Before the advent of the machine gun wars were fought mostly like this:   
   A battlefield was chosne, the sides line up, they charge and whoever has   
   more standing at the end wins. Even when cartridges were developed that   
   was still the thinking, a soldier could only get off so many rounds   
   before reloading. When a single, or a pair really, of soldiers could   
   fire off hundreds of rounds or more and kill entire charging lines   
   things changed dramatically.   
      
   "Charge Of The Light Brigade" mean anything? That work embodies the   
   shift in thinking that was required by 19th century generals going into   
   20th centurty warfare.   
      
   Only one country I can think of got a taste of what the future of war   
   held in the 19th century .. the United States during its Civil War saw   
   the effects of modern weaponry on the battlefield, especially with the   
   introduction of cartridges near the end of the war.   
      
   While the gun itself had a large effect the fact that until the late   
   19th century they were barrel loaded muskets made them so slow a   
   charging line would still have a chance to use bayonnettes in almost   
   every battle. Defending line sits, fires, charging line moves in and   
   fires and then both sides engage with bayonnettes until the fight is   
   over.   
      
   > I'm not sure what will be its   
   > > 21st-century equivalent, perhaps these super-strong lightweight ceramics   
   > > that were featured in an issue of Chemical & Engineering News a few months   
   > > back.  Of course, this will be more a defense revolution than offense.   
   >   
   > Weapons and armour have always evolved like this.  Club causes shield   
   > causes sword causes chainmail causes arrows causes plate mail causes   
   > stilleto daggers causes REALLY THICK plate mail.  Stalemate until   
   > rifles are perfected (around 1610-40 in Europe).  Rifle causes heavy   
   > chest plate causes cannons causes slow reduction of armour.  1345 -   
   > Battle of Bannockburn.  Those who could afford it, and most of those   
   > who couldn't, we're armoured.  1745 - Very little armour indeed.  1945   
   > - still no armour except tanks.  Vietnam - flack jackets make an   
   > appearance.  Now armour is standard issue again, so weapons are   
   > becoming better (e.g. armour peircing bullets etc).  Which means we're   
   > due armour improvements and then a new weapon in the next 50 years or   
   > so.   
      
   True armor disappeared during the 18th century almost entirely as the   
   musket could make short work of anyone in armor. But mostly because it   
   was expensive, even in the middle ages the average fighter had little in   
   the way of armor, plate mail was very expensive and not worn by your   
   average soldier. So you could argue that the grunt never had armor until   
   the late 20th century. What really happened was the officers stopped   
   wearing the armor but the grunt never had it to begin with.   
      
   ghost   
   ~/~ Sometimes I forget to pray I'll make it through this fucking day ~/~   
               www.accanthology.com ~/~ www.bitstreamnet.com   
                      take out the GARBAGE to email.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)